On Saturday 01 November 2008 02:44:50 Josh Saddler wrote:
emboss - Seriously. Who needs the European Biology Open Software Suite
on a *desktop* oriented system?
That flag is only used by a few sci-biology packages, so if you don't have any
of those installed, it doesn't matter whether the flag
Hi,
I would like to add a new category to the tree: lxde-base, to be used
for the LXDE desktop [1,2] packages, in correspondence to the categories
for the other desktop environments we have (gnome, kde, xfce). With the
help of a few users I have been developing ebuilds for these packages in
the
On Sat, 01 Nov 2008 12:05:54 +0100
Ben de Groot [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
I would like to add a new category to the tree: lxde-base, to be used
for the LXDE desktop [1,2] packages, in correspondence to the
categories for the other desktop environments we have (gnome, kde,
xfce). With
Hi,
Ryan Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
In anticipation of getting GCC 4.3 stabilized sometime, I'd like to
ask maintainers check if their current stable packages build with
4.3, and if not please stabilize a version that does in the near
future if at all possible. Stabilizing this version is
Hi,
Robert Bridge [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
As a use who looked at LXDE for older machines, but decided that not
to mess around with overlays on otherwise stable x86 boxes, can I
vote for this?
You can, and I am sure you can also rely on that overlay to be in good
shape, so test it.
+1 by the way
On Sat, 2008-11-01 at 12:05 +0100, Ben de Groot wrote:
Hi,
I would like to add a new category to the tree: lxde-base, to be used
for the LXDE desktop [1,2] packages, in correspondence to the categories
for the other desktop environments we have (gnome, kde, xfce). With the
help of a few
On Sat, 1 Nov 2008 14:30:09 +0100
Christian Faulhammer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
Ryan Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
In anticipation of getting GCC 4.3 stabilized sometime, I'd like to
ask maintainers check if their current stable packages build with
4.3, and if not please stabilize a
Ryan Hill wrote:
In anticipation of getting GCC 4.3 stabilized sometime, I'd like to ask
maintainers check if their current stable packages build with 4.3, and
if not please stabilize a version that does in the near future if at
all possible. Stabilizing this version is going to be a huge job
On Fri, 31 Oct 2008 20:42:27 +
Daniel Drake [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
dev-util/rej
Taken. Unavoidable really. :)
Kind regards,
jer
On Fri, 31 Oct 2008 20:42:27 +
Daniel Drake [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
sys-block/viaideinfo
And that one.
rej
I'd like to get distcc added as one of the FEATURES we are able to RESTRICT.
It is true that RESTRICT=distcc is usually not the proper solution to
problems. But in the case of out-of-tree kernel modules the idea of
distributing compile jobs to other machines is fundamentally flawed IMO.
On Sat, 1 Nov 2008 13:57:17 -0700
Gordon Malm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But in the case of out-of-tree kernel modules the idea
of distributing compile jobs to other machines is fundamentally
flawed IMO.
Why? And how are out of tree kernel modules in any way special when it
comes to distcc?
--
If you're compiling an out-of-tree module that requires the kernel be compiled
with support for a particular item and the distccd host's kernel does not
have that support compiles fail. Reference bug #120001 (though I know that
it was properly diagnosed there).
Then there's also this doozie.
On Sat, 1 Nov 2008 14:21:43 -0700
Gordon Malm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If you're compiling an out-of-tree module that requires the kernel be
compiled with support for a particular item and the distccd host's
kernel does not have that support compiles fail. Reference bug
#120001 (though I know
On Saturday, November 1, 2008 14:28:06 Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Sat, 1 Nov 2008 14:21:43 -0700
Gordon Malm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If you're compiling an out-of-tree module that requires the kernel be
compiled with support for a particular item and the distccd host's
kernel does not
On Sat, 1 Nov 2008 14:58:39 -0700
Gordon Malm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I use madwifi-ng extensively and have experienced the same issue with
madwifi-ng as stated in that bug. For bug #167844, please read
comment #13 and http://code.google.com/p/distcc/issues/detail?id=25.
There's nothing to
On Sat, 01 Nov 2008 18:30:41 +0100
Jose Luis Rivero [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ryan Hill wrote:
In anticipation of getting GCC 4.3 stabilized sometime, I'd like to
ask maintainers check if their current stable packages build with
4.3, and if not please stabilize a version that does in the
On Saturday, November 1, 2008 15:11:16 Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Sat, 1 Nov 2008 14:58:39 -0700
Gordon Malm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I use madwifi-ng extensively and have experienced the same issue with
madwifi-ng as stated in that bug. For bug #167844, please read
comment #13 and
On Sat, 1 Nov 2008 15:47:09 -0700
Gordon Malm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It looks to me like hardened is doing entirely the wrong thing.
Thus, the proper fix is to make hardened behave itself.
It looks to me like you've already made up your mind. How is
hardened doing the entirely wrong
Gordon Malm wrote:
It looks to me like you've already made up your mind. How is hardened doing
the entirely wrong thing?
From the page [1] you mentioned:
If so, that seems to me like an abuse of the -D option.
The abuse is in changing the compiler behavior based on -D options.
What do you
Ben de Groot wrote:
Hi,
I would like to add a new category to the tree: lxde-base, to be used
for the LXDE desktop [1,2] packages, in correspondence to the categories
for the other desktop environments we have (gnome, kde, xfce). With the
help of a few users I have been developing ebuilds
On Saturday 01 November 2008 20:57:17 Gordon Malm wrote:
I'd like to get distcc added as one of the FEATURES we are able to
RESTRICT.
Regardless of whether it's a good idea or not, does it fix all the known
issues if the ebuild sets DISTCC_HOSTS=localhost in the environment?
On Saturday, November 1, 2008 15:57:52 Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
Parallel building problems can often and should be addressed
properly. I don't want the answer to every one that comes along to
be to add RESTRICT=distcc. This is something to be addressed
through developer documentation that
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Gordon Malm wrote:
snip a lot of exchanges
All the technical discussion on the above is perfectly fine, but the way
the arguments are being presented and the tone used by both sides is
getting arguments into a thin line from becoming flames.
Please
24 matches
Mail list logo
