-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Brian Harring wrote:
> Well, all that's required is modification to rsync gen script;
I'll do it, assuming that a location has been agreed upon.
$PORTDIR/metadata/herds.xml is the place?
Zac
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (GNU/
On Tue, Jun 13, 2006 at 11:49:58AM +1000, Daniel wrote:
> On Sunday 11 June 2006 12:50, Brian Harring wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 09, 2006 at 05:08:23PM -0400, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> > > On Fri, 2006-06-09 at 16:19 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > > > On Thursday 08 June 2006 21:08, Brian Harring wro
On Sunday 11 June 2006 12:50, Brian Harring wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 09, 2006 at 05:08:23PM -0400, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> > On Fri, 2006-06-09 at 16:19 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > > On Thursday 08 June 2006 21:08, Brian Harring wrote:
> > > > One additional to this- the location for the file in
Alec Warner wrote:
>
> I prefer gentoo-x86, although others hate that x86-centric moniker ;)
>
ebuilds' tree could be ok (now after the transgender cow Larry we greet
the transgenic fruits that grown on trees but have to be herded: the
Ebuilds!)
Ok, I should not post after midnight, local time.
Daniel Ostrow wrote:
On Mon, 2006-06-12 at 19:04 -0400, Luis Francisco Araujo wrote:
Stephen Bennett wrote:
Continuing in the series of issues raised during the previous package
manager discussions, I'd like to continue by mentioning the tree
format. At present, it isn't defined beyond "what
On Tue, 13 Jun 2006 00:00:43 +0100
Stephen Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> My current idea is to draw up a formal specification of what ebuilds
> are allowed to do, and what to assume about the environment in which
> they run, as well as defining the formats of everything under
> profiles/, m
On Mon, 12 Jun 2006 19:26:18 -0400
Alec Warner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Stephen Bennett wrote:
> > * Portage must provide a way for external programs to obtain a list
> > of all repository identifiers for a given system. It is assumed
> > that this will be in the form of a ``portageq`` command
On Mon, 12 Jun 2006 14:06:01 -0700
"Robin H. Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 12, 2006 at 03:41:56PM -0500, Mike Doty wrote:
> > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> > Hash: SHA1
> >
> > Molle Bestefich wrote:
> > > Hi
> > >
> > > Portage takes up a lot of space and time when do
On Mon, 12 Jun 2006 19:26:18 -0400
Alec Warner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > * Portage must provide a way for external programs to obtain a list
> > of all repository identifiers for a given system. It is assumed
> > that this will be in the form of a ``portageq`` command (e.g.
> > ``portageq get
On Mon, 2006-06-12 at 19:04 -0400, Luis Francisco Araujo wrote:
> Stephen Bennett wrote:
> > Continuing in the series of issues raised during the previous package
> > manager discussions, I'd like to continue by mentioning the tree
> > format. At present, it isn't defined beyond "what the current p
On Tue, Jun 13, 2006 at 01:26:39AM +0200, Luca Barbato wrote:
> Stephen Bennett wrote:
>
> > This would be, in essence, a formal definition of the layout of the
> > tree, and the format of and assumptions made by every file contained
> > within it.
>
> I'm all for it.
Definately. Go for it.
Reg
On Mon, 12 Jun 2006 19:26:18 -0400 Alec Warner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| I have no problem with basically writing up 'fake' portageq calls.
| However often people tell me overlays are important, they don't serve
| as multipile repos and don't have metadata/news, so they are excluded
| in this s
Stephen Bennett wrote:
> This would be, in essence, a formal definition of the layout of the
> tree, and the format of and assumptions made by every file contained
> within it.
I'm all for it.
lu
--
Luca Barbato
Gentoo/linux Gentoo/PPC
http://dev.gentoo.org/~lu_zero
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.or
Joerg Plate wrote:
Do make sure you back up the base /var/cache/edb/
Why? Anything in /var/cache doesn't need to be in a backup,
because it can be generated when necessary (in theory...)
in theory, yes; in practice there are a couple of files you may not want
to destroy (mtimedb, counter)
-
On Mon, 2006-06-12 at 23:16 +0200, Henrik Brix Andersen wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 12, 2006 at 10:01:32PM +0100, Stuart Herbert wrote:
> > That's not my decision to make, as o.g.o lead. That decision rightly
> > belongs with the Council. I'm referring this to the Council for them to
> > decide.
>
> I
Stephen Bennett wrote:
Since GLEP 42's original author and sponsor has left the project, I've
taken it over, and would like to have another go at getting it
implemented. I've just updated the version in CVS[1], which should be
making its way onto the www nodes, but with any luck the full text
sho
On Tue, Jun 13, 2006 at 01:15:05AM +0200, Joerg Plate wrote:
> > Do make sure you back up the base /var/cache/edb/
> Why? Anything in /var/cache doesn't need to be in a backup,
> because it can be generated when necessary (in theory...)
The counter file is important if you intend to keep /var/log/p
> Do make sure you back up the base /var/cache/edb/
Why? Anything in /var/cache doesn't need to be in a backup,
because it can be generated when necessary (in theory...)
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
On Mon, 12 Jun 2006 19:04:39 -0400
Luis Francisco Araujo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I like the idea. This would be some kind of portage-tree standard?
This would be, in essence, a formal definition of the layout of the
tree, and the format of and assumptions made by every file contained
within
Stephen Bennett wrote:
> Continuing in the series of issues raised during the previous package
> manager discussions, I'd like to continue by mentioning the tree
> format. At present, it isn't defined beyond "what the current portage
> supports", which is frankly a fairly silly way to do things. Fo
Continuing in the series of issues raised during the previous package
manager discussions, I'd like to continue by mentioning the tree
format. At present, it isn't defined beyond "what the current portage
supports", which is frankly a fairly silly way to do things. Following
discussion in #gentoo-p
Since GLEP 42's original author and sponsor has left the project, I've
taken it over, and would like to have another go at getting it
implemented. I've just updated the version in CVS[1], which should be
making its way onto the www nodes, but with any luck the full text
should be attached here for
On Mon, 12 Jun 2006 23:09:38 +0200
Luca Barbato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If you can spot those issues and fix them w/out rush on package
> mantainers, no problems at all.
I was assuming that they would be treated more or less as minor QA
issues are currently.
> PS: there is a formal spec abo
On Mon, 12 Jun 2006 23:07:34 +0200 "Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| On Monday 12 June 2006 22:58, Stephen Bennett wrote:
| > I would like to think that this proposal addresses most of the
| > concerns raised in the last thread -- it implies nothing about
| > support for any
On Mon, Jun 12, 2006 at 10:01:32PM +0100, Stuart Herbert wrote:
> That's not my decision to make, as o.g.o lead. That decision rightly
> belongs with the Council. I'm referring this to the Council for them to
> decide.
I would like to propose a last-minute change of the agenda for
Thursdays Gen
On Mon, Jun 12, 2006 at 09:58:01PM +0100, Stephen Bennett wrote:
> Many things were discussed in the last round of this thread (Paludis
> and Profiles, in case anyone missed it), and many useful points raised.
> One of these, which seems to have been largely missed in amongst the
> other noise, for
Stephen Bennett wrote:
> Many things were discussed in the last round of this thread (Paludis
> and Profiles, in case anyone missed it), and many useful points raised.
> One of these, which seems to have been largely missed in amongst the
> other noise, forms the basis of this proposal. It is in so
On Monday 12 June 2006 22:58, Stephen Bennett wrote:
> I would like to think that this proposal addresses most of the concerns
> raised in the last thread -- it implies nothing about support for any
> other package manager, and introduces nothing that could cause problems
> for Portage users, while
On Mon, Jun 12, 2006 at 03:41:56PM -0500, Mike Doty wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Molle Bestefich wrote:
> > Hi
> >
> > Portage takes up a lot of space and time when doing server backups.
> >
> > How much of Portage needs to be backup up?
> > Any large parts of the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi everyone,
Despite the best efforts of a lot of folks off-list (you know who you are,
and many thanks to you all), it hasn't been possible to sort out the
disagreements between the Sunrise project and other Gentoo developers.
Brix came to me (as o
Many things were discussed in the last round of this thread (Paludis
and Profiles, in case anyone missed it), and many useful points raised.
One of these, which seems to have been largely missed in amongst the
other noise, forms the basis of this proposal. It is in some ways more
and in some ways l
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Molle Bestefich wrote:
> Hi
>
> Portage takes up a lot of space and time when doing server backups.
>
> How much of Portage needs to be backup up?
> Any large parts of the tree that I can just dump?
>
> Thanks!
>
> CC appreciated :).
anything in /u
Hi
Portage takes up a lot of space and time when doing server backups.
How much of Portage needs to be backup up?
Any large parts of the tree that I can just dump?
Thanks!
CC appreciated :).
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Last year right after LWE August, Corey set up a 1-day Gentoo developer
conference. Is anyone who's attending LWE going to pick up the ball, now
that he's gone?
Much of the information is supposedly on the devwiki [1], but it's
somewhat broken right now. The infra folks are working on fixing that
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Henrik Brix Andersen wrote:
> No! It's a flying pig! :)
(a little late) someone is lacking in proper Gentoo spirit. We have
flying cows , not pigs.
~mcummings
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with M
this is a nifty tool - thanks!
> * if ebuild has $HOMEPAGE in SRC_URI (cosmetic).
hhm - just started using it, as i thought it was a nice way to reduce
redundancy, but perhaps not :P
www-servers/lighttpd-1.4.11
www-servers/lighttpd-1.4.3
www-servers/lighttpd-1.4.5
how old is the base of
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> On Mon, 2006-06-12 at 15:19 +0200, Stefan Schweizer wrote:
> You've broken this one before, so I just want to point it out to you
> again.
The bug was of course discussed in IRC with the games team and the lead in
advance. I w
On Mon, 2006-06-12 at 15:19 +0200, Stefan Schweizer wrote:
> > I'm 100% against implicit acceptance. If someone from the sunrise
> > project wishes to add an ebuild to the overlay they should have to get
> > an explicit OK from the team in question.
> we are not doing this, because we do not want
On Mon, 2006-06-12 at 15:19 +0200, Stefan Schweizer wrote:
> All current contributors to the Sunrise overlay take effort to improve their
> ebuild skills and listen to our words closely. I would consider them all as
> devs-in-spee, I am personally planning to recruit some of them when they
> have r
On Mon, 12 Jun 2006 09:23:42 -0400, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> On Mon, 2006-06-12 at 06:42 -0400, Peter wrote:
>> All of a sudden, emerge -uD --newuse world is showing dozens of ebuild
>> that are replaced due to removed use flags. Did someone change the
>> default use flags? Upgraded yesterday to
On Thu, Jun 01, 2006 at 11:02:46AM +, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> This is your monthly friendly reminder ! Same bat time (typically the
> 2nd Thursday once a month), same bat channel (#gentoo-council @
> irc.freenode.net) !
I've learned that the Gentoo Council meeting has been pushed to the
3rd T
On Mon, 2006-06-12 at 12:57 +0200, Bo Ørsted Andresen wrote:
> On Monday 12 June 2006 12:42, Peter wrote:
> > All of a sudden, emerge -uD --newuse world is showing dozens of ebuild
> > that are replaced due to removed use flags. Did someone change the default
> > use flags? Upgraded yesterday to po
On Mon, 2006-06-12 at 06:42 -0400, Peter wrote:
> All of a sudden, emerge -uD --newuse world is showing dozens of ebuild
> that are replaced due to removed use flags. Did someone change the default
> use flags? Upgraded yesterday to portage 2.1.
Umm... What profile?
--
Chris Gianelloni
Release E
Daniel Ostrow wrote:
>> 3) a yes from herds required, keeping a timeout to avoid bugspam
>>
>> after a comment has been placed on a maintainer-wanted bug in bugzie,
>> there's a grace time of two weeks for herds to either leave a comment on
>> whether they're fine with take over or not. When this
Henrik Brix Andersen wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 11, 2006 at 06:53:51PM +0100, Stuart Herbert wrote:
>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> Henrik Brix Andersen wrote:
>> | However, as has been pointed out several times in this thread already,
>> | back when the devloper community agre
On Sun, 2006-06-11 at 07:33 -0400, Peter wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Jun 2006 13:37:15 +0200, Markus Ullmann wrote:
>
> > 1) m-w / m-n requirement
> >
> > Only ebuilds that are reported to bugzie (valid bug#) and set to
> > maintainer-wanted are allowed here as well as maintainer-needed ones.
> >
> > ma
On Sun, 2006-06-11 at 12:57 +0200, Jakub Moc wrote:
> Henrik Brix Andersen wrote:
> > On Sat, Jun 10, 2006 at 01:37:15PM +0200, Markus Ullmann wrote:
> >> Okay, so after figuring out open problems (thanks to kloeri and various
> >> other people for help here), we now have a resolution that should
>
On Sat, 2006-06-10 at 19:56 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Saturday 10 June 2006 10:29, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> > On Fri, 2006-06-09 at 18:34 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > > On Friday 09 June 2006 16:35, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> > > > This is the "official" (hehe) request for comments on m
On Mon, 12 Jun 2006 12:57:00 +0200, Bo Ørsted Andresen wrote:
> On Monday 12 June 2006 12:42, Peter wrote:
>> All of a sudden, emerge -uD --newuse world is showing dozens of ebuild
>> that are replaced due to removed use flags. Did someone change the
>> default use flags? Upgraded yesterday to por
Thanks, I have worked in your ideas and made the +CC and bug-updates clear
in the HOWTO.
Kind regards,
Stefan
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
On Monday 12 June 2006 12:42, Peter wrote:
> All of a sudden, emerge -uD --newuse world is showing dozens of ebuild
> that are replaced due to removed use flags. Did someone change the default
> use flags? Upgraded yesterday to portage 2.1.
Look at the first section of [1]. Just so you know it thi
All of a sudden, emerge -uD --newuse world is showing dozens of ebuild
that are replaced due to removed use flags. Did someone change the default
use flags? Upgraded yesterday to portage 2.1.
--
Peter
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
52 matches
Mail list logo
