On Tue, 16 Oct 2012 22:54:04 +
Robin H. Johnson robb...@gentoo.org wrote:
Previously, the PORTAGE_GPG_KEY variable has allowed ANY argument, and
passed it to GPG, letting GPG use that. This was intended to explicitly
be a unique identifier for a key (or subkey).
However, it seems that
On Monday 15 October 2012 04:35:09 Gregory M. Turner wrote:
On 10/14/2012 9:29 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
Python clearly has an amazing community, so I hate to say anything
negative... but I sometimes wish they would build less and buy more.
build systems are hard to get right. python is in
On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 05:38:06PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
Steven J. Long sl...@rathaus.eclipse.co.uk wrote:
On Tue, Oct 02, 2012 at 06:56:14PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
But with the current syntax, there's no such thing as the
spec that is in both. There are two specs, which
On Mon, Oct 01, 2012 at 10:15:31AM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Mon, 1 Oct 2012 02:01:32 -0700
Brian Harring ferri...@gmail.com wrote:
Implicit labels context is build+run.
snip
Your rules require a handler to say have I seen any dep: blocks
further up the tree than my current position?
On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 11:22 PM, Mike Frysinger vap...@gentoo.org wrote:
please stop top posting. you're making a mess of this whole thread.
sounds like we should extend the profiles.desc file or profile structure to
include a description so that people know the intention of each one. the
On 10/17/2012 12:16 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
On Tue, 16 Oct 2012 22:54:04 +
Robin H. Johnson robb...@gentoo.org wrote:
As such, we've decided to make the PORTAGE_GPG_KEY strictly enforce what
was originally intended.
- You must specify a key or subkey exactly.
- The leading 0x is
On 17.10.2012 03:30, Patrick Lauer wrote:
On 10/17/12 06:54, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
Hi all,
One of the items that has come up in the Git conversion, and needs some
attention.
[snip]
As such, we've decided to make the PORTAGE_GPG_KEY strictly enforce what
was originally intended.
- You
El mar, 16-10-2012 a las 23:42 -0600, Ryan Hill escribió:
On Sat, 13 Oct 2012 08:28:20 +0200
Ralph Sennhauser s...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Fri, 12 Oct 2012 21:10:23 -0600
Ryan Hill dirtye...@gentoo.org wrote:
I'd argue against deprecating EAPI 0 any time soon though. Killing
EAPI 1
On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 1:34 PM, Pacho Ramos pa...@gentoo.org wrote:
Would be easier to prune old versions if we force them to be less
using at least preventing new ebuilds to use them. For example, what is
the advantage for a new ebuild to still rely on old src_compile phase
instead of
tl;dr, barbet crashed overnight. It came back up with what is likely
busted memory and weird issues (segfaults, ICE.)
All services except packages.gentoo.org and bouncer.gentoo.org should
be functional again (we are waiting on an ACL changes for p.g.o.)
According to icinga, the outage was
Alec Warner wrote:
All services except packages.gentoo.org and bouncer.gentoo.org should
be functional again (we are waiting on an ACL changes for p.g.o.)
According to icinga, the outage was approximately 20h (packages
continues to be down.)
Probably nobody even noticed. I sure didn't.
Ben Kohler wrote:
In my ideal world (if I were king), today I would delist them
from profiles.desc, and send out a news item warning of their
immediate deprecation and planned removal 3 months from now.
I'm strongly in favor of this, but of course I am no developer.
//Peter
On Wed, 17 Oct 2012 15:00:12 -0400
Rich Freeman ri...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 1:34 PM, Pacho Ramos pa...@gentoo.org wrote:
Would be easier to prune old versions if we force them to be less
using at least preventing new ebuilds to use them. For example, what is
the
13 matches
Mail list logo
