On Sat, Mar 6, 2010 at 2:36 AM, Ben de Groot wrote:
>> If no, I can split off utils from poppler - with CMake it's effortless.
>
> We just rejoined the split poppler into one package again. So if you
> are going to split it up again, you will have some explaining to do to
> our users. I would like
On Sat, Mar 6, 2010 at 2:36 AM, Ben de Groot wrote:
> On 5 March 2010 21:51, Maciej Mrozowski wrote:
>> If no, I can split off utils from poppler - with CMake it's effortless.
>
> We just rejoined the split poppler into one package again. So if you
> are going to split it up again, you will have
El vie, 05-03-2010 a las 22:06 +0100, Ben de Groot escribió:
>
> > If no, I can split off utils from poppler - with CMake it's effortless.
>
> We just rejoined the split poppler into one package again. So if you
> are going to split it up again, you will have some explaining to do to
> our users.
Do we have any Courier maintainers?
courier-authlib is vulnerable to CVE-2009-3736 (internal copy of
libltdl) [1]
[1] http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=254062
It seems a bit too important package to be masked, but that's what will
happen if noone cares
On 6 March 2010 10:11, Nirbheek Chauhan wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 6, 2010 at 2:36 AM, Ben de Groot wrote:
>>> If no, I can split off utils from poppler - with CMake it's effortless.
>>
>> We just rejoined the split poppler into one package again. So if you
>> are going to split it up again, you will h
On 03/05/2010 08:06 AM, Ben de Groot wrote:
On 5 March 2010 04:18, Graham Murray wrote:
3. Include one or both of the packages in the stage tarball.
None of the packages involved (gtk+, cups and poppler) is in any
shape or form essential, so you will have a very hard time convincing
people th
# Samuli Suominen (06 Mar 2010)
# Doesn't compile wrt #287698 and is untested with libxklavier-4
# and libxklavier-5. Also deps on dummy gail package.
#
# Masked for removal in 60 days unless someone picks it up.
#
x11-misc/glunarclock
On Tuesday 02 March 2010, Sebastian Pipping wrote:
> On 03/02/10 20:28, Nathan Zachary wrote:
> >> This looks like overkill to me. One keyword should be enough, and
> >> for supplementary information "Status Whiteboard" could be used.
> >
> > I agree. Simply having the BUGDAY keyword should be suf
Am Samstag 06 März 2010 schrieb Samuli Suominen:
> Do we have any Courier maintainers?
I sort-of maintained courier in the past, although due to the number of issues
and the complexity, I hesitated to add myself as a maintainer.
I'll take care of the security issue and try to get that handled wit
Well, I personally would prefer to have two keywords at least, one for
candidates and another for confirmed bugs. Otherwise it will be a real
trouble for us to sort things out. If adding more than one keywords
breaks anything, then I can tell you now it is already broken.
The only thing that could
On 03/06/2010 04:24 AM, Richard Freeman wrote:
> On 03/05/2010 08:06 AM, Ben de Groot wrote:
>> On 5 March 2010 04:18, Graham Murray wrote:
>>> 3. Include one or both of the packages in the stage tarball.
>> None of the packages involved (gtk+, cups and poppler) is in any
>> shape or form essenti
+# Samuli Suominen (06 Mar 2010)
+# Masked for QA, treecleaners, security
+#
+# Internal copy of vuln. dev-libs/expat
+#
+# Masked for removal in 60 days
+dev-lisp/cl-albert
On Sat, Mar 6, 2010 at 5:02 PM, Ben de Groot wrote:
> Would it be possible to make cups a PDEPEND in gtk+ or is it really
> needed at compile time?
>
cups is definitely needed at compile-time
> The same for cups: can we make poppler a PDEPEND? Maciej, did
> you get any further with looking into
On Saturday 06 of March 2010 18:05:20 Nirbheek Chauhan wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 6, 2010 at 5:02 PM, Ben de Groot wrote:
> > Would it be possible to make cups a PDEPEND in gtk+ or is it really
> > needed at compile time?
>
> cups is definitely needed at compile-time
>
> > The same for cups: can we ma
On 03/06/2010 02:11 AM, Petteri Räty wrote:
> What we use in Java is JAVA_PKG_OPT_USE to declare what use flag the
> DEPENDs should be under. This approach doesn't allow the ebuild
> maintainer to forget adding the depends.
That approach also disallows (or makes unduly difficult) making the
depend
On Sex, 2010-03-05 at 19:03 +0100, Dawid Węgliński wrote:
> On Friday 05 March 2010 17:12:23 Roy Bamford wrote:
>
> >
> > That's not a new install as per the handbook. Neither are you a new
> > user as you have a premade make.conf and world file and some experience
> > with Gentoo.
> >
> > Put y
On 03/06/2010 08:28 PM, Jonathan Callen wrote:
> On 03/06/2010 02:11 AM, Petteri Räty wrote:
>> What we use in Java is JAVA_PKG_OPT_USE to declare what use flag the
>> DEPENDs should be under. This approach doesn't allow the ebuild
>> maintainer to forget adding the depends.
>
> That approach also
On Saturday 06 March 2010 15:26:10 Ioannis Aslanidis wrote:
> Well, I personally would prefer to have two keywords at least, one for
> candidates and another for confirmed bugs.
This sounds like the sort of thing Bugzilla's "flags" mechanism is for.
http://www.bugzilla.org/docs/2.22/html/flags-ov
Now that's what I wanted. Thanks!
On Sat, Mar 6, 2010 at 8:09 PM, David Leverton wrote:
> On Saturday 06 March 2010 15:26:10 Ioannis Aslanidis wrote:
>> Well, I personally would prefer to have two keywords at least, one for
>> candidates and another for confirmed bugs.
>
> This sounds like the so
On Friday 05 March 2010 20:22:44 Duncan wrote:
> Ed W posted on Fri, 05 Mar 2010 23:33:43 + as excerpted:
> > I think I have mostly upgraded my machines, but I completely agree - I
> > sometimes let some old virtual machines sit unbooted for a year and then
> > suddenly want to use them and bri
On 03/07/2010 12:31 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Friday 05 March 2010 20:22:44 Duncan wrote:
>> Ed W posted on Fri, 05 Mar 2010 23:33:43 + as excerpted:
>>> I think I have mostly upgraded my machines, but I completely agree - I
>>> sometimes let some old virtual machines sit unbooted for a ye
# Samuli Suominen (07 Mar 2010)
# These won't compile against >=dev-libs/dvutil-1.
#
# Also,
On Saturday 06 March 2010 17:47:04 Samuli Suominen wrote:
> On 03/07/2010 12:31 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On Friday 05 March 2010 20:22:44 Duncan wrote:
> >> Ed W posted on Fri, 05 Mar 2010 23:33:43 + as excerpted:
> >>> I think I have mostly upgraded my machines, but I completely agree - I
On Wednesday 24 February 2010 15:27:21 ChIIph wrote:
> Here are some minor changes I'd like to propose to flag-o-matic's
> _filter-var() to work properly with LDFLAGS.
> Without this, things like "-Wl,-O1,--as-needed" won't be affected by any
> kind of filter since there are no spaces to separate e
On Wednesday 24 February 2010 12:03:16 Jeroen Roovers wrote:
> If no one objects, I will look forward to committing the patch in a
> week or two.
commit it already :p
-mike
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
On 03/06/10 20:09, David Leverton wrote:
> This sounds like the sort of thing Bugzilla's "flags" mechanism is for.
>
> http://www.bugzilla.org/docs/2.22/html/flags-overview.html
Good idea!
What I wonder now is:
- Will it work with our very instance of Bugzilla?
- Can certain flag states be requi
On 03/06/10 08:08, Petteri Räty wrote:
> After the move is done could you please come up with a list of all the
> things you needed to take into account and then work with me for example
> to get it included in devmanual.
Good idea.
I opened a bug for it so we don't forget about it.
https://bugs.
On Thursday 04 March 2010 19:32:10 Brian Harring wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 04, 2010 at 06:07:17PM -0600, Dale wrote:
> > chrome://messenger/locale/messengercompose/composeMsgs.properties:
> > > On 03/04/10 12:53, Ben de Groot wrote:
> > >> Exactly. The last time I owned a printer is over 5 years ago. So
Fabian Groffen wrote:
# Fabian Groffen (06 Mar 2010)
# Masked for security issues and discontinued interest from upstream to
# support non-Windows platforms. Bug #233928
# Pending removal on April 6, 2010
app-antivirus/f-prot
I use f-prot once in a blue moon and have it installed. While
29 matches
Mail list logo
