maillog: 20/05/2005-06:06:21(+0100): Ciaran McCreesh types
On Thu, 19 May 2005 04:44:25 +0100 Ciaran McCreesh [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| http://www.firedrop.org.uk/devmanual/general-concepts/autotools/
Updated based upon the feedback, thanks guys. If someone who's
relatively clueless about
On Fri, 20 May 2005 15:06:12 +0900 Georgi Georgiev [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| - The configure script is run to produce one or Makefile files
| from Makefile.in files.
| + The configure script is run to produce
| one or more Makefile files from Makefile.in files.
Gah! I'm
Hello.
Jeffrey Forman wrote:
The upgrade for bugs.gentoo.org went exactly as I had planned for.
Completed in under 20 minutes, which included this email. I've upgraded
our Bugzilla from the old 2.18rc2 to 2.18.1. This fixes more security
and code than I can even begin to mention. I have cleaned
On Fri, 20 May 2005 18:01:04 +0900 Georgi Georgiev [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| | %.1 : %.in
| | @regex_cmd@ -e s,[EMAIL PROTECTED]@,$(VERSION),g $? $@
| |
| | The first @ is span.Special and the second one is span.Constant.
|
| Hrm, that's a vim thing (I'm using a vim script to
maillog: 20/05/2005-10:29:53(+0100): Ciaran McCreesh types
On Fri, 20 May 2005 18:01:04 +0900 Georgi Georgiev [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| | %.1 : %.in
| | @regex_cmd@ -e s,[EMAIL PROTECTED]@,$(VERSION),g $?
$@
| |
| | The first @ is span.Special and the second
Jason Stubbs wrote:
snip
I intend that the package to be installed should not assume anything about
where its dependencies are and should query portage for them all.
Oh no, now many things get much clearer to me :(
But - aren't there many settings left over to the packages to decide,
at
On Monday 16 May 2005 15:04, Henrik Brix Andersen wrote:
The current ebuild is orinoco-0.15_rc2-r2.ebuild, and the logical name
for a CVS snapshot would, as I see it, be
orinoco-0.15_rc2_pre20050516.ebuild, but mixing _rcX and _preY is not
allowed by portage.
in any case it should be _pY as
On Tuesday 17 May 2005 10:27, Marius Mauch wrote:
Well, it's valid with portage-2.1, but not 2.0.
Concerning that, how far are we from it being testable by the general
developer population?
Paul
--
Paul de Vrieze
Gentoo Developer
Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net
On Monday 16 May 2005 23:48, Drake Wyrm wrote:
Rick Sivernell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I am operating a small IT service organization and I would like to
put a link to Gentoo on my site. My ad:
[snip]
If there is a standard ad that you would prefer, I will use it. This
is a service for
On Fri, 2005-05-20 at 10:42 -0600, Jason Wever wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
OK, let's review this again.
If you cannot test a given ebuild on a given arch, then don't touch that
arch's keyword (unless you need to remove it for broken dependencies).
If you can
On Friday 20 May 2005 02:53 pm, Duncan Coutts wrote:
Sorry folks this was my fault.
ah, good to know ... thought it might have been my binutils-2.16 ~sparc
marking, but i guess that's somewhat sane since Weeve gave it a quick run and
it seems to be OK thus far ...
-mike
--
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Fri, 20 May 2005, Duncan Coutts wrote:
Sorry folks this was my fault. I've sent my grovelling apology to the
sparc team. Hopefully they'll accept my apologies and put my digressions
down to me being a new dev. :-)
You can only take some of the
Jason Wever wrote:
snip
From my perspective, if a package maintainer asks for testing and the
ability to keyword (i.e. Spanky asking me if it was OK to bump binutils
to 2.16, to which I said yes) then that is fine. However adding or
changing keywords in an ebuild for which you cannot test
On Fri, 20 May 2005 15:51:51 -0500 Brian Jackson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| Wouldn't it be better from a QA perspective to go back to the (really)
| old policy of dropping anything you can't test on. I know that puts
| more work on you guys, but this is only going to get worse as we get
| more
On Fri, 2005-05-20 at 22:22 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
Not gonna happen. Emulators don't cut it and won't find all the problems
(but they will find a load of other bogus non-issues). Plus, from
experience I'd say that at least half our devs wouldn't have a clue
where to start when doing
On Fri, 20 May 2005 19:11:13 +0900 Georgi Georgiev [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| O, so true, so true...
|
| I am trying to redeem myself with the following. Care to give it a
| try?
Pretty close, thanks. I think I'll adapt it a bit to define a cluster in
make.vim and then add to that cluster in
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Michael Cummings wrote:
It's a nice idea (I know I recently opened negotiations up with the mips
team for access so I could close some of my open bugs against them), but the
two problems I can see with this are: remote access tends to mean you
On Friday 20 May 2005 21:30, Michael Haubenwallner wrote:
Jason Stubbs wrote:
snip
I intend that the package to be installed should not assume anything
about where its dependencies are and should query portage for them all.
Oh no, now many things get much clearer to me :(
But - aren't
Stroller wrote:
Hi,
. far to long.
Stroller.
In summary and simple conclusion, yes you are wrong. So that makes 2 out
of the 4 or 5 active Mobile herd devs who say you're wrong. brix is 100%
correct. Let me give you an explaination
The firmware itself does
19 matches
Mail list logo
