> The following USE changes are necessary to proceed:
> #required by net-libs/gnutls-2.12.16[nettle], required by gnutls (argument)
> >=dev-libs/nettle-2.4 gmp
>
> So I added the nettle USE flag. I tried both package.use and make.conf
> but it doesn't seem to make any difference: Portage keeps givi
>>> May be collect hardware info & kernel configs too?
>>> For example cpuinfo, lspci and lsusb(?).
>> That's not part of package statistics. There's the smolt project for
>> hardware statistics.
> Well there is another reason about why you don't want' to log that:
> Hardened users. Not having acce
e. In the readme, there is
some warning that things built with JBIG1 may fall under software that
is already patentable, but that doesn't say the file can't be
distributed. What part of it is causing that problem?
Best,
Ross Smith
2011/4/27 Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn
> Jeroen Roovers schrieb:
> > Look here, I am even willing to argue on your side just to possibly
> > extract a meaningful objection to fixing LC_MESSAGES in
> > sys-apps/portage.
>
> I now tend to agree that LC_MESSAGES should be set to C by default.
> Howe
On Sun, Jan 9, 2011 at 11:12, Kfir Lavi wrote:
>
>
> On Sun, Jan 9, 2011 at 6:05 PM, Kfir Lavi wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Jan 9, 2011 at 5:04 PM, Zac Medico wrote:
>>
>>> On 01/09/2011 04:00 AM, Kfir Lavi wrote:
>>> > Hi,
>>> > I have created an ebuild that build for me a small system.
>>> > The
>
> If the script could be improved to give the date and bug number (maybe
> with title/summary?) of the oldest unassigned one as well, and trigger a
> warning if it were more than, say, three days old, as well as by queue
> length, that might be nice, too. However I recognize that's easy to say
>
On Sun, Dec 12, 2010 at 15:19, Markos Chandras wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 09, 2010 at 09:20:51PM +0100, Dirkjan Ochtman wrote:
> > A few months ago I spent some time bringing dev-libs/boost up to date
> > because it was blocking some Python issues. Sebastian Luther helped me
> > out (I more or less pro
On Sat, Dec 11, 2010 at 14:03, Dirkjan Ochtman wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 11, 2010 at 20:01, Matt Turner wrote:
> > I agree that this could be better. To me, most of the problems with
> > this are due to users not knowing which of these should be set for
> > their particular CPU.
> >
> > Instead of ha
