Must admit that I have no idea of what fox is at all, but:
On 09/16/2010 08:32 PM, Peter Volkov wrote:
В Чтв, 16/09/2010 в 16:24 +0200, Matti Bickel пишет:
- elibtoolize
+ eautoreconf
Hm, is this change necessary?
The obvious reason for eautoreconf here is:
fox_src_prepare()
On 16/09/10 23:12, Pacho Ramos wrote:
Hello
I have seen some package metadatas still referring to wormo as their
maintainer:
$ grep -r wormo */*/metada*
app-admin/ulogd/metadata.xml: emailwo...@gentoo.org/email
app-arch/pdv/metadata.xml: emailwo...@gentoo.org/email
El jue, 16-09-2010 a las 16:20 -0500, Jeremy Olexa escribió:
On Thu, 16 Sep 2010 23:12:10 +0200, Pacho Ramos pa...@gentoo.org
wrote:
Hello
I have seen some package metadatas still referring to wormo as their
maintainer:
$ grep -r wormo */*/metada*
app-admin/ulogd/metadata.xml:
Just since it bit me on some infra boxes this evening, a quick reminder
that you should generally never DEPEND on virtual/linux-sources in your
ebuilds.
It's trivial to build a fully working system, and never have /usr/src
get populated.
1. Never RDEPEND on virtual/linux-sources, it will bring
http://www.metux.de/download/oss-qm/normalized_repository.pdf
Hi Enrico,
I took the freedom to spread your SPAM to the Cygwin list. Hope that is OK.
http://www.mail-archive.com/cyg...@cygwin.com/msg111929.html
I like the idea. I think you have to come with a proof a concept in
form of a
Every single QA commit review coming into my Inbox during the past week
was directed to arfrever. I *know* he is on probation, I *know* he made
mistakes - in fact every one makes mistakes. But you guys are hammering
all over him for picky stuff.
Remind you that while it is a pleasure to be member
On Friday 17 of September 2010 12:41:51 Angelo Arrifano wrote:
Every single QA commit review coming into my Inbox during the past week
was directed to arfrever. I *know* he is on probation, I *know* he made
mistakes - in fact every one makes mistakes. But you guys are hammering
all over him
On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 12:51:52PM +0200, Maciej Mrozowski wrote:
On Friday 17 of September 2010 12:41:51 Angelo Arrifano wrote:
Every single QA commit review coming into my Inbox during the past week
was directed to arfrever. I *know* he is on probation, I *know* he made
mistakes - in fact
On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 03:52:03PM +0100, Markos Chandras wrote:
On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 12:51:52PM +0200, Maciej Mrozowski wrote:
On Friday 17 of September 2010 12:41:51 Angelo Arrifano wrote:
Every single QA commit review coming into my Inbox during the past week
was directed to
On Friday 17 September 2010 18:33:01 Alex Alexander wrote:
I don't think ego has anything to do with this. Arfrever brought this on
himself. His [multiple] past mistakes and lack of cooperation are
forcing the other devs to screen all his commits now, to make sure
history doesn't repeat
On Friday 17 of September 2010 16:52:03 Markos Chandras wrote:
On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 12:51:52PM +0200, Maciej Mrozowski wrote:
On Friday 17 of September 2010 12:41:51 Angelo Arrifano wrote:
Every single QA commit review coming into my Inbox during the past week
was directed to arfrever.
Am 17.09.2010 17:38, schrieb Theo Chatzimichos:
On Friday 17 September 2010 18:33:01 Alex Alexander wrote:
I don't think ego has anything to do with this. Arfrever brought this on
himself. His [multiple] past mistakes and lack of cooperation are
forcing the other devs to screen all his commits
On 17-09-2010 17:33, Alex Alexander wrote:
On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 03:52:03PM +0100, Markos Chandras wrote:
On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 12:51:52PM +0200, Maciej Mrozowski wrote:
On Friday 17 of September 2010 12:41:51 Angelo Arrifano wrote:
Every single QA commit review coming into my Inbox during
On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 06:38:48PM +0300, Theo Chatzimichos wrote:
On Friday 17 September 2010 18:33:01 Alex Alexander wrote:
I don't think ego has anything to do with this. Arfrever brought this on
himself. His [multiple] past mistakes and lack of cooperation are
forcing the other devs to
On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 06:04:31PM +0200, Angelo Arrifano wrote:
«forcing other devs to screen all his commits now» - like torture and
pay-back?
That's exactly what I feel it is entirely wrong. It just makes Gentoo
look bad.
Anyway, I think QA should keep their commit acceptability
On Fri, 17 Sep 2010 19:14:07 +0300
Panagiotis Christopoulos pchr...@gentoo.org wrote:
# http://tinyurl.com/2w2rzgt
http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-lisp/msg_f51a06ebb1800c83d7eafecd3b9d544d.xml
It's better not to depend on external resources. Also there is no need
to shorten it in this case
Hi guys,
i found the painfull way that kernel eclass does not die if it fails to
unpack patch file supplied to it.
So i propose the patch i attach for inclusion :)
Result with this patch:
Unpacking source...
Unpacking linux-2.6.35.tar.bz2 to
On Friday, September 17, 2010 15:41:17 Tomáš Chvátal wrote:
i found the painfull way that kernel eclass does not die if it fails to
unpack patch file supplied to it.
So i propose the patch i attach for inclusion :)
looks ok, thanks
patchfile gets ignored and you might fail to notice it (as
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Dne 17.9.2010 23:37, Mike Frysinger napsal(a):
On Friday, September 17, 2010 15:41:17 Tomáš Chvátal wrote:
i found the painfull way that kernel eclass does not die if it fails to
unpack patch file supplied to it.
So i propose the patch i attach
On Fri, 17 Sep 2010 19:42:56 +0300
Alex Alexander wi...@gentoo.org wrote:
This is a matter of perspective. To you it might look like torture and
pay-back, but for the guys doing it it could be making sure he
follows all the guidelines.
By nitpicking his commit messages? So far that's the
Ryan Hill posted on Fri, 17 Sep 2010 21:01:36 -0600 as excerpted:
On Fri, 17 Sep 2010 19:42:56 +0300
Alex Alexander wi...@gentoo.org wrote:
This is a matter of perspective. To you it might look like torture and
pay-back, but for the guys doing it it could be making sure he follows
all the
21 matches
Mail list logo
