May I ask why you force the g-cpan category to dev-perl?
Using that category solves many issues in advance, ie: if you
generated an ebuild locally, and then we provided a maintained copy,
portage would just switch from one to the other seamlessly where
needed without you having to modify all
Grant posted on Fri, 25 May 2012 23:01:42 -0700 as excerpted:
May I ask why you force the g-cpan category to dev-perl?
Using that category solves many issues in advance, ie: if you generated
an ebuild locally, and then we provided a maintained copy,
portage would just switch from one to the
I was thinking it would be nice to know which ebuilds came from g-cpan,
but now that I think about it I suppose it doesn't really matter.
Not a perl-head, but if I've been following the thread correctly...
If you manage the overlays correctly (see the earlier note about it using
the last
I switched local-lib from the g-cpan one to the perl-experimental one
and all is well as far as installation all the way through
Net-Braintree. Thank you very much for sticking with me on this guys.
I just used 'g-cpan -u' to update my g-cpan ebuilds and it generated
ebuilds in
On 05/26/2012 12:05 AM, Katie Toreg wrote:
I like it. There would be plenty of time for migration considering the
4.2 requirement. Unfortunately, writing a QA check for violations would
be nearly impossible.
(Unrelated.)
Please disable HTML from your mail client when posting to Mailing
On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 11:23 PM, Ryan Hill dirtye...@gentoo.org wrote:
Some projects are territorial. Games is one. I imagine adding something
to kde, gnome, or xfce categories without contacting those guys would get you
an email. If in doubt I usually file a bug when I'm adding a package
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 05/26/2012 05:23 AM, Ryan Hill wrote:
On Sat, 26 May 2012 02:33:06 +0200 hasufell hasuf...@gentoo.org
wrote:
What's the official policy, so everyone can be clear about this?
It's not a requirement, except when it is. :)
Some projects
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 05/26/2012 01:40 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
Perhaps, but in general devs should be fairly free to add new
packages to the tree as long as they properly maintain them. If a
dev makes a mistake with a newly-added package, then file a bug and
they
Ok.
Since most of us want clean cut solution so i will close bug #333699
as WONTFIX
--
Best Regards,
Alexey 'Alexxy' Shvetsov
Petersburg Nuclear Physics Institute, NRC Kurchatov Institute,
Gatchina, Russia
Department of Molecular and Radiation Biophysics
Gentoo Team Ru
Gentoo Linux Dev
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
# Markos Chandras hwoar...@gentoo.org (26 May 2012)
# Abandoned patchsets. Upstream stopped regular releases.
# Live ebuild will remain in portage for now.
# Removal in 30 days.
# For regular releases please migrate to
# sys-kernel/pf-sources
All,
I realize this has been discussed and there are definite opinions about
which method works well. So, I want to take a different approach.
Is there any interest in documenting and supporting newnet along side
oldnet as opposed to killing newnet?
Newnet would consist of the network init
11 matches
Mail list logo
