On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 21:40:07 +0100
Ciaran McCreesh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 21:18:22 +0200 Kevin F. Quinn
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| Uh, as far as I recall, you've yet to come up with any technical
| explanation other than it breaks one of my pet projects
the user to upgrade gcc, which meant no change
required to the tree. See
https://bugs.gentoo.org/page.cgi?id=fields.html - as far as devs are
concerned, The problem described is not a bug so INVALID is the
correct resolution marking.
--
Kevin F. Quinn
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
to change it.
--
Kevin F. Quinn
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
to be the most sensible approach.
What do you think of that?
Zzam
--
Kevin F. Quinn
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Mon, 10 Jul 2006 19:23:54 +0200
Molle Bestefich [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Kevin F. Quinn wrote:
The expectation here is that when a new version of gcc is
stabilized, that users will upgrade to that in a reasonable
amount of time, and use that (by selecting it with gcc-config
of GCC as possible..
That's unlikely to be true. Some upstream developers do maintain
compatibility with a range of compiler versions. Some upstream
developers only recommend one specific version. Many will be somewhere
in between.
--
Kevin F. Quinn
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
writing - will it not
use the newer app-cdr/cdrtools to support DVDs (perhaps with the -n
option to not check the tool version)? Presumably the newer cdrtools
is backwards-compatible with the cdrecord-prodvd command line options?
--
Kevin F. Quinn
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
before this
thread started, so don't think I'm just looking for something to
complain about now.)
Again, if you don't gave GCC_SPECS defined in your environment then
that patch makes no difference to code generation.
--
Kevin F. Quinn
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
in more detail
can do that as well.
--
Kevin F. Quinn
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
the
total number of open bugs over the same period has increased by just
372 bugs from 9947 to 10319 (total new + reopened - closed = 3791).
--
Kevin F. Quinn
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
already does the worst-case fall-back, as
it responds 'no' if the compiler doesn't support -dM or doesn't define
the relevant macro.
echo | $(tc-getCC) ${CFLAGS} -dM -E - 2/dev/null | grep -q ${def} ||
hasfeat=no
The '2/dev/null' is the critical element for that.
--
Kevin F. Quinn
signature.asc
On Thu, 6 Jul 2006 14:44:22 +0200
Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thursday 06 July 2006 14:35, Kevin F. Quinn wrote:
This could easily be done by configure
scripts; perhaps it would be a good idea to look into writing some
autoconf macros.
Actually there's little
affected (1%), so I think it's worth
a try. In the end it may be that a few packages need to deal with
stuff manually like with the current USE flags, but they'd be local USE
flags at that point.
--
Kevin F. Quinn
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
/evas
x11-libs/libast
x11-misc/rss-glx
x11-terms/eterm
x11-themes/polymer
x11-wm/afterstep
x11-wm/metisse
--
Kevin F. Quinn
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
exactly is it about the toolchain supplied with Gentoo that causes
you problems?
--
Kevin F. Quinn
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Thu, 6 Jul 2006 22:13:11 +0200
Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Note: -march=i586 -mmmx for Pentium (classic) MMX is a good idea most
of the times, as it's not an i686 but at the same time it has MMX
support.
There's -march=pentium-mmx for this.
--
Kevin F. Quinn
does, for many targets on many hosts.
--
Kevin F. Quinn
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
- indeed, a package can belong to more than
one herd. However changing a package's category is much more
disruptive and should be avoided.
--
Kevin F. Quinn
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
volunteers as
appropriate using email acknowledgement to ensure requests are serviced.
Point being, there are numerous ways we can comply, and no excuse for
not complying from now on.
--
Kevin F. Quinn
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
one
of them can accept...
--
Kevin F. Quinn
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Fri, 30 Jun 2006 20:53:42 + (UTC)
Duncan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Kevin F. Quinn [EMAIL PROTECTED] posted
a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable
source code, which must be distributed under the terms of
Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily
should be
provided sufficient to build those binaries.
Do my senses run wilde? Your just my imagination?
Do I understand this right?
If you're not sure whether something you do is compliant with the
relevant licenses, talk to an appropriate lawyer.
--
Kevin F. Quinn
signature.asc
Description
disc from you if they wish.
--
Kevin F. Quinn
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Wed, 28 Jun 2006 21:20:00 +0200
Maurice van der Pot [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Jun 28, 2006 at 07:54:12PM +0200, Kevin F. Quinn wrote:
You don't have to do this
for binary files copied from a Gentoo Live CD, as in that case
you're a third party (like a courier, or the postman
and caching had become really long.
If you want to sync just part of the tree, look into setting '--exclude'
or '--exclude-from' options via PORTAGE_RSYNC_EXTRA_OPTS in make.conf.
See rsync(1) and make.conf(5). Never tried it myself, but it should
work.
--
Kevin F. Quinn
signature.asc
this issue (which
presumably isn't limited to just gtk and qt), although it may not be
worth the disruption to rework gtk/gtk2 into gtk/gtk1.
--
Kevin F. Quinn
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Tue, 20 Jun 2006 23:25:42 -0700
Donnie Berkholz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Kevin F. Quinn wrote:
On Tue, 20 Jun 2006 16:14:08 -0700
Donnie Berkholz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
Thanks for the clarification
The goal is to avoid a double-flag combo to do a single thing. qt
always
- if/when qt5
becomes available, it means introducing a qt4 use flag and back-fitting
to existing ebuilds that used 'qt' but don't build against qt5.
--
Kevin F. Quinn
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
packages. As to what the best way to go about it, I'm
not certain, but I do think specifying a few packages:
virtual/compiler, virtual/libc and a few limited things from system
packages should be ok. Or maybe even virtual/system (with the
compiler removed from that virtual).
--
Kevin F. Quinn
system dependencies to be
omitted, we should be very explicit; i.e. publish a strict list.
--
Kevin F. Quinn
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
of these actually trigger real problems or not I don't
know; but then probaly neither do the upstream developers...
--
Kevin F. Quinn
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
maintainers re-assign amongst themselves if appropriate.
--
Kevin F. Quinn
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Thu, 15 Jun 2006 11:57:21 +0200
Jakub Moc [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Thursday 15 June 2006 02:33, Kevin F. Quinn wrote:
We could require that a herd mail alias be maintained for every
herd, with the same name as the herd, such that the herd alias
lists
from the Sunrise project team, where they've behaved like that.
Best regards,
Stu
--
Kevin F. Quinn
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Thu, 15 Jun 2006 15:22:31 -0400
Chris Gianelloni [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I would much
rather see something like sunrise (but not necessarily sunrise
itself) used to put packages which are no longer maintained, but were
once in the tree.
sunset.overlays.g.o :)
--
Kevin F. Quinn
the benefits accrued so far from having a bunch of
people helping to iron out early QA problems would remain, and at the
same time the group of people most likely to pick up the package would
also be aware of it.
--
Kevin F. Quinn
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
ebuilds to a decent
standard, and it might help some users to contribute, but it won't help
if no dev wants to take on maintainership of the package. That last
point is the only reason why m-w/m-n packages are not in the tree.
--
Kevin F. Quinn
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
Which kinda defeats the purpose of a clean install.
--
Kevin F. Quinn
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Sat, 10 Jun 2006 05:44:41 -0400
Mike Frysinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Saturday 10 June 2006 04:32, Kevin F. Quinn wrote:
I do think we should avoid built_with_use where we can, as it causes
emerge to abort.
no it doesnt ... the ebuild maintainer makes the package abort based
upon
packages to possably beneift
udhcp
mldonkey
samhain
bacula
boxbackup
Interestingly, many packages have a server USE flag but not a client
one - maybe make both a global USE flag?
Good idea? Bad idea? Thoughts?
Thanks
--
Kevin F. Quinn
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
, then who gets to decide, and how is that
decision made? How can that decision be made fairly, without
contradicting the metastructure, and without giving rise to any
accusations of 'cabals'?
Best regards,
Stu
--
Kevin F. Quinn
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
work completely, in that it needs to be in place for
portage.py before the bashrc script is sourced. Is this no longer a
problem?
--
Kevin F. Quinn
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Thu, 25 May 2006 21:57:30 -0400
Alec Warner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Attached is a tiny diff for make.conf, can someone with l337 skills in
manpages look it over before it gets commited.
Easiest way to check how a man page looks is to do:
nroff -man raw man page | less
--
Kevin F. Quinn
On Fri, 26 May 2006 02:28:44 -0400
Mike Frysinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Friday 26 May 2006 02:27, Kevin F. Quinn wrote:
On Thu, 25 May 2006 21:57:30 -0400
Alec Warner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Attached is a tiny diff for make.conf, can someone with l337
skills in manpages look
LC_* to determine the user's locale
preferences, I see no problem with that.
What do you think? LC_ALL=C in portage or not?
I vote not.
--
Kevin F. Quinn
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
, this issue is obvious as
each subdirectory would have its own manifest.
Obviously the best way to add this sort of thing is to add support to
repoman, which has been mentioned before for profiles at least, for QA.
--
Kevin F. Quinn
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
as it is currently being proposed.
--
Kevin F. Quinn
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Sat, 13 May 2006 23:04:10 -0700
Donnie Berkholz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Kevin F. Quinn (Gentoo) wrote:
Oh, OK, let's argue semantics. It's suggested by a hardened user on a
bug the hardened team is CC'd on, but the team didn't say anything was
wrong with the change.
That's because
, binutils would also be patched to support -z
nonow, and -Wl,-z,nonow would be appended to LDFLAGS, but that's
something for later concern.
--
Kevin F. Quinn
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Sat, 13 May 2006 11:32:49 +0200
Simon Strandman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Kevin F. Quinn (Gentoo) skrev:
On Fri, 12 May 2006 10:49:22 +0200
Simon Strandman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I installed modular X on my server running hardened.
X on a server? If it's just for the libs that's
raise a separate bug
about the QA message and Xorg, and attach the diff you apply to
x-modular.eclass.
--
Kevin F. Quinn
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
probably start looking at it again once it
becomes stable (also upstream have a pending task to resolve the issue
properly, but don't hold your breath).
P.S. there's a hardened mailing list that is relevant.
--
Kevin F. Quinn
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
superseded.
--
Kevin F. Quinn
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
In the first instance, do the work on bugzilla. Look for open bugs for
existing packages, and post fixes/patches there. For packages not
currently in portage, raise a new bug.
--
Kevin F. Quinn
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Fri, 5 May 2006 13:20:09 +0200
Carsten Lohrke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Friday 05 May 2006 08:32, Kevin F. Quinn (Gentoo) wrote:
If you use specific versions in the package.keywords file (i.e. do
=category/package-version-revision ~arch instead of
category/package ~arch, this doesn't
On Fri, 5 May 2006 16:38:57 +0200
Carsten Lohrke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Friday 05 May 2006 15:23, Kevin F. Quinn (Gentoo) wrote:
I disagree. Your argument is for not using ~arch at all, rather
than an argument against keeping control of what you have from
~arch.
No. My argument
at it; herds are a mechanism for locating
maintainers for packages.
Seems simple enough when written out like that - flame me if I have
it wrong :)
--
Kevin F. Quinn
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
a few people think this then I suggest it would
be better to accept the common interpretation of herd as a group of
people who can maintain a package.
--
Kevin F. Quinn
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Thu, 27 Apr 2006 10:27:12 -0400
Chris Gianelloni [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 2006-04-27 at 09:22 +0200, Kevin F. Quinn (Gentoo) wrote:
I must admit I've assumed that the herd entry in metadata.xml is a
reasonable fall-back if the maintainer entry is missing or the
listed maintainer
) cause extra deps
(2) and (3) are usually co-incident.
IMHO, of course ;)
Whatever we decide USE=doc means, it should be documented as such in
use.desc
--
Kevin F. Quinn
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
doesn't.
--
Kevin F. Quinn
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 11:46:58 +
Duncan Coutts [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, 2006-03-25 at 12:42 +0100, Kevin F. Quinn (Gentoo) wrote:
This is a valid issue, as ghc is only supplied upstream for linux
(some older versions available in mingw32).
I don't think this is right. All
On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 12:37:45 +
Duncan Coutts [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, 2006-03-25 at 13:32 +0100, Kevin F. Quinn (Gentoo) wrote:
On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 11:46:58 +
Duncan Coutts [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, 2006-03-25 at 12:42 +0100, Kevin F. Quinn (Gentoo) wrote
adding '--list
file' to emerge, you can of course to package lists yourself anyway
as portage exists today. Just create a file with a list of atoms in
it, and do for example:
# cat file | xargs emerge -puv
Doesn't get much easier than that - perhaps I'm missing something :)
--
Kevin F. Quinn
character) - instead it leaves the non-conformant
bytes alone.
--
Kevin F. Quinn
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
:
if [[ -n ${QA_STRICT_TEXTRELS} ]]; then
f=$(scanelf -qyRF '%t %p' ${D})
else
filter version
fi
...
where we can add QA_STRICT_TEXTRELS to make.defaults.
--
Kevin F. Quinn
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Sun, 5 Mar 2006 20:46:25 -0500
Mike Frysinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sunday 05 March 2006 19:48, Kevin F. Quinn (Gentoo) wrote:
This could be done via the profiles, perhaps - package.qa, something
like package.mask/use/keywords:
i hate such things ... imo this information should
/slmodem QA_EXECSTACK=... QA_TEXTRELS=...
--
Kevin F. Quinn
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
(if any) come across it as the only supported way to use the
stack protector at the moment is by using the hardened compiler.
--
Kevin F. Quinn
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
/mspress/books/sampchap/5612b.asp
describes a number of risks of accepting UTF-8, including the above.
So far I haven't found anything that could be considered a general
security risk, but that doesn't prove much :)
--
Kevin F. Quinn
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
along with the resolution this becomes
unnecessary in the majority of cases.
--
Kevin F. Quinn
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
be a question for the
maintainers of those packages :)
--
Kevin F. Quinn
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Thu, 9 Feb 2006 22:48:32 +0100
Grobian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Please find attached GLEP 47: Creating 'safe' environment variables.
Could you add a definition of 'safe' to the GLEP? It's not clear what
this means at the moment.
--
Kevin F. Quinn
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
the ssp-stubs - from 4.1 onwards that'll be upstream as well.
Having said that, I don't think we need -fno-stack-protector in default
DEBUG_FLAGS anyway, as it doesn't inhibit debug (unlike -Wl,pie).
--
Kevin F. Quinn
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
executables, which
might be better as it'd keep code closer to the non-debug code.
--
Kevin F. Quinn
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
as a release version; gnat-gpl-2005
would be enough. Later releases can add a point revision if necessary;
if you do 2005.1 now, what happens if upstream release
gnat-gpl-2005.1.tgz?
Another possibility is gnat-gpl-3.4.5.2005, but I'm not sure that it's
worth it.
--
Kevin F. Quinn
--
Kevin F
-s' (which shows all segments).
If any one can point me to code in the kernel or loader that maps debug
symbol sections I'm sure many would be interested.
--
Kevin F. Quinn
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 09:19:56 +0100
Harald van Dijk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Dec 14, 2005 at 08:51:42AM +0100, Kevin F. Quinn wrote:
On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 07:59:23 +0100
Harald van Dijk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Dec 14, 2005
and upstream are happy to
have the issues fixed, and we should be most insistent for shared
libraries that are actually used as libraries shared between
applications. For profiles that must refuse textrels, unfixed packages
can be masked. Similarly with executable stack.
- --
Kevin F. Quinn
-BEGIN
as ebuilds are concerned, if you add it to LDFLAGS you will need
to re-check the application every time you bump the ebuild, and it's
difficult to find new occurrences of nested functions for example if
you've applied '--noexecstack'.
- --
Kevin F. Quinn
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG
On 25/11/2005 11:46:54, Marius Mauch ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Except that no{man,info,doc} are on the to-die list anyway.
When you say 'to-die' do you mean completely removed, or do you
mean replaced with {man,info,doc} (i.e. removing inverted logic)?
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
On 26/11/2005 13:55:25, Ned Ludd ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
On Sat, 2005-11-26 at 19:30 +0100, Bruno wrote:
What's the advantage of splitting out the debug info to some extra
location instead of leaving it in the original binary (maybe smaller
foot-print in memory while the debugging
On 20/10/2005 21:16:47, Dan Armak ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
On Thursday 20 October 2005 20:58, Matthijs van der Vleuten wrote:
On 10/20/05, Dan Armak [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
To solve this issue it would have to be an on-by-default flag, i.e.
'noxserver'. I know some people are strongly
On 20/10/2005 21:16:47, Dan Armak ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
On Thursday 20 October 2005 20:58, Matthijs van der Vleuten wrote:
On 10/20/05, Dan Armak [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
To solve this issue it would have to be an on-by-default flag, i.e.
'noxserver'. I know some people are strongly
On 11/10/2005 9:18:41, Dave Nebinger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
This is probably the fifth time at least that I've been bitten by this...
https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=11359
[NEW FEATURE] pkg_postinst/pkg_preinst ewarn/einfo logging
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
How about if the maintainer wants wider testing, i.e. wants to move
it out of package.mask and into ~arch but isn't confident it's ready
yet for arch, adding a string variable to ebuilds indicating why the
maintainer considers the package unstable, eg:
UNSTABLE=#100435, #100345, unconfirmed break
On 17/9/2005 0:20:57, Mark Loeser ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
C++ herd is a good idea, especially with that number of packages.
I would also like to see many of them, if not all, moved to the dev-cpp
category:
Is this bit really necessary?
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
On 17/9/2005 13:33:30, Christian Parpart ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
On Saturday 17 September 2005 11:36, Kevin F. Quinn wrote:
On 17/9/2005 0:20:57, Mark Loeser ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
C++ herd is a good idea, especially with that number of packages.
I would also like to see many
On 17/9/2005 11:34:56, Brian Harring ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
On Sat, Sep 17, 2005 at 11:28:03AM +0200, Kevin F. Quinn wrote:
The 30-day could be calculated from the $Header: of ebuilds that have
no UNSTABLE, or where it's empty.
Doesn't work for N arches keywording, or ebuild dev doing
On 7/9/2005 3:10:12, Stuart Longland ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Mon, 5 Sep 2005 9:44:41 +0200 Kevin F. Quinn [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| On 5/9/2005 1:29:57, Ciaran McCreesh ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
| On Mon, 5 Sep 2005 1:12:54 +0200 Kevin F. Quinn
| [EMAIL
On 5/9/2005 13:41:54, Jason Stubbs ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
On Monday 05 September 2005 20:21, Simon Stelling wrote:
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
If it isn't fit to be marked stable, it shouldn't be out of
package.mask. ~arch means candidate for going stable after more
testing, not might
On 31/8/2005 9:18:53, Stephen P. Becker ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Keep in mind that the *stable* trees of x86 and amd64 are actually
pretty close to the same versions anyway, I just ran gmsoft's imlate
script for amd64 vs. x86 keywords:
hmm; missed a biggie - sys-devel/gcc which is stable
On 1/9/2005 20:54:14, Stephen P. Becker ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Is it just me, it seems that only sparc/mips devs want that kind of
change and non none of the x86/amd64 devs...
I still dont see what practical advantage that would bring to x86/amd64
users or developers?
If you
On 30/8/2005 10:46:54, Stephen P. Becker ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Is this also a good time to note that the amd64 and x86 could *easily*
be covered under the same keyword?
The big reason I think, is that few x86 people have a clue about amd64.
Contrast this with the mips team; I'd guess
On 27/8/2005 10:42:25, Brian Harring ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Hola all.
Straight to the point, I'm proposing that the following files-
arch.list
categories
use.desc
use.local.desc
package.mask
updates
be moved out of the profiles directory in the tree
Not sure about package.mask.
On 27/8/2005 13:34:15, Brian Harring ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Rough filtering stack-
profiles/package.mask
/etc/make.profile/package.mask (incremental through subprofiles)
users package.mask, and users package.unmask
Ordered it in that fashion to show that it's effectively repository
On 21/8/2005 23:05:05, Ciaran McCreesh ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Now the proposal. This isn't something that can happen immediately, but
it's something I'd like to see us working towards:
[...]
* De-cripple the standard xterm definition and remove restrictions from
programs which can
On 5/8/2005 4:36:40, Alec Warner ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Problems with all of these include the same problems as the cascaded
profiles, some goofball doesn't upgrade for a year, syncs with new
digests...how does he get his portage upgraded? An upgrade path should
be provided and
On 2/8/2005 16:30:45, Michael Sterrett -Mr. Bones.- ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
On Mon, 1 Aug 2005, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
I'm still awaiting any solid arguments against x11-proto, and they had
best be expedited (read below for why).
Well, I kind of mentioned it on irc, but I'll throw it
On 14/7/2005 7:24:03, Craig Lawson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
[...] To be more concrete, I'm thinking of something like a database [...]
I don't think a separate database is a good idea; too many sources for
information.
[...] For example [...]
current: any
target:
101 - 200 of 203 matches
Mail list logo
