On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 9:05 PM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
> On 26/10/16 04:49 AM, Joshua Kinard wrote:
> > On 10/25/2016 13:15, William Hubbs wrote:
> >> On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 01:10:06PM -0400, Mike Gilbert wrote:
> >>> On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 1:01 PM, William Hubbs
> wrote:
> If you are n
On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 10:54 PM, Walter Dnes wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 01:10:10AM +, Peter Stuge wrote
>> waltd...@waltdnes.org wrote:
>> > For a build-from-source distro like Gentoo, gcc and associated
>> > tools are a vital part of the distro.
>>
>> A stage4 created (and updated) on
On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 01:10:10AM +, Peter Stuge wrote
> waltd...@waltdnes.org wrote:
> > For a build-from-source distro like Gentoo, gcc and associated
> > tools are a vital part of the distro.
>
> A stage4 created (and updated) on a catalyst build farm doesn't need
> to have gcc, but may st
On 26/10/16 04:49 AM, Joshua Kinard wrote:
> On 10/25/2016 13:15, William Hubbs wrote:
>> On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 01:10:06PM -0400, Mike Gilbert wrote:
>>> On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 1:01 PM, William Hubbs wrote:
If you are not using /dev/disk/by-* paths in fstab, you do not need to
>>> take any
waltd...@waltdnes.org wrote:
> For a build-from-source distro like Gentoo, gcc and associated
> tools are a vital part of the distro.
A stage4 created (and updated) on a catalyst build farm doesn't need
to have gcc, but may still need libstdc++.
//Peter
On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 08:05:55AM -0700, Nick Vinson wrote
> Theoretically no. When autotools is used correctly, the release tarball
> has no dependency on either. That said, many people don't generate /
> distribute a release tarball.
>
> However, I don't think this is the criterion used to de
Rich Freeman wrote:
> I think you could make an argument that voluntarily placing that
> header on your work is an assignment of copyright.
> You could also argue otherwise.
Especially in jurisdictions where copyright can not be assigned.
//Peter
On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 04:49:04AM -0400, Joshua Kinard wrote:
> I take it us museum relics still using jurassic-era device names like
> /dev/sd* or /dev/md* aren't affected by this?
Actually, I can see a use case for it even with classical device names:
Specifically if the nodes (or symlinks) yo
On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 4:15 PM, Denis Dupeyron wrote:
>
> That said, we could always make it possible for the developer to
> voluntarily assign copyright to the foundation if (s)he so desires.
> And I would certainly do that for myself.
>
The envisioned approach was being able to voluntarily sig
On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 5:21 PM, Matthias Maier wrote:
> And I see absolutely no harm in explicitly annotating the actual
> copyright in gentoo ebuilds.
It seems like a simple and practical enough way to go. However, one of
the arguments going for assigning copyright to the Gentoo foundation
at t
Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
> by mount and works regardless of device manager, therefore removing
> the the dependency of having udev-settle before mounting these paths.
the the
Looks good. Thanks.
//Peter
Raymond Jennings wrote:
> Why exactly isn't libstdc++ a separate package anyway?
I guess because it has no separate upstream.
I think a separate package would be a fantastic improvement though.
//Peter
On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 12:04 PM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
>
> requirement for udev to "settle" before it's startup completes. The
its startup
Fix handling CC/CXX/FC values that contain three or more words by
splitting all multi-argument CC/CXX/FC into the executable name kept
in the variable, and additional options that are moved to CFLAGS,
CXXFLAGS or FCFLAGS appropriately.
---
eclass/cmake-utils.eclass | 21 ++---
1 fi
Here's a revised possibility -- it diverges a little from the original
message but I think its more inclusive as to the issue.
Thoughts?
-
Title: Important fstab and localmount update
Author: William Hubbs
Content-Type: text/plain
Posted: 2016-10-28
Revision: 1
News-Item-Format: 1.0
[rules-
2016-10-26 11:04 GMT+02:00 Michał Górny :
> Dnia 26 października 2016 10:49:04 CEST, Joshua Kinard
> napisał(a):
> >On 10/25/2016 13:15, William Hubbs wrote:
> >> On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 01:10:06PM -0400, Mike Gilbert wrote:
> >>> On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 1:01 PM, William Hubbs
> >wrote:
> I
On 25/10/16 06:44 PM, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
> On Tue, 2016-10-25 at 16:07 -0400, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
>> On 25/10/16 04:02 PM, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
>>>
>>> On Tue, 2016-10-25 at 15:41 -0400, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
On 25/10/16 03:32 PM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
>
>
> On
Why exactly isn't libstdc++ a separate package anyway?
We already have glibc as a separate package, so why the difference?
On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 8:47 AM, Mike Gilbert wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 11:05 AM, Nick Vinson
> wrote:
> > That definition definitely excludes automake and autoconf
Dnia 26 października 2016 10:49:04 CEST, Joshua Kinard
napisał(a):
>On 10/25/2016 13:15, William Hubbs wrote:
>> On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 01:10:06PM -0400, Mike Gilbert wrote:
>>> On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 1:01 PM, William Hubbs
>wrote:
If you are not using /dev/disk/by-* paths in fstab, you d
On 10/25/2016 13:15, William Hubbs wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 01:10:06PM -0400, Mike Gilbert wrote:
>> On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 1:01 PM, William Hubbs wrote:
>>> If you are not using /dev/disk/by-* paths in fstab, you do not need to
>> take any action for this news item.
>>>
>>> If you are, i
On 10/26/2016 04:02 AM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> I did suggest that we probably should ban this header until we
> actually have a DCO because it blurs the lines. However, it isn't
Makes sense, at least strongly discourage, although it likely isn't too
difficult to do a full ban on git push
> really
21 matches
Mail list logo
