Re: [gentoo-user] Ruby - 3 versions - seriously????

Am 04. September 2017 um 12:07 Uhr -0500 schrieb R0b0t1 : > Even if they can not present an argument like I have, > they will probably only notice it if it misbehaves in some way. If it > misbehaves more than other software on their system, who is to say it > isn't a poorly

Re: [gentoo-user] Ruby - 3 versions - seriously????

Am 03. September 2017 um 15:35 Uhr -0500 schrieb R0b0t1 : > I think the takeaway from Alan's comment is that Python is unnaturally > stable compared to other interpreted languages. One might be inclined > to think Python developers consider their work to be a widely used > tool

Re: [gentoo-user] Ruby - 3 versions - seriously????

Am 02. September 2017 um 21:18 Uhr -0500 schrieb R0b0t1 : > Seeing as the OP is saying there are 3 versions queued for merge and > he has not installed any of them by hand it looks like Alan is > right. Perhaps the OP is using "old" Ruby based software, but software > of that age

Re: [gentoo-user] Ruby - 3 versions - seriously????

Am 02. September 2017 um 22:57 Uhr +0200 schrieb Alan McKinnon : > OK, so disclaimer up front. I detest Ruby. I hate it with a passion. There is nothing one can do against that, but... > Each new minor version of ruby is a whole new language and the devs > are OK with

Re: [gentoo-user] Recommended CDR-Burning-frontend without QT and without KDE?

I find bashburn a fairly nice tool, but for reasons unknown to me it always fails when burning DVDs. Otherwise it does fine. Marvin -- Blog: https://www.guelkerdev.de PGP/GPG ID: F1D8799FBCC8BC4F

Re: [gentoo-user] [Off-Topic] arch-openrc

On Thu, Mar 09, 2017 at 07:57:19AM -0500, Rich Freeman wrote: > Honestly, as somebody who monitors all the systemd bugs on Gentoo it > isn't actually that much work, and I suspect that it wouldn't be that > much work maintaining openrc scripts on Arch. I doubt they rename the > apache binary 3x

Re: [gentoo-user] [Off-Topic] arch-openrc

On Wed, Mar 08, 2017 at 06:50:17PM +, Mick wrote: > Well what do you know?! Alternative to monolithic stack solutions now exist > as alternatives for other distros too: > > https://sourceforge.net/projects/archopenrc/ The GitHub links on that page are broken (404). I was an Arch user

Re: [gentoo-user] Wrong SHA512 checksum for 20160630 amd64 minimal installation medium

Am Tue, 5 Jul 2016 15:07:03 +0100 schrieb Stroller : > This doesn't address the wider implications of this dodgy checksums, > but I think most people on this list install using SystemRescueCD. Okay, I’ll go that route then. Thank you again! Greetings Marvin --

Re: [gentoo-user] Wrong SHA512 checksum for 20160630 amd64 minimal installation medium

Am Tue, 5 Jul 2016 13:26:50 +0300 schrieb Andrew Savchenko : > Checksums are indeed wrong, whirlpool one too. Thanks for noticing, > I opened a bug for this: > https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=588062 Okay, thank you. This has been now marked as a duplicate of another

[gentoo-user] Wrong SHA512 checksum for 20160630 amd64 minimal installation medium

Hi everyone, I was wanting to give Gentoo a try today, but failed to verify the current minimal installation medium for amd64[1]. The .iso file does not match the SHA512 checksum provided in the .DIGESTS.ASC file[2]. The wrong checksum was confirmed by a user in the #gentoo IRC channel on