Michał Górny posted on Thu, 20 Nov 2014 12:22:53 +0100 as excerpted:
Thirdly, we have solved the issue causing bash-completion support to be
enabled by default on login shells only. If you needed to explicitly
source 'bash_completion' script in bashrc, you can safely remove that
code now
Michał Górny posted on Tue, 11 Nov 2014 11:03:03 +0100 as excerpted:
Dnia 2014-11-11, o godz. 09:53:58 Marc Schiffbauer msch...@gentoo.org
napisał(a):
* Michał Górny schrieb am 10.11.14 um 22:18 Uhr:
Hello, developers.
I'm planning to commit this news item before =2.1-r90 goes stable.
I
Dnia 2014-11-11, o godz. 11:21:00
Duncan 1i5t5.dun...@cox.net napisał(a):
Michał Górny posted on Tue, 11 Nov 2014 11:03:03 +0100 as excerpted:
Dnia 2014-11-11, o godz. 09:53:58 Marc Schiffbauer msch...@gentoo.org
napisał(a):
* Michał Górny schrieb am 10.11.14 um 22:18 Uhr:
Hello,
Dnia 2014-10-13, o godz. 10:25:26
Rich Freeman ri...@gentoo.org napisał(a):
On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 9:56 AM, Duncan 1i5t5.dun...@cox.net wrote:
Many of our users do care what's going on, that's why they run gentoo,
and for those that don't, a bit of extra information won't hurt 'em.
On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 9:56 AM, Duncan 1i5t5.dun...@cox.net wrote:
Many of our users do care what's going on, that's why they run gentoo,
and for those that don't, a bit of extra information won't hurt 'em.
Sure, though it may help to format things from a more actionable
standpoint. By all
Rick \Zero_Chaos\ Farina posted on Wed, 02 Apr 2014 16:15:28 -0400 as
excerpted:
On 02/24/2014 12:32 AM, Samuli Suominen wrote:
If it's okay, I'd want to post this fast, before adding KEYWORDS to
sys-fs/udev-209's ebuild
Should means required now? Man if I only knew that last week...
In
On Sat, 8 Mar 2014 01:46:52 + (UTC)
Duncan 1i5t5.dun...@cox.net wrote:
0 1 2 3 4
012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234
Ruby MRI 1.8 removal; 1.9 recommended default
(The latter is GLEP 42's max 44 chars exactly, and accurately
represents the
On 08/03/14 05:37 AM, Tom Wijsman wrote:
On Sat, 8 Mar 2014 01:46:52 + (UTC)
Duncan 1i5t5.dun...@cox.net wrote:
0 1 2 3 4
012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234
Ruby MRI 1.8 removal; 1.9 recommended default
(The latter is GLEP 42's max 44 chars
On 08.03.2014 14:25, Alex Xu wrote:
On 08/03/14 05:37 AM, Tom Wijsman wrote:
On Sat, 8 Mar 2014 01:46:52 + (UTC)
Duncan 1i5t5.dun...@cox.net wrote:
0 1 2 3 4
012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234
Ruby MRI 1.8 removal; 1.9 recommended default
On 08.03.2014 14:52, Alex Legler wrote:
Also, I doubt we're recommending 1.9 over 2.0 (or vice versa).
scratch that, seems like we are (even though big users like rails
actively push users to 2.0; but that's probably not important here)
--
Alex Legler a...@gentoo.org
Gentoo
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 03/08/2014 02:56 PM, Alex Legler wrote:
On 08.03.2014 14:52, Alex Legler wrote:
Also, I doubt we're recommending 1.9 over 2.0 (or vice versa).
scratch that, seems like we are (even though big users like rails
actively push users to
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 03/08/2014 02:25 PM, Alex Xu wrote:
On 08/03/14 05:37 AM, Tom Wijsman wrote:
On Sat, 8 Mar 2014 01:46:52 + (UTC) Duncan
1i5t5.dun...@cox.net wrote:
0 1 2 3 4
Tom Wijsman posted on Sat, 08 Mar 2014 11:37:55 +0100 as excerpted:
0 1 2 3 4
012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234
Ruby MRI 1.8 removal; 1.9 recommended default
(The latter is GLEP 42's max 44 chars exactly, and accurately
represents the recommended
Ulrich Mueller posted on Fri, 07 Mar 2014 19:07:18 +0100 as excerpted:
On Fri, 07 Mar 2014, Manuel Rüger wrote:
Title: Removal of Ruby MRI 1.8; Ruby MRI 1.9 and 2.0 now default
Too long, 44 chars maximum by GLEP 42.
Ulrich
Hmm...
0 1 2 3 4
Samuli Suominen posted on Mon, 24 Feb 2014 07:32:01 +0200 as excerpted:
If it's okay, I'd want to post this fast, before adding KEYWORDS to
sys-fs/udev-209's ebuild
Title: Upgrading udev to version =209
Author: Samuli Suominen ssuomi...@gentoo.org
Content-Type: text/plain
Posted:
D == Duncan 1i5t5.dun...@cox.net writes:
D 2) The former /lib/udev/rules.d/80-net-name-slot.rules file is renamed to
D 80-net-setup-link.rules in the same location. If you were overriding
D udev's predictable naming feature using an identically named file in
D /etc/udev/rules.d, either
On 23/09/2013 21:34, Samuli Suominen wrote:
[ ... ]
Stealing random mail from this thread.
Because I've seen some commits today for reverting the mentioned
KEYWORDS to ~arch in some ebuilds I'm not sure if everyone is aware that
the arch status is set using profiles/profiles.desc and as I'm
On 23/09/2013 22:52, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
On Mon, 23 Sep 2013, Samuli Suominen wrote:
Because I've seen some commits today for reverting the mentioned
KEYWORDS to ~arch in some ebuilds I'm not sure if everyone is aware that
the arch status is set using profiles/profiles.desc and as I'm
On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 3:18 PM, Michael Palimaka kensing...@gentoo.org wrote:
That's a thing that was never quite clear to me. Should there be
a one-to-one correspondence between an arch marked stable in
profiles.desc (i.e. having at least one profile labelled as stable
there) and the same
On 23/09/13 16:18, Michael Palimaka wrote:
On 23/09/2013 22:52, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
On Mon, 23 Sep 2013, Samuli Suominen wrote:
Because I've seen some commits today for reverting the mentioned
KEYWORDS to ~arch in some ebuilds I'm not sure if everyone is aware that
the arch status is set
On Mon, 23 Sep 2013 16:25:40 +0300
Samuli Suominen ssuomi...@gentoo.org wrote:
profiles.desc status is about how repoman is used to scan KEYWORDS,
and those arch maintainers with only ~arch keywording use `repoman
--include-dev` so changing the status from 'dev' to 'stable' won't
gain
On 09/23/2013 02:46 PM, Alexis Ballier wrote:
On Mon, 23 Sep 2013 16:25:40 +0300
Samuli Suominen ssuomi...@gentoo.org wrote:
profiles.desc status is about how repoman is used to scan KEYWORDS,
and those arch maintainers with only ~arch keywording use `repoman
--include-dev` so changing the
Aaron W. Swenson posted on Thu, 19 Sep 2013 20:36:50 + as excerpted:
On 2013-09-19 21:29, Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
For general review and improvement, to be committed 2013-09-25... [The
summary link [3] will work soon... :) ]
##
Title: m68k, s390, and sh are dropping
(apologies to those who got this twice - my MUA used a from address
that the list likely rejected instead of using the correct one which I
actually did select - Google needs to fix their GMail Android app)
On Sun, Apr 7, 2013 at 3:36 PM, William Hubbs willi...@gentoo.org wrote:
We have
Since I just sent a why to post a news item note, that exactly covers
things.
Thanks!
-JimC
--
James Cloos cl...@jhcloos.com OpenPGP: 1024D/ED7DAEA6
On 01/24/2013 02:45 AM, »Q« wrote:
On Wed, 23 Jan 2013 13:49:09 -0800
Christopher Head ch...@chead.ca wrote:
On Wed, 23 Jan 2013 17:03:15 +0100
Michael Weber x...@gentoo.org wrote:
udev/openrc stopped re-mounting /dev that last year.
Are you sure? I have CONFIG_DEVTMPFS_MOUNT disabled,
On Wed, 23 Jan 2013 13:49:09 -0800
Christopher Head ch...@chead.ca wrote:
On Wed, 23 Jan 2013 17:03:15 +0100
Michael Weber x...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 01/23/2013 04:04 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
System seems to work fine, so I'm not sure how essential that line
is. The fact that I'm
Samuli Suominen posted on Thu, 24 Jan 2013 04:04:19 +0200 as excerpted:
On 23/01/13 21:06, Felix Kuperjans wrote:
On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 1:29 PM, Felix Kuperjans
fe...@desaster-games.com wrote:
Samuli Suominen wrote:
please review this news item
/dev/root is no longer available in this
Duncan wrote:
Samuli Suominen posted on Thu, 24 Jan 2013 04:04:19 +0200 as excerpted:
On 23/01/13 21:06, Felix Kuperjans wrote:
On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 1:29 PM, Felix Kuperjans
fe...@desaster-games.com wrote:
Samuli Suominen wrote:
please review this news item
/dev/root is no
On 9/10/2012 10:39 PM, Duncan wrote:
Gregory M. Turner posted on Mon, 10 Sep 2012 20:29:53 -0700 as excerpted:
However, IIRC, /etc/make.conf is just ignored by portage if
/etc/portage/make.conf is present, so symlinking, or even better, if
possible, hardlinking those files would probably do
On 09/12/2012 02:16 AM, Gregory M. Turner wrote:
In all seriousness, if both of them are sourced, then could one get away
with something like this?
/etc/make.conf:
source /etc/portage/make.conf
/etc/portage/make.conf:
if [[ __GENTOO_MAKE_CONF_ONCE == gotit ]] ; then
On 09/10/2012 08:29 PM, Gregory M. Turner wrote:
On 9/9/2012 6:34 PM, Zac Medico wrote:
On 09/09/2012 05:59 PM, Duncan wrote:
To your knowlege (IOW have you tested) having /etc/make.conf either a
symlink to /etc/portage/make.conf or a simple one-line
source /etc/portage/make.conf?
I've
Zac Medico posted on Tue, 11 Sep 2012 09:29:36 -0700 as excerpted:
I would recommend to simply use /etc/make.conf alone until the legacy
tools that you use catch up. We have to change the default location in
the stages in order to expose the bugs so they can get fixed.
I posted to the
On 12 September 2012 08:02, Duncan 1i5t5.dun...@cox.net wrote:
Gentoo's bash-completion breaks when make.conf is in /etc/portage. Bug
filed back in early July and there's a simple enough patch, but
app-shells/gentoo-bashcomp has only the shell-tools herd, no dedicated
maintainer, and 13 open
Zac Medico posted on Sun, 09 Sep 2012 18:34:09 -0700 as excerpted:
On 09/09/2012 05:59 PM, Duncan wrote:
To your knowlege (IOW have you tested) having /etc/make.conf either a
symlink to /etc/portage/make.conf or a simple one-line source
/etc/portage/make.conf?
I've tested them both just
On 9/9/2012 6:34 PM, Zac Medico wrote:
On 09/09/2012 05:59 PM, Duncan wrote:
To your knowlege (IOW have you tested) having /etc/make.conf either a
symlink to /etc/portage/make.conf or a simple one-line
source /etc/portage/make.conf?
I've tested them both just now, and they work for me. Why
Gregory M. Turner posted on Mon, 10 Sep 2012 20:29:53 -0700 as excerpted:
However, IIRC, /etc/make.conf is just ignored by portage if
/etc/portage/make.conf is present, so symlinking, or even better, if
possible, hardlinking those files would probably do the right thing
for legacy tools that
Zac Medico posted on Sun, 09 Sep 2012 14:57:30 -0700 as excerpted:
On 09/09/2012 02:42 PM, Doug Goldstein wrote:
On Sun, Sep 9, 2012 at 3:13 PM, Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto
jmbsvice...@gentoo.org wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
This news item was committed.
So the
On 09/09/2012 05:59 PM, Duncan wrote:
To your knowlege (IOW have you tested) having /etc/make.conf either a
symlink to /etc/portage/make.conf or a simple one-line
source /etc/portage/make.conf?
I've tested them both just now, and they work for me. Why wouldn't they?
--
Thanks,
Zac
Duncan posted on Mon, 10 Sep 2012 00:59:32 + as excerpted:
To your knowlege (IOW have you tested) having /etc/make.conf
cringe! I apologize for the terrible sentence structure (and
spelling knowledge or rather practice). Hopefully it's obvious what I
intended to ask, tho.
--
Duncan -
Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto posted on Sat, 08 Sep 2012 18:05:07 + as
excerpted:
Starting next week, new stages will have make.conf and make.profile
moved from /etc to /etc/portage. This is a change in the installation
defaults, that will only affect new installs so it doesn't affect
Ulrich Mueller posted on Thu, 06 Sep 2012 07:30:46 +0200 as excerpted:
On Thu, 06 Sep 2012, Jorge Manuel B S Vicetto wrote:
Title: make.conf and make.profile move to /etc/portage
0112233
12345678091234567890123456789012345678901234567
On 25 July 2012 02:52, Rick Zero_Chaos Farina zeroch...@gentoo.org wrote:
While I completely understand where Fabian is coming from on all this I
respectfully disagree. Long term gentoo users do NOT read the handbook,
ever. I still install new systems with odd hacks that I picked up when
On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 01:15:43PM -0400, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
I think a news item is reasonable here (in addition to the above). Most
users don't know about the move from /etc/make.conf to
/etc/portage/make.conf. After this change, there will be a
gradually-increasing need to know that a
Sven Vermeulen posted on Wed, 25 Jul 2012 08:05:02 + as excerpted:
On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 01:15:43PM -0400, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
I think a news item is reasonable here (in addition to the above). Most
users don't know about the move from /etc/make.conf to
/etc/portage/make.conf. After
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 07/24/2012 04:30 PM, W. Trevor King wrote:
Hmm, are the manuals versioned with a public interface (git clone
…/handbook.git)? That would make finding new gems in the manual
much easier.
Yes, yes they are.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 07/24/2012 04:19 PM, Michael Mol wrote:
Another user opinion...it would be a significant improvement to
the stage images and live discs to include the latest copy of the
handbook, so that a network connection isn't required to access
it. But
On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 9:25 AM, Aaron W. Swenson titanof...@gentoo.org wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 07/24/2012 04:19 PM, Michael Mol wrote:
Another user opinion...it would be a significant improvement to
the stage images and live discs to include the latest copy
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 24/07/12 05:13 PM, Brian Harring wrote:
On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 04:32:00PM -0400, Michael Mol wrote:
I've often seen cases like these handled by keeping a referenced
file where it's traditionally expected to be found, but leaving a
comment
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 25-07-2012 13:29, Michael Mol wrote:
On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 9:25 AM, Aaron W. Swenson
titanof...@gentoo.org wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256
On 07/24/2012 04:19 PM, Michael Mol wrote:
Another user opinion...it would
On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 10:27 AM, Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto
jmbsvice...@gentoo.org wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 25-07-2012 13:29, Michael Mol wrote:
On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 9:25 AM, Aaron W. Swenson
titanof...@gentoo.org wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 07/25/2012 10:27 AM, Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote:
On 25-07-2012 13:29, Michael Mol wrote:
On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 9:25 AM, Aaron W. Swenson
titanof...@gentoo.org wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256
On 07/24/2012
On 23-07-2012 22:10:08 -0400, Rich Freeman wrote:
On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 9:58 PM, Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto
jmbsvice...@gentoo.org wrote:
This is just a heads-up for Gentoo users that got used to find
make.conf and make.profile under /etc in stages, that these files will
stop being there
On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 12:07:59AM +, Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote:
I've talked with both the PR and Docs team before about this change.
I'll try to help the docs team updating the handbook.
Speaking of which, will this also start the use of the SHA512 WHIRLPOOL
checksums? We've had a
On Tue, 24 Jul 2012 08:48:52 +
Sven Vermeulen sw...@gentoo.org wrote:
Can current users also already use the /etc/portage location? If so,
I can already update the docs now (since I'll need to describe both
of the locations for a while anyhow).
I moved my make.conf to the new location
On 24 July 2012 08:07, Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto
jmbsvice...@gentoo.org wrote:
Title: Changes on new stages
Author: Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicettojmbsvice...@gentoo.org
Content-Type: text/plain
Posted: 2012-07-27
Revision: 1
News-Item-Format: 1.0
Starting with catalyst 2.0.10, make.conf and
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 24-07-2012 08:48, Sven Vermeulen wrote:
On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 12:07:59AM +, Jorge Manuel B. S.
Vicetto wrote:
I've talked with both the PR and Docs team before about this
change. I'll try to help the docs team updating the handbook.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 24-07-2012 06:54, Fabian Groffen wrote:
On 23-07-2012 22:10:08 -0400, Rich Freeman wrote:
On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 9:58 PM, Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto
jmbsvice...@gentoo.org wrote:
This is just a heads-up for Gentoo users that got used to find
On 24-07-2012 10:59:08 +, Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote:
I still don't see why you'd bother all existing users with that
info. Just blog, or (better) write a nice email to -announce, and
update the install docs.
The point of bugging all users was to minimize the risk of a user
not
On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 7:07 AM, Fabian Groffen grob...@gentoo.org wrote:
I don't know about general consensus. In my opinion, it's plain spam to
existing users. (And that would IMO be the xth news item in a row to be
spam.)
Can't say I agree here. Some news items have been more useful than
On 24-07-2012 07:20:31 -0400, Rich Freeman wrote:
On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 7:07 AM, Fabian Groffen grob...@gentoo.org wrote:
I don't know about general consensus. In my opinion, it's plain spam to
existing users. (And that would IMO be the xth news item in a row to be
spam.)
Can't say I
On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 7:39 AM, Fabian Groffen grob...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 24-07-2012 07:20:31 -0400, Rich Freeman wrote:
On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 7:07 AM, Fabian Groffen grob...@gentoo.org wrote:
I don't know about general consensus. In my opinion, it's plain spam to
existing users. (And
On 24-07-2012 08:01:40 -0400, Michael Mol wrote:
As a user who's done a lot of reinstalling this year, I can offer a
couple observations:
1) The handbook contains a barebones make.conf, just as it comes with
a number of other barebones configuration files. You probably don't
need to supply
On Tue, 2012-07-24 at 07:20 -0400, Rich Freeman wrote:
On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 7:07 AM, Fabian Groffen grob...@gentoo.org wrote:
I don't know about general consensus. In my opinion, it's plain spam to
existing users. (And that would IMO be the xth news item in a row to be
spam.)
Can't
On 24-07-2012 20:13:46 +0800, William Kenworthy wrote:
Apologies for butting in as a user:
As a user of Gentoo from about 2002 or so, with multiple gentoo systems,
this thread is the first I have heard of make.conf moving ... cant
imagine I am the only one! and are you about to break our
Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto posted on Tue, 24 Jul 2012 10:54:25 + as
excerpted:
Starting with catalyst 2.0.10, make.conf and make.profile will be moved
from /etc to /etc/portage.
As with other app-focused news items, if it were a catalyst-user-focused
change, you'd set the filter
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 23/07/12 09:58 PM, Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote:
On 24-07-2012 01:33, Rich Freeman wrote:
On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 8:07 PM, Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto
jmbsvice...@gentoo.org wrote:
I propose to commit this news item in 2 or 3 days. Does
On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 8:09 AM, Fabian Groffen grob...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 24-07-2012 08:01:40 -0400, Michael Mol wrote:
3) That news item about udev-181 and a unified /usr is still greeting
new users...and it's still claiming an unmask of 2012-03-19, which is
three months ago. It's quite
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 24/07/12 07:39 AM, Fabian Groffen wrote:
From a different angle, perhaps stage3s shouldn't include a
default /etc/make.conf at all. Would solve this issue nicely, and
doesn't require a news item at all, IMO.
Would that work? We still
On 24-07-2012 09:24:03 -0400, Rich Freeman wrote:
I guess this is a matter of opinion, but on Gentoo I don't think we're
really at much risk of driving people away by OVER-communicating. Our
users are used to things changing and a certain level of
fix-it-yourself, but if we know something is
On 24-07-2012 09:33:39 -0400, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
On 24/07/12 07:39 AM, Fabian Groffen wrote:
From a different angle, perhaps stage3s shouldn't include a
default /etc/make.conf at all. Would solve this issue nicely, and
doesn't require a news item at all, IMO.
Would that work?
On Tue, 24 Jul 2012, Rich Freeman wrote:
I'll agree that something needs to be done to clean up past news items
that are obsolete. Can we go back and make them expire or just delete
them? Yesterday's news isn't news.
They can simply be removed from the repository. eselect news can
handle
On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 9:24 AM, Rich Freeman ri...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 8:09 AM, Fabian Groffen grob...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 24-07-2012 08:01:40 -0400, Michael Mol wrote:
3) That news item about udev-181 and a unified /usr is still greeting
new users...and it's still
On 07/24/12 09:21, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
Given that this just affects new installs, is a news item (via
portage) a particularly good way to inform everyone? I was wondering
if it'd make more sense to notify on the website and *definitely*
change the Handbook...
..and maybe include an
On 24-07-2012 13:15:43 -0400, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
I think a news item is reasonable here (in addition to the above).
[snip good arguments]
But that's a news item on (a version of) Portage, not on catalyst and
stage3 building.
--
Fabian Groffen
Gentoo on a different level
signature.asc
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 07/24/2012 09:33 AM, Fabian Groffen wrote:
On 24-07-2012 09:24:03 -0400, Rich Freeman wrote:
I guess this is a matter of opinion, but on Gentoo I don't think we're
really at much risk of driving people away by OVER-communicating. Our
users are
On 24-07-2012 14:52:43 -0400, Rick Zero_Chaos Farina wrote:
This is a change that will break all new installs and expecting
experienced gentoo users to read the handbook is simply a fantasy.
I don't see how it breaks. And secondly, if you do refuse to read the
manual, why don't you refuse to
On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 2:59 PM, Fabian Groffen grob...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 24-07-2012 14:52:43 -0400, Rick Zero_Chaos Farina wrote:
This is a change that will break all new installs and expecting
experienced gentoo users to read the handbook is simply a fantasy.
I don't see how it breaks.
On 07/24/12 14:52, Rick Zero_Chaos Farina wrote:
This is a big enough change that it will throw users who do not know,
and my first impression of /etc/make.conf et all missing on a new stage
is file a bug report for a broken stage and assign it to those morons
in releng. (please note the
Rich Freeman wrote:
On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 7:07 AM, Fabian Groffen grob...@gentoo.org wrote:
I don't know about general consensus. In my opinion, it's plain spam to
existing users. (And that would IMO be the xth news item in a row to be
spam.)
Can't say I agree here. Some news items have
Rich Freeman wrote:
On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 2:59 PM, Fabian Groffen grob...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 24-07-2012 14:52:43 -0400, Rick Zero_Chaos Farina wrote:
This is a change that will break all new installs and expecting
experienced gentoo users to read the handbook is simply a fantasy.
I don't
On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 4:12 PM, Dale rdalek1...@gmail.com wrote:
Rich Freeman wrote:
On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 2:59 PM, Fabian Groffen grob...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 24-07-2012 14:52:43 -0400, Rick Zero_Chaos Farina wrote:
This is a change that will break all new installs and expecting
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 24/07/12 02:52 PM, Rick Zero_Chaos Farina wrote:
On 07/24/2012 09:33 AM, Fabian Groffen wrote:
On 24-07-2012 09:24:03 -0400, Rich Freeman wrote:
I guess this is a matter of opinion, but on Gentoo I don't
think we're really at much risk of
On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 03:33:03PM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote:
The difference is that news only communicates what is news. Unless
the manual contains a revision history it contains everything you
already know, perhaps with a gem buried in there somewhere.
This is the same reason why when
On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 4:24 PM, Ian Stakenvicius a...@gentoo.org wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 24/07/12 02:52 PM, Rick Zero_Chaos Farina wrote:
On 07/24/2012 09:33 AM, Fabian Groffen wrote:
On 24-07-2012 09:24:03 -0400, Rich Freeman wrote:
I guess this is a
On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 04:32:00PM -0400, Michael Mol wrote:
On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 4:24 PM, Ian Stakenvicius a...@gentoo.org wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 24/07/12 02:52 PM, Rick Zero_Chaos Farina wrote:
On 07/24/2012 09:33 AM, Fabian Groffen wrote:
On
On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 8:07 PM, Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto
jmbsvice...@gentoo.org wrote:
I propose to commit this news item in 2 or 3 days. Does anyone have
any comments about it?
What action if any do you want Gentoo users to take. If I read that
news item the first question I'd have is
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 24-07-2012 01:33, Rich Freeman wrote:
On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 8:07 PM, Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto
jmbsvice...@gentoo.org wrote:
I propose to commit this news item in 2 or 3 days. Does anyone
have any comments about it?
What action if any
On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 9:58 PM, Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto
jmbsvice...@gentoo.org wrote:
This is just a heads-up for Gentoo users that got used to find
make.conf and make.profile under /etc in stages, that these files will
stop being there and will instead be under /etc/portage. So we are
Il 23/07/2012 20:34, Ben de Groot ha scritto:
I'm assuming this is true for make.globals as well? That should be added
then. And as others have said, there really need to be instructions
what if anything should be done about current installations.
I actually thought make.globals was going to
Nathan Zachary posted on Tue, 17 Jul 2012 07:29:52 -0400 as excerpted:
On Tue, 17 Jul 2012 14:21:07 +0300 Eray Aslan e...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 07/17/2012 02:00 PM, Dirkjan Ochtman wrote:
It may be a small issue, but since the potential pain is quite large,
Yes, that's the idea.
Zac Medico posted on Thu, 17 May 2012 23:08:51 -0700 as excerpted:
On 05/17/2012 08:56 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
On Thu, 17 May 2012 14:44:42 -0700 Zac Medico zmed...@gentoo.org
wrote:
I'd like to commit this news item on 2012-05-21. See previous
discussion here:
On 11/09/2010 11:08 PM, Duncan wrote:
Christian Faulhammer posted on Tue, 09 Nov 2010 23:51:45 +0100 as
excerpted:
Hi,
Anthony G. Basile bluen...@gentoo.org:
We will change the profiles one arch at a time, starting with ia64, and
proceeding in order with ppc, ppc64, x86 and amd64. Once
Hi,
Anthony G. Basile bluen...@gentoo.org:
1) authorship - I've added another line for the entire hardened team.
I've kept my name in there because I'm the point person for the work.
That was my intention, not replacement, though I should have expressed
that more clearly.
2) bug tracking -
On 11/10/2010 08:30 AM, Christian Faulhammer wrote:
Hi,
Anthony G. Basile bluen...@gentoo.org:
1) authorship - I've added another line for the entire hardened team.
I've kept my name in there because I'm the point person for the work.
That was my intention, not replacement, though I should
Christian Faulhammer posted on Tue, 09 Nov 2010 23:51:45 +0100 as
excerpted:
Hi,
Anthony G. Basile bluen...@gentoo.org:
We will change the profiles one arch at a time, starting with ia64, and
proceeding in order with ppc, ppc64, x86 and amd64. Once your arch has
been update
On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 3:34 AM, Duncan 1i5t5.dun...@cox.net wrote:
Magnus Granberg posted on Sun, 24 Oct 2010 03:01:40 +0200 as excerpted:
Display-If-Install: sys-devel/gcc-4.4
Typo:
Display-If-Installed:
^^
Meanwhile, the title reflects hardened profiles, but the
On Sun, 24 Oct 2010, Magnus Granberg wrote:
Title: Info on GCC 4.4.4-r2 and GCC 3.X on Hardened profiles
Too long. Maximum is 44 characters for the Title, according to GLEP 42.
Revision: 1.1
This should always start with 1 (and it's one integer number)
Display-If-Install:
On Sunday 24 October 2010 10.04.34 Kfir Lavi wrote:
On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 3:34 AM, Duncan 1i5t5.dun...@cox.net wrote:
Magnus Granberg posted on Sun, 24 Oct 2010 03:01:40 +0200 as excerpted:
Display-If-Install: sys-devel/gcc-4.4
Typo:
Display-If-Installed:
^^
On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 11:31 AM, Magnus Granberg zo...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Sunday 24 October 2010 10.04.34 Kfir Lavi wrote:
On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 3:34 AM, Duncan 1i5t5.dun...@cox.net wrote:
Magnus Granberg posted on Sun, 24 Oct 2010 03:01:40 +0200 as excerpted:
Display-If-Install:
101 - 200 of 272 matches
Mail list logo
