On Sun, Oct 05, 2014, Zac Medico wrote:
> On 10/02/2014 07:32 PM, Steven J. Long wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 30, 2014, Zac Medico wrote:
> >>> On Mon, Sep 29, 2014, Zac Medico wrote:
> We control the shell code that launches the requested command, so we can
> save the environment after the req
On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 09:22:18PM +, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 28, 2014 at 12:31:16PM -0400, Richard Yao wrote:
> > May I suggest an alternative? We could implement sys-virtual/posix and
> > make it depend on all packages that are not necessary for @system, but
> > are necessary fo
Manuel Rüger posted on Sat, 11 Oct 2014 03:56:26 +0200 as excerpted:
> # Manuel Rüger (11 Oct 2014)
> # Dead upstream use kde-misc/kcm-touchpad instead
kde-misc/kcm_touchpad
Please consider adding another line to that mask message:
# (_ vs. -)
Would have saved /me/ quite some confusion, anywa
On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 09:45:37PM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote:
> Obviously this entails work on somebody's part, but would it still
> make sense to make the stage build process more generic along the
> lines Robin suggested? That is, instead of having 3 specific places
> we use to generate a stage1
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
# Manuel Rüger (11 Oct 2014)
# Dead upstream use kde-misc/kcm-touchpad instead
kde-misc/kcm_touchpad
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v2.0
iQJ8BAEBCgBmBQJUOI5KXxSAAC4AKGlzc3Vlci1mcHJAbm90YXRpb25zLm9w
ZW5wZ3AuZmlmdGhob3JzZW1hbi5uZXQ4
On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 5:31 PM, W. Trevor King wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 09:22:18PM +, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
>> In a similar vein, would releng be open to moving stage1/2/3 package
>> sets to virtual packages or package sets? Presently they are inside
>> catalyst, and I think this wo
On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 09:22:18PM +, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
> In a similar vein, would releng be open to moving stage1/2/3 package
> sets to virtual packages or package sets? Presently they are inside
> catalyst, and I think this would clean things up a lot.
They're already in the Portage tr
On Sun, Sep 28, 2014 at 12:31:16PM -0400, Richard Yao wrote:
> May I suggest an alternative? We could implement sys-virtual/posix and
> make it depend on all packages that are not necessary for @system, but
> are necessary for proper POSIX compliance. Then we can tell users who
> need/want an envir
