* Daniel Drake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Markus Nigbur wrote:
> > Assigning to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and adding the actual fitting herd to CC is
> > the most
> > elegant option, IMHO.
> > However we do it, we should really agree on one solution, to get more
> > structure into the chaos.
>
> Here's wh
On Wednesday 15 June 2005 20:43, Sven Wegener wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 14, 2005 at 07:50:13PM -0700, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> > Sven Wegener wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jun 13, 2005 at 06:56:43PM -0400, Ned Ludd wrote:
> > > >I'm in favor of this. Would you mind calling it package.autouse,
> > > >package.use.
Hi all,
So there have been many complaints about how USE_EXPANDed flags don't belong
in IUSE. There haven't actually been any reasons given though. :P
I've assumed that the reasons they haven't been added thus far are due to what
emerge's output would look like if they were. So I've taken the l
Jason Stubbs wrote:
>So there have been many complaints about how USE_EXPANDed flags don't belong
>in IUSE. There haven't actually been any reasons given though. :P
>
>
>
net-dialup/pppconfig-2.3.11-r1 depends on LINGUAS, but the list of
supported languages is created in pkg_unpack, based on wh
On Sun, Jun 19, 2005 at 07:48:27PM +0300, Alin Nastac wrote:
> Jason Stubbs wrote:
>
> >So there have been many complaints about how USE_EXPANDed flags don't belong
> >in IUSE. There haven't actually been any reasons given though. :P
> net-dialup/pppconfig-2.3.11-r1 depends on LINGUAS, but the li
On Sun, Jun 19, 2005 at 02:31:30PM +0200, Torsten Veller wrote:
> Please don't assign bugs of packages in the tree to maintainer-needed.
>
> Proposal: Bugs for packages in the tree where bugwranglers are not able to
> find
> a maintainer go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You mean new ebuilds wou
On Monday 20 June 2005 01:48, Alin Nastac wrote:
> Jason Stubbs wrote:
> > So there have been many complaints about how USE_EXPANDed flags don't
> > belong in IUSE. There haven't actually been any reasons given though. :P
>
> net-dialup/pppconfig-2.3.11-r1 depends on LINGUAS, but the list of
> supp
Daniel Drake wrote:
>Omkhar Arasaratnam wrote:
>
>
>>That said, we're not RedHat. We ship as MANY features as we can and let
>>the user decide. I agree that it is valuable to get reiser4 testing done
>>up front. Eventually - some people will use it. Last I checked "I think
>>$FOO is stupid" wasn
Hi all,
I've been wondering - is there any eclass for fixing gcc warnings in $SUBJ
for C/C++ source files? I know it's upstream's job to fix these, and that they
have no effect on the compilation, but all there needs to be done is
'echo "" >> $file', and let's face it - it looks nicer when the co
Hi,
Recently began using flawfinder& rats and they're working (logging things).
For now don't have time to look at the logs (beside *me* needing more
time to check them), so is there some place/person which
collects/is_interested in such info. Maybe some meta-bug or other, or
just send they upstrea
10 matches
Mail list logo
