I've masked net-dialup/gigaset-isdn for the following reasons:
- base and M105 driver are part of the standard kernel since 2.6.17
- frontend tools current version != current driver version, which means
it should be splitted in 2 packages
- frontend tools are experimental
I will remove it in
Robin H. Johnson kirjoitti:
- I suspect there might be one or two UTF8 problems lurking. Look on the
main bugzilla for entries that use UTF8 in the summary and the
comments, and compare them to the entries in bugstest.
There are. See http://bugstest.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=111507
My
Hi again everyone,
Could you also include, with your data, the packages that you maintain
(I forgot to request that info).
Thanks.
Best regards,
Andrey Falko
-- Original message --
From: Andrey Falko [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Nov 14, 2006 8:50 PM
Subject: Data Collection and
Hi,
in the past weeks Jason, Zac and myself have been working to implement
license based visibility fitlering (aka ACCEPT_LICENSE). This is also
discussed in GLEP 23, however the original versions of that document
didn't quite go along with the implementation and lacked some details.
So here is
On Sat, 18 Nov 2006 08:53:36 +0100 Marius Mauch [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| Anyone interested in this feature should review the attached version.
| Unless there are major objections (or we find large problems in the
| implementation) this will be merged in one of the next portage
| releases
On Sat, Nov 18, 2006 at 08:53:36AM +0100, Marius Mauch wrote:
Anyone interested in this feature should review the attached version.
Unless there are major objections (or we find large problems in the
implementation) this will be merged in one of the next portage releases
(definitely not in
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Sat, 18 Nov 2006 08:53:36 +0100 Marius Mauch [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| Anyone interested in this feature should review the attached version.
| Unless there are major objections (or we find large problems in the
| implementation) this will be merged in one of the next
On Sat, 18 Nov 2006 15:22:36 -0600 Mike Doty [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
| On Sat, 18 Nov 2006 08:53:36 +0100 Marius Mauch [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| wrote:
| | Anyone interested in this feature should review the attached
| | version. Unless there are major objections (or we
On Sat, Nov 18, 2006 at 01:25:57PM -0800, Brian Harring wrote:
groupname license1 license2 ... licenseN
Minor addendum here (dotting the i's as it were), but valid license
names aren't actually defined anywhere; would suggest nailing down the
exact rules of it.
[a-Z][0-9]-_. looks to
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Sat, 18 Nov 2006 15:22:36 -0600 Mike Doty [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
| On Sat, 18 Nov 2006 08:53:36 +0100 Marius Mauch [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| wrote:
| | Anyone interested in this feature should review the attached
| | version. Unless there are
On Saturday 18 November 2006 22:49, Mike Doty wrote:
The other option is to submit patches for X and KDE and Gnome to use a
unified license.
Would like to precise that KDE team reports correctly as GPL-2 or LGPL-2.1 the
licenses for every package. The only problem there is that there's no way
On Sat, 18 Nov 2006 13:49:12 -0800 Mike Doty [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| The other option is to submit patches for X and KDE and Gnome to use
| a unified license. At least in the X case, it's not that the patches
| arn't welcome, it's that the maintainers have things more important
| to do than
On Sat, 18 Nov 2006 22:59:36 +0100 Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| So no, there's no need to submit patches to the KDE team. I think the
| same applies to GNOME, but I'll leave those who handle that to answer
| by theirselves.
Right. Gnome is also correct, despite having lots
And then create a KDE licence group, and a Gnome licence group, and
so on? Remember that there are only a few X licences once you ignore
copyright line differences, just as there are only a few KDE
licences once you ignore copyright line differences.
The other option is to submit
Since interactivity (eula or otherwise) is again being brought up,
read through glep52 a bit, found some issues-
1) Specification doesn't actually lay out the mechanism for filtering.
User tweaks what to block interactive ebuilds?
2) What ebuild phases are allowed to be interactive? Scenario
15 matches
Mail list logo
