Jeremy Olexa wrote:
[. . .]
Thanks for the message, Jeremy; it's informative and appreciated!
- xfce-config.xml: http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/xfce-config.xml Josh
(nightmorph) updated this, basically an after thought by us so thanks Josh!
- xfce4-meta : former name xfce-base/xfce4. Renamed
On 03.09.2009 05:38, Jeremy Olexa wrote:
- xfce4-meta : former name xfce-base/xfce4. Renamed to reflect reality.
This meta package is the *core* of XFCE, it *only* has in it what is
required to run. Thus, returning XFCE to a minimalistic status in Gentoo
Linux. This is desired because most
On 08/11/2009 01:28 AM, Ben de Groot wrote:
[...]
So hereby we announce the Gentoo Multimedia overlay. It is located at
http://gitorious.org/gentoo-multimedia and any developers who want to
join can let us know their gitorious account name, so they can be added.
Administration of the overlay
On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 1:42 PM, Nikos Chantziarasrea...@arcor.de wrote:
Is this dead before it even began? I'm getting no replies from
yng...@gentoo.org.
He is away:
http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/devrel/roll-call/devaway.xml?select=yngwin#yngwin
Rémi Cardona wrote:
Le 01/09/2009 00:12, Mounir Lamouri a écrit :
Hi,
As you should know, GLEP 23 [1] introduced USE flags conditions in
LICENSE variable and || operator in addition of licenses groups and
ACCEPT_LICENSE variable.
[1] http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/glep/glep-0023.html
/me
This is a heads-up to all devs who provide/maintain live ebuilds of
projects hosted on SourceForge. Live ebuilds won't work anymore.
EGIT_REPO_URI has to updated on all ebuilds. Appending /projectname
should be enough (for example,
git://lmms.git.sourceforge.net/gitroot/lmms should become
Sebastian Pipping wrote:
Mounir Lamouri wrote:
It's even worst when we try to use ACCEPT_LICENSE to have a free
operating system. Let's suppose 'free' in fsf free and osf free,
LGPL-2.1 is free for both but LGPL-2 isn't and we can suppose, most
LGPL-2 licensed packages in the tree are
Duncan wrote:
Sebastian Pipping posted on Tue, 01 Sep 2009 04:21:49 +0200 as excerpted:
However I do notice that GPL-2+ could make things easier. Why not
introduce a license group for it like @GPL-2+ or so, instead? That would
be transparent and use existing means.
I've always
Le 03/09/2009 23:10, Mounir Lamouri a écrit :
Duncan wrote:
Sebastian Pipping posted on Tue, 01 Sep 2009 04:21:49 +0200 as excerpted:
However I do notice that GPL-2+ could make things easier. Why not
introduce a license group for it like @GPL-2+ or so, instead? That would
be transparent and
Rémi Cardona wrote:
Le 03/09/2009 23:10, Mounir Lamouri a écrit :
Duncan wrote:
Sebastian Pipping posted on Tue, 01 Sep 2009 04:21:49 +0200 as
excerpted:
However I do notice that GPL-2+ could make things easier. Why not
introduce a license group for it like @GPL-2+ or so, instead? That
Eray Aslan wrote:
On 03.09.2009 05:38, Jeremy Olexa wrote:
- xfce4-meta : former name xfce-base/xfce4. Renamed to reflect reality.
This meta package is the *core* of XFCE, it *only* has in it what is
required to run. Thus, returning XFCE to a minimalistic status in Gentoo
Linux. This is desired
Mounir Lamouri posted on Thu, 03 Sep 2009 23:27:34 +0200 as excerpted:
Rémi Cardona wrote:
Mounir Lamouri a écrit :
Duncan wrote:
Sebastian Pipping posted:
However I do notice that GPL-2+ could make things easier. Why not
introduce a license group for it like @GPL-2+
I've always thought
12 matches
Mail list logo
