You broke deps with that masking. I've commented it in package.mask so
you can fix that up first.
Michael Sterrett
-Mr. Bones.-
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sun, 2 Apr 2006, Mark Loeser wrote:
Upstream has been dead for years and is unmaintained. Also requires
some reworking to compile with
Carsten Lohrke wrote:
This is not the case. At least unless the user actively looks at package.mask.
Since Portage doesn't provide the information, this point is void. And even
if - four weeks are a too long, imho.
It does. Almost all users do emerge -u world when updating their system.
# emerge -uD world
Calculating world dependencies \
!!! All ebuilds that could satisfy media-libs/mesa have been masked.
!!! One of the following masked packages is required to complete your
request:
- media-libs/mesa-6.4.2-r2 (masked by: package.mask)
# Donnie Berkholz [EMAIL PROTECTED] (07
Daniel Drake wrote:
Hi,
Linux 2.6.16 will be in the tree very soon. Assuming there aren't any
major problems, we'll hopefully be marking it stable in 2-3 weeks.
We're planning to mark it stable on 10th April. Maybe a few days later,
need to double check that we don't have any in-kernel
Carsten Lohrke wrote:
On Sunday 02 April 2006 22:29, Simon Stelling wrote:
Come on. Is this a 'policy doesn't say I have to be sane' war? It's
absolutely reasonable to p.mask a package that is pending for removal. That
way you give the users a timeframe which they can search for alternative
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I have masked dev-lisp/plt pending removal in 30 days. This has been
unmaintained for awhile (no metadata.xml) and a newer version of the
same package is in the tree as dev-scheme/drscheme.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2
Jan Kundrát wrote:
[...]
My mail server apparently sucks, sorry.
--
cd /local/pub more beer /dev/mouth
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
On Mon, 3 Apr 2006 07:26:53 +0200 Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| The first would be for generic findutils, that is find and xargs
| commands; it would be satisfied by sys-apps/findutils or one of the
| BSD -ubin packages. This will solve problems of packages depending on
|
Daniel Drake posted [EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on
Mon, 03 Apr 2006 15:04:19 +0100:
Linux 2.6.16 will be in the tree very soon. Assuming there aren't any
major problems, we'll hopefully be marking it stable in 2-3 weeks.
We're planning to mark it stable on 10th April. Maybe a few
On Monday 03 April 2006 12:25, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Mon, 3 Apr 2006 07:26:53 +0200 Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| The first would be for generic findutils, that is find and xargs
| commands; it would be satisfied by sys-apps/findutils or one of the
| BSD -ubin
On Monday 03 April 2006 19:59, Mike Frysinger wrote:
same goes for shadow
Still there are things depending on it.
And as someone bitched about losing maintainability if we added || ( ) or
kernel_linux? ( ) conditionals inside ebuilds, this is the final outcome...
Was for me I'd consider as
On Monday 03 April 2006 15:38, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
Was for me I'd consider as assumed the presence of basic utilities like
shadow, findutils and admin-processes, but if I'm not allowed to drop the
deps or put them under conditional, this is only going to hinder me
Well Mike
dont get me wrong, i hate documenting common sense as much as the next sane
guy, but it seems Gentoo has come to the point where this needs to be done
many thanks to the Ubuntu guys and to solar for doing the real work here:
http://dev.gentoo.org/~solar/xml/conduct.html
i dont see how anyone
Stuart Herbert wrote:
On 4/3/06, Mike Frysinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
i dont see how anyone can be against this (unless you're a terrorist!), so
this is on track to be integrated as-is into the dev handbook Etiquette
section
Let's go one step further, and also link to it from the
On Mon, 3 Apr 2006 17:38:48 -0400 Mike Frysinger [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| i dont see how anyone can be against this (unless you're a
| terrorist!)
I for one welcome our new infra overlords. Perhaps you should add in a
clause saying that infra will randomly (maybe with the help of a
keyword
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
I for one welcome our new infra overlords. Perhaps you should add in a
clause saying that infra will randomly (maybe with the help of a
keyword filter) inspect emails sent to all @gentoo.org addresses for
any signs of subversive activity. You could also add a clause saying
On Mon, 2006-04-03 at 17:38 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
i dont see how anyone can be against this (unless you're a terrorist!),
For someone who's promoting 'ubuntu' like conduct, your choice of words
is rather Patriot Act-ish. If this two-facedness reflects the intentions
of people behind this
Mike Frysinger wrote:
dont get me wrong, i hate documenting common sense as much as the next sane
guy, but it seems Gentoo has come to the point where this needs to be done
many thanks to the Ubuntu guys and to solar for doing the real work here:
On Tue, Apr 4, 2006 at 00:37:12 +0200, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Mon, 3 Apr 2006 17:38:48 -0400 Mike Frysinger [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| i dont see how anyone can be against this (unless you're a
| terrorist!)
I for one welcome our new infra overlords. Perhaps you should add in a
clause
Alexandre Buisse wrote:
On Tue, Apr 4, 2006 at 00:37:12 +0200, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Mon, 3 Apr 2006 17:38:48 -0400 Mike Frysinger [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| i dont see how anyone can be against this (unless you're a
| terrorist!)
I for one welcome our new infra overlords. Perhaps you
On Mon, Apr 03, 2006 at 05:38:48PM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
http://dev.gentoo.org/~solar/xml/conduct.html
If you choose the latter option, please ensure members of the
Infrastructure project have reviewed and approved the proxy
relationship to avoid having access cut off for both
Subject says it all.
This isn't meant as flamebait. I'm running stable on my laptop and
unstable on my desktop. It seems like most KDE release get better
over time, so I'm just wondering what the process is with KDE?
thanks
-matt
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
m h wrote:
Subject says it all.
This isn't meant as flamebait. I'm running stable on my laptop and
unstable on my desktop. It seems like most KDE release get better
over time, so I'm just wondering what the process is with KDE?
Whether it is meant to be flamebait or not is irrelevant.
On Tuesday 04 April 2006 01:05, m h wrote:
This isn't meant as flamebait. I'm running stable on my laptop and
unstable on my desktop. It seems like most KDE release get better
over time, so I'm just wondering what the process is with KDE?
KDE 3.5.0 was quite broken -and required more patches
On Mon, 3 Apr 2006 17:38:48 -0400
Mike Frysinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
dont get me wrong, i hate documenting common sense as much as the
next sane guy, but it seems Gentoo has come to the point where this
needs to be done
many thanks to the Ubuntu guys and to solar for doing the real
On 4/3/06, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tuesday 04 April 2006 01:05, m h wrote:
This isn't meant as flamebait. I'm running stable on my laptop and
unstable on my desktop. It seems like most KDE release get better
over time, so I'm just wondering what the process is
On Tue, Apr 4, 2006 at 01:17:59 +0200, Jan Kundrát wrote:
Alexandre Buisse wrote:
On Tue, Apr 4, 2006 at 00:37:12 +0200, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Mon, 3 Apr 2006 17:38:48 -0400 Mike Frysinger [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| i dont see how anyone can be against this (unless you're a
|
Mike,
Am Montag, 3. April 2006 23:38 schrieb Mike Frysinger:
dont get me wrong, i hate documenting common sense as much as the next sane
guy, but it seems Gentoo has come to the point where this needs to be done
many thanks to the Ubuntu guys and to solar for doing the real work here:
I disagree with fast-tracking this to any official Gentoo
documentation.
Be considerate. Your work will be used by other people, and you in
turn will depend on the work of others. Any decision you make will
affect users and colleagues, and we expect you to take those
consequences into account
Stephen P. Becker wrote: [Mon Apr 03 2006, 07:11:12PM EDT]
Whether it is meant to be flamebait or not is irrelevant. This list
isn't for whining about (the lack of) stable keywords for any
particular ebuild or set of ebuilds.
Making this kind of statement without pointing the poster to the
On Tue, Apr 04, 2006 at 01:40:59AM +0200, Danny van Dyk wrote:
This is how it has been handled so far except in the ciaranm incident. This
is
how I personally think this should be handled in future.
Well, quite frankly devrel has never fallen down on the job quite so
often so hard
On Mon, Apr 03, 2006 at 07:35:52PM -0400, Aron Griffis wrote:
Clearly this sentence states that Infra has usurped the suspension
process. It's very disappointing since Devrel has put so much work
into a process that has been demoted to recommendation status.
You mean the broken policy.xml
On Tue, 2006-04-04 at 01:01 +0200, Harald van Dijk wrote:
On Mon, Apr 03, 2006 at 05:38:48PM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
http://dev.gentoo.org/~solar/xml/conduct.html
If you choose the latter option, please ensure members of the
Infrastructure project have reviewed and approved the proxy
On Tue, 2006-04-04 at 01:40 +0200, Danny van Dyk wrote:
...
If
you choose the latter option, please ensure members of the Infrastructure
project have reviewed and approved the proxy relationship to avoid having
access cut off for both developers.
Refresh your browser.
It's infras job
Alexandre Buisse wrote:
Sorry but I am.
Opps, sorry, got confused by your name :), I thought you were someone
else... it's too late here, apparently.
What I saw was a document saying Be nice to each other. And in the end
If you aren't nice, you will be punished. Big deal.
Yup, that's
Jon Portnoy wrote:
On Tue, Apr 04, 2006 at 01:40:59AM +0200, Danny van Dyk wrote:
This is how it has been handled so far except in the ciaranm incident. This
is
how I personally think this should be handled in future.
Well, quite frankly devrel has never fallen down on the job quite so
Ned Ludd wrote:
It's infras job to enforce the permissions as given by devrel. If devrel
says,
somebody is allowed to commit in the main tree, nobody but devrel should be
allowed to revoke this. The only exceptions are those case already stated
above.
I think your understanding of how
On Mon, 03 Apr 2006 20:03:55 -0400 Ned Ludd [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| It's infras job to enforce the permissions as given by devrel. If
| devrel says, somebody is allowed to commit in the main tree, nobody
| but devrel should be allowed to revoke this. The only exceptions
| are those case
Marius Mauch [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Mon, 3 Apr 2006 17:38:48 -0400
Mike Frysinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
i dont see how anyone can be against this (unless you're a
terrorist!), so this is on track to be integrated as-is into the dev
handbook Etiquette section
The last two
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Mon, 3 Apr 2006, Stuart Herbert wrote:
On 4/3/06, Mike Frysinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
i dont see how anyone can be against this (unless you're a terrorist!), so
this is on track to be integrated as-is into the dev handbook Etiquette
section
On Tue, 2006-04-04 at 02:11 +0200, Jan Kundrát wrote:
Ned Ludd wrote:
It's infras job to enforce the permissions as given by devrel. If devrel
says,
somebody is allowed to commit in the main tree, nobody but devrel should be
allowed to revoke this. The only exceptions are those case
On Tue, 4 Apr 2006 00:03:08 + (UTC) Ferris McCormick
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| I still think the intent is good and support it.
The intent is to allow infra to arbitrarily suspend anyone they like,
with no accountability.
--
Ciaran McCreesh : Gentoo Developer (Wearer of the shiny hat)
Mail
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Tue, 4 Apr 2006 00:03:08 + (UTC) Ferris McCormick
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| I still think the intent is good and support it.
The intent is to allow infra to arbitrarily suspend anyone they like,
with no accountability.
Accountability resides between devrel
On Mon, 03 Apr 2006 21:40:54 -0400
Ned Ludd [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Umm ok. I've decided that root is root no matter how you look at it
and it's not worth getting into a vertical pissing contest over.
So this is effectively an admission that infra intends to use its
position of trust to
This is Gentoo. We have a reputation of good community support to maintain
here. You're not helping that reputation by being mean to people who ask
legitimate questions. The issue that the question may have been sent to the
wrong list is irrelevant. RTFM is never the right answer to a question.
Vapier wrote: [Mon Apr 03 2006, 04:38:48PM CDT]
dont get me wrong, i hate documenting common sense as much as the next sane
guy, but it seems Gentoo has come to the point where this needs to be done
Actually, I disagree that it needs to be done. Once upon a time I
helped plasmaroo craft parts
On Tue, 2006-04-04 at 03:14 +0100, Stephen Bennett wrote:
On Mon, 03 Apr 2006 21:40:54 -0400
Ned Ludd [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Umm ok. I've decided that root is root no matter how you look at it
and it's not worth getting into a vertical pissing contest over.
So this is effectively an
Aron Griffis wrote: [Mon Apr 03 2006, 06:35:52PM CDT]
This should be shortened to say just what it means: Developers will
have more fun, be more productive, and create a better distribution if
we concentrate on the issues instead of resorting to personal attacks.
Although I tend to agree with
Jon Portnoy wrote: [Mon Apr 03 2006, 06:52:33PM CDT]
On Mon, Apr 03, 2006 at 07:35:52PM -0400, Aron Griffis wrote:
Clearly this sentence states that Infra has usurped the suspension
process. It's very disappointing since Devrel has put so much work
into a process that has been demoted to
Kari Hazzard wrote:
This is Gentoo. We have a reputation of good community support to maintain
here. You're not helping that reputation by being mean to people who ask
legitimate questions. The issue that the question may have been sent to the
wrong list is irrelevant. RTFM is never the
Danny van Dyk wrote: [Mon Apr 03 2006, 06:40:59PM CDT]
Well, you're wrong. I'm against this conduct in its current form and I
am no terrorist. Further, i really dislike how you tried to avoid
public discussion by deeming everyone who disagrees as a terrorist.
You know, to the best of my
Kari Hazzard wrote: [Mon Apr 03 2006, 09:16:08PM CDT]
This is Gentoo. We have a reputation of good community support to maintain
here. You're not helping that reputation by being mean to people who ask
legitimate questions. The issue that the question may have been sent to the
wrong list is
Ned Ludd wrote:
On Tue, 2006-04-04 at 03:14 +0100, Stephen Bennett wrote:
On Mon, 03 Apr 2006 21:40:54 -0400
Ned Ludd [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Umm ok. I've decided that root is root no matter how you look at it
and it's not worth getting into a vertical pissing contest over.
So this is
From an outsiders point of view, this looks really, really ridiculous. I
personally feel that if something like this is even needed (which I don't
believe), then it shouldn't be phrased as a Code of Conduct which implies
strict compliance thereof. That's the gist of what I wanted to toss in,
Stephen P. Becker wrote:
I fail to see how pointing out a post was offtopic is mean. Rather, it
will save that individual (and hopefully others) from making the same
mistake in the future.
Also, RTFM is absolutely the right answer more often than not.
Otherwise, what is the point of having TFM
Vapier wrote: [Mon Apr 03 2006, 04:38:48PM CDT]
i dont see how anyone can be against this (unless you're a terrorist!), so
this is on track to be integrated as-is into the dev handbook Etiquette
section
Oh, one more probably useless comment: I would argue that the decision
to enforce an
--- lnxg33k [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
RTFM shouldn't be an answer in and of itself.
Pointing out which FM would help.
Particular sections to note would be great help too
considering many FM are
really FLarge.
Good response. Saying RTFM doesn't require any
know-how, and it's actually more
On Tuesday 04 April 2006 2:28 am, Stephen P. Becker wrote:
I fail to see how pointing out a post was offtopic is mean. Rather, it
will save that individual (and hopefully others) from making the same
mistake in the future.
Then refer the poster to the correct place to send such inquiries.
On Tue, Apr 04, 2006 at 02:10:20AM +0200, Jan Kundrát wrote:
Jon Portnoy wrote:
On Tue, Apr 04, 2006 at 01:40:59AM +0200, Danny van Dyk wrote:
This is how it has been handled so far except in the ciaranm incident. This
is
how I personally think this should be handled in future.
On Monday 03 April 2006 20:03, Ferris McCormick wrote:
Now, there are some details to fill in. Devrel and infra have agreed that
when responsibilities overlap, neither group would act unilaterally.
Please see http://dev.gentoo.org/~fmccor/devrel/devrel-infra.txt (esp.
section II.) So, unless
On Monday 03 April 2006 17:52, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Mon, 3 Apr 2006 17:38:48 -0400 Mike Frysinger [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| i dont see how anyone can be against this (unless you're a
| terrorist!)
I for one welcome our new infra overlords. Perhaps you should add in a
clause saying
On Monday 03 April 2006 18:28, Ioannis Aslanidis wrote:
And calling people who disagree with this terrorists was really a bad
comment.
sorry, you seem to have lost your sense of humor along the way. please locate
it, thanks.
-mike
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
On Monday 03 April 2006 18:36, foser wrote:
On Mon, 2006-04-03 at 17:38 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
i dont see how anyone can be against this (unless you're a terrorist!),
For someone who's promoting 'ubuntu' like conduct, your choice of words
is rather Patriot Act-ish. If this
On Mon, Apr 03, 2006 at 09:47:11PM -0500, lnxg33k wrote:
uncomfortable or threatened is not a productive one. This is odd
considering that the OP calls anyone who disagrees a terrorist. I'm pretty
speechless over this one (and annoyed) so I'll leave it as is.
Humor can be funny sometimes
On Monday 03 April 2006 19:01, Harald van Dijk wrote:
On Mon, Apr 03, 2006 at 05:38:48PM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
http://dev.gentoo.org/~solar/xml/conduct.html
If you choose the latter option, please ensure members of the
Infrastructure project have reviewed and approved the proxy
On Monday 03 April 2006 18:41, Stephen P. Becker wrote:
Mike Frysinger wrote:
dont get me wrong, i hate documenting common sense as much as the next
sane guy, but it seems Gentoo has come to the point where this needs to
be done
many thanks to the Ubuntu guys and to solar for doing the
On Monday 03 April 2006 19:40, Danny van Dyk wrote:
Mike,
Am Montag, 3. April 2006 23:38 schrieb Mike Frysinger:
dont get me wrong, i hate documenting common sense as much as the next
sane guy, but it seems Gentoo has come to the point where this needs to
be done
many thanks to the
On Monday 03 April 2006 20:29, Marius Mauch wrote:
On Mon, 3 Apr 2006 17:38:48 -0400
Mike Frysinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
dont get me wrong, i hate documenting common sense as much as the
next sane guy, but it seems Gentoo has come to the point where this
needs to be done
many
On Mon, Apr 03, 2006 at 09:27:39PM -0500, Grant Goodyear wrote:
Jon Portnoy wrote: [Mon Apr 03 2006, 06:52:33PM CDT]
On Mon, Apr 03, 2006 at 07:35:52PM -0400, Aron Griffis wrote:
Clearly this sentence states that Infra has usurped the suspension
process. It's very disappointing since
Jon Portnoy wrote:
On Mon, Apr 03, 2006 at 09:47:11PM -0500, lnxg33k wrote:
uncomfortable or threatened is not a productive one. This is odd
considering that the OP calls anyone who disagrees a terrorist. I'm pretty
speechless over this one (and annoyed) so I'll leave it as is.
Humor can be
On Monday 03 April 2006 22:19, Grant Goodyear wrote:
Vapier wrote: [Mon Apr 03 2006, 04:38:48PM CDT]
dont get me wrong, i hate documenting common sense as much as the next
sane guy, but it seems Gentoo has come to the point where this needs to
be done
Actually, I disagree that it needs
On Monday 03 April 2006 22:57, Grant Goodyear wrote:
Vapier wrote: [Mon Apr 03 2006, 04:38:48PM CDT]
i dont see how anyone can be against this (unless you're a terrorist!),
so this is on track to be integrated as-is into the dev handbook
Etiquette section
Oh, one more probably useless
Mike Frysinger wrote:
the idea is that it's common sense and to need to vote on something like this
seems asinine
if devs are uncomfortable with common courtesy and need to be told by the
council in order for this to happen, so be it
hopefully devs will just get it
Again, I'm just a user,
On Tue, 4 Apr 2006 01:12:28 -0400 Mike Frysinger [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| if devs are uncomfortable with common courtesy and need to be told by
| the council in order for this to happen, so be it
When some people define common courtesy to be saying You are a dick
and making spurious complaints
Two patches attached, one basically shows the repoman help,
modes/options, and QA related text removed; relevant references replaced
by repohelp.var or repohelp.var.keys().
Second path shows basically that stuff being placed in a second file,
with function calls replacing global code.
IIRC I
75 matches
Mail list logo
