Re: [gentoo-dev] et_EE locale and language of error messages
What do you think? LC_ALL=C in portage or not? - Stefan Well this problem (localized error messages) exists since I know linux and the solution has always been use per user locale settings and keep LC_ALL=POSIX or =C as a system default. Maybe we should just update the docs? Otoh LC_ALL=C could help if you intend to use a .utf-8 locale as root, though. So if it does help solving bugs and causes no trouble, why not. Cheers, Marc -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Multi hash support in portage - status
Marius Mauch wrote: [..] So much for background information, now to the actual question: Would you rather have now the ability to create multi-hash digests and Manifests with the result of a short and mid-term larger portage tree (in the long term the format will be phased out hopefully) or rather wait for Manifest2 support (which will definitely include multi hash support)? I'd rather wait for Manifest2 support. What is the ETA for the GLEP and the implementation after i? Cheers, Marc. -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Decision to remove stage1/2 from installation documentation
Chris Gianelloni wrote: [..] Now, on the topic of the tarballs. Give me one example of something that you can do with a stage1 or stage2 tarball that you cannot with a stage3 tarball. Answer: Download it in less than 10 minutes. The question of interest is: Will we keep changing things without a GLEP that should *never* be touched without one? Cheers, Marc. -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] last rites for avifile, vcr, zphoto, drip, divx4linux, quicktime4linux
Luca Barbato wrote: Those 6 packages do not look maintained and have different issues. avifile: superseded by ffmpeg, xine and, yet to be in portage due some packing issue (it has to be snapshotted as ffmpeg), mlt. Ooops. Is someone working on mlt too? I have some working ebuilds somewhere but I'm *very* busy atm so I can't test it. (And there are other packags that have a high priority too. Cheers, Marc. -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] question about non-dev submitting snapshot ebuild to bugzilla
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Mon, 23 May 2005 13:11:09 -0400 Mike Pagano [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | When a non-dev submits a snapshot ebuild to bugzilla what is the | proper method of providing access to the snapshot I created myself | that it installs. Well... I refuse to take user-submitted tarballs for security reasons. Instead, you should give the command used to create said tarball -- use the svn revision id (or whatever) rather than HEAD when doing this. Dunno if other devs are equally untrusting... They probably should be... I may add that I'd try to get and upstream-submitted tarball (preferably checksummed). Lots of repositories build daily-snapshots so chances are good to get one. -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
