Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] please review ebuilds for neovim and deps

2015-02-23 Thread Ben de Groot
On 23 February 2015 at 14:17, Vadim A. Misbakh-Soloviov wrote: > I'd also say: > > neovim: > >> CDEPEND="dev-lang/luajit >> <...> >> dev-lua/LuaBitOp > > 1) I'm not sure luajit:1 fits the dep > 2) LuaJIT:2 has it's own bit modules and is unneded LuaBitOp Thanks! I don't know that much about

Re: [gentoo-dev] Hello Everyone

2015-02-23 Thread Anthony G. Basile
On 02/22/15 12:08, Nicolas Sebrecht wrote: * Fun is lost for a long time. George Boole was wrong. Boolean values live on a continuum. Most of your statements were false. This is is extremely false. -- Anthony G. Basile, Ph.D. Gentoo Linux Developer [Hardened] E-Mail: bluen...@gentoo.o

Re: [gentoo-dev] Hello Everyone

2015-02-23 Thread Peter Stuge
Anthony G. Basile wrote: > On 02/22/15 12:08, Nicolas Sebrecht wrote: >> * Fun is lost for a long time. > > This is is extremely false. It's a very subjective matter. I don't doubt that Gentoo is fun for some or many or even all developers. I also have no doubt that the process of becoming a devel

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] please review ebuilds for neovim and deps

2015-02-23 Thread Vadim A. Misbakh-Soloviov
> > Thanks. But I think we can simplify that for now, since lua53 isn't > available (neither in the official tree or the lua overlay) and > > >=lua-5.2 is hardmasked. Anyway, I think, we need "my default patch for luajit support" here (which, actually, I'd suggest to apply on all packages in th

[gentoo-dev] Last rites: app-admin/chef and its dependencies

2015-02-23 Thread Hans de Graaff
# Hans de Graaff (23 Feb 2015) # Mask chef and its dependencies for removal in 60 days. # This package lacks a maintainer and the version currently # in the tree is very much out-of-date. Several calls for a # new maintainer have gone unanswered. The version of chef # in the gentoo tree depends on

Re: [gentoo-dev] Hello Everyone

2015-02-23 Thread Rich Freeman
On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 8:25 AM, Peter Stuge wrote: > Anthony G. Basile wrote: >> On 02/22/15 12:08, Nicolas Sebrecht wrote: >>> * Fun is lost for a long time. >> >> This is is extremely false. > > It's a very subjective matter. I don't doubt that Gentoo is fun for > some or many or even all devel

[gentoo-dev] [warning] the bug queue has 92 bugs

2015-02-23 Thread Alex Alexander
Our bug queue has 92 bugs! If you have some spare time, please help assign/sort a few bugs. To view the bug queue, click here: http://bit.ly/m8PQS5 Thanks!

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [rfc] Rendering the official Gentoo logo / Blender 2.04, Python 2.2

2015-02-23 Thread Sebastian Pipping
Hi! Please excuse bringing up a topic as old as this, again. Only bringing up half, actually. On 05.05.2011 07:36, Sebastian Pipping wrote: > On 05/01/2011 06:10 AM, Ulrich Mueller wrote: >> Could you bisect Blender to find out why it doesn't work with the new >> version? > > I tried a few mor

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [rfc] Rendering the official Gentoo logo / Blender 2.04, Python 2.2

2015-02-23 Thread Diego Elio Pettenò
On 23 February 2015 at 22:11, Sebastian Pipping wrote: > I have streamlined those into ebuilds and a dedicated overlay > Thanks! > So whoever needs to render Blender files from 2003 again at some point > should find working ebuilds to do that. Feel free to join keeping them > in good installa

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [rfc] Rendering the official Gentoo logo / Blender 2.04, Python 2.2

2015-02-23 Thread Daniel Campbell
On 02/23/2015 02:29 PM, Diego Elio Pettenò wrote: > On 23 February 2015 at 22:11, Sebastian Pipping > wrote: > > I have streamlined those into ebuilds and a dedicated overlay > > > Thanks! > > > So whoever needs to render Blender files from 2003 again at some