Hi all,
I'm leaving Gentoo. This isn't due to ill feelings or anything like that; I
just have no time to work on Gentoo anymore, and have been 'dormant' for many
months now. This isn't going to change anytime soon, and so there's no point
in my keeping the account.
I've enjoyed working on
Respectful Gentoo developers,
I would like to ask what do you think about UTF-8 encoded manual pages?
I mean, the files like ls.1.gz, which are used by honorable man program.
Recently I attacked the problem a little and before submitting any
patches/proposals to Gentoo bugzilla I'd like to know
This is your monthly friendly reminder ! Same bat time (typically the
2nd Thursday once a month), same bat channel (#gentoo-council @
irc.freenode.net) !
If you have something you'd wish for us to chat about, maybe even
vote on, let us know ! Simply reply to this e-mail for the whole
Gentoo dev
Wiktor Wandachowicz wrote:
Summing up:
* UTF-8 manuals: good or bad?
The Only Way To Go (tm), IMHO. Let's let the legacy encodings die in piece.
Any constructive comments are more than welcome!
The very same problem exists with man-pages-cs (which are outdated as a
bonus).
Blésmrt,
-jkt
--
On Thursday 01 June 2006 20:19, Jan Kundrát wrote:
Wiktor Wandachowicz wrote:
Summing up:
* UTF-8 manuals: good or bad?
The Only Way To Go (tm), IMHO. Let's let the legacy encodings die in piece.
Would it be possible to do automatic detection and unicode conversion in the
portage install
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Paul de Vrieze wrote:
On Thursday 01 June 2006 20:19, Jan Kundrát wrote:
Wiktor Wandachowicz wrote:
Summing up:
* UTF-8 manuals: good or bad?
The Only Way To Go (tm), IMHO. Let's let the legacy encodings die in piece.
Would it be possible to
Paul de Vrieze wrote: [Thu Jun 01 2006, 02:44:39PM CDT]
I would like the council to discuss GLEP 49 as has been discussed on
the list some weeks ago. It is about the package manager requirements.
Incidentally, I drafted a competing GLEP that I posted to -dev
([EMAIL PROTECTED]) that was either
On Thu, Jun 01, 2006 at 03:00:13PM -0500, Grant Goodyear wrote:
Paul de Vrieze wrote: [Thu Jun 01 2006, 02:44:39PM CDT]
I would like the council to discuss GLEP 49 as has been discussed on
the list some weeks ago. It is about the package manager requirements.
Incidentally, I drafted a
On Thu, 1 Jun 2006 14:10:04 -0700
Brian Harring [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Jun 01, 2006 at 03:00:13PM -0500, Grant Goodyear wrote:
Paul de Vrieze wrote: [Thu Jun 01 2006, 02:44:39PM CDT]
I would like the council to discuss GLEP 49
Incidentally, I drafted a competing GLEP
Realize
On Wed, 2006-05-31 at 18:20 -0400, Ned Ludd wrote:
Things can be fast tracked if it's better for the overall health of the
tree. The 30 thing is just a general guideline and more so before we
had any arch teams/ATs/etc... Now that we have arch teams the QA/stable
process has been highly
10 matches
Mail list logo
