Am 23.11.2010 09:52, schrieb Branko Badrljica:
>
> My question is, could existing Portage infrastructure be ported to such
> language with minimal effort and would it be worthwile to even try ?
>
> There are many operations that now take portage ages to complete, so it
> seems that this could be b
On Tuesday, November 23, 2010 02:56:17 Nikos Chantziaras wrote:
> On 11/23/2010 09:32 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On Tuesday, November 23, 2010 01:36:15 Graham Murray wrote:
> >> Mike Frysinger writes:
> >>> well, not quite. the way we agreed in the past was to not revbump the
> >>> masked packa
Hi,
Nikos Chantziaras :
> On 11/23/2010 09:32 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On Tuesday, November 23, 2010 01:36:15 Graham Murray wrote:
> >> Mike Frysinger writes:
> >>> well, not quite. the way we agreed in the past was to not
> >>> revbump the masked package, but once it was unmasked, we revbu
S, René 'Necoro' Neumann piše:
Don't forget, that Cobra compiles to C# which then is compiled to .NET
CLI. I don't think, that anyone here feels really good about having the
core package of Gentoo to require Mono.
Uh. I didn't know that. I've read only that it gets compiled into
bytecode, wh
# Gilles Dartiguelongue (23 Nov 2010)
# Last rites: dev-cpp/libgtksourceviewmm
# Removal: 2010-12-23
# Bug: #298158
# Old name of gtksourceviewmm, not used by anything in tree.
# Masked with approval of remi.
dev-cpp/libgtksourceviewmm
--
Gilles Dartiguelongue
Gentoo
On 10/29/10 11:33 AM, James Rowe wrote:
> * "Paweł Hajdan, Jr." (phajdan...@gentoo.org) wrote:
>> I'm curious: do you have some more ebuilds using v8? It'd be great to
>> add them to the portage tree at some point, if possible. Or maybe
>> sunrise overlay...
>
> We took the easy way out and chos
On 11/23/10 11:43, Branko Badrljica wrote:
> I figured it still beats classic interpreter.
Have you compared to optimized Python byte code, i.e. .pyo files?
Sebastian
On 11/23/10 02:46, Markos Chandras wrote:
> Thank you. Like the fellow devs said before, KEYWORDS are there to
> indicate whether a package works for an arch or not. Empty keywords
> simply means "hey, this package is not tested in this arch" which is the
> exact point of a live ebuild. However, p.
On Sat, 20 Nov 2010 17:34:32 + (UTC), Michal Gorny (mgorny) wrote:
mgorny 10/11/20 17:34:32
Modified: ChangeLog
Removed: font-misc-misc-1.0.0.ebuild
Log:
Remove redundant version.
Since when is it ok to ignore [easily avoided] repoman warnings?
KEYWOR
On Tue, 23 Nov 2010 06:36:15 +
Graham Murray wrote:
> Mike Frysinger writes:
>
> > well, not quite. the way we agreed in the past was to not revbump the
> > masked
> > package, but once it was unmasked, we revbump it just once at that point.
Gotcha.
> Is there somewhere which tells use
Markos Chandras said:
> Hi there,
>
> The official policy for live ebuilds is the following one:
>
> http://devmanual.gentoo.org/ebuild-writing/functions/src_unpack/cvs-sources/index.html
>
> I don't quite agree with this policy and I guess most of you don't agree
> either looking at the number
On Tue, 23 Nov 2010 14:52:11 -0600
Jeremy Olexa wrote:
> On Sat, 20 Nov 2010 17:34:32 + (UTC), Michal Gorny (mgorny)
> wrote:
> > mgorny 10/11/20 17:34:32
> >
> > Modified: ChangeLog
> > Removed: font-misc-misc-1.0.0.ebuild
> > Log:
> > Remove redundant
12 matches
Mail list logo
