However as a member of the existing portage team and also as a council
member I would reject (and I would encourage[read work really hard at
it] other council members to do the same) any GLEP which allowed or
promoted the primary pkg mgt system being hosted offsite and maintained
by non devs
On Monday 22 May 2006 18:30, Chris Bainbridge wrote:
On 22/05/06, Paul de Vrieze [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There are serious costs involved with forking something. For gentoo this
would include image problems by being seen as evil forkers.
Surely such decisions should be based on technical
On Monday 22 May 2006 17:54, Stephen P. Becker wrote:
Am I missing something obvious?
-g2boojum-
Probably just the blatant Ciaran hate, and the realization that people
will have to suck it up and deal with him if his package manager ever
becomes official for Gentoo. Who was it that
So, right now virtual/eject is the old-style virtual that gets listed in
virtuals file in the profiles, defaulting to sys-apps/eject that is Linux
only.
I would like to move it to a new-style virtual to make it simpler to handlef
or other platforms, having the deps this way:
|| (
On Tue, May 23, 2006 at 12:38:55PM +0200, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
So, right now virtual/eject is the old-style virtual that gets listed in
virtuals file in the profiles, defaulting to sys-apps/eject that is Linux
only.
I would like to move it to a new-style virtual to make it
On Tuesday 23 May 2006 13:25, Harald van Dijk wrote:
How does it help? New-style virtuals have several disadvantages, and the
usual advantages of new-style virtuals don't apply here. If it actually
provides real benefits, then no objections from me, but how is this
easier to maintain than a
On Tue, 2006-05-23 at 12:38 +0200, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
So, right now virtual/eject is the old-style virtual that gets listed in
virtuals file in the profiles, defaulting to sys-apps/eject that is Linux
only.
Please refrain from adding any new(bad) style virtuals till
Ned Ludd wrote:
On Tue, 2006-05-23 at 12:38 +0200, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
So, right now virtual/eject is the old-style virtual that gets listed in
virtuals file in the profiles, defaulting to sys-apps/eject that is Linux
only.
Please refrain from adding any new(bad) style
Harald van Dijk wrote:
How does it help? New-style virtuals have several disadvantages, and the
usual advantages of new-style virtuals don't apply here. If it actually
provides real benefits, then no objections from me, but how is this
easier to maintain than a virtual/eject sys-block/unieject
On Tue, May 23, 2006 at 07:12:53AM -0700, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
Harald van Dijk wrote:
How does it help? New-style virtuals have several disadvantages, and the
usual advantages of new-style virtuals don't apply here. If it actually
provides real benefits, then no objections from me, but how
Harald van Dijk wrote:
can't block themselves when only one may be
installed at a time,
This is the one that really annoys me. New-style virtuals are supposed
to make things so easy, but you end up having a ton of crap added to
each provider to block all the others.
Thanks,
Donnie
On Tue, 23 May 2006 10:46:21 +0200 Paul de Vrieze [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| Except that if things were really problematic, the council could have
| some developers go in to actually do the thing required. Even if it
| were against the wishes of the maintainers. I do not believe that the
| failure
And now per arch breakdowns.
http://gentooexperimental.org/~ferringb/reports/arch-vulnerabilities/
On Sun, 2006-05-21 at 23:02 -0400, Ned Ludd wrote:
ferringb took the time to write a parser and setup a cronjob
(every 4 hours at the half hour) to parse over our GLSA's and see what
pkgs
On Tue, May 23, 2006 at 04:22:30PM -0400, Ned Ludd wrote:
And now per arch breakdowns.
http://gentooexperimental.org/~ferringb/reports/arch-vulnerabilities/
Couple more reports generated (in the parent dir, dropped keywords,
imlate, packages that have just ~arch, ebuild metadata verification,
On Tue, 2006-05-23 at 16:22 -0400, Ned Ludd wrote:
And now per arch breakdowns.
http://gentooexperimental.org/~ferringb/reports/arch-vulnerabilities/
No offense, but that isn't exactly useful in its current form. For
example, x86 shows *all* of the packages, even ones where it has a
On Tue, May 23, 2006 at 04:51:06PM -0400, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
On Tue, 2006-05-23 at 16:22 -0400, Ned Ludd wrote:
And now per arch breakdowns.
http://gentooexperimental.org/~ferringb/reports/arch-vulnerabilities/
No offense, but that isn't exactly useful in its current form. For
On Tue, 2006-05-23 at 14:06 -0700, Brian Harring wrote:
On Tue, May 23, 2006 at 04:51:06PM -0400, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
On Tue, 2006-05-23 at 16:22 -0400, Ned Ludd wrote:
And now per arch breakdowns.
http://gentooexperimental.org/~ferringb/reports/arch-vulnerabilities/
No offense,
On Tue, 2006-05-23 at 16:51 -0400, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
On Tue, 2006-05-23 at 16:22 -0400, Ned Ludd wrote:
And now per arch breakdowns.
http://gentooexperimental.org/~ferringb/reports/arch-vulnerabilities/
No offense, but that isn't exactly useful in its current form.
heh.
For
On Tue, May 23, 2006 at 05:46:09PM -0400, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
I completely understand this. However, in most cases the reason the
older packages are still in the tree is because *somebody* doesn't have
it stable yet.
Strictly stable, or unstable?
What about profiles, which to account
On Tue, 2006-05-23 at 17:50 -0400, Ned Ludd wrote:
Feel free to fire off a request to ferringb.
He is trying to be helpful here and I'm all for taking
advantage of that.
Oh, absolutely. I didn't mean to come across sounding like I wasn't
grateful for the information he's providing. I was
On Tue, 2006-05-23 at 15:05 -0700, Brian Harring wrote:
On Tue, May 23, 2006 at 05:46:09PM -0400, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
I completely understand this. However, in most cases the reason the
older packages are still in the tree is because *somebody* doesn't have
it stable yet.
Strictly
On Tue, May 23, 2006 at 06:24:31PM -0400, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
On Tue, 2006-05-23 at 15:05 -0700, Brian Harring wrote:
On Tue, May 23, 2006 at 05:46:09PM -0400, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
I completely understand this. However, in most cases the reason the
older packages are still in the
On Saturday 20 May 2006 09:52, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
Please, don't filter --as-needed i your ebuild. If your package does not
build with --as-needed, leave the bug open, and I'll eventually take care
of it (when I have time, time constrain is my only problem).
mark should update his
On Thursday 18 May 2006 07:44, Panard wrote:
OPTION=${OPTION:-WITH_${USEFLAG}}
quoting here is pointless
mkdir -p ${BUILDDIR}
cd ${BUILDDIR}
echo cmake ${S} -DCMAKE_INSTALL_PREFIX=${INSTALL_PREFIX} \
$(cmake_use_option debug
On Thursday 18 May 2006 06:41, Paul de Vrieze wrote:
The package sys-apps/paludis is in the wrong category. It is a package
manager on par with rpm, dpkg, etc. Those live in app-arch.
app-arch is for things that manage archives
paludis is much more than an archive manager
-mike
Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Thursday 18 May 2006 06:41, Paul de Vrieze wrote:
The package sys-apps/paludis is in the wrong category. It is a package
manager on par with rpm, dpkg, etc. Those live in app-arch.
app-arch is for things that manage archives
paludis is much more than an archive
Matthias,
Matthias Schwarzott wrote: [Sun May 21 2006, 05:40:53AM EDT]
* The eclass copies the downloaded sources to ${S} rather than to
${WORKDIR}/${HG_MODULE_NAME}.
* the unpack-function keeps the current working directory
in /usr/portage/distfiles/hg-src/${HG_MODULE}.
Could you try the
On Tuesday 23 May 2006 21:18, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Thursday 18 May 2006 06:41, Paul de Vrieze wrote:
The package sys-apps/paludis is in the wrong category. It is a package
manager on par with rpm, dpkg, etc. Those live in app-arch.
app-arch is for things that
Mike Frysinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
mark should update his QA script to flag this as a maintainer is doing
something stupid
/me makes a TODO item to remember to try and get something work for this
soon
Basically, any sort of flag filtering is doing something stupid. It
should just be a
On Tue, 23 May 2006 13:44:09 -0700
Brian Harring [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Couple more reports generated (in the parent dir, dropped keywords,
imlate, packages that have just ~arch, ebuild metadata verification,
and ebuild has been unstable for arch X for greater then N days).
Seems like we
you could wh0re yourself out to 500 fat chicks for $10 a piece ... or 5
*really* fat chicks for $1000 a piece
-mike
or one fat man for the whole $5000
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Brian Harring wrote:
Commented in #-security about it, but any reason that arches don't yank
their keywords from insecure ebuilds after they've stabled a
replacement?
Brian,
I asked about this VERY same thing a long while back and at best I
received Because person X said no. So you ask
Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Thursday 18 May 2006 07:40, Simon Stelling wrote:
To continue my development in an efficient way, I need a larger screen,
particularly one with a resolution of 1024x3972. However, I can not
afford the costs for such an investment, so I thought maybe the
community
33 matches
Mail list logo
