Sven Vermeulen wrote:
Lance Albertson said:
I can probably setup toucan to use gorg in some fashion if I had a few
folks to test it with. I'm sure that would make things easier for a lot
of people for rendering things.
Since documentation posted on dev.gentoo.org isn't Gentoo's by default, i
On Thu, 2006-01-12 at 00:18 +, Ferris McCormick wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Wed, 11 Jan 2006, Lisa Seelye wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 2006-01-11 at 14:51 -0800, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
> >> I've been cleaning up media-fonts/ to work with modular-X, and I see a
> >
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, 11 Jan 2006, Lisa Seelye wrote:
On Wed, 2006-01-11 at 14:51 -0800, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
I've been cleaning up media-fonts/ to work with modular-X, and I see a
lot of ebuilds with stuff like this:
for font in *.bdf; do
/usr/X1
On Wed, 2006-01-11 at 14:51 -0800, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
> I've been cleaning up media-fonts/ to work with modular-X, and I see a
> lot of ebuilds with stuff like this:
> for font in *.bdf; do
> /usr/X11R6/bin/bdftopcf ${font} > `basename $font .bdf`.pcf
> done
On Wednesday 11 January 2006 16:47, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
> While it would be interesting to get rid of some versions of autotools from
> portage
no it wouldnt
once version in each SLOT will remain around ad infintum as far as i'm
concerned
it's not like it's a media video package (a
I've been cleaning up media-fonts/ to work with modular-X, and I see a
lot of ebuilds with stuff like this:
for font in *.bdf; do
/usr/X11R6/bin/bdftopcf ${font} > `basename $font .bdf`.pcf
done
gzip *.pcf
For having 100 files in *bdf, this is so
Donnie Berkholz wrote: [Sat Jan 07 2006, 06:20:48PM EST]
> That's actually not the case; I've never gotten around to filing a bug
> for it, but I mount my /media read-only (so I don't accidentally delete
> all my music) and pmount dies every time.
AFAIK, the original bug pertaining to this issue
On Wednesday 11 January 2006 23:03, Stefan Schweizer wrote:
> And I do not see a problem with omitting autotools deps, because
> autotools is in system.
Autotools shouldn't actually be in system as they are only DEPEND, so it's
anyway an improvement if we can get it out of it.
And anyway by makin
On 1/11/06, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It's a compromise, we trade perfectly stated deps for a lot of easyness for
> devs.. It's not a perfect world, you all know.
We do not have perfect depends in portage
For example we are missing out all deps in "system" usually.
An
I'm actually wondering this.
Most of the tree requires autotools being installed, there's no way round
this, as they change configure.ac and Makefile.am to fix bugs and similar.
Currently we're supposed to check which versions of tools are being ran and
then add the approriate deps to the packag
Ferris McCormick posted
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, excerpted below, on
Wed, 11 Jan 2006 19:04:19 +:
> B."Jurisdiction" --- why this is something for devrel to consider (policy
> violation or whatever). This is a categorization of the report, not an
> argument why it is valid. (This could be h
Chris Gianelloni posted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
excerpted below, on Wed, 11 Jan 2006 10:38:30 -0500:
> Again, please don't consider my tree proposal as anything "enterprise", at
> all. While it can be used as a *basis* for enterprise work, it does not
> need to be relegated to any specific usage.
On Wed, Jan 11, 2006 at 10:38:30AM -0500, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> On Wed, 2006-01-11 at 00:03 -0700, Duncan wrote:
> > Remember, portage already has a decent amount of signed content
> > verification builtin, and is getting more. Just because it's not
> > currently used, as the debate on stren
The attached note in form of RFC contains some thoughts on how to make a
devrel bug reporting inappropriate behavior more effective. The
original has been reviewed by the people most immediately involved in
processing such bugs (devrel, qa, ombudsman), and the attached version
incorporates improve
Daniel Drake wrote:
This is mainly a heads-up so that people maintaining external module
packages can fix any incompatibilities. I don't know of any specific
problems that you will run into, but there will probably be some.
If there are already bugs filed for issues like this, please make them
Hi,
2006.0 is planned to be based on 2.6.15, and we need to mark this stable
for release building. Also, the number of 2.6.15-specific bugs reported
since its release is very small and will all be fixed in the next
revision release (within a day or so from now).
This is mainly a heads-up so
On Wed, 2006-01-11 at 00:03 -0700, Duncan wrote:
> Remember, portage already has a decent amount of signed content
> verification builtin, and is getting more. Just because it's not
> currently used, as the debate on strength and keyring handling hasn't been
> settled, doesn't mean the capacity
On Tue, 2006-01-10 at 23:57 -0500, Andrew Muraco wrote:
> What I meant to say is, having this alternative tree method (as
> described here) would mean that portage would handle everything the
> exact same as it already does, which means that if someother tree was
> accidently sync'd or replaced
Lance Albertson said:
> I can probably setup toucan to use gorg in some fashion if I had a few
> folks to test it with. I'm sure that would make things easier for a lot
> of people for rendering things.
Since documentation posted on dev.gentoo.org isn't Gentoo's by default, it
might not be a good
19 matches
Mail list logo
