On Mon, 15 Aug 2011 19:42:01 -0700
Zac Medico wrote:
> On 08/15/2011 11:41 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > Now that we don't have any old-style virtuals in gx86 anymore,
> > I think the 'virtual' category is basically one another plain
> > category nowadays.
>
> In sys-apps/portage,
On 08/16/2011 12:01 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Aug 2011 19:42:01 -0700
> Zac Medico wrote:
>
>> On 08/15/2011 11:41 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> Now that we don't have any old-style virtuals in gx86 anymore,
>>> I think the 'virtual' category is basically one another plain
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 08/16/2011 12:01 AM, Micha? Górny wrote:
>>> Considering the number of different virtuals in this category,
>>> maybe it would be a good idea to split it a little? What I'm
>>> proposing is maybe creating some kind of '*-virtual' categories.
>>>
Duncan wrote:
Rich Freeman posted on Thu, 11 Aug 2011 08:20:21 -0400 as excerpted:
On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 2:04 AM, Dale wrote:
I understand that Fedora is wanting to do this. What I don't
understand is why. It seems it is udev that is wrecking this havoc.
Well, the answe
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On Tue, 16 Aug 2011 00:26:41 -0700
Zac Medico wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 08/16/2011 12:01 AM, Micha? Górny wrote:
> >>> Considering the number of different virtuals in this category,
> >>> maybe it would be a
On 08/16/2011 12:40 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Aug 2011 00:26:41 -0700
> Zac Medico wrote:
>> On 08/16/2011 12:01 AM, Micha? Górny wrote:
> Considering the number of different virtuals in this category,
> maybe it would be a good idea to split it a little? What I'm
> propos
On Tue, 16 Aug 2011 01:10:48 -0700
Zac Medico wrote:
> On 08/16/2011 12:40 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
> > On Tue, 16 Aug 2011 00:26:41 -0700
> > Zac Medico wrote:
> >> On 08/16/2011 12:01 AM, Micha? Górny wrote:
> > Considering the number of different virtuals in this category,
> > maybe i
On 08/16/2011 01:29 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Aug 2011 01:10:48 -0700
> Zac Medico wrote:
>
>> On 08/16/2011 12:40 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
>>> On Tue, 16 Aug 2011 00:26:41 -0700
>>> Zac Medico wrote:
On 08/16/2011 12:01 AM, Micha? Górny wrote:
>>> Considering the number of di
On Tue, 16 Aug 2011 00:19:38 -0700
Zac Medico wrote:
> > Isn't that another, ugly, non-PMS hack which makes people think they
> > are creating correct packages?
>
> Are you saying that you'd prefer to have package managers pull in
> redundant packages for not good reason?
No, package managers sh
On 08/16/2011 02:32 AM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Aug 2011 00:19:38 -0700
> Zac Medico wrote:
>>> Isn't that another, ugly, non-PMS hack which makes people think they
>>> are creating correct packages?
>>
>> Are you saying that you'd prefer to have package managers pull in
>> redundant p
On Tue, 16 Aug 2011 03:01:26 -0700
Zac Medico wrote:
> On 08/16/2011 02:32 AM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > On Tue, 16 Aug 2011 00:19:38 -0700
> > Zac Medico wrote:
> >>> Isn't that another, ugly, non-PMS hack which makes people think
> >>> they are creating correct packages?
> >>
> >> Are you sayi
On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 3:39 AM, Dale wrote:
> How long till all this is going to be a absolute requirement? That is my
> question.
Well, I don't speak for the teams that want to implement this, but my
recommendation is that it not become a requirement until everything is
in place to support it.
Rich Freeman wrote:
Considering that we still haven't finished doing all of this for
OpenRC yet, I wouldn't worry about the changes hitting you anytime
soon. I'd consider a lessons-learned from OpenRC that we shouldn't
stabilize packages until AFTER the docs are updated. Otherwise it can
tend
Hello folks,
Introspection has finally been unmasked in the tree![1] This means
that most of the issues with introspection have either been ironed
out, or can be handled.
Note that introspection was already being selectively unmasked on
newer ebuilds using profiles/base/package.use.mask for quite
Rich Freeman posted on Tue, 16 Aug 2011 08:34:09 -0400 as excerpted:
> Considering that we still haven't finished doing all of this for OpenRC
> yet, I wouldn't worry about the changes hitting you anytime soon. I'd
> consider a lessons-learned from OpenRC that we shouldn't stabilize
> packages un
On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 12:39 PM, Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote:
> But then the docs folks said the policy was only to document stable, and
> that they weren't going to document openrc until it was going stable.
Well, I can see their point - OpenRC was the future for probably 2
years before
On 21:23 Tue 16 Aug , Nirbheek Chauhan wrote:
> A side-note that we've wanted to get out to all devs is that everyone
> should *always* use IUSE="+introspection".
Then why is it a flag?
--
Thanks,
Donnie
Donnie Berkholz
Council Member / Sr. Developer
Gentoo Linux
Blog: http://dberkholz.com
On Wed, Aug 17, 2011 at 12:29 AM, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> On 21:23 Tue 16 Aug , Nirbheek Chauhan wrote:
>> A side-note that we've wanted to get out to all devs is that everyone
>> should *always* use IUSE="+introspection".
>
> Then why is it a flag?
>
So that people who use, say, json-glib i
Nirbheek Chauhan schrieb:
>>> A side-note that we've wanted to get out to all devs is that everyone
>>> should *always* use IUSE="+introspection".
>> Then why is it a flag?
>>
> So that people who use, say, json-glib in embedded environments don't
> need to pull in a package that is quite unnecessa
2011/8/17 Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn :
> Nirbheek Chauhan schrieb:
A side-note that we've wanted to get out to all devs is that everyone
should *always* use IUSE="+introspection".
>>> Then why is it a flag?
>>>
>> So that people who use, say, json-glib in embedded environments don't
>>
On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 09:22:30AM -0500, Dale wrote:
> Thanks for the reply. I also agree that the docs should be ready first
> then the change. I have a friend that may be switching from Gentoo
> because he can not get good docs on how to get his network working after
> the OpenRC update. I
Robin H. Johnson wrote:
On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 09:22:30AM -0500, Dale wrote:
Thanks for the reply. I also agree that the docs should be ready first
then the change. I have a friend that may be switching from Gentoo
because he can not get good docs on how to get his network working after
t
On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 09:22:30AM -0500, Dale wrote:
> Thanks for the reply. I also agree that the docs should be ready first
> then the change. I have a friend that may be switching from Gentoo because
> he can not get good docs on how to get his network working after the OpenRC
> update. I
On Tuesday 16 of August 2011 22:14:28 Nirbheek Chauhan wrote:
> 2011/8/17 Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn :
> > Nirbheek Chauhan schrieb:
> A side-note that we've wanted to get out to all devs is that everyone
> should *always* use IUSE="+introspection".
> >>>
> >>> Then why is it a flag?
>
Hi folks,
coming back from an extended vacation I found bug #351266[1] still open.
The root cause of this install failure seems to be libtool trying to
relink php's apache module. I'm not entirely sure what causes this (as
my system doesn't relink the library), but more importantly I failed to
fin
On Wed, Aug 17, 2011 at 3:27 AM, Maciej Mrozowski wrote:
> On Tuesday 16 of August 2011 22:14:28 Nirbheek Chauhan wrote:
>> 2011/8/17 Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn :
>> > Then why don't you make it a default flag in desktop/gnome profile
>> > instead? That way, the embedded users who don't use a de
On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 03:55:23PM -0500, Dale wrote:
> > Did he file a bug for this? We have been working on them.
> Nope. He's a ghost Gentoo user. I don't think he is subscribed to any
> mailing list or the forums. He just searches for clues and docs.
Can you please data-capture that bug and
On 08/16/2011 06:07 PM, Nirbheek Chauhan wrote:
The use-case for disabling introspection globally is if you will never
use any gobject language bindings for the next 4-5 years.
FYI: I disabled it globally, already, on my server. As the rrdtool stack
pulls in pango with the +introspection defau
Jeremy Olexa schrieb:
> On 08/16/2011 06:07 PM, Nirbheek Chauhan wrote:
>> The use-case for disabling introspection globally is if you will never
>> use any gobject language bindings for the next 4-5 years.
>
> FYI: I disabled it globally, already, on my server. As the rrdtool stack
> pulls in pan
Robin H. Johnson wrote:
On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 03:55:23PM -0500, Dale wrote:
Did he file a bug for this? We have been working on them.
Nope. He's a ghost Gentoo user. I don't think he is subscribed to any
mailing list or the forums. He just searches for clues and docs.
Ca
Sven Vermeulen wrote:
On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 09:22:30AM -0500, Dale wrote:
Thanks for the reply. I also agree that the docs should be ready first
then the change. I have a friend that may be switching from Gentoo because
he can not get good docs on how to get his network working after the
On 08/16/2011 09:01 PM, Dale wrote:
Allow me to start this way. If you change a page, send me a link,
http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-doc-cvs/
On Monday, August 15, 2011 17:33:24 Nirbheek Chauhan wrote:
> I don't see a pressing need to split virtual/ yet :)
+1
-mike
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
33 matches
Mail list logo
