On Wednesday 06 September 2006 23:19, Ryan Hill wrote:
> - current pet peeve is some way of dealing with SRC_URI's that use
> dynamic redirects to the source files
tell upstream people to stop being stupid
-mike
pgpt1iMxa8QRd.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Saturday 09 September 2006 09:37, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> There's also any SRC_URI that includes an "&"...
last i checked, the only problem lies in the final filename itself ... so you
can use encoded strings in the URL itself so long as it isnt part of the
filename
-mike
pgpP5ZyX0xuva.pg
On Saturday 09 September 2006 19:46, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote:
> Don't want to be misleading or anything :)
aka he's a lamer
-mike
pgpQwrqf3hY8B.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Saturday 09 September 2006 20:10, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> This is a formal notice that monolithic X is no longer supported.
awesome !
> Developers with X-dependent packages may pull the || virtual/x11 section
> and retain just the modular dep list. Monolithic X will receive no
> further secur
On Saturday 09 September 2006 22:46, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > so we're clear (cause i might have just missed it on irc) but there will
> > be a "meta monolithic" ebuild right ? one that has all the same deps as
> > what the current mo
On Tuesday 12 September 2006 22:23, Richard Fish wrote:
> What I've basically been telling people is to:
please god stop telling people that
ive given Wernfried Haas proper instructions, he just needs to write them up
-mike
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
On Sunday 10 September 2006 21:44, Zac Medico wrote:
> For example, we can have a list of variable names
> stored in a new variable called "COLON_SEPARATED" that will reside
> in either the profiles or /etc/env.d/ itself.
/etc/env.d makes most sense ... we just have to worry about how to handle th
i'm going to be fixing the autoconf/automake wrappers so that they no longer
require all versions of autoconf/automake ... this will resolve the annoying
circular dependency but at the sametime packages need to make sure that if
they use autotools, they pull in the correct version
-mike
pgpUcE
On Thursday 14 September 2006 02:32, Sune Kloppenborg Jeppesen wrote:
> the maintainer of media-gfx/imagemagick sekretarz is not responding to
> bugmail and the package has two open security bugs.
>
> https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=143533
> https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=144091
>
On Thursday 14 September 2006 16:59, Sven Köhler wrote:
> Not to forget that one:
> https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=121142
sorry, i dont do perl
-mike
pgpsfyETMrMlX.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Thursday 14 September 2006 07:02, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
> Mike, will you update autotools eclass as well, to accept WANT_AUTO* before
> inherit line? It should be trivial, but I'd have to check it first.
i prob wont have time till this weekend ... so if you get to it before me i
won
On Thursday 14 September 2006 17:04, Bryan Østergaard wrote:
> As there's been very little, if any, interest from anybody besides
> Stefan and Recruiters / Developer Relations I'm going to deny the
> contributor access idea. Recruiters and Developer Relations feels that
> this is a bad idea, especi
since all our arches have managed to migrate to either glibc-2.3.6-r4 or
glibc-2.4-r3, i'd like to go ahead and punt:
glibc-2.3.3.20040420-r2.ebuild
glibc-2.3.4.20040619-r2.ebuild
glibc-2.3.4.20040808-r1.ebuild
glibc-2.3.4.20041102-r1.ebuild
glibc-2.3.4.20041102-r2.ebuild
glibc-2.3.4.20
now that the issue with depclean is resolved (the reason we removed USE=acl in
the first place), users shouldnt be able to [as easily] break their systems
so if we're going to be enabling cruft like USE=ldap by default, we should be
adding back in acl
-mike
pgpO4Lj84VKIB.pgp
Description: PGP s
On Monday 18 September 2006 21:12, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> I would prefer that we add this into a new release profile and move it
> "up" the profile inheritance tree as the non-acl profiles get
> deprecated, rather than introduce this into the current profiles.
adding it to 2006.2+ is fine by me
On Tuesday 19 September 2006 02:20, Alec Warner wrote:
> Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On Monday 18 September 2006 21:12, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> >> I would prefer that we add this into a new release profile and move it
> >> "up" the profile inherit
On Tuesday 19 September 2006 19:32, Thomas Cort wrote:
> Stuart Herbert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > [1] http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/seeds/
>
> Why is this being done as a top level project instead of as a subproject
> of Release Engineering?
why does it need to be part of releng ? GNAP does
On Wednesday 20 September 2006 07:36, Simon Stelling wrote:
> I would like you to share your comments on the attached GLEP with me.
why not just implement GLEP 23
-mike
pgpZSKauYbIhF.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Wednesday 20 September 2006 12:38, Alec Warner wrote:
> I think Chris's primary concern is one of "Tell us whats up before it
> happens."
why should he care ? some Gentoo guys take catalyst and produce stage4s
directed at certain applications
they arent talking about any of the tools releng
On Wednesday 20 September 2006 12:43, Kevin F. Quinn wrote:
> Michael Cummings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > We already have an existing LICENSE keywording in the ebuilds,
> > why not just focus on patching portage to allow a make.conf variable
> > for allowed licenses and block based on that?
>
>
oss is dead, why bother going with it in default USE anymore ? alsa forever !
-mike
pgpVBY4JRJGLM.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Wednesday 20 September 2006 15:26, Andrew Gaffney wrote:
> That's not the issue. The issue is that there should *already* be a releng
> liason, but nobody from releng seems to know anything about this project.
they havent even started releasing anything yet, they're just getting started
why ar
On Tuesday 12 September 2006 19:57, Zac Medico wrote:
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > On Tue, 12 Sep 2006 15:44:22 -0700 Zac Medico <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> > wrote:
> > | 3) Prevents /etc/foo from matching /etc/foobaz or /etc/foobaz/bar.
> >
> > Is this really desired behaviour?
>
> In my opinion, i
On Wednesday 20 September 2006 16:01, Andrew Gaffney wrote:
> Well, now it's gotten to the point where people are being sneaky and
> underhanded about this whole thing.
jesus give over and stop nit picking
when they're ready to actually make a release and they dont go through releng,
feel free t
On Wednesday 20 September 2006 16:27, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 20:27:50 +0100 "Stuart Herbert"
> | I was hoping to avoid having to say this - actually I was hoping to
> | avoid this whole drama - but we _don't_ need releng's approval to do
> | this. To delay progress, Chris wi
On Wednesday 20 September 2006 15:33, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Sep 2006 20:00:59 +0100 Stuart Herbert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> | I've created a new project, called Gentoo Seeds [1]. The aim of the
> | project is to create stage4 tarballs which can be used to 'seed' new
> | boxes with ready
On Wednesday 20 September 2006 18:53, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> The complaints are that he allegedly did it
> without consultation, and that he sprang this unexpectedly.
he started a new project and he announced, whoopity do
stop making a big deal over nothing
-mike
pgppKe9FuRp5z.pgp
Description
On Wednesday 20 September 2006 19:50, Stephen Bennett wrote:
> Sharing the idea and looking for consultation is one thing. Saying
> "Gentoo is now doing this, like it or not" is quite another.
funny, i dont recall him forcing anyone to help him
-mike
pgp1ZuNPbbA3B.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Wednesday 20 September 2006 22:43, Chris White wrote:
> 1) Weekly summary of the project provided about Saturday my time, as that's
> about the only guaranteed free time I can provide
for a project just getting started, seems like a lot ... but i'm not part of
said project so i cant really say
On Wednesday 20 September 2006 23:15, Daniel Watkins wrote:
> And I don't use a LAMP server (and have only the vaguest grasp on what they
> are) and, I've gotta say, I'm pretty excited by it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LAMP_%28software_bundle%29
-mike
pgpC38qyNsX96.pgp
Description: PGP signatu
On Thursday 21 September 2006 09:27, Lance Albertson wrote:
> Mike Frysinger wrote:
> >> 3) Mirror storage seemed to be an issue. There are plenty of offerings
> >> from the adopt-a-dev project for bandwidth and server space that I think
> >> could be utilize
On Thursday 21 September 2006 09:34, Marius Mauch wrote:
> Manifest2 records do not contain a MD5 checksum. The only guaranteed
> checksum type there is SHA1. So once manifest1 is phased out the tree
> will not contain MD5 checksums anymore.
by "guaranteed" do you mean "guaranteed to be in the rec
On Thursday 21 September 2006 06:35, Alin Nastac wrote:
> For instance, the recent openssl-0.9.8* update broke dev-libs/neon (and
> consequently subversion) because neon library isn't happy just by
> linking with libssl.so.0.9.7 but also check the libssl version when
> loads the ssl library. Anothe
On Thursday 21 September 2006 07:59, Brian Harring wrote:
> Why have the explicit var? Because 0.9.7a through 0.9.7c may all be
> compatible, but 0.9.7d isn't. If you force an automatic algo that
> tries to (effectively) guess, you get a lot of rebuilds through a,b,c,
> end result being folks lik
On Thursday 21 September 2006 10:00, Brian Harring wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 21, 2006 at 09:49:18AM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On Thursday 21 September 2006 09:34, Marius Mauch wrote:
> > > Manifest2 records do not contain a MD5 checksum. The only guaranteed
> > > chec
On Thursday 21 September 2006 10:14, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> Not adding it into the ebuild means that it's impossible to show in
> advance what packages will actually be installed, because you don't know
> whether the sover will bump.
sometimes you dont know as the ABI bump may be arch or feature
On Thursday 21 September 2006 10:04, Brian Harring wrote:
> I agree; while I'm labeling it ABI, includes both bad soname handling
> and seperate sonames.
those people should be smacked (for the interest of disclosure, i have
violated the "bad soname" rule for the sake of following upstream)
> Fe
On Thursday 21 September 2006 10:38, Alin Nastac wrote:
> Brian Harring wrote:
> > There is one flaw with this though; packages can provide both
> > libraries _and_ binaries. Our dependencies don't represent whether
> > the dep is actual linkage, or just commandline consuming, so (using
> > the op
On Thursday 21 September 2006 10:54, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> Yes, I agree with you. For example, take expat. The maintainers have
> refused to allow both versions to exist simultaneously on a system
> because it apparently causes more breakage than just breaking every app
> on your system by remov
On Thursday 21 September 2006 10:49, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> GLEP 44 says:
touche
-mike
pgpy7mqcfngBq.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Thursday 21 September 2006 10:56, Duncan Coutts wrote:
> If we do go in this direction it'd be great to be able to slot on the
> ABI and still have dependencies resolved correctly. For example imagine
> having parallel python-2.3 and 2.4 installations with some libs
> installed for both. Crucial
On Wednesday 13 September 2006 23:18, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> i'm going to be fixing the autoconf/automake wrappers so that they no
> longer require all versions of autoconf/automake ... this will resolve the
> annoying circular dependency but at the sametime packages need to make
On Thursday 21 September 2006 13:15, Alin Nastac wrote:
> Unless you save the specific compatibility version of the net-dialup/ppp
> used by net-dialup/pptpd for building the package, I don't see how can
> it help me.
> Judging after /var/db/pkg content, I have no such information.
it is all there
On Thursday 21 September 2006 11:41, Duncan Coutts wrote:
> On Thu, 2006-09-21 at 11:11 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On Thursday 21 September 2006 10:56, Duncan Coutts wrote:
> > > If we do go in this direction it'd be great to be able to slot on the
> > >
On Thursday 21 September 2006 11:08, Brian Harring wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 21, 2006 at 10:43:11AM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > i'm referring to the specific file of course, not anything else in the
> > package ... so integrating the hack eutils.eclass:preserve_old_lib() in
On Saturday 23 September 2006 06:35, Duncan Coutts wrote:
> I was worried from your ABI/API comments that you meant that we should
> never be allowed to do it.
i was commenting on the more general case; SLOTing something that wasnt meant
to be SLOTed
-mike
pgpQseGjV9xuk.pgp
Description: PGP sig
On Saturday 23 September 2006 09:14, Brian Harring wrote:
> You're assuming that after the merge of the pkg that breaks
> compatibility, building is actually _still_ possible for the depends.
of course i am; i just said that portage would make sure to not unmerge any
ABI lib still in use
> We do
On Saturday 23 September 2006 09:50, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Saturday 23 September 2006 09:14, Brian Harring wrote:
> > We don't classify our deps as actual build depends vs link depends; as
> > such trying to (essentially) "patch things up after" allow for the
>
On Saturday 23 September 2006 10:24, Alin Nastac wrote:
> I see only libraries in NEEDED and it is probably generated
> automatically. There is no way for the automatic tools to discover the
> dependency between pptpd and ppp version.
that gets back to ABI versus dynamic plugins ... we already kno
On Saturday 23 September 2006 10:53, Brian Harring wrote:
> Flush the cache... Makes a world of difference.
i was running from a cold cache, thanks
> Additionally, he is
> talking about what is *done* with that data after the fact, iow other
> words walking the entire vdb to find all affected pk
On Saturday 23 September 2006 10:30, Brian Harring wrote:
> dlopen?
we already said that this will need a new depend variable
> How does this fix openssl horkage? (bad soname handling)
it wont, but such things are broken regardless outside of Gentoo ... and
trying to accommodate something that
On Saturday 23 September 2006 22:36, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> How would it know what other files are required? For example, if
> libexpat.so.0 were to rely upon /usr/share/expat-0/config , how would
> the package manager know not to clobber that file? Or are you
> suggesting leaving (or reparenting
On Monday 25 September 2006 14:16, Brian Harring wrote:
> Bad soname handling is just *part* of what BINCOMPAT could do; it's
> not the sole reason for it's existance, as such it's not quite right
> dismissing it just because it addresses a rarity the NEEDED approach
> doesn't. :)
i dismiss it as
seriously jakub, stop responding ... you have nothing technical to offer to
the issue at hand
let the people who work on portage handle it
-mike
pgpiPg7pzkzw4.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Saturday 30 September 2006 13:02, Jakub Moc wrote:
> Eh, the whole technical point here is that paludis behaviour differs
> from portage (and differs from pkgcore, FWIW).
the technical point is what is the expected behavior of the packages file ...
seems silly to duplicate masking across two d
On Saturday 30 September 2006 00:40, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
> For what I can tell, the current behaviour has the advantage of providing a
> different masking reason for packages that are *needed to some version* for
> the profile to be complete, and for packages that are know not to work
On Wednesday 27 September 2006 03:54, Brian Harring wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 27, 2006 at 02:24:41AM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > as i said, if you have changed ABI without an ABI bump, then the upstream
> > package maintainer is screwing everyone who uses the package, not just
&g
On Saturday 30 September 2006 16:35, Lionel Bouton wrote:
> There is a lot of material out there about CFLAGS
`man gcc` always seemed fine to me
in fact, lets read the -ffast-math section:
-ffast-math
This option should never be turned on by any -O option since it can
This is your monthly friendly reminder ! Same bat time (typically the
2nd Thursday at 2000 UTC), same bat channel (#gentoo-council @
irc.freenode.net) !
If you have something you'd wish for us to chat about, maybe even
vote on, let us know ! Simply reply to this e-mail for the whole
Gentoo dev l
On Saturday 30 September 2006 20:06, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
> On Saturday 30 September 2006 19:39, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > isnt that the point of putting a comment above a mask ?
> > # this package wont work on this profile
> > bar/foo
>
> Indeed,
On Saturday 30 September 2006 15:34, Brian Harring wrote:
> If that's what folks want, sure, but what you're proposing is just
> sliding NEEDED in as the defacto solution without labeling it as such.
no idea what this means
> Re-read your emails, and mine please. The scenario I pointed out was
>
On Tuesday 03 October 2006 08:26, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> Your penis length is not proportional to the size of your CFLAGS.
i could update vpenis.sh so that this statement is incorrect ...
-mike
pgp8aNMxlm8sc.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Sunday 01 October 2006 02:18, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> This is your monthly friendly reminder ! Same bat time (typically the
> 2nd Thursday at 2000 UTC), same bat channel (#gentoo-council @
> irc.freenode.net) !
due to some council members needing to do lame stuff like study for scho
On Wednesday 04 October 2006 07:21, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
> I would say to drop everything bug sparc and ppc64, that seems to be the
> only arch teams that actually respond in a timely fashion to keywording
> requests.
too bad sparc is tied to old kernels and ppc64 toolchain is useless
On Friday 06 October 2006 11:32, Daniel Drake wrote:
> 4. Remove cracklib from base/packages
this can be done now
-mike
pgpQ28vryK6wD.pgp
Description: PGP signature
glibc-2.5 will be going into ~arch for amd64/x86/ppc/ppc64/ia64 this weekend
sometime, so pipe up now before i unleash it :p
-mike
pgpfnVAVTJBiW.pgp
Description: PGP signature
since upstream did not make a glibc-2.4 release of linuxthreads, i thought
they were killing it off with glibc-2.3.6 for good ... seems there is a
release for glibc-2.5 however
so the plans are this:
- stabilize glibc-2.3.6-r5 / glibc-2.4-r4 and make no more 2.3.6/2.4 updates
- move all of ~ar
On Friday 06 October 2006 19:11, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> So we'll need to update the no-nptl profiles to be ~sys-libs/glibc-2.4
> instead of >=sys-libs/glibc-2.4, obviously, but will there be any other
> changes necessary?
i dont believe so ... glibc-2.4 does have linuxthreads, but via an untest
please remember that using USE=static to control whether static libraries are
installed is wrong
packages that can install static and shared libraries should always be
installing them
-mike
pgpHHzEifWBaO.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Saturday 07 October 2006 23:04, Zac Medico wrote:
> Should we add multiple inheritance support now?
yes
-mike
pgpJagfj7FpY3.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Friday 13 October 2006 13:57, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> In a nutshell: Let's change profiles/base/packages from
> "*app-shells/bash" to "*>=app-shells/bash-3".
works for me
-mike
pgpV2QMgtSUP3.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Friday 13 October 2006 09:54, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 02:40:59 -0700 Zac Medico <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> | At the profile level, I've added support for package.use
> | which behaves like /etc/portage/package.use that everyone is familiar
> | with. The intention is that the IUS
On Friday 13 October 2006 20:05, Marius Mauch wrote:
> a) don't do anything and assume that everyone is already on bash-3. Not
> exactly nice but pragmatic.
if they arent, then they're running wicked old baselayout which means their
system is horribly outdated anyways ... to be honest, i want to
On Saturday 14 October 2006 04:00, Richard Brown wrote:
> man portage says that package.use is one depend atom per line.
that addresses the "we can do it" but not the "we should do it"
maintaining a large list of defaults in a profile is ugly ... instead of
having all the information self contai
On Saturday 14 October 2006 04:49, Sebastian Bergmann wrote:
> Do we have an official list of recommended -march settings somewhere?
>
> I, for one, still do not know what the right CFLAGS for my ThinkPad X60s
> with its Intel Core Duo CPU are.
but what you actually want is a list that tells yo
On Saturday 14 October 2006 05:46, Wernfried Haas wrote:
> What about creating an official document for both -march/mtune and
> CFLAGS settings for different CPUs?
last i checked they're all supported
-mike
pgp04ODZTAmC0.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Saturday 14 October 2006 21:46, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> As opposed to having to keep multiple ebuilds in sync, which is even
> harder because they're not all in the same location.
what are you talking about ? the point of having per-package defaults is so
that you can enable a flag by defaul
On Sunday 15 October 2006 14:16, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 02:09:58 -0400 Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> | what are you talking about ? the point of having per-package
> | defaults is so that you can enable a flag by default in one package
> | only
>
On Sunday 15 October 2006 19:54, Danny van Dyk wrote:
> From my point of view as an architecture dev and releng member: Having
> all default USE-flags at one spot (per profile) _is_ easier to maintain.
these arent arch or profile specific issues ... these are maintainers
themselves being able to
On Sunday 15 October 2006 22:17, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 20:43:19 -0400 Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> | per-package IUSE defaults comes after everything else ... so if you
> | want to change the default in the profile, nothing is stopping you
> | from
On Sunday 01 October 2006 15:27, Brian Harring wrote:
> I might be daft (likely), but why not just introduce a var indicating
> max parallelization instead?
seems like the best thing to me ... then in things like GNOME packages, they
can force the jobs to 1 rather than having to mung MAKEOPTS ...
On Tuesday 17 October 2006 07:30, Luca Barbato wrote:
> the IUSE="nocxx" is that different than IUSE="+cxx" ?
that is where we want to move to
> So it doesn't look to me that problematic, am I missing something?
the issue is that Ciaran wants all of the stuff to be in the profile rather
than in
we're going to have to cut off support for i386 targets starting with
glibc-2.6 ... the upstream plans are to require TLS and i386 does not have
the atomic instructions required to support it
some other implications ... the glibc-compat20 people will also be stuck with
glibc-2.5 (as that implie
On Saturday 21 October 2006 04:04, Alin Nastac wrote:
> Please correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't amd64 and ia64 architectures
> nearly the same?
rofl not a chance
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IA64
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMD64
my guess is you're confusing EM64T and IA64 ... in that case, pe
On Saturday 21 October 2006 04:53, Roy Bamford wrote:
> "cut off" as in nothing for i386 or leave i386 at glibc-2.5?
i havent really decided ... i would like to settle on one version though for
no-nptl/i386/glibc-compat20/etc...
> What is the lowest IA32 arch that will be supported ?
i486
-mike
On Saturday 21 October 2006 10:05, Roy Marples wrote:
> baselayout-1.13 now handles multiple provides. That means that you have can
> 3 or more services that provide "logger" and baselayout will pick the right
> one based on what's running, then what's run the runlevel and finally
> alphabetical or
On Sunday 22 October 2006 01:45, Ilya A. Volynets-Evenbakh wrote:
> Let's look at reality here, OK?
any reality that includes you makes me laugh
-mike
pgpQkziHkIs8I.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Sunday 22 October 2006 16:17, David Shakaryan wrote:
> Hypothetically speaking, if version 1.4 of a package is in package.mask
> and we are now at version 1.6, with 1.4 removed from the tree, is there
> really a reason why the mask for 1.4 should stay?
no, punt it ... if people want such a poin
On Sunday 22 October 2006 10:03, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> Dropping support for "i386" means not being able to use the "i386-*"
> CHOST.
you've hinted at the point of my e-mail ... moving forward, do we change our
min supported version to i486 ? Debian did this quite some time ago ...
-mike
pg
On Sunday 22 October 2006 07:52, Roy Marples wrote:
> OK, from my persepective we had RC_STRICT_NET_CHECKING because we couldn't
> previously handle multiple provides. Here's how the new way translates.
i use it because i want to disable most net based requirements ... my machines
all use this:
On Sunday 22 October 2006 18:42, Sven Köhler wrote:
> when i load the module for my network-card, then baselayout thinks, that
> it's a good idea to a) start net.eth0 even though it's not in any
> runlevel and b) start net.eth0 in runlevel boot.
yes, the default behavior is to do hot/cold plugging
On Sunday 22 October 2006 20:45, Ilya A. Volynets-Evenbakh wrote:
> Good good! Laugh is good for your health, and you'll
> need lot of support in that area next time I see you...
what you gonna do, climb up my trunk ?
-mike
pgpxnj2qIwztY.pgp
Description: PGP signature
chill out ... if you dont get it, dont bother commenting
-mike
pgpOunCG5gy7z.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Sunday 22 October 2006 21:59, Peter Gordon wrote:
> David Shakaryan wrote:
> > Alec Warner wrote:
> >> Developers volunteer to dual off against other developers (including
> >> retired developers!) in the ring.
> >
> > Good luck, Ciaran! :)
>
> I move that spb be his opponent on this duel. *runs
On Monday 23 October 2006 02:40, Roy Marples wrote:
> On Sunday 22 October 2006 13:24, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > thus RC_STRICT_NET_CHECKING=lo gave me the perfect behavior
>
> And by default you'll get that behaviour.
i'll take your word n it ... if it doesnt behave
On Monday 23 October 2006 03:38, Roy Bamford wrote:
> I suspect the liveCD x86 kernel does not include FPU Emulation, in
> which case we already require 386/387 as the minimum hardware level.
ok ? i dont see how that is different from what is expected; we release i386
stages and our livecds supp
On Monday 23 October 2006 16:50, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
> If your package uses pkg-config to discover stuff, you depend on pkg-config
> at buildtime. Point.
i dont agree exactly with your analogies, but i do agree with your final point
here
-mike
pgpXXgEN6Xq92.pgp
Description: PGP sig
On Monday 23 October 2006 18:51, Stefan Schweizer wrote:
> Thanks for the heads up. I was not aware of this when I was looking for a
> solution badly back then. Must be a rather recent development.
i guess that depends on your definition of "recent" ... it's been in place
since June/July
> Still
read the goddamn mailing list page for how to unsubscribe *yourself*
-mike
pgpPKfrfwYOZb.pgp
Description: PGP signature
stop spamming this shit and go read the mailing list page like i said already:
http://www.gentoo.org/main/en/lists.xml
-mike
pgpfLyWPE49l3.pgp
Description: PGP signature
1201 - 1300 of 3334 matches
Mail list logo
