12.11.2013 03:55, Dustin C. Hatch пишет:
> On 11/11/2013 06:51, Tom Wijsman wrote:
>> On Mon, 11 Nov 2013 10:47:30 +0100
>> Michał Górny wrote:
>>
>>> Silent removals do us no good.
> ...
>>
>> 1) dev-only seems to be the main cause of lost announcements, which
>> isn't that worry some as m
On 11/11/2013 06:51, Tom Wijsman wrote:
On Mon, 11 Nov 2013 10:47:30 +0100
Michał Górny wrote:
Silent removals do us no good.
...
1) dev-only seems to be the main cause of lost announcements, which
isn't that worry some as most of us still receive them but it would
be nice for t
Reading:
https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=489044
https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=489040
I don't know what should be preferred, personally I use net-misc/ntp
simply because I have always being using it, also looks like we don't
have any virtual that could point me about the "preferre
On Sun, 2013-11-10 at 17:45 -0800, Brian Dolbec wrote:
> On Mon, 2013-11-11 at 00:01 +, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
> > Gentoo LDAP:
> >
> > All developers must list the complete GPG fingerprint for their root
> > keys in the "gpgfingerprint" LDAP field.
> >
> > It should be exactly 4
Some work on splitting these helper functions was done earlier, and then
we have got request(bug #479744), so, with ACK from pesa, i would like
to propose this new eclass here and some times after - another proposal
with making qt4-r2 eclass depends on this one to prevent code duplication.
So, her
On 11/11/2013 01:51 PM, Tom Wijsman wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Nov 2013 10:47:30 +0100
> Michał Górny wrote:
> -dev-games/gigi (mask-only)2013-11-10 14:14:48 tomka
This was also "dev-only" not "mask-only":
http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/88455/match=gigi
> Two interes
On Mon, 11 Nov 2013 10:47:30 +0100
Michał Górny wrote:
> Silent removals do us no good.
(Disabled wrapping due to table size)
We get mails about these; so, we can enumerate them to tell those doing
it incorrectly to ensure that they correct their way of doing it. Since
there are multiple people
Dnia 2013-11-11, o godz. 13:38:56
Sergey Popov napisał(a):
> 11.11.2013 13:32, Manuel Rüger wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I recently noticed it twice, that it seems to be common practice to
> > remove a package without using the methods described in [1], but just
> > dropping it from cvs.
> >
> > From
11.11.2013 13:32, Manuel Rüger wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I recently noticed it twice, that it seems to be common practice to
> remove a package without using the methods described in [1], but just
> dropping it from cvs.
>
> From my observations packages removed without last-rites could be
> characterized
Hi,
I recently noticed it twice, that it seems to be common practice to
remove a package without using the methods described in [1], but just
dropping it from cvs.
From my observations packages removed without last-rites could be
characterized by this:
- it was a dependency of another package
-
10 matches
Mail list logo
