Hello.
On Пнд, 2005-09-19 at 20:24 +0900, Chris White wrote:
I think the problem here isn't about choice, but support. Mainly deprication
is the issue here. GTK2 was meant to be an upgrade of GTK1 interfaces. At
some point upstream is going to have to giveup and say Sorry sam, use gtk2
All,
This is a gentle reminder that the UK Linux Expo is on 5th-6th October
at Olympia, London. Gentoo will have a (small) booth at the expo, so if
you are interested in being in the booth (dev's only I'm afraid) please
let me know.
I will be drawing up a rota on Wednesday, so if you've not
On Friday 16 September 2005 23:51, Mike Frysinger wrote:
that's the problem, there's no way to flag which packages should be
consulted and which ones are a non-issue
This indeed kind of sums up my point.
Paul
--
Paul de Vrieze
Gentoo Developer
Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Homepage:
On Saturday 17 September 2005 22:24, Mark Loeser wrote:
Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Saturday 17 September 2005 02:22 pm, Mark Loeser wrote:
The reason for me adding that bit is the metadata from dev-cpp:
The dev-cpp category contains libraries and utilities relevant to the
c++ programming
On Saturday 17 September 2005 22:06, Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Saturday 17 September 2005 01:15 pm, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 12:56:37 +0200 Fernando J. Pereda
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| On Sat, Sep 17, 2005 at 02:42:09AM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
| | Something
maillog: 19/09/2005-11:52:26(+0200): Paul de Vrieze types
On Saturday 17 September 2005 22:06, Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Saturday 17 September 2005 01:15 pm, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 12:56:37 +0200 Fernando J. Pereda
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| On Sat, Sep 17, 2005
On Sun, Sep 18, 2005 at 03:48:43PM +, John N. Laliberte wrote:
* but you are taking away choice! - If a program has both GTK2 and GTK3
interfaces, there are many ways to allow for testing of the experimental
interface. For instance, package.mask with a revision number.
package.mask isn't
Paul de Vrieze wrote:
I think that dev-util is a very specific category containing development
utilities of some sort. There might be some misclassifications in them,
but from a user perspective I don't really care about the language
anything is written in. As C++ is so widespread I don't
On Mon, 2005-09-19 at 07:28 -0500, Brian Harring wrote:
On Sun, Sep 18, 2005 at 03:48:43PM +, John N. Laliberte wrote:
* but you are taking away choice! - If a program has both GTK2 and GTK3
interfaces, there are many ways to allow for testing of the experimental
interface. For
Mark Loeser wrote:
Paul de Vrieze wrote:
I think that dev-util is a very specific category containing
development utilities of some sort. There might be some
misclassifications in them, but from a user perspective I don't really
care about the language anything is written in. As C++ is so
Anthony Gorecki posted [EMAIL PROTECTED],
excerpted below, on Mon, 12 Sep 2005 01:09:34 -0700:
On Sunday, September 11, 2005 20:42, Daniel Ahlberg wrote:
The page shows results from a number of tests that are run against the
ebuilds.
Why does this script no longer include the results in
On Monday 19 September 2005 10:14, Rob Holland wrote:
This is a gentle reminder that the UK Linux Expo is on 5th-6th October
at Olympia, London. Gentoo will have a (small) booth at the expo, so if
you are interested in being in the booth (dev's only I'm afraid) please
let me know.
I just
Official policy states that CVS ebuilds should never be marked
stable[1]. Yet many ebuilds that are based on cvs sources and are
marked stable on arch's. I would like to know why this is so.
./net-misc/netcomics-cvs/netcomics-cvs-0.14.1.ebuild:KEYWORDS=x86 ~amd64
On Sun, 18 Sep 2005 15:48:43 + (UTC)
John N. Laliberte [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How to keep gtk1 off of your system:
* use the proper, built in methods for this: add
=x11-libs/gtk+-1* to /etc/portage/package.mask.
Since this may not be that easy for the end-user (lots of ebuilds
to avoid
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Alec Warner wrote:
Official policy states that CVS ebuilds should never be marked
stable[1]. Yet many ebuilds that are based on cvs sources and are
marked stable on arch's. I would like to know why this is so.
On Mon, 2005-09-19 at 20:38 +0300, Alin Dobre wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Alec Warner wrote:
Official policy states that CVS ebuilds should never be marked
stable[1]. Yet many ebuilds that are based on cvs sources and are
marked stable on arch's. I would like
I'm masking app-arch/gzip-x86 as we speak. It seems to cause problems
for people[1] and is based off of gzip-1.3.3. As such, it is vulnerable
to a couple[2] exploits[3]. Upstream appears dead (last update was
2003-05-20) and no one is currently maintaining it for us. If you don't
want to see it
On Monday 19 September 2005 15:22, warnera6 wrote:
Mark Loeser wrote:
Paul de Vrieze wrote:
I think that dev-util is a very specific category containing
development utilities of some sort. There might be some
misclassifications in them, but from a user perspective I don't really
care
maillog: 20/09/2005-07:21:08(+0200): Christian Parpart types
On Monday 19 September 2005 15:22, warnera6 wrote:
Mark Loeser wrote:
Paul de Vrieze wrote:
I think that dev-util is a very specific category containing
development utilities of some sort. There might be some
On Saturday 17 September 2005 02:32, Alec Warner wrote:
Jason Stubbs wrote:
On Saturday 17 September 2005 01:59, Paul Varner wrote:
http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=90680
Author: Paul Varner
The current implementation of gentoolkit creates a portage.config
object for every
On Monday 19 September 2005 10:26, Jason Stubbs wrote:
On Monday 19 September 2005 17:18, Paul de Vrieze wrote:
I doubt though that the config object should be modified.
The Package object needs to call setcpv() on the config object to get
at the per-package USE flags after they have been
Hola.
http://glep.gentoo.org/glep-0031.html-- the details
http://bugs.gentoo.org/106544-- the bug
http://bugs.gentoo.org/attachment.cgi?=68828 -- the patch
Attached the patch also; one additional tweak is that file.size is now
a fatal check, since the tree seem's to
On Mon, Sep 19, 2005 at 04:12:08PM -0500, Brian Harring wrote:
Attached the patch also; one additional tweak is that file.size is now
a fatal check, since the tree seem's to finally be clean.
Dropped the file.size becoming fatal change on the bug, and intend to
for the final version.
Either
23 matches
Mail list logo
