While talking about herds etc...
Please, stick your addy into the relevant eclass if you are actually a
maintainer or at least a person to contact about the given eclass.
Examples of eclasses that just let me clueless and digging in the logs
when a bug/problem arrives:
cvs.eclass - ???
On Thursday 15 June 2006 12:26, Jakub Moc wrote:
gems.eclass - ruby, are you taking bugs for this? pythonhead's been MIA
for ages, not much useful as a maintainer contact
I'll try to learn how it works and see to take this over for ruby herd.
--
Diego Flameeyes Pettenò -
On Thu, Jun 15, 2006 at 12:48:30 +0200, Jakub Moc wrote:
While talking about herds etc...
Please, stick your addy into the relevant eclass if you are actually a
maintainer or at least a person to contact about the given eclass.
Examples of eclasses that just let me clueless and digging in
On Thu, 15 Jun 2006 12:26:01 +0200
Jakub Moc [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
versionator.eclass - anyone to take over after ciaranm?
I can most likely take care of this one. Should be low enough
maintenance anyway since for the most part it Just Works.
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
On Thursday 15 June 2006 06:26, Jakub Moc wrote:
cvs.eclass - ???
i'll take over while the main guy is out
eutils.eclass - ???
it depends highly on the function, but generally base-system
flag-o-matic.eclass - ???
base-system / hardened
gnuconfig.eclass - ???
this is dead as it's been
On Thursday 15 June 2006 16:50, Mike Frysinger wrote:
this is dead as it's been integrated into portage
Can gnuconfig_update calls go away from new ebuilds, then?
--
Diego Flameeyes Pettenò - http://farragut.flameeyes.is-a-geek.org/
Gentoo/Alt lead, Gentoo/FreeBSD, Video, AMD64, Sound, PAM, KDE
четвер, 15. червень 2006 12:26, Jakub Moc Ви написали:
Please, stick your addy into the relevant eclass if you are actually a
maintainer or at least a person to contact about the given eclass.
May be its a time for some kind of metadata for eclasses?
(No, that's just an idea, not a proposal of a
Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
Can gnuconfig_update calls go away from new ebuilds, then?
Yes, because base/make.defaults includes FEATURES=autoconfig and no
profile turns it off.
Daniel
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
On Thursday 15 June 2006 11:21, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
On Thursday 15 June 2006 16:50, Mike Frysinger wrote:
this is dead as it's been integrated into portage
Can gnuconfig_update calls go away from new ebuilds, then?
yes, i'll update the func to complain about being deprecated
On Thursday 15 June 2006 14:10, Daniel Drake wrote:
Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
Can gnuconfig_update calls go away from new ebuilds, then?
Yes, because base/make.defaults includes FEATURES=autoconfig and no
profile turns it off.
actually, portage doesnt even respect that anymore ... it
On Thu, Jun 15, 2006 at 02:32:36PM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Thursday 15 June 2006 11:21, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
On Thursday 15 June 2006 16:50, Mike Frysinger wrote:
this is dead as it's been integrated into portage
Can gnuconfig_update calls go away from new ebuilds,
On Thursday 15 June 2006 14:48, Harald van Dijk wrote:
On Thu, Jun 15, 2006 at 02:32:36PM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Thursday 15 June 2006 11:21, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
On Thursday 15 June 2006 16:50, Mike Frysinger wrote:
this is dead as it's been integrated into portage
On Thu, Jun 15, 2006 at 04:25:10PM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Thursday 15 June 2006 14:48, Harald van Dijk wrote:
On Thu, Jun 15, 2006 at 02:32:36PM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Thursday 15 June 2006 11:21, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
On Thursday 15 June 2006 16:50, Mike
On Thursday 15 June 2006 22:39, Harald van Dijk wrote:
The question was explicitly about new ebuilds, so your answer concerning
only new ebuilds is the reasonable assumption without an indication
otherwise.
I limited to new for backward compat... but as portage updates them anyway
now, I'll
On Thursday 15 June 2006 16:39, Harald van Dijk wrote:
The question was explicitly about new ebuilds
it was ... when i first read the question though i missed the new portion
-mike
pgp7yhdPvFdIb.pgp
Description: PGP signature
15 matches
Mail list logo
