On Wednesday 25 October 2006 03:27, Stuart Herbert wrote:
> As such, as a point of principle, should the council be able to
> change/override/replace the rules in GLEP 39 w/out putting it to a
> vote of all Gentoo developers?
sort of like the president rewriting the rules that control his own powe
On Saturday 21 October 2006 08:38, David Leverton wrote:
> (Sorry if this is a dupe. I tried sending it before, but it seems to
> have disappeared into /dev/null.)
nah, it made it through (ive got a copy) ... i bet the mailing list shit a
brick though which is why you didnt see it ...
ive taken
On Wednesday 25 October 2006 08:17, Stuart Herbert wrote:
> I think it'd be common sense to post -r1, -r2 etc, and extend the XML
> syntax so that we could easily indicate which sentences had been
> changed.
well each GLEP itself has a version number ... we could just bump it and
expect people to
On 10/27/06, Alec Warner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Because people don't always put "no-herd", they can misspell it, they
put non-standard stuff in the herd tag, they put bug-wranglers in the
herd tag...etc...
this is kind of a lame reason ... there is no real reason we cant add
tag validation
On Saturday 28 October 2006 02:46, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 28, 2006 at 08:11:37AM +0200, George Shapovalov wrote:
> > One of the reasons herds were introduced was to explicitly see what
> > packages lack maintenance. It is possible for the ebuild to be in the
> > herd, but be supporte
On Saturday 28 October 2006 22:43, Marius Mauch wrote:
> Well, I'd go further and question the whole herd concept. What benefits
> do we actually gain by having "herds"? For the most part it's just a
> way to associate a package with a mail alias, but for that I don't
> really see the need for this
On Sunday 29 October 2006 01:26, Marius Mauch wrote:
> So if now you're on a herd alias but not listed in herds.xml for a herd,
> what practical difference does it make if the herd exists or not?
huh ?
-mike
pgpmO3uG0vGTB.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Tuesday 31 October 2006 02:57, Paweł Madej wrote:
> I'm not a dev but I suppose i got resolution for that problem. Lets make
> another subproject (don't know how to name it properly) in bugzilla
you mean like the "Gentoo Security" bugzilla product ?
-mike
pgp1nEpXBCUUN.pgp
Description: PGP si
On Tuesday 31 October 2006 03:38, Paweł Madej wrote:
> Dnia wtorek, 31 października 2006 09:02, Mike Frysinger napisał:
> > On Tuesday 31 October 2006 02:57, Paweł Madej wrote:
> > > I'm not a dev but I suppose i got resolution for that problem. Lets
> > > make an
On Tuesday 31 October 2006 04:08, Paweł Madej wrote:
> Dnia wtorek, 31 października 2006 09:52, Mike Frysinger napisał:
> > we already have the products available for people to sort arch bugs
> > between "stabilize random pkg for fun" and "stabilize random pkg for
On Tuesday 31 October 2006 04:41, Roy Marples wrote:
> All modules have to be built into the kernel - kldload causes kernel panics
> about memory not aligned. I'm pretty sure this is gcc-4 related
most likely ... a lot of misalignment issues were found in the linux kernel
after moving to gcc-4 (i
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
this is not a "implicit vs explicit" thread; if you want that discussion start
your own
we've said the relationship of DEPEND atoms in ebuilds should be independent
of the DEPEND atoms found in eclasses as logically ebuilds should not care
what it takes for eclasses to work and vice versa ... f
On Friday 03 November 2006 04:32, Peter Volkov (pva) wrote:
> On 2006-11-03 at 00:43 -0800, Zac Medico wrote:
> > Also, some ebuilds will loose some implicit RDEPEND that they current
> > get from eclasses.
>
> I suppose more logical solution is to adjoin DEPEND from ebuild and
> RDEPEND from eclas
On Friday 03 November 2006 03:23, Brian Harring wrote:
> so...
so... start a new thread exactly like i told you so :P
-mike
pgpPwyBBW87wn.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Friday 03 November 2006 03:47, Steve Long wrote:
> If gentoo is still serious about enterprise adoption
Gentoo as an entire whole is not really "serious" about anything
last i checked, it was the "server" project who was working on the
whole "enterprise" thing ... those guys are serious about
On Saturday 04 November 2006 06:14, Petteri Räty wrote:
> Zac Medico kirjoitti:
> > What do people think about these two approaches? Personally, I
> > would prefer approach #2 for the sake of simplicity and
> > maintainability. The sooner that we start storing eclasses.tbz2 for
> > each installed
upstream says it's dead and they dont want people using it ... considering the
problems we've seen that sounds just peachy
p.masked now
-mike
pgpH3TBDRNTHu.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Saturday 04 November 2006 22:45, Zac Medico wrote:
> Fortunately, I don't anticipate that this change will cause significant
> disruption. My plan is to release a sys-apps/portage-2.1.1-r2 revbump
> masked by package.mask and have all of the arch teams keyword it. The
> ebuild will have an ewar
On Sunday 05 November 2006 04:35, Peter Gordon wrote:
> I have one item that I would like to see addressed in the next possible
> council meeting: The reply behavior of gentoo-core messages. What's
> happening is that gentoo-core appears to have no default Reply-To header
> set.
i dont see anyone
On Sunday 05 November 2006 04:50, Alin Nastac wrote:
> Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > 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 list to see.
>
> I have a proble
i use/maintain metalog myself and thus could care less about sysklogd ...
anyone out there care enough to fixup bugs for it ?
-mike
pgppt0uPrJxOp.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Sunday 05 November 2006 05:39, Alin Nastac wrote:
> Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > that's nice, but again, why arent these being directed to infra ?
>
> It could be considered as organization policy, so I assumed council had
> to be involved in this decision.
it isnt ...
On Sunday 05 November 2006 07:36, Jakub Moc wrote:
> I'd like to resubmit it to the council... :/
not until it pans out with infra
-mike
pgpwXZzS8iG6Y.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Sunday 05 November 2006 10:00, Alin Nastac wrote:
> Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On Sunday 05 November 2006 07:36, Jakub Moc wrote:
> >> I'd like to resubmit it to the council... :/
> >
> > not until it pans out with infra
>
> Now would be a good time to b
On Sunday 05 November 2006 22:42, Matthias Langer wrote:
> however, someone should adapt media-video/mjpegtools-1.8.0-r1
> (see bug 154199)
and someone should search for duplicates before filing bugs
-mike
pgpNoUcD7VsLM.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Monday 06 November 2006 16:59, Jakub Moc wrote:
> Chris Gianelloni napsal(a):
> >> And WONTFIXed in 15 minutes. In that case, I'd like to resubmit it to
> >> the council... :/
> >
> > So because you didn't like the answer from the people responsible for
> > this, you'd rather go over their heads
On Monday 06 November 2006 18:03, Jakub Moc wrote:
> considering that quite a
> couple of arguments were given against using it
which were a copy and paste of existing websites ... how about for the
counterargument i copy and paste url's to pro-spf websites and then we'll
have a proper exchange
On Monday 06 November 2006 17:09, Alin Nastac wrote:
> I re-stated my case in comment #14
most of your dislike for SPF centers around the idea you dont want to send
mail via gentoo.org mail servers ... is this really a problem ? seems like
it's pretty trivial to do so
-mike
pgpQQMpR29oZK.pgp
(sorry for the infra cc, just need to make sure this particular one gets
through ... drop it in your replies people :P)
On Monday 06 November 2006 17:38, Harald van Dijk wrote:
> Sending mail via gentoo.org mail servers is explicitly disallowed (not even
> just strongly discouraged) if the dev in
On Monday 06 November 2006 17:40, Harald van Dijk wrote:
> Why don't you do that?
well, my reply was mostly dry sarcasm, but i hope we're all technically
proficient enough to load up google.com and search for SPF ... even Alec
could find three good links in no time and that dude cant even code hi
On Monday 06 November 2006 20:06, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Mon, 6 Nov 2006 16:43:24 -0500 Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> | infra believes using SPF helps fight spam
>
> Then infra are wrong. SPF was not designed to fight spam.
original design does not limit future p
On Monday 06 November 2006 21:42, Matthew Snelham wrote:
> But then baselayout is still 'behaving badly' by sttempting to store
> dynamic state information in /lib.
it is and it isnt ... the dir is memory based so /lib could be read-only and
that's fine
-mike
pgpTSguX5K8Nu.pgp
Description: PGP
On Monday 06 November 2006 22:22, Patrick McLean wrote:
> This is a very good point, why are we breaking from accepted UNIX standards
> uselessly?
did you even read the thread ? the reasons listed certainly do not fall under
the "uselessly" category
-mike
pgp4Ff6NSvJog.pgp
Description: PGP sig
On Tuesday 07 November 2006 04:49, Duncan wrote:
> Getting a bit worried by comments so far.
sorry, but this just stinks of lame
-mike
pgpBicjwkPwiI.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Tuesday 07 November 2006 22:47, Steve Long wrote:
> I understand the ABI changes at major compiler upgrades, especially for
> C++. Is this such a problem for C?
i think you misread his e-mail
regardless, stable ABIs guarantee forward compatibility, not backwards
you're also not considering th
On Wednesday 08 November 2006 19:00, Roy Marples wrote:
> just slap a large warning on the ebuild?
that's fine by me
-mike
pgpgK8CQrFiYy.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Thursday 09 November 2006 00:20, Steve Dibb wrote:
> multislot and multitarget are actually in an eclass (toolchain-binutils)
> which is being sourced by a few ebuilds, so should probably be global in
> the first place.
no
-mike
pgpso9N1Lccri.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Friday 10 November 2006 02:24, Anatoly Shipitsin wrote:
> When i'm found two packets need this issue.
why do you care who is providing the virtual ? the entire point of virtual's
is that the provider does not matter
-mike
pgpDqYouyyrpJ.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On 11/11/06, Robin H. Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
KingTaco and I are pleased to announce that we've completed
setting up and testing the anonymous read-only CVS and SVN
services for Gentoo repositories, and that they are now
available for use.
PR guys: post something to the front page /
On 11/12/06, Peter Volkov (pva) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The possible solution is to add virtual/editor ebuild
this is a horrible idea
why not modify sudo to not filter the EDITOR env var then there is no
more problem
-mike
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
On 11/12/06, Harald van Dijk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Sun, Nov 12, 2006 at 04:34:25AM -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On 11/12/06, Peter Volkov (pva) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >The possible solution is to add virtual/editor ebuild
>
> this is a horrible idea
>
On 11/12/06, Thilo Bangert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
is there a list of sudo 'safe' EDITORs somewhere?
then we end up with having to maintain a list of "safe" EDITORs and
dealing with people who want to edit their own favorite editor
the sudo file has the ability to specify editor's, so why n
On 11/12/06, Peter Volkov (pva) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
And does not prevents sudo from
removing EDITOR from environment.
in the example usages you cited, people where using `sudo` to just
avoid running `su -` first ... in other words, their sudo was
unlimited ... updating the sudoers file t
On Sunday 12 November 2006 11:38, Rumi Szabolcs wrote:
> Could anybody please tell what happened?
it's been integrated upstream so there's no point in having a patch anymore
-mike
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
On Sunday 12 November 2006 06:29, Peter Volkov (pva) wrote:
> On Sun, 2006-11-12 at 05:54 -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > in the example usages you cited, people where using `sudo` to just
> > avoid running `su -` first ... in other words, their sudo was
> > unlimited ...
On Sunday 12 November 2006 16:16, Harlan Lieberman-Berg wrote:
> Xbox-sources has multiple pending security bugs against it
#'s ? searching bugzilla for xbox doesnt give me any results
-mike
> and is unmaintained.
says you :P
-mike
pgpO3uvUpTD6Q.pgp
Description: PGP signature
how do people feel about adding --docdir=/usr/share/doc/${PF} to the default
econf() arguments ?
-mike
pgpPzp9cOoqXM.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Monday 13 November 2006 23:33, Alec Warner wrote:
> Then again I'd say
> thats a sudo configuration problem, not necessarily a build problem.
which is solved by declaring EDITOR as env_keep
-mike
pgpPOINWwj4Ue.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Tuesday 14 November 2006 01:40, Rumi Szabolcs wrote:
> So here is a big PLEASE to keep/put back the sftplogging patch and
> the use flag in the openssh ebuild!
no, get it upgraded upstream
-mike
pgpU36Lk8RBk9.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Saturday 18 November 2006 02:53, Marius Mauch wrote:
> Anyone interested in this feature should review the attached version.
i've come to the party a bit late ... i cant seem to divine the answer to my
question from reading this thread and the GLEP and the bugzilla, so perhaps
someone can exp
On Friday 24 November 2006 11:16, Kevin F. Quinn wrote:
> Although I committed it originally almost a year ago, it hasn't been
> used yet, so if there's anything fundamentally wrong with whole thing,
> now is the time say as it can be removed with impunity.
some suggestions:
you should use "$@" r
On Sunday 26 November 2006 18:38, Marius Mauch wrote:
> Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > is there a way in the new GLEP to say "never bother me with any license
> > bullcrap" ? i made sure the current check_license() function respected
> > the ide
On Monday 27 November 2006 10:48, Marius Mauch wrote:
> Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Sunday 26 November 2006 18:38, Marius Mauch wrote:
> > > Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > is there a way in the new GLEP to say
On Monday 27 November 2006 11:42, Marius Mauch wrote:
> Might want to reread bug 152593 in detail, summary being "legal issues".
no one in there is qualified to give any sort of legal opinion and/or advice
if you want a real answer, talk to the pro-bono lawyers that are helping out
the Foundatio
the OSU guys helped me finish getting my lantank online ... this is a SuperH
machine that i've made available for anyone interested in testing on that
architecture ... thanks to OSU for the bandwidth and for jstubbs to take the
time to mail me some from japan ;)
more details can be found here:
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 Sunday 03 December 2006 01:00, Alec Warner wrote:
> Recently commited to svn (but afaik released only in ~arch) is code to
> prevent the sourcing of ebuilds with no manifest. Thus ebuilds you
> randomly download off of bugzilla need to get a lookover from you and
> then ebuild foo.ebuild digest
i just closed a bunch of them and version bumped the pkg ... but dont let that
stop anyone else from having a look at still open issues :p
-mike
pgpsbLd7iZYGb.pgp
Description: PGP signature
having ebuilds in the tree that only work when you have a mingw compiler annoy
me greatly as their only purpose is to produce windows binaries ... aka,
things that are useless to a linux host
however, i think it's a lovely idea to open a mingw overlay and populate the
sucker until it's stuffed
On Wednesday 20 December 2006 00:12, Mike Doty wrote:
> I wasn't aware we had any. can you provide a list?
there are bugs opened from time to time with people requesting more, but we
have these now:
dev-libs/wx-xmingw
dev-libs/wxactivex
if we want to punt the toolchain packages as well (but i d
On Wednesday 20 December 2006 03:22, Alin Năstac wrote:
> Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > however, i think it's a lovely idea to open a mingw overlay and populate
> > the sucker until it's stuffed full of crap for people to use
>
> I kinda need dev-util/nsis
another g
On Wednesday 20 December 2006 03:59, Alin Năstac wrote:
> Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > why do you feel the need to label crap as "official" ?
>
> Because I consider it should be maintained by Gentoo devs.
as i said, that's up to you and other devs to decide ... it
On Wednesday 20 December 2006 13:09, Alin Năstac wrote:
> What is your motivation ?
people want to populate the tree with packages that have no value in a pure
linux system ... they want to stick ebuilds in that produce only win32
binaries (like wx-mingw)
i've also seen requests for ebuilds tha
On Wednesday 20 December 2006 14:27, Alin Năstac wrote:
> But dev-util/nsis installs a native application - makensis - which
> creates win32 setups. I think this excludes nsis from your list.
right, i would be OK with this living on ... last i checked, it didnt have a
native linux port, but it se
On Saturday 23 December 2006 14:50, Enrico Weigelt wrote:
> Well, I just sync'ed and `emerge -puD system` doesn't show up anything
> todo, and I didn't mask out anything. So can I assume my init system
> is up to date ?
i'm pretty sure he's talking about the 1.13 series which he's put a lot of
ti
On Saturday 23 December 2006 17:34, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
> On Saturday 23 December 2006 22:35, Enrico Weigelt wrote:
> > I'm not an license expert
>
> Then shut up.
>
> You're wrong, it's true for dynamic linking as well as for static linking.
agreed on both points
-mike
pgpAOof6Yol8
On Sunday 24 December 2006 19:17, Enrico Weigelt wrote:
> I don't understand that.
go do some reading from the fsf then
we dont want this crap on the mailing list
-mike
pgp6zCZX0t1Oy.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Sunday 24 December 2006 22:54, Doug Goldstein wrote:
> Do you read ANYTHING? It's a security bug... PREVIOUS VERSIONS WILL NOT
> BE FIXED! Since they're affected by a security issue.
i miss the happier times when we had him banned
-mike
pgph1UeC06cSE.pgp
Description: PGP signature
how do people feel about transitioning the Gentoo standard system logger from
running as root/root to adm/adm ? the latest version of sysklogd includes
some patches so that it can run as non-root and a user requested we make this
the default ... however, i certainly dont want to start adding a
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 Monday 01 January 2007 15:12, Petteri Räty wrote:
> It already works in ~arch so will hit stable too sometime in the future.
until it completely works (versus just mostly works), why mention this ? it'd
be better to continue on with the 'dont use subshells' especially since it
hasnt really b
On Monday 01 January 2007 12:46, Mike Doty wrote:
> Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > how do people feel about transitioning the Gentoo standard system logger
> > from running as root/root to adm/adm ? the latest version of sysklogd
> > includes some patches so that it can run a
On Tuesday 02 January 2007 11:36, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Tue, 02 Jan 2007 18:28:05 +0200 Petteri Räty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> | Well I was under the impression from zmedico that it completely works.
>
> zmedico has too much faith in my powers. I'd like to remind him that
> I'm only Jesus, not th
On Wednesday 03 January 2007 01:26, Doug Goldstein wrote:
> Can someone open a window and let out some of Ciaran's ego?
then you'll let in the bees ;(
-mike
pgpv9jFvDLn0G.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Thursday 04 January 2007 20:33, Gustavo Felisberto wrote:
> Ok, so what is diference?
probably the samething as between -k and -K
-mike
pgp1GupdWafBk.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Saturday 06 January 2007 05:10, Alon Bar-Lev wrote:
> Is there any reason why not setting "latest" as default for WANT_AUTO*
> variables?
>
> I believe that an ebuild should set these variables only if there is
> some exception.
that seems like a not-too-shabby idea actually
-mike
pgp7qE8JnVb
On Saturday 06 January 2007 09:47, Kevin F. Quinn wrote:
> Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Saturday 06 January 2007 05:10, Alon Bar-Lev wrote:
> > > Is there any reason why not setting "latest" as default for
> > > WANT_AUTO* variables?
On Saturday 06 January 2007 10:22, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
> On Saturday 06 January 2007 11:10, Alon Bar-Lev wrote:
> > Is there any reason why not setting "latest" as default for WANT_AUTO*
> > variables?
>
> Because then stuff will "magically" work in stable, and break in ~arch, and
> yo
On Saturday 06 January 2007 11:05, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
> On Saturday 06 January 2007 16:42, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > what does it matter if all of the ebuilds declare latest or the eclass
> > declares latest ?
>
> Weren't we going to allow declari
On Saturday 06 January 2007 13:00, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
> On Saturday 06 January 2007 18:25, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > the reason was so in the *eclass* you could translate latest to "1.10
> > 1.9" and drop the need of executing that helper funct
On Saturday 06 January 2007 13:32, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
> On Saturday 06 January 2007 19:23, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > why not just get rid of the idea of "latest" ? is there a scenario where
> > autotools would be inherited but not actually used/ad
On Sunday 07 January 2007 00:13, Steve Long wrote:
> is it possible for dodoc to do a `make doc' (or whatever the standard is)
there is no such standard
-mike
pgpDj99We5oHj.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Sunday 07 January 2007 02:38, Steve Long wrote:
> well are there any general usage examples?
dodoc README
> After all, if enough gentoo pkgs do it, it'll become a de-facto standard ;)
the only way that'd happen is if autotools integrated it as a default target
-mike
pgpbQUWPybUQt.pgp
Descri
On Sunday 07 January 2007 11:26, Thilo Bangert wrote:
> Marius Mauch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> > Just a heads up that in the coming weeks I'll start checking packages
> > that still use einfo for important messages and convert them to elog if
> > appropriate.
>
> whats the policy? when do i use e
On Wednesday 10 January 2007 03:40, Jakub Moc wrote:
> If you want to write an ebuild for some commercial broken stuff that
> doesn't work w/ sandbox and stick it into some overlay, then stick
before you start anymore ignorant rants, why dont you look at what actually
needs this
app-editors/emac
On Wednesday 10 January 2007 09:34, Jakub Moc wrote:
> Huh? I was referring to this link [1] on Bug 161045 (which presumably
> started this whole debate)
so you're replying to a non-gentoo-dev thread on a gentoo-dev thread when the
threads arent even closely related ? how does that make sense ?
On Wednesday 10 January 2007 13:03, Jakub Moc wrote:
> And RESTRICT=sandbox is still completely unneeded,
> commercial packages or not... We don't need to introduce a special
> RESTRICT because of two borked packages in the tree and we should not
> introduce any more packages borked in a similar wa
On Wednesday 10 January 2007 13:45, Jakub Moc wrote:
> Real solution, sure... RESTRICT=sandbox is not a solution, it's
> identical to the current hackish workaround, so I guess we can save
> portage folks the trouble...
except that RESTRICT is the documented method for disabling user FEATURES in
On Wednesday 10 January 2007 18:36, Jakub Moc wrote:
> OK, dunno which of us is being dense; the whole point is that the damned
> ACCEPT_RESTRICT is completely redundant; hard to grok or what exactly?
> You already *don't* accept the restrict by sticking 'unattended' into
> FEATURES... WTH would yo
On Wednesday 10 January 2007 19:22, Jakub Moc wrote:
> Mike Frysinger napsal(a):
> > On Wednesday 10 January 2007 18:36, Jakub Moc wrote:
> >> OK, dunno which of us is being dense; the whole point is that the damned
> >> ACCEPT_RESTRICT is completely redundant; h
On Wednesday 10 January 2007 20:01, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Jan 2007 19:56:00 -0500 Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> | as stated in original e-mail, unattended/sandbox are just some
> | examples, not the only ones
>
> So which RESTRICT values *should* the user
On Sunday 07 January 2007 11:27, Alon Bar-Lev wrote:
> 1. Add default.
we've gone this route ... if/when an issue comes up where someone is
inheriting autotools but they're using it conditionally, we'll revisit this
autotools.eclass:
[[ -z ${WANT_AUTOCONF} ]] && WANT_AUTOCONF="latest"
[[ -z ${WA
On Friday 12 January 2007 13:14, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> if/when an issue comes up where someone is
> inheriting autotools but they're using it conditionally, we'll revisit this
seems Diego is two steps ahead ... set the vars to "none" :)
-mike
pgpt5VjQENLt7.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Friday 12 January 2007 13:37, Alon Bar-Lev wrote:
> After you commit this
Diego already did
-mike
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
the new version of portage has customizable compression ... this is cool as
now people can do bzip/gzip/whatever
the downside is that it breaks with packages that assume everything is
compressed with gzip ... so here is a list of common things ebuilds should
not be doing:
doman foo.1.gz
dosym f
On Friday 26 January 2007 03:40, Harald van Dijk wrote:
> I'm asking, hoping for an explicit answer: so if upstream provides
> gzip-compressed files, should ebuilds gunzip them, install them, and
> then let portage recompress them?
currently i'm of the opinion yes ... while i would say it isnt unco
On Friday 26 January 2007 14:12, Mart Raudsepp wrote:
> Furthermore, maybe it could check the compression type if any on the
> original and then
i purposefully choose to not go this route because i dont want to start adding
handling for arbitrary compression types ... when such a list exists, we
On Friday 26 January 2007 14:03, Petteri Räty wrote:
> Wouldn't it be better to make doman gunzip and recompress until packages
> have been fixed. Now users are getting broken man pages with recent
> portage. https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=163954
considering the trivial amount of time req
On Friday 26 January 2007 17:19, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Friday 26 January 2007 14:12, Mart Raudsepp wrote:
> > Furthermore, maybe it could check the compression type if any on the
> > original and then
>
> i purposefully choose to not go this route because i dont w
1301 - 1400 of 3334 matches
Mail list logo
