[gentoo-dev] Re: Re: Some new xorg ebuilds

2005-04-21 Thread Duncan
Donnie Berkholz posted [EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Wed, 20 Apr 2005 11:25:18 -0700: Duncan wrote: Will xorg 6.9 (monolithic) and 7.0 (modularized) exist at the same time? I haven't decided yet. Well-justified arguments one way or the other would be useful. Whatever

Re: [gentoo-dev] New apache stuff in testing - please package.mask it

2005-04-21 Thread Paul Varner
On Thu, 2005-04-21 at 05:48 +0100, Elfyn McBratney wrote: I've filed a bug[1] requesting that ebuilds with updated apache stuff (anything using the new apache-module or depend.apache eclass/the new install layout) be package.mask'd due to the regressions and breakages in testing. I may

Re: [gentoo-dev] New apache stuff in testing - please package.mask it

2005-04-21 Thread Elfyn McBratney
On Thursday 21 Apr 2005 12:37, Paul Varner wrote: On Thu, 2005-04-21 at 05:48 +0100, Elfyn McBratney wrote: I've filed a bug[1] requesting that ebuilds with updated apache stuff (anything using the new apache-module or depend.apache eclass/the new install layout) be package.mask'd due to

Re: [gentoo-dev] New apache stuff in testing - please package.mask it

2005-04-21 Thread Robin H. Johnson
On Thu, Apr 21, 2005 at 12:43:21PM +0100, Elfyn McBratney wrote: Seems, I've been speaking to the wrong people then. Anyways, this has prompted loads of bugs being fixed, which might mean apache will go stable instead. Could you please see about a definitive list of bugs that are solely due

Re: [gentoo-dev] Moving the updated apache and associated ebuilds back into package.mask

2005-04-21 Thread Paul de Vrieze
On Wednesday 20 April 2005 17:25, Christian Parpart wrote: I might be wrong, but... I do not think that this will be easily possible, because all modules would have to deel with this, too. Besides all this, suppose the case that we've an apache httpd 2.1-line would in the trees, someone

Re: [gentoo-dev] Some new xorg ebuilds

2005-04-21 Thread Paul de Vrieze
On Tuesday 19 April 2005 23:11, Donnie Berkholz wrote: Paul de Vrieze wrote: Any indication on the stability of the snapshots. I'm eager to try out all the new sugar, but do want to keep a somewhat stable system. No guarantees one way or the other, but I'm using it as my regular X. And

Re: [gentoo-dev] USE flags names that make sense for boost lib suggestions needed

2005-04-21 Thread Grant Goodyear
Daniel Goller wrote: [Sat Apr 16 2005, 06:26:23PM CDT] -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- im currently changing the boost build process so users who require boost only as a dependency of another app only get release versions, developers would get debug versions as well (another ~40-90MB

[gentoo-dev] cleaning out 'bc' and 'ed' from system

2005-04-21 Thread Mike Frysinger
we've had 'bc' and 'ed' around for historical reasons and because we've never actually tracked what packages invoke 'bc' or 'ed' in their scripts psm has looked into this and found that nothing else in a typical `emerge system` requires these ... that means i'd like to prune them and make

Re: [gentoo-dev] cleaning out 'bc' and 'ed' from system

2005-04-21 Thread Ciaran McCreesh
On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 13:06:57 -0400 Mike Frysinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | we've had 'bc' and 'ed' around for historical reasons and because | we've never actually tracked what packages invoke 'bc' or 'ed' in | their scripts Anyone still using ed-style patches rather than context or unified

Re: [gentoo-dev] Some new xorg ebuilds

2005-04-21 Thread Donnie Berkholz
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Paul de Vrieze wrote: I've found a bug (and reverted) in the matrox driver. https://bugs.freedesktop.org/ -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

Re: [gentoo-dev] cleaning out 'bc' and 'ed' from system

2005-04-21 Thread Juha Varkki
bc? Do you mean /usr/bin/bc or did I miss something? Why on earth are you taking it out? I use bc quite often actually .. -- Juha Varkki / dbg On 4/21/05, Ciaran McCreesh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 13:06:57 -0400 Mike Frysinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | we've had 'bc' and

Re: [gentoo-dev] cleaning out 'bc' and 'ed' from system

2005-04-21 Thread Maurice van der Pot
On Thu, Apr 21, 2005 at 10:09:16PM +0300, Juha Varkki wrote: bc? Do you mean /usr/bin/bc or did I miss something? Why on earth are you taking it out? I use bc quite often actually .. It's gonna be taken out of system, not removed from portage. You can still emerge it if you want it, you'll

Re: [gentoo-dev] cleaning out 'bc' and 'ed' from system

2005-04-21 Thread Mike Frysinger
On Thursday 21 April 2005 03:19 pm, Maurice van der Pot wrote: On Thu, Apr 21, 2005 at 10:09:16PM +0300, Juha Varkki wrote: bc? Do you mean /usr/bin/bc or did I miss something? Why on earth are you taking it out? I use bc quite often actually .. It's gonna be taken out of system, not

[gentoo-dev] ieee1394 useflag

2005-04-21 Thread Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò
There are currently 6 (7 after I'll commit new ffmpeg) ieee1394 use.local flags. I think this is worth moving it as a global useflag. Someone disagrees? -- Diego Flameeyes Pettenò Gentoo Developer (Gentoo/FreeBSD, Video, Gentoo/AMD64) http://dev.gentoo.org/~flameeyes/ pgpvbOTAhB5Om.pgp

Re: [gentoo-dev] ieee1394 useflag

2005-04-21 Thread Greg KH
On Thu, Apr 21, 2005 at 11:16:23PM +0200, Diego 'Flameeyes' Petten? wrote: There are currently 6 (7 after I'll commit new ffmpeg) ieee1394 use.local flags. I think this is worth moving it as a global useflag. Someone disagrees? Why is it a useflag at all? Does this mean I can create a new

Re: [gentoo-dev] cleaning out 'bc' and 'ed' from system

2005-04-21 Thread Luis F. Araujo
Mike Frysinger wrote: On Thursday 21 April 2005 03:19 pm, Maurice van der Pot wrote: On Thu, Apr 21, 2005 at 10:09:16PM +0300, Juha Varkki wrote: bc? Do you mean /usr/bin/bc or did I miss something? Why on earth are you taking it out? I use bc quite often actually .. It's gonna

Re: [gentoo-dev] ieee1394 useflag

2005-04-21 Thread Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò
On Thursday 21 April 2005 23:29, Greg KH wrote: Why is it a useflag at all?  Does this mean I can create a new usb flag?  :):) There's already: usb - Adds USB support to applications that have optional USB support (e.g. cups) it usually enables support for libusb or other things like that.

Re: [gentoo-dev] cleaning out 'bc' and 'ed' from system

2005-04-21 Thread Donnie Berkholz
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Luis F. Araujo wrote: Nobody is forcing. I think it is better/easier to keep the package than tracking/adding a lot of dependencies in the ebuilds. So you think actually knowing what packages truly depend on is a bad idea? -BEGIN PGP

Re: [gentoo-dev] cleaning out 'bc' and 'ed' from system

2005-04-21 Thread Luis F. Araujo
Donnie Berkholz wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Luis F. Araujo wrote: Nobody is forcing. I think it is better/easier to keep the package than tracking/adding a lot of dependencies in the ebuilds. So you think actually knowing what packages truly depend on is a bad

Re: [gentoo-dev] cleaning out 'bc' and 'ed' from system

2005-04-21 Thread Alec Joseph Warner
If someone is willing to do the work and not fsck things royally I don't see a big deal about it. If nothing in system depends on it then it shouldn't be there, we can trim 250kb off of all our stages and liveCD's. Embedded gains 250kb off of their stuff as well. I just don't want to see

Re: [gentoo-dev] ieee1394 useflag

2005-04-21 Thread Georgi Georgiev
maillog: 21/04/2005-23:43:57(+0200): Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò types On Thursday 21 April 2005 23:29, Greg KH wrote: Why is it a useflag at all?  Does this mean I can create a new usb flag?  :):) There's already: usb - Adds USB support to applications that have optional USB support (e.g.

Re: [gentoo-dev] ieee1394 useflag

2005-04-21 Thread Drake Wyrm
At 2005-04-22T08:38:22+0900, Georgi Georgiev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: maillog: 21/04/2005-23:43:57(+0200): Diego 'Flameeyes' Petten? types Same for ieee1394, usually enables support for media-plugins/libdc1394, sys-libs/libavc1394 and/or sys-libs/libraw1394. Considering that a person