Re: [gentoo-dev] New package neomutt

On czw, 2017-08-10 at 11:35 +0200, Nicolas Bock wrote: > On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 10:10:04AM +0200, Michał Górny wrote: > > On czw, 2017-08-10 at 09:54 +0200, Fabian Groffen wrote: > > > On 10-08-2017 09:40:30 +0200, Michał Górny wrote: > > > > On czw, 2017-08-10 at 06:58 +0200, Nicolas Bock wrote:

Re: [gentoo-dev] sys-boot/plymouth needs major fixes/maintainer

On 17-07-26 11:56:39, Pacho Ramos wrote: > sys-boot/plymouth is orphan for a long time. Its old 0.8.x versions where > having > important bugs that were fixed in 0.9.x, but 0.9 is also plenty of issues. > Then, > either this is adopted by someone able to handle all that issues or we will > need

Re: [gentoo-dev] sys-boot/plymouth needs major fixes/maintainer

This may take me some time. The live cd doesn't even seem to use this. And that plugin is unmaintained so I forked it. On Tue, Aug 8, 2017 at 11:08 PM, Matthew Thode wrote: > On 17-08-04 17:17:05, Mart Raudsepp wrote: > > On K, 2017-07-26 at 11:56 +0200, Pacho Ramos

Re: [gentoo-dev] New package neomutt

On czw, 2017-08-10 at 06:58 +0200, Nicolas Bock wrote: > On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 09:11:19AM +0200, Nicolas Bock wrote: > > Hi, > > > > I would like to add neomutt to the tree. This new package is meant as > > an alternative and not a replacement of the existing mutt package. > > Thanks for all

Re: [gentoo-dev] New package neomutt

On 10-08-2017 09:40:30 +0200, Michał Górny wrote: > On czw, 2017-08-10 at 06:58 +0200, Nicolas Bock wrote: > > On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 09:11:19AM +0200, Nicolas Bock wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > > > I would like to add neomutt to the tree. This new package is meant as > > > an alternative and not a

Re: [gentoo-dev] New package neomutt

On czw, 2017-08-10 at 09:54 +0200, Fabian Groffen wrote: > On 10-08-2017 09:40:30 +0200, Michał Górny wrote: > > On czw, 2017-08-10 at 06:58 +0200, Nicolas Bock wrote: > > > On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 09:11:19AM +0200, Nicolas Bock wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > I would like to add neomutt to

Re: [gentoo-dev] New package neomutt

On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 10:10:04AM +0200, Michał Górny wrote: On czw, 2017-08-10 at 09:54 +0200, Fabian Groffen wrote: On 10-08-2017 09:40:30 +0200, Michał Górny wrote: > On czw, 2017-08-10 at 06:58 +0200, Nicolas Bock wrote: > > On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 09:11:19AM +0200, Nicolas Bock wrote: > >

Re: [gentoo-dev] New package neomutt

On czw, 2017-08-10 at 14:16 +0200, Fabian Groffen wrote: > On 10-08-2017 14:13:29 +0200, Marc Schiffbauer wrote: > > * Nicolas Bock schrieb am 10.08.17 um 11:35 Uhr: > > > It does of course. What's appropriate here depends on whether we > > > think somebody might want to have both mutt and

Re: [gentoo-dev] New package neomutt

On 10-08-2017 16:09:53 +0200, Michał Górny wrote: > ...which probably makes sense if you treat is as a continuation of mail- > client/mutt package. However, since we package it separately, using > the same name is going to create more confusion than renaming it to > match the package name. > > If

[gentoo-dev] Gentoo QA Help

Hi Gentoo Team, As some of you may noticed i started to clean up some old patches in the gentoo portage tree. I did so already a while ago, and like before I'm using a small script in order to identify unused patches. I few days ago i started to hack again on that script and thought about to

[gentoo-portage-dev] portage-2.3.7 release soon

Is there anything that we want to merge before the portage-2.3.7 release? I'd like to merge the eapply_user patch: https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=608880 Anything else? -- Thanks, Zac signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] Prevent binary/non-compiled packages from binary package creation

On Thu, 10 Aug 2017 13:33:54 +1000 "Sam Jorna (wraeth)" wrote: > > This is no greater risk than syncing from a potentially compromised > mirror. You would use a mirror you trust and, similarly (perhaps even > more so) you would use a binhost you trust. Getting a bit ridiculous

[gentoo-dev] Re: toolchain team lead election and team meeting

On Wed, Aug 9, 2017, at 15:43 CDT, "Andreas K. Huettel" wrote: > Hey there, > > it's time we do a proper lead election and have a toolchain meeting again. > > So, here's the plan: > > 1) team lead election: > * Nominations from now until August 18, by e-mailing to the

[gentoo-dev] Re: [PATCH] toolchain-glibc.eclass: fix libm.so symlinking for live glibc

Sergei Trofimovich posted on Tue, 08 Aug 2017 16:53:22 +0100 as excerpted: > The failure happens when live glibc- ebuild is installed: > * QA Notice: Missing gen_usr_ldscript for libm-2.26.90.so * ERROR: > sys-libs/glibc-::gentoo failed: > * add those ldscripts > > The problem here

[gentoo-dev] Re: Prevent binary/non-compiled packages from binary package creation

William L. Thomson Jr. posted on Tue, 08 Aug 2017 12:37:42 -0400 as excerpted: > I make a lot of binaries for use on other systems, to expedite updates. > It does not make sense for some packages to ever be a binary package. > > Packages like -bin packages or gentoo-sources, which are just

Re: [gentoo-dev] Prevent binary/non-compiled packages from binary package creation

On 11/08/17 03:08, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote: > Lets go down this rabbit hole. Let's not. -- Sam Jorna (wraeth) GnuPG ID: D6180C26 signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] New package neomutt

On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 06:58:57AM +0200, Nicolas Bock wrote: > On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 09:11:19AM +0200, Nicolas Bock wrote: > >Hi, > > > >I would like to add neomutt to the tree. This new package is meant as > >an alternative and not a replacement of the existing mutt package. > > Thanks for

Re: [gentoo-dev] New package neomutt

* Nicolas Bock schrieb am 10.08.17 um 11:35 Uhr: > It does of course. What's appropriate here depends on whether we > think somebody might want to have both mutt and neomutt installed > at the same time. If we don't allow this use case, we don't have > to worry about eselect and the neomutt

Re: [gentoo-dev] New package neomutt

On 10-08-2017 14:13:29 +0200, Marc Schiffbauer wrote: > * Nicolas Bock schrieb am 10.08.17 um 11:35 Uhr: > > It does of course. What's appropriate here depends on whether we > > think somebody might want to have both mutt and neomutt installed > > at the same time. If we don't allow this use

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Prevent binary/non-compiled packages from binary package creation

On Thu, 10 Aug 2017 23:30:37 + (UTC) Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote: > Meanwhile, having buildpkg on virtual packages[1] is what amuses me. > There, most of the benefits of binpkgs that arguably apply even to > prebuilt binary and no-bin packages as long as they package and > install