Duncan wrote:
> ...
++ - I can only add the saying "With freedom comes great responsibility.".
Maybe the python herd could maintain a little status page which covers
informations like:
- Estimated python 3 compatibility in respect to the packages in the
main tree.
- Recommendations if installing
On 03/19/2010 08:26 PM, Alec Warner wrote:
On Fri, Mar 19, 2010 at 8:13 AM, Nikos Chantziaras wrote:
You guys always make easy decisions so complicated. :P
Masking a package is not complicated.
Yes, that's why all the heated debates about Python 3 exist, because
it's all so simple.
It *i
fre 2010-03-19 klockan 05:13 -0500 skrev Dale:
> Because, when I installed gcc 4.3, I could then unmerge the old gcc.
> That's why I didn't complain about that. With python, we still have to
> have the current version plus the new version which is not being used at
> all.
>
That was if you
On 03/20/2010 02:56 AM, Jean-Marc Hengen wrote:
> Duncan wrote:
>> ...
>
> ++ - I can only add the saying "With freedom comes great responsibility.".
>
> Maybe the python herd could maintain a little status page which covers
> informations like:
> - Estimated python 3 compatibility in respect to
I have a question related to this:
If I have package X which supports python2 and python 3, and I install
it without python3 installed it will only install python2-files
(i.e. /usr/lib/python2.x/*), right?
What happens if I later install packages Y that is only python3, and
relies on the python3 p
2010-03-20 13:51:37 Peter Hjalmarsson napisał(a):
> I have a question related to this:
>
> If I have package X which supports python2 and python 3, and I install
> it without python3 installed it will only install python2-files
> (i.e. /usr/lib/python2.x/*), right?
> What happens if I later instal
2010-03-20 01:51:44 Duncan napisał(a):
> So let's just recognize that it's not a perfect situation, create a news
> item saying that python-3 will soon (give a date) be unmasked, and suggest
> that users not needing it may wish to package.mask it themselves, with a
> link to documentation with s
> "BdG" == Ben de Groot writes:
BdG> On 14 March 2010 06:09, James Cloos wrote:
>>> "BdG" == Ben de Groot writes:
>>
BdG> Abandoned packages do not belong in the portage tree.
>>
>> Nonsense. That attitude only servers to harm the user base.
BdG> You're wrong. It serves to protect o
The amount of bugs concerning ebuilds that ignore LDFLAGS suggests
that this would be a good idea, b/c it seems a many maintainers are
completely unaware that their ebuilds do not respect LDFLAGS - so I
guess this needs more visibility.
P.S. If you wonder why this flag then
check /usr/lib/portage/
On 03/19/10 13:36, Peter Volkov wrote:
> В Срд, 10/03/2010 в 05:08 +0100, Sebastian Pipping пишет:
>> How about a monthly bumpday?
>
> Good idea, but it should follow our policy to inform maintainers _in
> advance_: e.g. on first bumpday to work on bumps and notify maintainer
> about this work by
On Sun, 21 Mar 2010 00:46:38 +0100
Doktor Notor wrote:
> The amount of bugs concerning ebuilds that ignore LDFLAGS suggests
> that this would be a good idea, b/c it seems a many maintainers are
> completely unaware that their ebuilds do not respect LDFLAGS - so I
> guess this needs more visibilit
On Saturday 20 March 2010 19:46:38 Doktor Notor wrote:
> The amount of bugs concerning ebuilds that ignore LDFLAGS suggests
> that this would be a good idea, b/c it seems a many maintainers are
> completely unaware that their ebuilds do not respect LDFLAGS - so I
> guess this needs more visibility.
On Sun, 21 Mar 2010 00:52:36 -0400
Mike Frysinger wrote:
> remind me again why this matters ? binutils has been defaulting to
> hash- style=both for quite a while now.
> -mike
Well, I already tried in my P.S. but let me try again: I'm not
suggesting that devs should have more optimized binaries
13 matches
Mail list logo
