Following advise from https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=250179, I'm
bringing it here.
--
regards
MM
--
Wygraj telefon komorkowy!
Sprawdz http://link.interia.pl/f1fc0
On 14:46 Sun 07 Dec , Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Sat, 6 Dec 2008 23:44:40 -0800
Donnie Berkholz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I hadn't heard of it before, thanks for the ref. What was the reason
for forking the codebase? It gets pretty annoying to copy across
useful changes, especially while
On Monday, 08. December 2008 17:37:42 Donnie Berkholz wrote:
Open and public debate about the right way to do things does take
longer, and it's something you certainly participate in quite
frequently so I'm surprised to hear you badmouth it when it comes to
your own ideas.
It's not about
(I'm replying to Ciaran's email, but my reply is for Donnie too)
El lun, 08-12-2008 a las 17:44 +, Ciaran McCreesh escribió:
On Mon, 8 Dec 2008 08:37:42 -0800
Donnie Berkholz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Open and public debate about the right way to do things does take
longer, and it's
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Mon, 8 Dec 2008 17:44:34 +
Ciaran McCreesh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
None of the people involved in the decision to fork eselect rather than
work on it for Gentoo are anything except entirely in favour of open and
public debate. It's just
On Mon, 8 Dec 2008 20:28:58 +0200
nikos roussos [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 8 Dec 2008 17:44:34 +
Ciaran McCreesh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
None of the people involved in the decision to fork eselect rather
than work on it for Gentoo are anything except entirely in favour
of open
On Mon, Dec 8, 2008 at 6:44 PM, Ciaran McCreesh
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 8 Dec 2008 08:37:42 -0800
Donnie Berkholz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Open and public debate about the right way to do things does take
longer, and it's something you certainly participate in quite
frequently so I'm
On Mon, Dec 8, 2008 at 9:49 AM, Wulf C. Krueger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Monday, 08. December 2008 17:37:42 Donnie Berkholz wrote:
Open and public debate about the right way to do things does take
longer, and it's something you certainly participate in quite
frequently so I'm surprised to
On Sun, Dec 7, 2008 at 4:50 PM, Mart Raudsepp [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On P, 2008-12-07 at 12:07 +, Mike Frysinger (vapier) wrote:
vapier 08/12/07 12:07:53
Modified: libIDL-0.8.10.ebuild
ChangeLog entires are mandatory without any exceptions for
stabilizations.
On Mon, 2008-12-08 at 12:56 -0800, Alec Warner wrote:
On Mon, Dec 8, 2008 at 9:49 AM, Wulf C. Krueger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Monday, 08. December 2008 17:37:42 Donnie Berkholz wrote:
Open and public debate about the right way to do things does take
longer, and it's something you
On Monday 08 of December 2008 11:34:21 Maciej Mrozowski wrote:
Following advise from https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=250179, I'm
bringing it here.
Hm, i totally don't agree with the original comment from the bug. Many people
get use of those two flags without even noticing it. There is
Hi,
I like to write about an observation about gentoo, I made the past
weeks, which does frustrate me personally a little bit, mainly because
it makes administration a bit harder for me. It could be considered as
an issue or as yet another case of When you play with unstable
packages, you're
On Tue, 2008-12-09 at 01:00 +0100, Jean-Marc Hengen wrote:
So this is about, if the current policy for using EAPI 2 in the tree
is really good or it should be improved, when introducing future
EAPI's, where portage supporting that EAPI is still unstable. My
proposal would be, to only use
On Mon, 08 Dec 2008 19:09:50 -0500
Olivier Crête [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'd like to go further and ask that for the next EAPI change, we only
allow ebuilds using it into the tree once a version of portage that
supports it has gone stable. And then, not make any ebuild with the
new EAPI
On Tue, 2008-12-09 at 00:11 +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Mon, 08 Dec 2008 19:09:50 -0500
Olivier Crête [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'd like to go further and ask that for the next EAPI change, we only
allow ebuilds using it into the tree once a version of portage that
supports it has gone
On Tue, 2008-12-09 at 00:29 +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Mon, 08 Dec 2008 19:25:44 -0500
Olivier Crête [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The testing should be two phased, the first for regression (against
existing ebuilds), and once thats stable, then we can test with new
ebuilds...
Uh,
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hello,
today I hit this annoyance, because my laptop hung in the middle of an
'emerge -e @world' (checking that my world set compiles with
gcc-4.3... stopped at ~ 300 of 700 :S )
I was looking for an entry in /var/db/pkg/cat/pkg/ that could have
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Dawid Węgliński wrote:
On Monday 08 of December 2008 11:34:21 Maciej Mrozowski wrote:
Following advise from https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=250179, I'm
bringing it here.
Hm, i totally don't agree with the original comment from the bug.
Federico Ferri wrote:
Hello,
today I hit this annoyance, because my laptop hung in the middle of an
'emerge -e @world' (checking that my world set compiles with
gcc-4.3... stopped at ~ 300 of 700 :S )
Consider using emerge --keep-going next time.
I was looking for an entry in
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Mon, 08 Dec 2008 19:25:44 -0500
Olivier Crête [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The can be tested properly phase is when it's in ~arch...
That also means that to pull a significant number of ebuilds it forces
mostly everyone to
Maciej Mrozowski wrote:
Following advise from https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=250179, I'm
bringing it here.
I think this is probably a good idea after EAPI 2 is stable and we
eliminate built_with_use usage from the tree. I think having stuff build
out of the box instead of dying in
If one has built a system with the default python and perl USE flags,
what steps would be necessary to remove all packages and dependencies
after removing them from the USE declarations?
Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote:
Dawid WgliDski wrote:
On Monday 08 of December 2008 11:34:21 Maciej
Nathan Zachary wrote:
If one has built a system with the default python and perl USE flags,
what steps would be necessary to remove all packages and dependencies
after removing them from the USE declarations?
After kicking 'em out of make.conf, run emerge -pvtuDN world (the N is
important; it
H, that's what I assumed, but I run into problems with the depclean:
Dependencies could not be completely resolved due to
the following required packages not being installed:
=virtual/perl-Compress-Zlib-1.14 required by dev-perl/Archive-Zip-1.23
=virtual/perl-ExtUtils-ParseXS-1.02 required
While at it, it might be useful to have someghing like compiler-use file
( like package.use) for per-package compiler version and FLAGS to be used.
It is annoying to have emerge -eD world fail because some package
requires specific compiler version or because gcc-3.4 can't be compiled
with
On Monday 08 December 2008 06:00:10 pm Jean-Marc Hengen wrote:
snip
This mail is about EAPI usage in the portage tree. Let me describe it,
with what happened today: I'm running a mostly stable system (91 of 1255
installed packages are unstable), but I test here and there some
packages. On of
Olivier Crête [EMAIL PROTECTED] posted
[EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Mon, 08
Dec 2008 19:43:42 -0500:
I'm not suggesting waiting any longer, just not pushing ebuilds into the
tree until we have a stable enough version of portage that handles them
(and if we do, then lets mark it as
27 matches
Mail list logo
