* Daniel Drake [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Markus Nigbur wrote:
Assigning to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and adding the actual fitting herd to CC is
the most
elegant option, IMHO.
However we do it, we should really agree on one solution, to get more
structure into the chaos.
Here's what I'd
On Wednesday 15 June 2005 20:43, Sven Wegener wrote:
On Tue, Jun 14, 2005 at 07:50:13PM -0700, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
Sven Wegener wrote:
On Mon, Jun 13, 2005 at 06:56:43PM -0400, Ned Ludd wrote:
I'm in favor of this. Would you mind calling it package.autouse,
package.use.auto or are
Hi all,
So there have been many complaints about how USE_EXPANDed flags don't belong
in IUSE. There haven't actually been any reasons given though. :P
I've assumed that the reasons they haven't been added thus far are due to what
emerge's output would look like if they were. So I've taken the
Jason Stubbs wrote:
So there have been many complaints about how USE_EXPANDed flags don't belong
in IUSE. There haven't actually been any reasons given though. :P
net-dialup/pppconfig-2.3.11-r1 depends on LINGUAS, but the list of
supported languages is created in pkg_unpack, based on what
On Sun, Jun 19, 2005 at 02:31:30PM +0200, Torsten Veller wrote:
Please don't assign bugs of packages in the tree to maintainer-needed.
Proposal: Bugs for packages in the tree where bugwranglers are not able to
find
a maintainer go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You mean new ebuilds would
On Monday 20 June 2005 01:48, Alin Nastac wrote:
Jason Stubbs wrote:
So there have been many complaints about how USE_EXPANDed flags don't
belong in IUSE. There haven't actually been any reasons given though. :P
net-dialup/pppconfig-2.3.11-r1 depends on LINGUAS, but the list of
supported
Daniel Drake wrote:
Omkhar Arasaratnam wrote:
That said, we're not RedHat. We ship as MANY features as we can and let
the user decide. I agree that it is valuable to get reiser4 testing done
up front. Eventually - some people will use it. Last I checked I think
$FOO is stupid wasn't a valid
Hi all,
I've been wondering - is there any eclass for fixing gcc warnings in $SUBJ
for C/C++ source files? I know it's upstream's job to fix these, and that they
have no effect on the compilation, but all there needs to be done is
'echo $file', and let's face it - it looks nicer when the code
Hi,
Recently began using flawfinder rats and they're working (logging things).
For now don't have time to look at the logs (beside *me* needing more
time to check them), so is there some place/person which
collects/is_interested in such info. Maybe some meta-bug or other, or
just send they
