Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: bash version in ebuilds/eclasses...non-compliance and what to do?
On 20-12-2008 05:35:25 +, Steve Long wrote: I note that bash-3.2_p17-r1 is stable on all the architectures that 3.0-r12 lists (it just adds the two -fbsd archs as unstable.) portage-2.1.4.5 requires at least that version (only unstable on mips as against 2.1.1-r2) It might be worth skipping to 3.2, since that would simplify regex handling. The only problem we have there is that bash-3.2.17 only comes in patches on top of 3.2. During bootstrap that's problematic, as gnu patch (or any other patch) might not be available, or simply b0rked. For that reason we bootstrap with a portage pre SVN revision 10460, which does not require =3.2.17. See http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=229677#c11 on why PMS should require 3.2.17 over plain 3.2 if you decide to push the requirement update. We can work around it by using a self-made pre-patched tarball, though. -- Fabian Groffen Gentoo on a different level
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: bash version in ebuilds/eclasses...non-compliance and what to do?
On Sat, 20 Dec 2008 05:35:25 + Steve Long sl...@rathaus.eclipse.co.uk wrote: I note that bash-3.2_p17-r1 is stable on all the architectures that 3.0-r12 lists (it just adds the two -fbsd archs as unstable.) portage-2.1.4.5 requires at least that version (only unstable on mips as against 2.1.1-r2) It might be worth skipping to 3.2, since that would simplify regex handling. Stable isn't the measure. Stages are. Read the original email carefully and you shall see why. -- Ciaran McCreesh signature.asc Description: PGP signature
[gentoo-dev] Last rites: app-editors/katoob
+# Peter Alfredsen loki_...@gentoo.org (20 Dec 2008) +# Masked for removal in 30 days. Version that compiles with gcc-4.3 +# is not ready for stable ( bug 251566 ). +# Upstream has abandoned it, alternatives such as gedit exist. +app-editors/katoob + -- /PA signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
[gentoo-dev] links between anoncvs.g.o and sources.g.o
Hi May I suggest that you add links so that anoncvs.g.o and sources.g.o link to one another. Users might find one of those pages and think that's all there is to it. However both of the pages contain information not available on the other. anoncvs.g.o mentions git and rsync, and sources.g.o allow viewing repo contents using your browser. -- Jonas
