On Friday 16 March 2007 18:58, Luca Barbato wrote:
Jason Stubbs wrote:
That's not entirely true. The main trouble with refactoring portage code
is that there is no defined public API and so even the littlest changes
are likely to break things in gentoolkit and several of the portage gui
with refactoring portage code is
that there is no defined public API and so even the littlest changes are
likely to break things in gentoolkit and several of the portage gui front end
packages.
--
Jason Stubbs
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Rearranging and snipping a bit to clarify my points.
On Friday 16 March 2007 09:17, Daniel Drake wrote:
Jason Stubbs wrote:
2) Each technical area usually has a clear authority - ie. a spokesman
whom is listened to and usually has one's posts challenged with clear
respect.
1
not a rhetorical
question; I really don't know the answer.)
Good question. I wouldn't have a clue as to the best resolution either.
--
Jason Stubbs
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
continue to be visceral or instead try to build a
good working relationship; and
2) whether you discuess any issues with the spec now or when it goes public.
--
Jason Stubbs
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
On Sunday 04 March 2007 02:05, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Sun, 4 Mar 2007 01:51:39 +0900 Jason Stubbs [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
There were two separate specifications - glep42 and multiple
repositories - that should have been discussed seperately. On a
seperate thread, Marius said something
beneath || constructs would completely
sidestep that issue too. ;)
But I still what TGL described even if only for EAPI-1 or beyond...
--
Jason Stubbs
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
On Saturday 24 February 2007 03:57, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Fri, 23 Feb 2007 22:56:19 +0900 Jason Stubbs [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| Disallowing it would be the cleaner in terms of package manager
| responsibilities, but ...
Well, I looked through the tree.
There is exactly one package
On Saturday 24 February 2007 13:17, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 13:09:40 +0900 Jason Stubbs [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| Okay, I must be missing something here. If package foo can work with
| either bar or baz equily as well but not both, why should it force an
| artificial preference
of portage. Unless there are
other reasons not stated here?
--
Jason Stubbs
app-admin/eselect-1.0.2
app-admin/eselect-esd-20060719
app-admin/eselect-opengl-1.0.3
app-admin/gamin-0.1.7
app-admin/perl-cleaner-1.04.3
app-admin/php-toolkit-1.0-r2
app-admin/skey-1.1.5-r5
app-admin/syslog-ng-1.6.9
app-arch
On Sunday 17 December 2006 16:04, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Sun, 17 Dec 2006 15:10:57 +0900 Jason Stubbs [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| I've tried to be objective here so if my viewpoint isn't obvious I'll
| state it outright. I think all packages should depend on every
| package that they need
On Monday 06 November 2006 17:55, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Wed, 8 Nov 2006 02:18:41 + Jason Stubbs [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| Yes, I'm also sick of this negative level of civility. If I don't
| preempt it now, I'll likely be told that I'm taking the above two
| quotes out of context
help any.
--
Jason Stubbs
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
On Tuesday 24 October 2006 16:36, Brian wrote:
def get_virtual_dep(atom):
returns a resolved virtual dependency.
contributed by Jason Stubbs, with a little adaptation
# Thanks Jason
non_virtual_atom = portage.dep_virtual([atom], portage.settings)[0]
if atom
of associated ebuilds. As for ordering, packages with
PROVIDE override identically named packages in the tree. If you use something
similar to the above, it should all be taken care of though.
--
Jason Stubbs
--
gentoo-portage-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
to read the discussion.
I have a feeling the discussion took place about 18 months ago on -core, but
I'm not sure as to the answer to this.
--
Jason Stubbs
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
done right, you've got to do it yourself.
--
Jason Stubbs
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
On Monday 02 October 2006 16:03, Jason Stubbs wrote:
1) Specifying sys-libs/glibc-2.4 in packages *does* mask
=sys-libs/glibc-2.4 and thus a corresponding entry in package.mask
... is redundant
--
Jason Stubbs
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
in updatable_pkgs if pkg]
That last line there is to kill off the None elements that end up in
updatable_pkgs when there is a package installed that has no versions
available in the rsync tree. Other than that, portage.catpkgsplit() will
split a package identifier into [cat, pkg, ver, rev].
--
Jason
On Saturday 15 April 2006 03:31, Brian Harring wrote:
Sidenote, why is userfetch a feature? That seems like something that
should be userpriv by default to me...
It broke somebody's ftp setup.
http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=92960
--
Jason Stubbs
--
gentoo-portage-dev@gentoo.org
s/ftp/nfs/ in the mail that I just sent.
--
Jason Stubbsw
--
gentoo-portage-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
On Saturday 15 April 2006 03:31, Brian Harring wrote:
cache backend selection (failed import == defaults to sys default)
This is incorrect. It displays an error message and quits.
--
Jason Stubbs
--
gentoo-portage-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
performance hit
and I'm a ricer. :P
--
Jason Stubbs
--
gentoo-portage-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
On Thursday 30 March 2006 11:40, Marius Mauch wrote:
On Thu, 30 Mar 2006 08:30:17 +0900
Jason Stubbs [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thursday 30 March 2006 01:21, Marius Mauch wrote:
Marius Mauch schrieb:
So after manifest2 is in, I'll revive the other issue that IMO is
a requirement
On Thursday 23 March 2006 23:43, Brian wrote:
On Thu, 2006-23-03 at 22:14 +0900, Jason Stubbs wrote:
On Thursday 23 March 2006 16:23, Brian wrote:
/etc/portage/lists/userlist1
format:
net-www/apache
www-apache/mod_perl
...
If you make that /etc/portage/sets
.
--
Jason Stubbs
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
are made - but very promising.
--
Jason Stubbs
--
gentoo-portage-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
have been...etc..
I also committed support for a USE_EXPAND_HIDDEN. Individual flags don't
need to be added to it. USE_EXPAND_HIDDEN=USERLAND ARCH ... is enough.
--
Jason Stubbs
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
minutes to counter the regression
of emerge warning on unsatisfiable world file entries. It was/is not meant to
stand the test of time in its current state. Why would you want to muddy up
your code with it? ;)
--
Jason Stubbs
--
gentoo-portage-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
emerge -NDuvp world 321.05s user 77.90s system 94% cpu 7:02.77 total
I am using sys-apps/portage-2.1_pre4-r1.
Open a bug for this please.
--
Jason Stubbs
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
of the patch -43/+42. What is the goal?
--
Jason Stubbs
--
gentoo-portage-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
]:
- # These require HTTP Encoding
...
This shouldn't be in a cleanup patch either.
--
Jason Stubbs
--
gentoo-portage-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
use --update instead.
emerge: there are no ebuilds to satisfy update.
Doing it that way will show exactly why it's being dropped without the
need for a written explanation (and hopefully no bug about how it's a
terrible usability regression).
--
Jason Stubbs
--
gentoo-portage-dev@gentoo.org
there being much of a problem, but so that
we can redo that whole bunch of code without having to do:
if incorrect_syntax:
print warning
make correct syntax
--
Jason Stubbs
--
gentoo-portage-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
is
only for portage_const, so the tool remains sensored. Unless I'm
missing something.
Nah, Brian's right. Tools need to follow. Backwards compatibility isn't so
important there. The important thing is that portage keeps on living.
--
Jason Stubbs
--
gentoo-portage-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
On Thursday 09 February 2006 15:00, Brian Harring wrote:
On Sun, Feb 05, 2006 at 03:04:08PM +0900, Jason Stubbs wrote:
Hi all,
Time again for one of those mails; this time from me. Due to time
constraints,
real life and coming close to burning out I'm stepping down as release
On Thursday 09 February 2006 20:23, Jason Stubbs wrote:
...
Wrong list :/
--
Jason Stubbs
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
.
--
Jason Stubbs
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
On Thursday 09 February 2006 09:30, Mark Loeser wrote:
Jason Stubbs [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
It was my understanding that it is needed for the 3.3 - 3.4 upgrade.
Various packages that will build fine against either are broken until
being recompiled after the upgrade and there is currently
not rewriting all of doebuild just for
this :)
Happy here. If there were no other issues, may as well go ahead with it
earlier rather than later. Spread the goodness (or something like that ;)
--
Jason Stubbs
--
gentoo-portage-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
On Tuesday 31 January 2006 13:49, Joshua Jackson wrote:
Mark Loeser halcy0n at gentoo.org writes:
Donnie Berkholz spyderous at gentoo.org said:
Jason Stubbs wrote:
The patch now has the debugging output and x11-base/xorg-x11 check
removed.
Excellent. Works perfectly. Since
On Monday 30 January 2006 20:54, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Mon, 30 Jan 2006 20:46:28 +0900 Jason Stubbs [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| On Monday 30 January 2006 16:43, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
| On Mon, 30 Jan 2006 06:17:36 +0100 Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò
| [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| | Also
On Wednesday 01 February 2006 02:28, Mark Loeser wrote:
Jason Stubbs [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Is there any need for the packages to go into stable without the X deps
being
fixed? Why not just open a bug for the package maintainer and mark it
against
whatever bug is requesting
On Tuesday 31 January 2006 22:39, Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Tuesday 31 January 2006 06:31, Jason Stubbs wrote:
On Monday 30 January 2006 20:54, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
1. Because for things like LINGUAS, there are arbitrarily many legal
values, and documenting them all and keeping the list
changed with regard to it and
--verbose wasn't specified.
--
Jason Stubbs
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
use.desc?
--
Jason Stubbs
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
On Wednesday 25 January 2006 17:43, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
Jason Stubbs wrote:
I'm not exactly sure what you mean by broken in the first paragraph nor
how a check can help with unmaintained (=no commits, no?) packages, but if
a repoman check will hasten package porting while smoothing
On Wednesday 25 January 2006 18:10, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
Jason Stubbs wrote:
DEPEND=x11-base/xorg-x11 # wrong
DEPEND=virtual/x11# wrong
DEPEND=|| ( x11? ( virtual/x11 ) )# wrong
DEPEND=|| ( misc/atoms virtual/x11 ) # right
There's a small
On Wednesday 25 January 2006 20:46, Brian Harring wrote:
On Wed, Jan 25, 2006 at 08:27:22PM +0900, Jason Stubbs wrote:
On Wednesday 25 January 2006 18:10, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
Jason Stubbs wrote:
DEPEND=x11-base/xorg-x11 # wrong
DEPEND=virtual/x11
On Wednesday 25 January 2006 21:47, Brian Harring wrote:
On Wed, Jan 25, 2006 at 09:18:28PM +0900, Jason Stubbs wrote:
There's no other way to do it given repoman's state and the requirements.
I was talking long term. One time kludges suck (but occur), would like to
see something a bit
full is run. Not
sure why it wasn't being displayed if there was only one occurrence.
The patch now has the debugging output and x11-base/xorg-x11 check removed.
--
Jason Stubbs
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
that no new packages can go into stable with a virtual/x11 dependency? It
could even be easily enforcable if necessary.
--
Jason Stubbs
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
On Wednesday 25 January 2006 16:19, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
Jason Stubbs wrote:
Only by modifying every ebuild that has a virtual/x11 dependency. The atom
virtual/x11 cannot be limited to specific versions on its own with old
style virtuals.
Is that so? I guess this must be wrong
by this. No clues on the bash
stuff; it seems there's an external confcache binary but I can't tell much
beyond that.
--
Jason Stubbs
--
gentoo-portage-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
On Saturday 31 December 2005 18:57, Mike Frysinger wrote:
i'm injecting sh KEYWORDS as quickly as my lantank can emerge ...
So that's one package every two weeks then? ;)
--
Jason Stubbs
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
On Friday 30 December 2005 21:17, Spider (DmD Lj) wrote:
On Fri, 2005-12-30 at 10:35 +0900, Jason Stubbs wrote:
On Friday 30 December 2005 01:35, Spider (DmD Lj) wrote:
On Tue, 2005-12-27 at 19:06 +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Tue, 27 Dec 2005 19:53:14 +0100 Carsten Lohrke [EMAIL
of not being bug-ridden...
--
Jason Stubbs
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
the benefit of the doubt and assume you're referring to sets of
ebuilds that require several slots. Before implementing the above, the tree
will be checked for any cases where the above idea will fail.
--
Jason Stubbs
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
database but there's also there's the
implication that only one slot of a package be allowed in a connected set of
nodes. Is that what you're getting at?
--
Jason Stubbs
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
On Tuesday 27 December 2005 22:45, Carsten Lohrke wrote:
On Tuesday 27 December 2005 14:00, Jason Stubbs wrote:
If all three of those packages were first built against kdelibs:3.4 and
then kdelibs:3.5 became available then rebuilding any one of them without
rebuilding the others will break
-portage.
--
Jason Stubbs
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
-sdk -static truetype-fonts -type1-fonts -xprint xv
INPUT_DEVICES=-synaptics -wacom 44,520 kB
I doubt that the NEW and OLD would really be visible in the --verbose output
in the general case anyway. How about just making added flags green to match
the output of changed flags?
--
Jason Stubbs
, since they're the ones
affected by it (for us it's just an api change).
As a side note, dodoc didn't return non-zero when specified files don't exist
up until a month or two ago. dohtml was updated yesterday. Hence, up until
now the above was not possible.
--
Jason Stubbs
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org
?
No problems on my part. As Mike said, it'll only catch the standard unpack
usage but that's not really an issue as far as I can see.
By the way, now that we've got -commit mail, confirming with the ML isn't
really necessary. Of course, if it's something you want to confirm...
--
Jason Stubbs
On Saturday 24 December 2005 12:58, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Sat, 24 Dec 2005 12:50:33 +0900 Jason Stubbs [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| SLOT is currently an arbitrary string (without spaces) so general
| matching of * might be useful. Of course, there's no restriction of
| not using * in SLOTs
as the needs of users. Needs of those of us who
provide the tree are prioritized by how much benefit will be translated
to end users combined with how much work will be required.
--
Jason Stubbs
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
-print/cups/cups-1.1.23-r4.ebuild: [ -n ${PN} ] rm -fR
/usr/share/doc/${PN}-*
net-print/cups/cups-1.1.23-r5.ebuild: [ -n ${PN} ] rm -fR
/usr/share/doc/${PN}-*
I'll let others do the yelling.
--
Jason Stubbs
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
nor in the ebuilds themselves...
--
Jason Stubbs
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
On Friday 23 December 2005 21:39, Harald van Dijk wrote:
On Fri, Dec 23, 2005 at 08:31:06PM +0900, Jason Stubbs wrote:
On Friday 23 December 2005 20:19, Stefan Schweizer wrote:
Well, you should know that those are because of portage bugs or some
portage peculiarity, read the corresponding
On Friday 23 December 2005 21:39, Harald van Dijk wrote:
On Fri, Dec 23, 2005 at 08:31:06PM +0900, Jason Stubbs wrote:
On Friday 23 December 2005 20:19, Stefan Schweizer wrote:
Well, you should know that those are because of portage bugs or some
portage peculiarity, read the corresponding
On Friday 23 December 2005 22:13, Harald van Dijk wrote:
On Fri, Dec 23, 2005 at 10:00:20PM +0900, Jason Stubbs wrote:
On Friday 23 December 2005 21:39, Harald van Dijk wrote:
On Fri, Dec 23, 2005 at 08:31:06PM +0900, Jason Stubbs wrote:
On Friday 23 December 2005 20:19, Stefan Schweizer
On Saturday 24 December 2005 02:52, Harald van Dijk wrote:
On Sat, Dec 24, 2005 at 02:22:06AM +0900, Jason Stubbs wrote:
Symlinks are handled within portage differently to regular files. Regular
files get an mtime check and are removed if it matches. Symlinks don't
get an mtime check (even
to use them.
:slot and [use]? Not yet. I'm sure that once they do the shouts will be
resounding across the globe such that it would not be possible for you to be
unaware of it... ;)
--
Jason Stubbs
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
On Saturday 24 December 2005 03:43, Duncan wrote:
Jason Stubbs posted [EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted
below, on Sat, 24 Dec 2005 02:22:06 +0900:
A quick patch makes symlinks handled similarly to regular files and
solves the issue. I'll put it into testing unless anybody can come up
On Saturday 24 December 2005 03:42, Thomas de Grenier de Latour wrote:
On Sat, 24 Dec 2005 02:22:06 +0900
Jason Stubbs [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
PackageA is installed, PackageB is installed, PackageB is
uninstalled - PackageA is broken. Does this case exist?
Found two on my system
On Saturday 24 December 2005 05:45, Spider (DmD Lj) wrote:
On Sat, 2005-12-24 at 03:37 +0900, Jason Stubbs wrote:
On Saturday 24 December 2005 03:23, Paul de Vrieze wrote:
On Friday 23 December 2005 19:12, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Fri, 23 Dec 2005 18:57:44 +0100 Paul de Vrieze [EMAIL
On Tuesday 20 December 2005 23:15, Jason Stubbs wrote:
On Tuesday 20 December 2005 01:49, Marius Mauch wrote:
Also not talking about implementation details yet, just after comments
about the general idea of forced portage updates.
I gave it a go anyway... ;)
Also needed:
Index: portage.py
On Friday 16 December 2005 19:01, Brian Harring wrote:
On Fri, Dec 16, 2005 at 12:09:10PM +0900, Jason Stubbs wrote:
On Thursday 15 December 2005 20:06, Brian Harring wrote:
This is the only blocker for merging parallel-fetch as far as I can
tell- so... my vote is nuking the wait out
On Wednesday 14 December 2005 09:52, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 09:11:51 +0900 Jason Stubbs [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| newsdir=$(portageq envvar PORTDIR)/metadata/news
| newsdir=$(portageq newsdir gentoo)
|
| Both have one level of indirection. The first has two hard coded
On Wednesday 14 December 2005 06:16, Grant Goodyear wrote:
Jason Stubbs wrote: [Mon Dec 12 2005, 08:06:54PM CST]
The purpose of GLEPs is to coordinate several teams into providing an
overall enhancement to Gentoo. However, the GLEP itself is written by
a single person rather than
On Tuesday 13 December 2005 11:45, Andrew Muraco wrote:
Jason Stubbs wrote:
On Tuesday 13 December 2005 11:22, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Tue, 13 Dec 2005 11:17:30 +0900 Jason Stubbs [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| So what are you going to do? I asked already but you didn't answer.
| How are you
On Tuesday 13 December 2005 11:48, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Tue, 13 Dec 2005 11:39:14 +0900 Jason Stubbs [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| And how can that be adapted to work with overlays, completely
| ignoring the possibility of distinct repositories. Overlays is
| something that exists already
On Tuesday 13 December 2005 11:58, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Tue, 13 Dec 2005 11:39:49 +0900 Jason Stubbs [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| So... If, hypothetically speaking, someone were to write a GLEP
| saying move developer documentation into the QA group, restructure
| said documentation
On Wednesday 14 December 2005 07:12, Grant Goodyear wrote:
Jason Stubbs wrote: [Mon Dec 12 2005, 07:51:51PM CST]
| As I said already, there will immediately be a bug asking for overlay
| support. Portage already supports multiple in a form whether anybody
| likes it or not. How
On Wednesday 14 December 2005 08:54, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 08:44:39 +0900 Jason Stubbs [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| Modifications are required to portage anyway. Why postpone it until
| after several readers are written and force all of them become broken?
Because
On Monday 12 December 2005 09:20, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Mon, 12 Dec 2005 09:11:53 +0900 Jason Stubbs [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| Regardless of what you think about the current plans for multiple
| repository support, the details that readers will need to know wont
| change.
Incorrect
On Tuesday 13 December 2005 02:16, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Mon, 12 Dec 2005 23:49:31 +0900 Jason Stubbs [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| No need for a glep as far as portage support goes anymore than Ciaran
| needs a glep to change or add syntax highlighting in vim.
The difference is, Vim
Abstract
The purpose of GLEPs is to coordinate several teams into providing an overall
enhancement to Gentoo. However, the GLEP itself is written by a single person
rather than a cooperative effort between the teams.
Motivation
Recent GLEPs have attempted to force things on other teams. This
On Tuesday 13 December 2005 11:06, Jason Stubbs wrote:
Abstract
The purpose of GLEPs is to coordinate several teams into providing an
overall enhancement to Gentoo. However, the GLEP itself is written by a
single person rather than a cooperative effort between the teams.
Motivation
On Tuesday 13 December 2005 11:11, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Tue, 13 Dec 2005 10:51:51 +0900 Jason Stubbs [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| Without a list of future features, you think the best way to go must
| be the least agile? As Zac said, all that matters to keep full
| compatibility
On Tuesday 13 December 2005 11:22, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Tue, 13 Dec 2005 11:17:30 +0900 Jason Stubbs [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| So what are you going to do? I asked already but you didn't answer.
| How are you going to find $PORTDIR/metadata/news?
At present, by using portageq
On Tuesday 13 December 2005 11:24, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Tue, 13 Dec 2005 11:15:43 +0900 Jason Stubbs [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| A GLEP should list whom has been solicited and provide evidence that
| each has given their explicit approval of the GLEP. A GLEP without
| explicit approval
On Sunday 11 December 2005 00:56, Luca Barbato wrote:
svn so far was good but I don't know which big projects had it deployed.
KDE uses subversion, depending on what you call big of course.
--
Jason Stubbs
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
forwarder,
which would be ideal for users who sync on a ``cron``) are left as options
for those who desire them.
By suggested you mean that it should be referenced in the news help?
--
Jason Stubbs
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
On Friday 09 December 2005 04:03, Zac Medico wrote:
Jason Stubbs wrote:
On Thursday 08 December 2005 16:44, Zac Medico wrote:
The middle hunk fixes a problem with block atoms that do not match any
packages. Previously, these atoms would not make it into the okay_atoms
set which caused
to remove the virtual/x11 definition from base/virtuals in a
couple of days, because this should provide a full (and non-broken)
replacement.
This can be easily tested in advance by adding the following:
# cat /etc/portage/profile/virtuals
virtual/x11 -*
--
Jason Stubbs
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org
On Wednesday 07 December 2005 11:57, Marius Mauch wrote:
On Wed, 7 Dec 2005 08:41:27 +0900
Jason Stubbs [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wednesday 07 December 2005 01:01, Marius Mauch wrote:
On Tue, 6 Dec 2005 23:19:38 +0900
Jason Stubbs [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If there's no solid
On Tuesday 06 December 2005 21:37, Alec Warner wrote:
Jason Stubbs wrote:
On Tuesday 06 December 2005 11:17, Ned Ludd wrote:
On Mon, 2005-12-05 at 23:06 +0900, Jason Stubbs wrote:
Okay, new suggestion.
Postpone the cache rewrite from above. Have only the minimal mods
On Tuesday 06 December 2005 11:29, Zac Medico wrote:
Ned Ludd wrote:
On Mon, 2005-12-05 at 23:06 +0900, Jason Stubbs wrote:
Okay, new suggestion.
Postpone the cache rewrite from above. Have only the minimal mods
necessary to fix the PORT_LOGDIR/tee bug. Include the other two
On Tuesday 06 December 2005 11:17, Ned Ludd wrote:
On Mon, 2005-12-05 at 23:06 +0900, Jason Stubbs wrote:
Okay, new suggestion.
Postpone the cache rewrite from above. Have only the minimal mods
necessary to fix the PORT_LOGDIR/tee bug. Include the other two as is.
That would be 2.0.54
1 - 100 of 287 matches
Mail list logo
