On Fri, Sep 16, 2005 at 06:20:57PM -0400, Mark Loeser wrote:
> dev-util/flawfinder (no-herd, aliz?)
> dev-util/rats (no-herd, robbat2)
I'm a large user of these, but for rats there really isn't any
maintaining to do, upstream hasn't changed the code in 18+ months, and
it works
On Thu, Sep 15, 2005 at 01:52:41AM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Hi all.
>
> We have two new developers from Poland.
>
> Krzysiek Pawlik (nelchael) is going to help with the influx of
> desktop-misc bugs. I'll let Krzysiek introduce himself:
/me prods nelchael
;)
> "I want to help maintain
On Mon, Sep 12, 2005 at 11:35:30PM -0500, Mike Doty wrote:
> All-
>
> Take a moment to say hi to our newest infra dev, Mark Mahle. Mark will
> be helping out infra with web, security and nagios related things.
>
> A little about mark, "I live in Silicon Valley, work insane hours and
> have a 1 y
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 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 minor
syntax touch ups.
~harring
pgp9GsjkqH1mC.pgp
Description:
On Saturday 17 September 2005 01:20, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Friday 16 September 2005 06:20 pm, Mark Loeser wrote:
> > Since we currently have language herds for other languages such as Ada,
> > Perl, and Java, I don't think C++ should be any different.
>
> it is different, but i dont mind the i
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 of them, if not all, moved to the dev-cpp
> > category:
>
> Is this bi
On 2005-09-14, John N. Laliberte <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The GNOME herd is now ready for 2.12.0 to be tested.
> The gnome-2.12.0.ebuild should hit the mirrors shortly. ( just committed)
> Please see this document for information on how to test:
> http://dev.gentoo.org/~allanonjl/gnome/2.12
On Sat, Sep 17, 2005 at 02:42:09AM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
| Something strange I noticed... Some people are using funny quotes and
| non breaking spaces in ebuilds. Some people are using weird characters
| as substitution delimiters for sed. Don't! It will break on many
| systems. I'm going t
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Martin Schlemmer wrote:
>
> Hmm, I still have these as outdated:
>
> ? dev-cpp/gconfmm/gconfmm-2.12.0.ebuild
> ? dev-cpp/gnome-vfsmm/gnome-vfsmm-2.12.0.ebuild
> ? dev-cpp/libglademm/libglademm-2.6.1.ebuild
> ? dev-cpp/libgnomecanvasmm/libgnomecanvasm
Phil Richards wrote:
> On 2005-09-14, John N. Laliberte <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Normally, I would just unmask pmount, but the comment doesn't exactly
> fill me with confidence as regards the stability of pmount (and whereas
> I am happy for gnome to crash in a heap, I tend to be a little mo
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
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
On Saturday 17 September 2005 14:01, Kevin F. Quinn wrote:
> 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, esp
Assuming, as I do... that ~arch is utf-8 clean, it must not be that
wierd a character, and therefore, probably acceptable for sed also.
On 9/17/05, Fernando J. Pereda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 17, 2005 at 02:42:09AM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> | Something strange I noticed... So
On Friday 16 September 2005 17:42, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
> If we'll find other functions needed for portability's sake, they'll
> probably going to be there, too.
Dropped the symcmd function, cleaned up the treecopy function (Martin, take a
look at cp --parent, what treecopy does is jus
On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 12:56:37 +0200 "Fernando J. Pereda"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| On Sat, Sep 17, 2005 at 02:42:09AM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
| | Something strange I noticed... Some people are using funny quotes
| | and non breaking spaces in ebuilds. Some people are using weird
| | charact
On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 18:15:31 +0100 Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| No, ~ is fine. Anything with a value below 127 (don't use 127, it's
| weird) that sed accepts is ok. There are some ebuilds that use that
| curly paragraph marker character (§) and weird curly quotes. Those're
| the one
Kevin F. Quinn wrote:
>> I would also like to see many of them, if not all, moved to the dev-cpp
>>category:
>
>
> Is this bit really necessary?
The reason for me adding that bit is the metadata from dev-cpp:
The dev-cpp category contains libraries and utilities relevant to the
c++ programming
Phil Richards wrote:
| ~ # emerge -puv --newuse gnome
|
| These are the packages that I would merge, in order:
|
| Calculating dependencies \
| !!! All ebuilds that could satisfy "sys-apps/pmount" have been masked.
| !!! One of the following masked packages is required to complete your reque
On Saturday 17 September 2005 01:15 pm, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 12:56:37 +0200 "Fernando J. Pereda"
>
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> | On Sat, Sep 17, 2005 at 02:42:09AM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> | | Something strange I noticed... Some people are using funny quotes
> | |
On Saturday 17 September 2005 02:22 pm, Mark Loeser wrote:
> Kevin F. Quinn wrote:
> >> I would also like to see many of them, if not all, moved to the dev-cpp
> >>category:
> >
> > Is this bit really necessary?
>
> The reason for me adding that bit is the metadata from dev-cpp:
>
> The dev-cpp cat
On Saturday 17 September 2005 05:28 am, Kevin F. Quinn wrote:
> 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 th
Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Saturday 17 September 2005 02:22 pm, Mark Loeser wrote:
>>The reason for me adding that bit is the metadata from dev-cpp:
>>
>>The dev-cpp category contains libraries and utilities relevant to the
>>c++ programming language.
>>
>>Now to me, that means I can find *all* rel
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Saturday 17 September 2005 05:28 am, Kevin F. Quinn wrote:
>
>>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
On Saturday 17 September 2005 05:59 pm, Alec Warner wrote:
> Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On Saturday 17 September 2005 05:28 am, Kevin F. Quinn wrote:
> >>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
> >>y
Hello there,
plex86 has many issues and no simple solution to all of them. Considering the
amount of very old kernel code it has, including the way it deals with devfs,
for example, it does not look like it will be easy to fix.
plex86 has three outstanding bugs at the time of this writing: bug 5
On Saturday 17 September 2005 07:14 pm, Marcelo Góes wrote:
> I'll probably remove plex86 from the tree very shortly. If anybody feels
> different, you're welcome to reopen plex86 bugs and fix them :-)
usually we mask for a while before punting ... easier to unmask than to re-add
-mike
--
gentoo
Mike Frysinger wrote:
usually we mask for a while before punting ... easier to unmask than to re-add
-mike
It's been masked for a week, but I doubt anyone has been able to compile
it for much longer than that :-).
Anyway, when I say "remove shortly" I am thinking a couple of weeks.
Cheers,
Homer Parker wrote:
On Mon, 2005-09-12 at 18:47 -0400, Stephen P. Becker wrote:
Let me clarify here. I'm not concerned about ATs having more
privileges
at all. I just want to know why if we're making them full developers
for all intents and purposes, we don't go the extra step and get them
On Sat, Sep 17, 2005 at 04:17:10PM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> i really want to get away from the idea of 'package.mask is for testing
> packages' ... its current dual role as both masking 'testing' packages and
> 'broken' packages is wrong imo
>
> we dont want to try reeducating our users to
Oh, and for the sake of completeness, also from
http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/handbook/hb-portage-branches.xml
--snip--
1.c. Using Masked Packages
The package.unmask file
The Gentoo developers do not support the use of these files. Please
exercise due caution when doing so. Support requests relate
33 matches
Mail list logo
