How about not breaking apache? I was a little beyond pissed when I had
to sit there for 2 hours trying to figure out why my apache was broken,
and who was going to get put on my list of being kicked in the junk.
Just for some stupid config file changes. I find it very hard to believe
you guys could
On Thu, 2005-04-07 at 22:46 -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> can stable uses of gcc-3.3.5-r1 upgrade to gcc-3.3.5.20050110-r1 and see if
> they hit any fun and exciting bugs ?
>
> if not i'd like to move this to stable this weekend
> -mike
A touch late, but this uncovered a bug in libtool.
B
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Regarding GLEP 36[1], solar has asked me to try and figure out a way to provide
both CVS and Subversion for one repository and keep them sync'd somehow.
Although this was not the intention of my glep, it would be nice to get this
implemented, as it me
On Sunday 10 April 2005 4:55 pm, Brian Jackson wrote:
> How about not breaking apache?
We did not break apache, we broke *binary compatibility* within apache.
Are you aware of *why* we decided to break binary compatibility?
Well, if not, I can say we did so to provide LFS to the end-users.
You mi
On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 12:39:45 -0400 Aaron Walker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| Regarding GLEP 36[1], solar has asked me to try and figure out a way
| to provide both CVS and Subversion for one repository and keep them
| sync'd somehow.
Please don't. This would mean we'd have to stick with all of the
On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 18:43:13 +0200
Christian Parpart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Of course, we did not wanna push nearly-everyones little blindly
> executed `emerge -uvD world` into hell. But everyone makes mistakes, so
> including me. sorry for that, though, we got almost every complain
> fixe
On Sun, 2005-04-10 at 18:12 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 12:39:45 -0400 Aaron Walker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> | Regarding GLEP 36[1], solar has asked me to try and figure out a way
> | to provide both CVS and Subversion for one repository and keep them
> | sync'd someho
On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 19:27:51 +0200 Patrick Lauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| On Sun, 2005-04-10 at 18:12 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
| > On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 12:39:45 -0400 Aaron Walker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
| > wrote:
| > | Regarding GLEP 36[1], solar has asked me to try and figure out a
| > | way
On Sunday 10 April 2005 7:27 pm, Patrick Lauer wrote:
> On Sun, 2005-04-10 at 18:12 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 12:39:45 -0400 Aaron Walker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> > wrote:
> > | Regarding GLEP 36[1], solar has asked me to try and figure out a way
> > | to provide both C
On Sunday 10 April 2005 7:32 pm, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 19:27:51 +0200 Patrick Lauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> wrote:
> | On Sun, 2005-04-10 at 18:12 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> | > On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 12:39:45 -0400 Aaron Walker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> | >
> | > wrote:
> | >
On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 19:44:19 +0200 Christian Parpart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| So, sooner or shorter, we're announcing here some news on
| this subject (oops, did I already by this?, so, I can say,
| we're offering already existing svn repositories to be
| merged into the gentoo svn repository
On Sun, 2005-04-10 at 12:39 -0400, Aaron Walker wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Regarding GLEP 36[1], solar has asked me to try and figure out a way to
> provide
> both CVS and Subversion for one repository and keep them sync'd somehow.
>
> Although this was not the
On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 13:14:36 -0500 Lance Albertson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| Before everyone starts getting all antsy about getting svn for gentoo
| projects, its in the works. I'm trying to get the current CVS admins
| around so we can start with that process. Robbat2 seems to be busy for
| the
On Sunday 10 April 2005 7:53 pm, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 19:44:19 +0200 Christian Parpart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> wrote:
> | So, sooner or shorter, we're announcing here some news on
> | this subject (oops, did I already by this?, so, I can say,
> | we're offering already exist
On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 20:27:03 +0200 Christian Parpart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| Both have pros and cons. Well, the ASF has everyting converted into a
| single repository and they seem to be just lucky with it. KDE is
| about to convert everything into a single svn repos as well (for
| other rea
On Sunday 10 April 2005 11:31 am, Spider wrote:
> A touch late, but this uncovered a bug in libtool.
re-emerge libtool and it'll fix itself
-mike
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
On Sun, 2005-04-10 at 16:22 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Sunday 10 April 2005 11:31 am, Spider wrote:
> > A touch late, but this uncovered a bug in libtool.
>
> re-emerge libtool and it'll fix itself
Yep, I know that.
Unfortunately, thats -not- going to be a "solution" for the people who
Lance Albertson wrote:
> Before everyone starts getting all antsy about getting svn for gentoo
> projects, its in the works. I'm trying to get the current CVS admins
> around so we can start with that process. Robbat2 seems to be busy for
> the next few weeks, so I'll have to rely on Pylon to help
On Sun, Apr 10, 2005 at 10:30:29PM +0100, Daniel Drake wrote:
>
> A while back, we had to move the gentoo kernel patches out of the Gentoo CVS
> because we realised it conflicted with the old copyright assignment form: I
> have signed an agreement saying that everything I put in gentoo cvs will be
On Sunday 10 April 2005 11:35 pm, Greg KH wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 10, 2005 at 10:30:29PM +0100, Daniel Drake wrote:
> > A while back, we had to move the gentoo kernel patches out of the Gentoo
> > CVS because we realised it conflicted with the old copyright assignment
> > form: I have signed an agreem
On Sun, 2005-04-10 at 14:35 -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> Thanks for bringing this up, I was going to do so this week. I can get
> the cvs data out of the bk tree, if we want to move it anywhere else, so
> we will not loose the history (if that's an issue.) But we need to get
> moved off of bkbits.net
On Sunday 10 April 2005 8:34 pm, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 20:27:03 +0200 Christian Parpart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> wrote:
> | Both have pros and cons. Well, the ASF has everyting converted into a
> | single repository and they seem to be just lucky with it. KDE is
> | about to
On Sun, 2005-04-10 at 23:48 +0200, Patrick Lauer wrote:
> On Sun, 2005-04-10 at 14:35 -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> > Thanks for bringing this up, I was going to do so this week. I can get
> > the cvs data out of the bk tree, if we want to move it anywhere else, so
> > we will not loose the history (if
Christian Parpart wrote:
> could you be please more specific? I mean. why isn't it a current solution?
> because SVN isn't right in place or because of the copyright problems still
> around or ...?
He means the copyright issues. I believe that Greg also signed the form, and
he was the one who br
Should I *not* emerge this gcc? I usually hold off on gcc updates when
I'm in the middle of other testing. Right now, I'm doing a lot of beta
testing with R and Atlas, so I held off when the latest gcc showed up
after "emerge sync".
Spider wrote:
On Sun, 2005-04-10 at 16:22 -0400, Mike Frysinge
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Greg KH wrote:
> Thanks for bringing this up, I was going to do so this week. I can get
> the cvs data out of the bk tree, if we want to move it anywhere else, so
> we will not loose the history (if that's an issue.) But we need to get
> moved off of
On Sunday 10 April 2005 05:22 pm, Spider wrote:
> the ~x86 version doesn't exhibit this problem, btw. stabilizing this
> version might be prudent.
1.5.14 doesnt have any open issues for it so i've pushed it to stable
-mike
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
On Sunday 10 April 2005 7:18 pm, Jason Wever wrote:
> On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 18:43:13 +0200
>
> Christian Parpart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Of course, we did not wanna push nearly-everyones little blindly
> > executed `emerge -uvD world` into hell. But everyone makes mistakes, so
> > including m
On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 03:38:51 +0200
Christian Parpart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> current upstream page just sais "It works!". That's indeed not
> what we want to present the Gentoo Apache Users.
So the page that was there previous to this change was not the default?
And why would we not want t
On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 23:57:12 +0200 Christian Parpart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| > SVN uses transactions and
| > changesets. These make a heck of a lot more sense if they're done on
| > a per project basis.
|
| reason?
Because you can pull out a meaningful and relevant changeset without
having
30 matches
Mail list logo
