Re: [gentoo-dev] QEMU Sick!

2009-01-21 Thread Friedrich Oslage
Mateusz Mierzwinski (me.matheos.org) wrote: Received: by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) id ABDDD64A4E; Wed, 21 Jan 2009 22:36:12 + (UTC) Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2009 00:28:40 +0100 You might want to run `ntpdate pool.ntp.org`...

Re: [gentoo-dev] Detecting Baselayout2/openrc - no-symlink profiles leading to breakage

2009-01-17 Thread Friedrich Oslage
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Robin H. Johnson schrieb: I'm raising this as an extension of bug 253076, but also because I see the potential for danger. To date, for an init script that has baselayout2-specific behavior, we have had some variant of [ -e /lib/librc.so ] in

[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in profiles: package.mask

2009-01-10 Thread Friedrich Oslage
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Benedikt Boehm (hollow) schrieb: hollow 09/01/10 21:41:41 Modified: package.mask Log: mask sys-apps/baselayout-vserver for removal Revision ChangesPath 1.9378 profiles/package.mask file :

Re: [gentoo-dev] glep-42-news: sparc multilib profile

2009-01-08 Thread Friedrich Oslage
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Petteri Räty schrieb: s/mutlilib/multilib/ Thanks, fixed. I also don't understand why this news item needed to wait for a Portage to go stable. It didn't need to wait for portage but portage just happened to go stable about the same time the

[gentoo-dev] glep-42-news: sparc multilib profile

2008-12-30 Thread Friedrich Oslage
iEYEARECAAYFAklaKmMACgkQknxn9PmJ76Uk/QCfUrvvCaWo+qAXHXBA+DqxrkrB 04wAoJlOYZ5+K5xS+JjbALkcDYP93Ve3 =+aPC -END PGP SIGNATURE- Title: Migrating to the new sparc mutlilib profile Author: Friedrich Oslage blueb...@gentoo.org Content-Type: text/plain Posted: 2008-12-30 Revision: 1 News-Item-Format: 1.0

Re: [gentoo-dev] Linux 2.6.28 stable plans

2008-12-25 Thread Friedrich Oslage
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Tobias Klausmann schrieb: All .28 series kernels (all rc kernels and the final one, too) do not compile on Alpha at all. We reported this when rc1 came out and the culprit and a possible solution were discussed[0], but nothing materialized. I

Re: [gentoo-dev] Slacking arches - which are stable, which aren't?

2008-10-05 Thread Friedrich Oslage
Am Sonntag, den 05.10.2008, 16:26 -0500 schrieb Steev Klimaszewski: Thoughts? Helps? Afaik we have 3 types of arches: - experimental They are not CCed on stablization bugs and don't do stablizations at all. ~mips, ~sparc-fbsd and ~x86-fbsd - unsupported They are CCed on stablizations bugs,

Re: [gentoo-dev] best way to use profiles and package.use.mask?

2008-08-12 Thread Friedrich Oslage
Maybe we should ask Recruiters what most people answered to that eom-quiz question :) I personally think no, individual ebuild devs shouldn't touch arch-profiles. They should simply drop the (broken) keywords and file a keywordreq bug for those arches. Then the arch-teams can test and eventually