On Sat, 12 Aug 2006 13:08:50 +0200
Simon Stelling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Being an amd64 dev, I want to basically add a 'me too!' here. I think
> it's not necessary to add the --info output when all worked well,
> though, if instead the output of -pv $PN was given. Except when there
> was a f
Being an amd64 dev, I want to basically add a 'me too!' here. I think
it's not necessary to add the --info output when all worked well,
though, if instead the output of -pv $PN was given. Except when there
was a failure reported before, because then we need it to compare the two.
Regarding the inl
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
>> ex.
>>
>> gcc 4.1.1 works on x86 with the following:
>>
>> USE="gtk nls -bootstrap -build -doc -fortran -gcj -hardened -ip28
>> -ip32r10k -mudflap -multislot -nocxx -objc -objc++ -objc-gc -test
>> -vanilla"
>
> Looks OK to me. But hey, aren't arch
On Fri, 2006-08-11 at 18:00 +0200, Jeroen Roovers wrote:
> And do you propose ATs still attach `emerge info` in this solution?
No. It really should be inline. I'm sorry if you think that 5K seems
like a lot of "spam" but having to open a browser just to look at
"emerge --info" is a complete wast
On Fri, 11 Aug 2006 11:27:29 -0400
Chris Gianelloni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I am on the alpha, amd64, and x86 arch teams. I have found that even
> emails from architectures I'm not currently looking at tend to have a
> great significance. It seems to me that most of the failures are
> USE-f
On Fri, 2006-08-11 at 16:46 +0200, Jeroen Roovers wrote:
> N -1 arch dev's comfort against N arch devs' annoyance[1].
> [1] Note that I am aware that not all other-arch devs might experience
> inline `emerge info` for other arches as annoying.
I am on the alpha, amd64, and x86 arch teams. I ha
On Fri, 11 Aug 2006 16:46:33 +0200
Jeroen Roovers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I explained from the outset that this change pertains to stabilisation
> bugs. If you are not an arch dev, then why are you taking the opposite
> side in a discussion of stabilisation bugs which by their very nature
> o
On Fri, 11 Aug 2006 15:25:11 +0200
"Kevin F. Quinn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In order to decide to change how things are currently done, you need
> to show that it is better for a majority of the people affected.
(N minus 1 of N arches) times (the number of arch devs minus the number
of $ARCH
