On 11/13/2014 08:01 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 9:38 PM, Michael Palimaka
> wrote:
>> On 14/11/14 11:06, Rich Freeman wrote:
>>>
>>> Well, the idea would be to maintain the virtual INSTEAD of @system, or
>>> have @system just pull in the virtual and make some arch-specific
>
On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 9:38 PM, Michael Palimaka wrote:
> On 14/11/14 11:06, Rich Freeman wrote:
>>
>> Well, the idea would be to maintain the virtual INSTEAD of @system, or
>> have @system just pull in the virtual and make some arch-specific
>> additions.
>
> Will that work? Some profiles remove
Hello all
Due to lack of time I'm giving up some packages. Feel free to take them:
app-admin/ec2-ami-tools
app-admin/ec2-api-tools
These command-line tools serve as the client interface
to the Amazon EC2 web service
app-admin/logmon
On Tue, 11 Nov 2014 16:59:46 +0200
Pavlos Ratis wrote:
> I will also drop myself from the net-proxy herd.
Drawing extra attention to this sentence; it looks like the herd is
(once again) going to be empty, as the result of a lack of interest.
If someone does have a real interest in this herd; p
On Mon, 10 Nov 2014 12:23:43 +0100
Pacho Ramos wrote:
> Hello
Hello, this is an individual response.
> I would like to see if we could finally try to stabilize java7 on
> Gentoo as some external tools start to require it.
>
> There is currently this tracker opened:
> https://bugs.gentoo.org/
On 14/11/14 11:06, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 10:07 AM, Michael Palimaka
> wrote:
>>
>> Ditching implicit dependencies is an interesting idea but not practical.
>> Nobody wants to the laundry list, and there's little benefit in
>> maintaining a virtual/system clone of @system.
>
On 14/11/14 03:57, hasufell wrote:
> On 11/13/2014 04:27 PM, Michael Palimaka wrote:
* C++ compiler and runtime
>>>
>>> Isn't it possible to disable C++ in GCC with USE="-cxx"?
>>
>> It is, but I think if that's disabled you're on your own. :-)
>>
>
> I keep hearing this sentence, but it stil
On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 10:07 AM, Michael Palimaka
wrote:
>
> Ditching implicit dependencies is an interesting idea but not practical.
> Nobody wants to the laundry list, and there's little benefit in
> maintaining a virtual/system clone of @system.
>
Well, the idea would be to maintain the virtu
Dnia 2014-11-13, o godz. 13:13:01
Mike Gilbert napisał(a):
> On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 10:27 AM, Michael Palimaka
> wrote:
> > On 14/11/14 01:05, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
> >> Isn't it possible to disable C++ in GCC with USE="-cxx"?
> >
> > It is, but I think if that's disabled you're on your own.
Mike Gilbert wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 10:27 AM, Michael Palimaka
> wrote:
>> On 14/11/14 01:05, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
>>> Isn't it possible to disable C++ in GCC with USE="-cxx"?
>>
>> It is, but I think if that's disabled you're on your own. :-)
>
> Perhaps we should add a package.use.
On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 10:27 AM, Michael Palimaka
wrote:
> On 14/11/14 01:05, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
>> Isn't it possible to disable C++ in GCC with USE="-cxx"?
>
> It is, but I think if that's disabled you're on your own. :-)
Perhaps we should add a package.use.force entry for this. Is there a
On 11/13/2014 04:27 PM, Michael Palimaka wrote:
>>> * C++ compiler and runtime
>>
>> Isn't it possible to disable C++ in GCC with USE="-cxx"?
>
> It is, but I think if that's disabled you're on your own. :-)
>
I keep hearing this sentence, but it still doesn't make much sense to
me. Invalid conf
On 14/11/14 01:05, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
> On 11/13/2014 05:30 AM, Michael Palimaka wrote:
>>
>> Suggested policy to get the ball rolling:
>>
>> In general, a package must explicitly depend upon what it directly uses.
>> However, to avoid ebuild complexity and developer burden there are some
>> e
On 14/11/14 01:36, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>> On Thu, 13 Nov 2014, Michael Palimaka wrote:
>
>> Suggested policy to get the ball rolling:
>
>> In general, a package must explicitly depend upon what it directly
>> uses. However, to avoid ebuild complexity and developer burden there
>> are some e
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 13/11/14 10:17 AM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
> On 13/11/14 09:05 AM, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
>> On 11/13/2014 05:30 AM, Michael Palimaka wrote:
>>>
>>> Suggested policy to get the ball rolling:
>>>
>>> In general, a package must explicitly depend
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 13/11/14 09:05 AM, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
> On 11/13/2014 05:30 AM, Michael Palimaka wrote:
>>
>> Suggested policy to get the ball rolling:
>>
>> In general, a package must explicitly depend upon what it
>> directly uses. However, to avoid ebui
On 14/11/14 01:17, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 5:30 AM, Michael Palimaka
> wrote:
>>
>> In general, a package must explicitly depend upon what it directly uses.
>> However, to avoid ebuild complexity and developer burden there are some
>> exceptions. Packages that appear in the
> On Thu, 13 Nov 2014, Michael Palimaka wrote:
> Suggested policy to get the ball rolling:
> In general, a package must explicitly depend upon what it directly
> uses. However, to avoid ebuild complexity and developer burden there
> are some exceptions. Packages that appear in the base system
On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 5:30 AM, Michael Palimaka wrote:
>
> In general, a package must explicitly depend upon what it directly uses.
> However, to avoid ebuild complexity and developer burden there are some
> exceptions. Packages that appear in the base system set may be omitted
> from an ebuild'
On 11/13/2014 05:30 AM, Michael Palimaka wrote:
>
> Suggested policy to get the ball rolling:
>
> In general, a package must explicitly depend upon what it directly uses.
> However, to avoid ebuild complexity and developer burden there are some
> exceptions. Packages that appear in the base syste
El jue, 13-11-2014 a las 14:12 +0300, Alexander Tsoy escribió:
> В Thu, 13 Nov 2014 11:53:56 +0100
> Pacho Ramos пишет:
>
> > El dom, 12-10-2014 a las 10:38 +0200, Pacho Ramos escribió:
> > > El dom, 12-10-2014 a las 00:13 +0400, Alexander Tsoy escribió:
> > > [...]
> > > > >
> > > > > I think w
В Thu, 13 Nov 2014 11:53:56 +0100
Pacho Ramos пишет:
> El dom, 12-10-2014 a las 10:38 +0200, Pacho Ramos escribió:
> > El dom, 12-10-2014 a las 00:13 +0400, Alexander Tsoy escribió:
> > [...]
> > > >
> > > > I think we should simply have a "keyring" USE flag to enable what most
> > > > people wi
El dom, 12-10-2014 a las 10:38 +0200, Pacho Ramos escribió:
> El dom, 12-10-2014 a las 00:13 +0400, Alexander Tsoy escribió:
> [...]
> > >
> > > I think we should simply have a "keyring" USE flag to enable what most
> > > people will want -> keyring support.
> >
> > Some apps have optional suppor
On 05/11/14 12:16, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
> When I was taking my ebuild quizzes, I asked for someone to clarify the
> implicit system dependency that we have enshrined in the devmanual:
>
> https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=485356
>
> There is... some agreement, but also special cases an
24 matches
Mail list logo
