On Wednesday 17 May 2006 21:44, Stephen Bennett wrote:
> On Wed, 17 May 2006 21:17:55 +0200
>
> Paul de Vrieze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > No, these packages are available to paludis, but not to portage.
> > Basically making a case for the use of paludis. I don't think that
> > the decision to r
On Wednesday 17 May 2006 18:56, Stephen Bennett wrote:
> On Wed, 17 May 2006 16:28:21 + (UTC)
>
> "Duncan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Herein lies the crux of the problem, IMO. Regardless of all the other
> > arguments made, I simply cannot believe it is reasonable to ask that
> > Gentoo de
On Wed, 17 May 2006 21:17:55 +0200
Paul de Vrieze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> No, these packages are available to paludis, but not to portage.
> Basically making a case for the use of paludis. I don't think that
> the decision to replace portage should be made in that way.
To reiterate here, we'
On Wednesday 17 May 2006 17:55, Duncan wrote:
> Paul de Vrieze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted
> [EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Wed, 17 May
>
> 2006 17:11:04 +0200:
> > Let's make clear why I put this in. Basically I am of the opinion that
> > until a decision is made to make (in this case) pal
On Wed, 17 May 2006 16:28:21 + (UTC)
"Duncan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Herein lies the crux of the problem, IMO. Regardless of all the other
> arguments made, I simply cannot believe it is reasonable to ask that
> Gentoo devs give their blessing to add to the tree something that
> hasn't
Stephen Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted [EMAIL PROTECTED],
excerpted below, on Tue, 16 May 2006 17:41:24 +:
> Alec Warner wrote:
>> I would prefer to see the profile you are commiting then; do you have a
>> link?
>
> I haven't written it yet.
Herein lies the crux of the problem, IMO. R
On Wed, 17 May 2006 15:57:39 + (UTC) "Duncan"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| Patrick McLean <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted
| [EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Wed, 17 May 2006
| 10:17:16 -0400:
|
| > Deprecated profiles are considered unsupported, as are most of the
| > gentoo-alt profiles. Al
Brian Harring <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted
[EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Tue, 16 May 2006
15:56:38 -0700:
> This whole thing seems a bit dumb; it's not that far off from someone
> coming along with a non-compliant c compiler, and arguing that they're
> still compliant, they just dropped
Patrick McLean <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted [EMAIL PROTECTED],
excerpted below, on Wed, 17 May 2006 10:17:16 -0400:
> Deprecated profiles are considered unsupported, as are most of the
> gentoo-alt profiles. Also most arches have development profiles which
> are considered unsupported (on amd64 we
Paul de Vrieze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted
[EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Wed, 17 May
2006 17:11:04 +0200:
> Let's make clear why I put this in. Basically I am of the opinion that
> until a decision is made to make (in this case) paludis the primary
> package manager, all official packag
10 matches
Mail list logo
