# Michał Górny (2021-09-23)
# Ancient version from 2016 that collides with dev-python/pyjwt.
# Never bumped by the maintainer. The only revdep turned out to be
# false positive.
# Removal on 2021-10-23. Bug #814449.
dev-python/python-jwt
--
Best regards,
Michał Górny
> On Thu, 23 Sep 2021, Sheng Yu wrote:
> Hi,
> I attached second revision of the new draft of GLEP78 "Gentoo Binary
> Package Container Format"
> Please feel free to give any comments and suggestions.
Since you haven't addressed my comments from the first round of review,
I repeat them here:
Hi Vadim,
> Finally it happened!
> I already planned to try to ask infra/council about sponsoring few
> servers for build farm for "official gentoo binhosts" when I had
> enough time, but fortunately, you've already did that.
> It's very good news.
Thanks! Nice to see that this is appreciated :)
Joshua Kinard wrote:
> Hmm, it looks like dropbear is relying heavily on the ecc/ecdsa functions
> provided in libtomcrypt, and that library's homepage states all its code is
> public domain. Our ebuild has no bindist restrictions on that library.
> Perhaps that is how dropbear, and thus Red Hat,
Hi Ulrich,
Sorry, I don't know why the response I sent on September 13 didn't get
forward by mailing list. So I write here again.
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Thursday, September 23rd, 2021 at 06:30, Ulrich Mueller
wrote:
> Since you haven't addressed my comments from the first round o
On Thu, Sep 23, 2021 at 7:12 AM Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
>
> Hi Vadim,
>
> > Finally it happened!
> > I already planned to try to ask infra/council about sponsoring few
> > servers for build farm for "official gentoo binhosts" when I had
> > enough time, but fortunately, you've already did that.
On Thursday, September 23rd, 2021 at 10:11, Andreas K. Huettel
wrote:
> 3. an easy way to figure out if a binary package repo is suitable for
> a profile / arch / ... or not, and a standard for path names
> This is not so important right now, and partially also already present
>
There i
