Hi,
dev-tex/vntex will be removed in 30 days.
Reason:
Masked since early 2007. Included in tetex-3, ptex and
texlive-langvietnamese. If someone wanted to keep the ebuild around for
single package updates, he had plenty of time to do it. Now it is old
and unmaintained and therefore will be
On 14:16 Sun 31 Aug , Ben de Groot wrote:
I have therefor created an LXDE project page[2] under the Desktop
top-level project. My idea is to initially start an official overlay and
develop the needed packages in there. I am actively encouraging users to
participate in development and
On 00:19 Wed 03 Sep , Peter Volkov wrote:
Personally I think that this is good idea to specialize global USE flags
description in metadata.xml. In such case global USE flag description
still correct, and we just adjust their meaning for specific package.
What others think?
Yes, an
2008/9/4 Zac Medico [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
* The 'unpack' helper function recognizes ;sf=tbz2 and ;sf=tgz
extensions, for interoperability with gitweb.
* SRC_URI supports a syntax extension which allows customization
of output file names by using a - operator.
Is it useful to have both of
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
David Leverton wrote:
2008/9/4 Zac Medico [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
* The 'unpack' helper function recognizes ;sf=tbz2 and ;sf=tgz
extensions, for interoperability with gitweb.
* SRC_URI supports a syntax extension which allows customization
of
2008/9/5 Zac Medico [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Both approaches are essentially equivalent but it's a little simpler
for ebuild writer if they don't have to customize the output file name.
But is it so much simpler as to justify adding a special
gitweb-specific hack to the package managers?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
David Leverton wrote:
2008/9/5 Zac Medico [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Both approaches are essentially equivalent but it's a little simpler
for ebuild writer if they don't have to customize the output file name.
But is it so much simpler as to justify
On Fri, Sep 05, 2008 at 12:39:16AM -0700, Zac Medico wrote:
David Leverton wrote:
2008/9/5 Zac Medico [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Both approaches are essentially equivalent but it's a little simpler
for ebuild writer if they don't have to customize the output file name.
But is it so much
Hi,
Zac Medico [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
David Leverton wrote:
2008/9/4 Zac Medico [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
* The 'unpack' helper function recognizes ;sf=tbz2 and ;sf=tgz
extensions, for interoperability with gitweb.
* SRC_URI supports a syntax extension which allows customization
of output
On Fri, Sep 5, 2008 at 12:39 AM, Zac Medico [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
David Leverton wrote:
2008/9/5 Zac Medico [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Both approaches are essentially equivalent but it's a little simpler
for ebuild writer if they don't have to
On Friday 05 September 2008, Fernando J. Pereda wrote:
On Fri, Sep 05, 2008 at 12:39:16AM -0700, Zac Medico wrote:
David Leverton wrote:
2008/9/5 Zac Medico [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Both approaches are essentially equivalent but it's a little
simpler for ebuild writer if they don't have to
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Robert Buchholz wrote:
How is using the eclass better for bandwidth usage? It won't allow for
mirroring, and all users would have to checkout the repository from one
place. Furthermore, you cannot have (signed) Manifests that allow
integrity
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Robert Buchholz wrote:
How is using the eclass better for bandwidth usage? It won't allow for
mirroring, and all users would have to checkout the repository from one
place. Furthermore, you cannot have (signed) Manifests that allow
integrity
On Friday 05 September 2008, Mike Auty wrote:
From what I understand of the idea, the eclass will just change the
SRC_URI field from the first case (sf=tgz) to the second case (-).
Eclasses have to be sourced before the SRC_URI is determined because
they can already add (and presumably alter)
On Sat, 23 Aug 2008 13:39:58 -0700
Zac Medico [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Do the name and definition of this PROPERTIES=live value seem good?
Would anybody like to discuss any changes to the name, definition,
or both?
Not sure if 'live' is really the best choice here, as many things also
apply
On Sun, 24 Aug 2008 14:01:48 -0700
Zac Medico [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Do the name and definition of this PROPERTIES=virtual value seem
good? Would anybody like to discuss any changes to the name,
definition, or both?
If it's only used to indicate that the package doesn't install any
files
On Tue, 26 Aug 2008 14:20:07 + (UTC)
Duncan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I therefore believe I like just moving them all to a *virtual*/
category better, thus obviating the need for that particular property
in the first place.
I strongly belive that it's a horrible idea to add special
On Sat, 16 Aug 2008 22:39:41 +0300
Petteri Räty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As per glep 42 (http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/glep/glep-0042.html)
here is the required email for a new news item. This news item is
important because otherwise users will be missing updates to the
system set if they
Marius Mauch wrote:
If it's only used to indicate that the package doesn't install any
files I'd suggest to use 'empty' or 'nocontents' instead. 'virtual'
somehow implies that it's only applicable to packages in the 'virtual'
category, which isn't the case with the given definition (as you
Marius Mauch wrote:
Not sure if 'live' is really the best choice here, as many things also
apply to e.g. automated daily/nightly snapshots/builds that might also
be useful to support. Maybe 'unversioned' is more accurate.
I think the most important thing to convey with this property is that
Marius Mauch wrote:
First, regarding the news item, I'd suggest that instead of telling
users to modify world_sets manually to use `emerge --noreplace @system`.
++
Second for the suggestions on how to handle the transition:
- treating 'world' and '@world' differently is a no go from my POV.
On Fri, 05 Sep 2008 09:38:32 -0600
Joe Peterson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Marius Mauch wrote:
If it's only used to indicate that the package doesn't install any
files I'd suggest to use 'empty' or 'nocontents' instead. 'virtual'
somehow implies that it's only applicable to packages in the
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
Except it doesn't. A virtual ebuild:
* installs nothing
* does nothing
I'd say that virtual does indeed do something: it pulls in other packages.
* should be treated as being very quickly installable
* should be treated as having zero cost for installs
The
Alec Warner kirjoitti:
On Fri, Sep 5, 2008 at 12:39 AM, Zac Medico [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
David Leverton wrote:
2008/9/5 Zac Medico [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Both approaches are essentially equivalent but it's a little simpler
for ebuild writer if they don't have to customize the output file name.
On Friday 05 September 2008 00:58:05 Zac Medico wrote:
* Default phase function implementations for older EAPIs are
accessible via functions having names that start with 'eapi',
followed by the EAPI value.
Based on the lack of use cases or further responses to [1] I would suggest
Some of the packages that I use are ~arch keyworded right now and I was
wanting to ask some questions about when to file stabilization requests and
about how much information needs to be provided when filling them.
1) How long do you recommend using a package before filing a stabilization
On Fri, Sep 5, 2008 at 12:06 PM, Robert R. Russell
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Some of the packages that I use are ~arch keyworded right now and I was
wanting to ask some questions about when to file stabilization requests and
about how much information needs to be provided when filling them.
1)
Hi,
Robert R. Russell [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
1)How long do you recommend using a package before filing a
stabilization request?
Usually 30 days in ~arch and no bugs open. Though this can differ,
for example for big software as Gnome, KDE or Mozilla products.
2)Should I file
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote:
| On Wed, 6 Aug 2008, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
|
| Getting the bot out there
| -
| If you would like to have the new bot in your #gentoo-* channel, would
| each channel founder/leader please
Christian Faulhammer [EMAIL PROTECTED] posted
[EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Fri, 05 Sep
2008 21:47:59 +0200:
2) Should I file stabilization requests on software that works mostly
as in everything that I use it for normally but I can force it to fail
if I feed it some really strange
30 matches
Mail list logo
