On Friday, September 16, 2011 06:06:35 PM Duncan wrote:
Joost Roeleveld posted on Fri, 16 Sep 2011 10:36:27 +0200 as excerpted:
I agree, I just used this example to explain that it shouldn't be
necessary to force an initramfs on all users just because there is a
small group who wants to
On Sat, Sep 17, 2011 at 2:16 AM, Joost Roeleveld jo...@antarean.org wrote:
Except that Redhat and Centos use LVM by default. Which will also mean that
simple users also end up using LVM.
Then again, they also end up with an initr* and a generic kernel for
everything under the sun.
I haven't
On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 10:36:27AM +0200, Joost Roeleveld wrote:
Either udev does this already and the execution sequence is always the
same. In which case my suggestion above would follow the same sequence
as the queue would be on a First-in First-out basis.
Or, if udev doesn't do
Hello,
My name is Alec and I am a recent addition to the Gentoo
Infrastructure Team. I think our Infra team does a decent job of
holding the fort. However I am curious what developers and users think
about our efforts. As such I have a short (4 question) survey[1] for
you. You do not need to be a
On 09/16/2011 02:06 AM, Brian Harring wrote:
On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 10:00:19PM -0500, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
On 17:29 Wed 14 Sep , Brian Harring wrote:
On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 02:16:41PM -0500, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
On 19:14 Tue 13 Sep , Brian Harring wrote:
On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at
TLDR: Let's remove FEATURES=stricter from developer profile, I bet
most people have it disabled anyway and it doesn't seem useful.
I recently started more testing in one of my stable chroots, and I
switched it to the developer profile. During the update the following
error happened:
* QA
# Mounir Lamouri volk...@gentoo.org (18 Sep 2011)
# Masked for removal in 30 days. Use Firefox 4 or higher instead.
www-plugins/weave
On 14:06 Fri 16 Sep , Zac Medico wrote:
Bumping the EAPI of the root profiles/eapi file would be a different
matter, since it applies to the whole repository. If you want to
version bump that repository-level EAPI, then you need to wait until
at least 6 months after supporting package
On 13:43 Fri 16 Sep , Brian Harring wrote:
What I said from the getgo and you're missing is that pushing EAPI
implementation into the tree and ignoring EAPI, or having this notion
that every repository must automatically use gentoo-x86 (pushing the
format into the tree) is /wrong/;
I'm
'bout that time again. if you peeps know of anything blocking glibc-2.13 from
going stable, mark the relevant bug as blocking the tracker.
tracker: https://bugs.gentoo.org/354107
stabilization: https://bugs.gentoo.org/382377
-mike
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message
On 09/17/2011 08:47 PM, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
On 14:06 Fri 16 Sep , Zac Medico wrote:
Bumping the EAPI of the root profiles/eapi file would be a different
matter, since it applies to the whole repository. If you want to
version bump that repository-level EAPI, then you need to wait
On 9/15/11 1:33 PM, Joost Roeleveld wrote:
On Thursday, September 15, 2011 09:31:45 PM Luca Barbato wrote:
On 15/09/2011 16:33, Joost Roeleveld wrote:
Hi Devs,
Not sure if you are aware of the discussions on the gentoo-user list
about the upcoming change where systemd and udev require /usr to
12 matches
Mail list logo
