Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: bash version in ebuilds/eclasses...non-compliance and what to do?

2008-12-20 Thread Fabian Groffen
On 20-12-2008 05:35:25 +, Steve Long wrote: I note that bash-3.2_p17-r1 is stable on all the architectures that 3.0-r12 lists (it just adds the two -fbsd archs as unstable.) portage-2.1.4.5 requires at least that version (only unstable on mips as against 2.1.1-r2) It might be worth

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: bash version in ebuilds/eclasses...non-compliance and what to do?

2008-12-20 Thread Ciaran McCreesh
On Sat, 20 Dec 2008 05:35:25 + Steve Long sl...@rathaus.eclipse.co.uk wrote: I note that bash-3.2_p17-r1 is stable on all the architectures that 3.0-r12 lists (it just adds the two -fbsd archs as unstable.) portage-2.1.4.5 requires at least that version (only unstable on mips as against

[gentoo-dev] Last rites: app-editors/katoob

2008-12-20 Thread Peter Alfredsen
+# Peter Alfredsen loki_...@gentoo.org (20 Dec 2008) +# Masked for removal in 30 days. Version that compiles with gcc-4.3 +# is not ready for stable ( bug 251566 ). +# Upstream has abandoned it, alternatives such as gedit exist. +app-editors/katoob + -- /PA signature.asc Description: This is a

[gentoo-dev] links between anoncvs.g.o and sources.g.o

2008-12-20 Thread Jonas Bernoulli
Hi May I suggest that you add links so that anoncvs.g.o and sources.g.o link to one another. Users might find one of those pages and think that's all there is to it. However both of the pages contain information not available on the other. anoncvs.g.o mentions git and rsync, and sources.g.o allow