Duncan wrote:
> Thus the questions of whether many/most individual ebuilds /could/ be
> copyrighted or if so whether it's worth doing so. Certainly, it's the
> tree that contains the license, not the individual ebuilds, etc, which
> give the copyright statement but little more. Gentoo policy woul
Steve Long <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted [EMAIL PROTECTED],
excerpted below, on Mon, 09 Jul 2007 10:31:23 +0100:
> Duncan wrote:
>> Thus the questions of whether many/most individual ebuilds /could/ be
>> copyrighted or if so whether it's worth doing so. [] Gentoo policy
>> would seem to be, then,
Jakub Moc wrote:
> This ebuild has a security bug open for almost one year (Bug 142817),
> plus lots of other bugs as well.
>
> If you are interested, please see http://tinyurl.com/32webs
I'll take a look at it.
wkr,
Tobias
signature.asc
Description: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachricht
On Mon, 09 Jul 2007 10:31:23 +0100
Steve Long <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> IMO though, Gentoo is effectively already under GPL3 in that, apart
> from portage and python, all the core software is GNU. It'd be pretty
> difficult for instance, to run any ebuild without BASH.
It's not a matter of opi
Jeroen Roovers kirjoitti:
> On Mon, 09 Jul 2007 10:31:23 +0100
> Steve Long <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> IMO though, Gentoo is effectively already under GPL3 in that, apart
>> from portage and python, all the core software is GNU. It'd be pretty
>> difficult for instance, to run any ebuild with
Markus Ullmann wrote:
> > nominating:
> > others are nominated already ;)
>
> d'oh, forgot fellow
>
> dertobi123
Thanks, I accept the nomination.
Tobias
signature.asc
Description: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil
On Thu, 2007-07-05 at 18:47 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> you proposing we rearchitect it all or just for testing purposes before going
> live ? i can see both ...
I am proposing rethinking all of it. My current thoughts run something
like this:
arch/amd64
arch/ppc (not ppc/ppc64 or ppc/ppc32
On 09-07-2007 11:47:45 -0700, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-07-05 at 18:47 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > you proposing we rearchitect it all or just for testing purposes before
> > going
> > live ? i can see both ...
>
> I am proposing rethinking all of it. My current thoughts run
Le Mon, 9 Jul 2007 09:39:14 -0700,
Greg KH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit :
> On Sun, Jul 08, 2007 at 04:46:57PM +0200, Dominique Michel wrote:
> >
> > I personally think at gpl-3 is better as gpl-2 because GPLv3 will block
> > tivoization.
>
> Only if the kernel is changed to v3, which it will not
On Fri, 2007-07-06 at 20:14 +0200, Marijn Schouten (hkBst) wrote:
> bootstrap - !!internal use only!! DO NOT SET THIS FLAG YOURSELF!, used during
> original system bootstrapping [make stage2]
> build - !!internal use only!! DO NOT SET THIS FLAG YOURSELF!, used for
> creating build images and the fi
On Sat, 2007-07-07 at 12:56 +1200, Kent Fredric wrote:
> I /believe/ when you close a bug a notification is sent anyway
> irregardless of whether or not you add a comment, but i might be wrong
> here.
>
> I myself think dev's should be thanked for their good work and would
> like to continue doing
On Fri, 2007-07-06 at 18:32 -0700, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> On Sat, 7 Jul 2007 00:34:39 + (UTC)
> Duncan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > When I open or CC on a bug that then gets fixed, I often feel like
> > adding a thanks to the bug. However, while it may be polite in other
> > circumstan
On Sat, 2007-07-07 at 01:39 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> the new util-linux package has merged the setarch binary. for the upgrade
> path, i figure we do:
> - drop sys-apps/setarch from profiles
> - add sys-apps/setarch to util-linux-2.12 based on arch?()
> - add !sys-apps/setarch to util-li
Hi!
On Mon, 09 Jul 2007, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> On Sat, 2007-07-07 at 12:56 +1200, Kent Fredric wrote:
> > I /believe/ when you close a bug a notification is sent anyway
> > irregardless of whether or not you add a comment, but i might be wrong
> > here.
> >
> > I myself think dev's should b
> Thus the questions of whether many/most individual ebuilds /could/ be
> copyrighted or if so whether it's worth doing so. Certainly, it's the
> tree that contains the license, not the individual ebuilds, etc, which
> give the copyright statement but little more. Gentoo policy would seem
>
On Mon, Jul 09, 2007 at 09:07:20PM +0200, Dominique Michel wrote:
> Le Mon, 9 Jul 2007 09:39:14 -0700,
> Greg KH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a ??crit :
>
> > On Sun, Jul 08, 2007 at 04:46:57PM +0200, Dominique Michel wrote:
> > >
> > > I personally think at gpl-3 is better as gpl-2 because GPLv3 will blo
On 7/7/07, Ryan Reich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
...
I've tarred and bzipped the whole ebuild directory and attached it;
it's only four kilobytes so I hope no one minds (this letter is
probably longer). I don't know where the correct forum to submit this
sort of thing for comment is, so if this
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi everyone,
Bug 174380 [1] has a growing list of features that may be included in EAPI-1.
Some of the features are already implemented but can't be used in the portage
tree until we do an EAPI bump. The ones that are currently implemented include
slo
On Mon, 09 Jul 2007 15:15:36 -0700
Zac Medico <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Bug 174380 [1] has a growing list of features that may be included in
> EAPI-1. Some of the features are already implemented but can't be
> used in the portage tree until we do an EAPI bump. The ones that are
> currently imp
Zac Medico kirjoitti:
> Hi everyone,
>
> Bug 174380 [1] has a growing list of features that may be included in EAPI-1.
> Some of the features are already implemented but can't be used in the portage
> tree until we do an EAPI bump. The ones that are currently implemented include
> slot deps [2] an
On Monday, 9. July 2007 23:43, Ryan Reich wrote:
> On 7/7/07, Ryan Reich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > ...
> > I've tarred and bzipped the whole ebuild directory and attached it;
> > it's only four kilobytes so I hope no one minds (this letter is
> > probably longer). I don't know where the corre
Mike Frysinger wrote:
the new util-linux package has merged the setarch binary. for the upgrade
path, i figure we do:
- drop sys-apps/setarch from profiles
- add sys-apps/setarch to util-linux-2.12 based on arch?()
- add !sys-apps/setarch to util-linux-2.13+
any input ?
-mike
None here.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Mon, Jul 09, 2007 at 11:26:19PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> As for IUSE defaults... There were objections against that feature on
> the grounds that it's unnecessary and increased maintenance. Do they
> really offer any benefit over package.use?
On Monday 09 July 2007, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> As for IUSE defaults... There were objections against that feature on
> the grounds that it's unnecessary and increased maintenance. Do they
> really offer any benefit over package.use?
where ? i have yet to see an objection to IUSE defaults and pl
On Tuesday 10 July 2007, William Hubbs wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 09, 2007 at 11:26:19PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > As for IUSE defaults... There were objections against that feature on
> > the grounds that it's unnecessary and increased maintenance. Do they
> > really offer any benefit over packa
On Sat, 2007-07-07 at 01:39 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> the new util-linux package has merged the setarch binary. for the upgrade
> path, i figure we do:
> - drop sys-apps/setarch from profiles
> - add sys-apps/setarch to util-linux-2.12 based on arch?()
> - add !sys-apps/setarch to util-li
Can you please also list #138792 as implemented? It has a patch attached.
-Stefan
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
27 matches
Mail list logo
