Michael Cummings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 2006-01-18 at 06:27 -0800, Drake Wyrm wrote:
> > Personally, no, but others do. I should have been less ambiguous (and
> > obnoxious) in my initial response. Please don't assume that just because
> > _you_ don't need a static Perl, that _nobody_
Donnie Berkholz wrote:
My current script seems to miss some things. The reason this happens is
that the group of applications they're emerged in also contains some app
that breaks the emerge, perhaps because it's in package.mask or isn't
keyworded at least ~x86. Broken emerges don't get far enoug
Follow up: Two devs have already mailed me on it.
Thanks,
Caleb
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Donnie Berkholz wrote:
I hacked together a script this afternoon to find any packages that are
not yet ported to modular X. It will only work on systems _with modular
X installed_. This is because it works by using emerge to check for
blockers, then resolving those blockers down to a single packa
Sebastian Bergmann wrote:
Donnie Berkholz schrieb:
dev-php/PECL-imagick php none
This package only has
DEPEND="${DEPEND} >=media-gfx/graphicsmagick-1.0.0"
listed as its dependencies.
Ah, yes. It will also catch whether anything in the dependency tree of
any app is broken, not just t
Hi all,
I need an ebuild for GPL Ice C++ (http://www.zeroc.com/download.html) and I
simply don't have the time to write it at the moment. If someone is willing
to take on the task of writing it, and submitting to me (or even better
helping me to maintain it in the portage tree) I'm willing to
On Wed, 2006-01-18 at 09:52 -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> if the lib is meant to be used by other packages, then a static version
> should
> probably be offered for people who want to build static binaries ... although
> atm, the libperl ebuild doesnt actually produce a libperl.a does it ? and
On Wed, 2006-01-18 at 06:27 -0800, Drake Wyrm wrote:
> Personally, no, but others do. I should have been less ambiguous (and
> obnoxious) in my initial response. Please don't assume that just because
> _you_ don't need a static Perl, that _nobody_ needs a static Perl.
Actually, the whole point to
On Monday 16 January 2006 14:04, Michael Cummings wrote:
> Just curious whether there is any value at continuing to offer a libperl
> ebuild (which creates libperl.so for you) and then having perl
> statically built against an internally generated libperl.a (substitute
> your platforms appropriate
On Wednesday 18 January 2006 09:27, Drake Wyrm wrote:
> Michael Cummings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Tue, 2006-01-17 at 20:18 -0800, Drake Wyrm wrote:
> > > Portage is not the only important system tool. Some of us actually
> > > use Perl. Please do not be with the breaking.
> >
> > Is this t
Michael Cummings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 2006-01-17 at 20:18 -0800, Drake Wyrm wrote:
>
> > Portage is not the only important system tool. Some of us actually
> > use Perl. Please do not be with the breaking.
>
> Is this to say there is a valid need for both libperl.a and libperl.so
Donnie Berkholz schrieb:
> dev-php/PECL-imagick php none
This package only has
DEPEND="${DEPEND} >=media-gfx/graphicsmagick-1.0.0"
listed as its dependencies.
--
Sebastian Bergmann http://www.sebastian-bergmann.de/
GnuPG Key: 0xB85B5D69 / 27A7 2B14 09E4 98CD 6277 0E5B
Donnie Berkholz wrote:
And here's a list, with herds and maintainers, of a loop across each
category in PORTDIR. This should be a fairly comprehensive list of every
app not yet ported.
Today's update, synced as of about an hour ago, along with the script to
generate everything if you want to do
On Tue, 2006-01-17 at 21:25 -0700, Joshua Baergen wrote:
> My point is that this isn't like the libstdc++ situation.
>
wasn't implying it was - different thread, different thought :)
> Many people have things dependent on Perl, but my impression is not that
> things would break, but rather that
On Tue, 2006-01-17 at 20:18 -0800, Drake Wyrm wrote:
> Portage is not the only important system tool. Some of us actually use
> Perl. Please do not be with the breaking.
Is this to say there is a valid need for both libperl.a and libperl.so
on your box? (really asking, honest). This isn't about b
Protocol doesn't demand it - but human decency sure as heck does. I just
wanted to apologize to everyone for my erroneous commit to the 1Q-2006
file yesterday.
The boring background is that some upstream cpan authors use a numbering
scheme that makes sense in a decimal fashion, where .29001 is les
16 matches
Mail list logo
