[gentoo-dev] Kernel maintainers that use genpatches

2010-11-22 Thread Mike Pagano
For all the kernel maintainers that use genpatches in their kernel package, please make sure you are subscribed to gentoo-kernel so that I know I can reach all of you easily. Thanks, -- Mike Pagano Gentoo Developer - Kernel Project Gentoo Sources - Lead E-Mail : mpag...@gentoo.org GnuPG FP

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Change policy about live ebuilds

2010-11-22 Thread Zac Medico
On 11/21/2010 09:54 PM, Ulrich Mueller wrote: On Sun, 21 Nov 2010, Alexis Ballier wrote: Also, for an ebuild with empty KEYWORDS, repoman will not indicate any problems with dependencies. by default with a p.mask it doesnt either. Yes, but it has an option to enable it, whereas there

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Change policy about live ebuilds

2010-11-22 Thread Zac Medico
On 11/22/2010 09:09 AM, Zac Medico wrote: On 11/21/2010 09:54 PM, Ulrich Mueller wrote: On Sun, 21 Nov 2010, Alexis Ballier wrote: Also, for an ebuild with empty KEYWORDS, repoman will not indicate any problems with dependencies. by default with a p.mask it doesnt either. Yes, but it has

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Change policy about live ebuilds

2010-11-22 Thread Markos Chandras
On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 05:30:16PM -0800, Zac Medico wrote: On 11/22/2010 09:09 AM, Zac Medico wrote: On 11/21/2010 09:54 PM, Ulrich Mueller wrote: On Sun, 21 Nov 2010, Alexis Ballier wrote: Also, for an ebuild with empty KEYWORDS, repoman will not indicate any problems with

[gentoo-dev] Cobra as a Python replacement for portage infra...

2010-11-22 Thread Branko Badrljica
Hi to all, I am sorry if I'm wasting bandwidth on gentoo-dev with this, but I have found no good answere elsewhere. I have accidentally stumbled on Codelite ( at the first glance ) _great_ IDE for C/C++/Python ( www.codelite.org). While toying with its settings for various language

Re: [gentoo-dev] Cobra as a Python replacement for portage infra...

2010-11-22 Thread Branko Badrljica
Erm, link is http://cobra-language.com http://cobra-language.com/

Re: [gentoo-dev] Cobra as a Python replacement for portage infra...

2010-11-22 Thread Mike Frysinger
dont hijack threads. write a new e-mail from scratch rather than picking some random e-mail and hitting reply and deleting all the text. -mike signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: GCC 4.5 unmasking tomorrow

2010-11-22 Thread Graham Murray
Mike Frysinger vap...@gentoo.org writes: well, not quite. the way we agreed in the past was to not revbump the masked package, but once it was unmasked, we revbump it just once at that point. Is there somewhere which tells users when there are upgrades to toolchain packages which are not

[gentoo-dev] Cobra as a Python replacement for portage infra...

2010-11-22 Thread Branko Badrljica
( reposted as a new thread. Sorry for inconvenience.) Hi to all, I am sorry if I'm wasting bandwidth on gentoo-dev with this, but I have found no good answere elsewhere. I have accidentally stumbled on Codelite ( at the first glance ) _great_ IDE for C/C++/Python ( http://www.codelite.org ).

Re: [gentoo-dev] Cobra as a Python replacement for portage infra...

2010-11-22 Thread Dirkjan Ochtman
On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 09:52, Branko Badrljica bran...@avtomatika.com wrote: My question is, could existing Portage infrastructure be ported to such language with minimal effort and would it be worthwile to even try ? I'm guessing not. There are many operations that now take portage ages to

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: GCC 4.5 unmasking tomorrow

2010-11-22 Thread Mike Frysinger
On Tuesday, November 23, 2010 01:36:15 Graham Murray wrote: Mike Frysinger vap...@gentoo.org writes: well, not quite. the way we agreed in the past was to not revbump the masked package, but once it was unmasked, we revbump it just once at that point. Is there somewhere which tells

[gentoo-dev] Re: GCC 4.5 unmasking tomorrow

2010-11-22 Thread Nikos Chantziaras
On 11/23/2010 09:32 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote: On Tuesday, November 23, 2010 01:36:15 Graham Murray wrote: Mike Frysingervap...@gentoo.org writes: well, not quite. the way we agreed in the past was to not revbump the masked package, but once it was unmasked, we revbump it just once at that