Re: [gentoo-dev] Google Code shutdown requires 524 ebuilds to be fixed before end of 2016

On 05/11/16 04:45, Kent Fredric wrote: > On Fri, 4 Nov 2016 23:09:07 -0400 > Mike Gilbert wrote: > >> On Fri, Nov 4, 2016 at 9:36 PM, Jonas Stein wrote: >> [...] >>> >> [...] >>> Yes, that is a good idea. >>> >>> cat googlecode-shutdown.txt | cut -f1 -d":" | xargs equery meta -mH | >>> gr

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Future EAPI version operator changes

On 08/11/16 07:09, konsolebox wrote: > On Sun, Nov 6, 2016 at 6:52 PM, Michał Górny wrote: >> Hi, everyone. >> >> Following my previous RFC wrt version operator problems, I'd like to >> start the second part of the discussion: how to improve version >> operators in a Future EAPI? >> >> I've collec

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Future EAPI version operator changes

On 08/11/16 08:03, konsolebox wrote: > On Tue, Nov 8, 2016 at 3:49 PM, M. J. Everitt wrote: >> >> Ewww, WTF should we use Google as a (bad) example?! > I don't care if it's from Google or not, and you shouldn't as well. > Grow up. It's got nothing to do w

Re: [gentoo-dev] rsync.gentoo.org rsync modules: ChangeLogs dropped from gentoo-portage

On 16/11/16 08:26, Kent Fredric wrote: > On Tue, 15 Nov 2016 01:11:48 + > "Robin H. Johnson" wrote: > >> They will continue to be included in the Manifest until the next phase >> of the change. >> >> rsync.gentoo.org::gentoo-portage >> - tree without ChangeLogs >> >> rsync.gentoo.org::gentoo-

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo Staffing Needs page is out of date

On 23/11/16 05:31, Gokturk Yuksek wrote: > Hi all, > > The Staffing Needs page on the wiki [0] seems a little out of date, > there are still mentions of "herds". I invite project leads and > members to update it. We added a reference to it in the Mentors wiki > page [1] and hoping to get more atten

Re: [gentoo-dev] Improving the stabilisation process - part 1

On 24/11/16 19:41, Michael Palimaka wrote: > As I am sure everyone is aware by now, stabilisation requests on many > architectures take a long time to be actioned. There are many factors > contributing to this, but today I'd like to address three specific > problems that unnecessarily delay develop

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Userkit.eclass

On 28/11/16 19:39, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote: > For now who cares about other OS or distros. If Gentoo gets its house in > order > others may follow. > At the risk of a huge flame, remind me, who uses Gentoo again?! signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] Tinderboxing efforts in Gentoo

On 04/12/16 14:03, Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote: > > I recall some discussion about tinderboxing suggesting that more > important than testing all possible use flag combinations, would be to > test: > > * all use flags disabled (some packages fail miserabily if you don't > enable at least one

Re: [gentoo-dev] Tinderboxing efforts in Gentoo

On 04/12/16 22:15, Alec Warner wrote: > > On Fri, Dec 2, 2016 at 10:33 PM, Robin H. Johnson > wrote: > > On Fri, Dec 02, 2016 at 02:10:27PM +0100, Michał Górny wrote: > > Hi, everyone. > > > > I've heard multiple times about various tinderbox projects bei

Re: [gentoo-dev] (OT) Accounting systems: Ledger-CLI vs GNUcash

On 04/12/16 22:55, Robin H. Johnson wrote: > (OT accounting systems) > > On Sun, Dec 04, 2016 at 01:10:16PM -0500, james wrote: >> GNUcash is superior to Quickbooks, as it is a 'double entry' accounting >> system. Last time I check Quickbooks was not 'double entry' and that is >> a big deal in ac

Re: [gentoo-dev] (OT) Accounting systems: Ledger-CLI vs GNUcash

On 04/12/16 23:49, Robin H. Johnson wrote: > On Sun, Dec 04, 2016 at 11:07:59PM +0000, M. J. Everitt wrote: >> I gather both Quickbooks and Sage have a more modular approach to >> "proper" accounting software applicable to small and large businesses. I >> know my mot

Re: [gentoo-dev] (OT) Accounting systems: Ledger-CLI vs GNUcash

On 05/12/16 03:06, james wrote: > On 12/04/2016 06:49 PM, Robin H. Johnson wrote: >> On Sun, Dec 04, 2016 at 11:07:59PM +0000, M. J. Everitt wrote: >>> I gather both Quickbooks and Sage have a more modular approach to >>> "proper" accounting software applicable

Re: [gentoo-dev] Cross Post due to technical component - Thanks for all the fish

On 07/12/16 01:59, james wrote: > On 12/06/2016 07:29 PM, Robin H. Johnson wrote: >> On Tue, Dec 06, 2016 at 01:13:12PM -0500, james wrote: >>> A while back, we we were promised an email channel for gentoo-proxy >>> folks that did not get on well with IRC. It never materialized, >> The mail alias p

Re: [gentoo-dev] Cross Post due to technical component - Thanks for all the fish

On 07/12/16 02:44, james wrote: > > On this page, the string 'quiz' occurs (3) times. I find no links to > the current quizes? > > Did I miss something? > > James > https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:Recruiters#Current_quizzes signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] Ada project needs your help!

On 14/12/16 08:26, Christopher Head wrote: > On Sun, 11 Dec 2016 16:59:50 +0100 > Michał Górny wrote: > >> Hello, everyone. >> >> The Ada project seriously needs help. For some time already, it has no >> active developers (George is retiring), and a lot of bugs needing >> attention. >> >> The pack

Re: [gentoo-dev] gpg: signing failed: Inappropriate ioctl for device

On 14/12/16 13:53, Mike Gilbert wrote: > On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 7:56 AM, Mart Raudsepp wrote: >> Ühel kenal päeval, K, 14.12.2016 kell 15:35, kirjutas Andrew Savchenko: >>> This is not a workaround, but officially recommended practice, from >>> man gpg-agent: >>> >>> You should always add the fol

Re: [gentoo-dev] gpg: signing failed: Inappropriate ioctl for device

On 14/12/16 14:57, Mike Gilbert wrote: > On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 9:07 AM, M. J. Everitt wrote: >> On 14/12/16 13:53, Mike Gilbert wrote: >>> On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 7:56 AM, Mart Raudsepp wrote: >>>> Ühel kenal päeval, K, 14.12.2016 kell 15:35, kirjutas Andrew

Re: [gentoo-dev] gpg: signing failed: Inappropriate ioctl for device

On 14/12/16 15:45, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 10:27 AM, M. J. Everitt wrote: >> I do, but only usually if its the last package of an emerge because >> otherwise its lost many many thousands of lines upwards. Thank goodness >> for portage's savelo

Re: [gentoo-dev] Ada project needs your help!

On 14/12/16 15:47, Michał Górny wrote: > On Wed, 14 Dec 2016 08:30:00 + > "M. J. Everitt" wrote: > >> On 14/12/16 08:26, Christopher Head wrote: >>> On Sun, 11 Dec 2016 16:59:50 +0100 >>> Michał Górny wrote: >>> >>>> Hello, ev

Re: [gentoo-dev] Handling ebuild logging output in Portage (Was: gpg: signing failed: Inappropriate ioctl for device)

rote: > On 12/14/2016 12:59 PM, Doug Freed wrote: >> On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 10:45 AM, Rich Freeman wrote: >>> On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 10:27 AM, M. J. Everitt >>> wrote: >>>> >>>> I do, but only usually if its the last package of an emerge because

Re: [gentoo-dev] Automated Package Removal and Addition Tracker, for the week ending 2016-12-18 23:59 UTC

On 19/12/16 00:23, Michael Orlitzky wrote: > On 12/18/2016 07:05 PM, Robin H. Johnson wrote: >> Additions: >> ... >> dev-php/ca-bundle 20161124-07:43 mjo 7597666 >> dev-php/cli-prompt20161124-07:21 mjo d3bd351 >> dev-php/composer

Re: [gentoo-dev] Intel's Management Engine

On 01/01/17 21:01, james wrote: > Is there a group of gentoo devs interested in the security aspects of > internal, and often non-disclosed, hardware, as I cannot seem to find > such a group, if it exists? > > > Is there any interest in such a gentoo-dev project? > > > Here is a teaser page [1]. Ma

Re: [gentoo-dev] Intel's Management Engine

On 01/01/17 21:12, M. J. Everitt wrote: > On 01/01/17 21:01, james wrote: >> Is there a group of gentoo devs interested in the security aspects of >> internal, and often non-disclosed, hardware, as I cannot seem to find >> such a group, if it exists? >> >> >>

Re: [gentoo-dev] New Project: Gentoostats

On 02/01/17 11:40, Francesco Riosa wrote: > l'ho fatto con un utente diverso (pnp_RSIFNC), per ora sto prendendo > quelle che avrei dovuto comunque prendere, poi forzo le altre > > 2017-01-02 10:29 GMT+01:00 Gokturk Yuksek >: > > Hi everyone, > > I'm happy to ann

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: The changes about the stabilization process

On 02/01/17 16:51, Kent Fredric wrote: > On Wed, 28 Dec 2016 21:11:43 +0100 > Ulrich Mueller wrote: > >> PMS uses "package dependency specification", but that may be too long >> for the name of the field. How about "ebuilds to stabilise"? >> >> Ulrich > Reading "man 5 ebuild" > > Atom Bases >

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: The changes about the stabilization process

On 02/01/17 17:49, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Mon, Jan 2, 2017 at 11:56 AM, Kent Fredric wrote: >> On Thu, 29 Dec 2016 17:23:58 + >> Ciaran McCreesh wrote: >> >>> Because it isn't... Are set names atoms? Are package names without an >>> associated category atoms? >> Sets /are/ still dependency

Re: [gentoo-dev] Packages up for grabs due to retirement

On 03/01/17 11:05, Michał Górny wrote: > On Tue, 3 Jan 2017 16:00:52 +0700 (+07) > gro...@gentoo.org wrote: > >> On Mon, 2 Jan 2017, Brian Evans wrote: >>> IMO, this one should be given last-rites as upstream is dead and it >>> heavily depends on wireless-tools and WEXT. >> I use it on 2 notebook

Re: Why lastrite when it works? (Was: Re: [gentoo-dev] Packages up for grabs due to retirement)

On 03/01/17 14:57, Michael Mol wrote: > On Tuesday, January 3, 2017 9:24:19 AM EST Damien LEVAC wrote: >> On 01/03/2017 09:14 AM, Michael Mol wrote: >>> On Tuesday, January 3, 2017 12:05:10 PM EST Michał Górny wrote: On Tue, 3 Jan 2017 16:00:52 +0700 (+07) gro...@gentoo.org wrote: >>

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: The changes about the stabilization process

On 04/01/17 07:09, Michael Palimaka wrote: > On 04/01/17 12:57, Andrew Savchenko wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> On Sun, 25 Dec 2016 22:55:27 +0300 Andrew Savchenko wrote: >> [...] >>> Another question: do we steel need to set STABLEREQ keyword for >>> stabilization bugs? Since we now have a dedicated Stab

Re: Why lastrite when it works? (Was: Re: [gentoo-dev] Packages up for grabs due to retirement)

On 06/01/17 04:27, Kent Fredric wrote: > On Tue, 3 Jan 2017 10:23:02 -0500 > Rich Freeman wrote: > >> I tend to be firmly in the camp that a package shouldn't be removed >> unless there is evidence of a serious bug (and that includes things >> blocking other Gentoo packages). > I would probably go

Re: Why lastrite when it works? (Was: Re: [gentoo-dev] Packages up for grabs due to retirement)

On 06/01/17 15:01, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 11:27 PM, Kent Fredric wrote: >> If packages had a field called "BUGS=" it could contain an array of >> bugs a package is known to contain, but can be conditionally avoided if >> you're careful. >> >> Packages with non-empty BUGS= fie

Re: Why lastrite when it works? (Was: Re: [gentoo-dev] Packages up for grabs due to retirement)

On 06/01/17 17:14, Alec Warner wrote: > > Treecleaning to me is really two things: > > 1) developer maintenance time. > a) It costs nothing to add packages to the tree, and the tree grows > in size every year. > b) Removals occur due to obsolescence (X replaces Y, etc) but these > are strictly le

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Common rsync-gen errors, why they happen, and what you can do about it

On 18/01/17 09:04, Kent Fredric wrote: > On Wed, 18 Jan 2017 08:19:19 +0100 > Dirkjan Ochtman wrote: > >> >> That makes sense. My other comment initially reading your email would >> be, send those emails to gentoo-core or -project or whatever. If >> others don't get to feel the pain (of every hal

Re: [gentoo-dev] News item review: python-exec 2.3 reclaims python* symlinks

On 21/01/17 09:49, Michał Górny wrote: > Please review the following news item. It was requested by users. > Preferably I'd like to commit it today. > > -- > > Title: python-exec 2.3 reclaims python* symlinks > Author: Michał Górny > Content-Type: text/plain > Posted: 2017-01-21 > Revision: 1 > N

Re: [gentoo-dev] News item review: python-exec 2.3 reclaims python* symlinks

On 21/01/17 16:36, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote: > On 01/21/2017 10:49 AM, Michał Górny wrote: >> Please review the following news item. It was requested by users. >> Preferably I'd like to commit it today. > .. > >> If you are using FEATURES=collision-protect, Portage will reject >> the upgrade. If

Re: [gentoo-dev] Pre-GLEP for review: mix-in profiles

On 24/01/17 17:20, Jason Zaman wrote: > This is awesome! thanks for working on it, ive wanted it for a while > now. > > The main issue I see with it is ordering. For the hardened and selinux > profiles, the order matters a lot. eg hardened defaults the jit useflag > off and the desktop profile defa

Re: [gentoo-dev] Fwd: Cron /usr/local/bin/pidlock -s rsync-gen /bin/bash /usr/local/bin/mastermirror/rsync-gen.sh

On 27/01/17 00:55, NP-Hardass wrote: > On 01/26/2017 06:48 PM, Doug Freed wrote: >> This is the email I get when a Manifest is missing DIST entries; it's >> more verbose than it needs to be, but I'd rather have more than less. >> In this particular case, the developer that made the bad commit likel

Re: [gentoo-dev] Fwd: Cron /usr/local/bin/pidlock -s rsync-gen /bin/bash /usr/local/bin/mastermirror/rsync-gen.sh

On 27/01/17 12:41, Rich Freeman wrote: > > I'm a little concerned that stuff like this starts to end up working > like collective punishment. Fred over here broke the tree, so nobody > gets to have desert or recess today; you all know what to do with Fred > when he's looking to sit next to somebo

Re: [gentoo-dev] Improving profiles/profiles.desc and repoman checking

On 28/01/17 20:01, Andreas K. Huettel wrote: > So, things are a little bit messy right now. We have "stable arches", "arches > that are ~arch only (but occasional stable keywords can pop up and be > ignored)", "arches that are ~arch only". In addition, some are always checked > with repoman, som

Re: [gentoo-dev] Improving profiles/profiles.desc and repoman checking

On 28/01/17 20:38, Andreas K. Huettel wrote: > Am Samstag, 28. Januar 2017, 20:32:54 CET schrieb M. J. Everitt: >> How does this compare/contrast/integrate with kent\n's proposal >> regarding "profiles.types"? > Oops. > > Sorry I'm a bit back in mailing

Re: [gentoo-dev] Requirements for UID/GID management

On 29/01/17 01:56, Michael Orlitzky wrote: > On 01/27/2017 11:21 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: >> It isn't like inconsistent UIDs are the end of the world. However, >> IMO it still makes sense to at least try to standardize such things. >> Really, if you have a package always installing the same user si

Re: [gentoo-dev] Requirements for UID/GID management

On 29/01/17 03:23, Gordon Pettey wrote: > On Sat, Jan 28, 2017 at 8:54 PM, Michael Orlitzky > wrote: > > On 01/28/2017 09:22 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: > > > > Honestly, I really will say "so what" here. :) > > > > I forgot to mention a few of the advantag

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: killing mediawiki

On 03/07/18 21:01, William Hubbs wrote: > On Tue, Jul 03, 2018 at 09:20:53PM +0200, Jonas Stein wrote: >>> I don't care that we have a wiki, but can we please look into killing >>> mediawiki and look at something with a git backend? >> I think the wiki is very useful and should remain. > Like I sa

Re: [gentoo-dev] News Item: Portage rsync hardlink support

On 08/07/18 10:21, Zac Medico wrote: > On 07/08/2018 02:15 AM, Michał Górny wrote: >> >> Are you sure about that? That might have been the case so far but this >> hardlink tree may actually tip the balance. > Even if it takes twice a long (which it doesn't), the difference is > negligible for mos

Re: [gentoo-dev] News Item: Portage rsync hardlink support

On 08/07/18 18:34, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Sun, Jul 8, 2018 at 9:02 AM Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote: >> On 07/08/2018 08:53 AM, Michał Górny wrote: >>> Is safe git syncing implemented already? If not, maybe finish it first and >>> cover both with a single news item. Git is going to be more effi

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: moving default location of portage tree

On 09/07/18 23:12, Zac Medico wrote: > On 07/09/2018 02:34 PM, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote: >> I'd mostly argue any such change should only affect new systems >> > Yes, changing defaults for existing systems would be annoying. > > My recommendation is to have catalyst set the new defaults in the st

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: moving default location of portage tree

On 10/07/18 21:09, William Hubbs wrote: > On Mon, Jul 09, 2018 at 03:54:35PM -0700, Zac Medico wrote: >> On 07/09/2018 03:27 PM, M. J. Everitt wrote: >>> On 09/07/18 23:12, Zac Medico wrote: >>>> On 07/09/2018 02:34 PM, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote: >>>>

[RFC] Commit messages - WAS Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: What means bup?

On 18/07/18 13:20, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote: > On 07/18/2018 02:10 PM, Alexis Ballier wrote: >> I often find myself in the >> need to use/invent some abbreviation in order to fit the limit. >> Considering this is an error, this sends the message that short is >> preferred over clear. > Or that t

Re: [gentoo-dev] Adding USE=udev to linux profiles

On 20/07/18 13:20, Ben Kohler wrote: > On 07/19/18 20:54, Mikle Kolyada wrote: > >> +1. widely used profiles should have as least flags enabled by default >> as possible, I would not be happy with +udev on my servers. >> > I disagree with this premise. The default and most widely used profiles > s

Re: [gentoo-dev] Adding USE=udev to linux profiles

On 20/07/18 13:39, n...@troglodyte.be wrote: > Hi, > > July 20, 2018 2:26 PM, "Ben Kohler" wrote: > >> On 07/19/18 23:04, Michael Orlitzky wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> If you really want to enable it globally after being told that it's bad >>> engineering and downright annoying, go do it in a profile th

Re: [gentoo-dev] [arm17] Background to ARM 17.0 profile migration

On 25/07/18 00:07, James Le Cuirot wrote: > My initial migration guide was rather scary as changing CHOST is never > easy and I was concerned that such a guide was never going to be > sufficiently palatable for a news item. I didn't expect to be able to > script it up but I gave it a shot and I'm

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: moving default location of portage tree (was: [gentoo-project] Call for agenda items - Council meeting 2018-07-29)

On 29/07/18 21:01, Rich Freeman wrote: > > > Why not stick the repos in /var/repos and not /var/db/repos? If we're > just making up paths, why not make up a shorter one? I don't think > any other linux distros use /var/db... > *BSD I believe .. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signa

Re: [gentoo-dev] Idea for a new project: gentoo-libs

On 05/08/18 18:01, Alec Warner wrote [excerpted]: > > > On Sun, Aug 5, 2018 at 12:45 PM, Richard Yao > wrote: > > > > On Jun 23, 2018, at 6:59 AM, Alec Warner > wrote: > >> >> I suspect this might be better done in the Linux foundatio

Re: [gentoo-dev] Idea for a new project: gentoo-libs

On 05/08/18 18:24, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Sun, Aug 5, 2018 at 1:01 PM Alec Warner wrote: >> >> Part of my frustration is that seemingly "anything open source related >> can be held in Gentoo" and I'm somewhat against that as I feel it >> dilutes the Gentoo mission. We are here to make a distribu

Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH 5/5] eutils.eclass: Restore the original path_exists function

On 08/08/18 22:34, Michał Górny wrote [excerpted]: > +# Example: > +# @CODE > +# if path_exists "${ROOT}"/etc/foo.d/*.conf; then > +# do_something > +# fi > +# @CODE > path_exists() { > - local opt=$1 > - [[ ${opt} == -[ao] ]] && shift || opt="-a" > - > - # no paths -> return false >

Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH] waf-utils.eclass: WAF_VERBOSE always effectively on

On 14/08/18 08:03, Joke Junkie wrote: > Fix broken behavior not allowing to change the default verbosity. > This should be of importance to everybody building on SMP systems, since > giving the --verbose option to waf breaks a multi-job build (by making > it one-job), at least for me. This is proba

Re: [gentoo-dev] [arm17] [PATCH 0/3] toolchain-funcs.eclass: tc-is-softfloat for ARM and associated functions

On 21/08/18 21:38, James Le Cuirot wrote: > On Tue, 14 Aug 2018 21:33:01 +0100 > James Le Cuirot wrote: > >> I previously sent a single patch to this list entitled >> "Update tc-is-softfloat for new ARM tuples" but I have now added two >> further patches following the initial feedback. >> >> For t

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo i486 support

On 22/08/18 20:20, Matt Turner wrote: > On Wed, Aug 22, 2018 at 5:26 AM Ben Kohler wrote: >> 2) Patch catalyst to start setting CXXFLAGS again. Rather than roll >> back to exactly CXXFLAGS="${CFLAGS}" again, it's been suggested that we >> start setting COMMON_FLAGS, and CFLAGS="${COMMON_FLAGS}" >

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Solving the problem of huge number of wrong LICENSES=*GPL-[23]

On 26/08/18 19:14, Mart Raudsepp wrote: > Ühel kenal päeval, P, 26.08.2018 kell 19:14, kirjutas Michał Górny: >> One thing where this would fail would be e.g.: >> >> LICENSE="GPL-2+ >> bar? ( GPL-2 ) >> foo? ( GPL-3+ )" ^ you can't put a comment on the right line > LICENSE="GPL-2+ " > LIC

Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH] udev.eclass: support EAPI 7

On 23/09/18 16:20, Mike Gilbert wrote: > Signed-off-by: Mike Gilbert > --- > eclass/udev.eclass | 14 +- > 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/eclass/udev.eclass b/eclass/udev.eclass > index 4f23c9ebbdf8..baf60584938f 100644 > --- a/eclass/udev.eclass > ++

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: What means bup?

On 23/09/18 22:27, Kent Fredric wrote: > On Sat, 22 Sep 2018 15:36:23 -0500 > Matthew Thode wrote: >> My hand slipped. What ever happened to assuming the best :( Are you >> going to ping the list every time my hand slips up and I mistype >> something? Not sure you'll have time for it :P > Perso

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: What means bup?

On 24/09/18 03:27, Matthew Thode wrote: > On 18-09-23 21:39:01, Alec Warner wrote: >> On Sun, Sep 23, 2018 at 6:53 PM M. J. Everitt wrote: >> >>> On 23/09/18 22:27, Kent Fredric wrote: >>>> On Sat, 22 Sep 2018 15:36:23 -0500 >>>> Matthew Thode wrot

Re: [gentoo-dev] [pre-GLEP] Gentoo binary package container format [gen...@jonesmz.com]

On 18/11/18 22:40, Zac Medico wrote: > On 11/18/18 1:55 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: >> On Sun, Nov 18, 2018 at 4:10 PM Roy Bamford wrote: >>> Replying off list because I am not on the whitelist. >> That seems odd. >> >>> 1) append a uuid to each filename. Generated when the bin package file is >>> ge

Re: [gentoo-dev] Packages Up For Grabs

On 24/01/16 10:39, Amadeusz Żołnowski wrote: > Alex Brandt writes: >> * app-backup/rdiff-backup > Wasn't it meant for removal? > > -- Amadeusz Żołnowski Looks fine on p.g.o stable too. Upstream site is present.

<    1   2   3