Re: [gentoo-dev] Last rites: net-nds/gq
Jakub Moc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > GTK-based LDAP client. This thing has no maintainer, is broken and dead > upstream (unmaintained, last release 2+ ago). > > If anyone still wants to keep it in portage, see > http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=122336 for the outstanding issues. > > Otherwise, I suggest to p.mask this in two weeks and then remove from > portage. Please don't send these emails out unless you have had someone already mask it for you, otherwise it will probably go unnoticed for quite some time. I masked this. If anyone wants to keep it in the tree, step up and fix the bugs. It will be gone in 4 weeks. -- Mark Loeser - Gentoo Developer (cpp gcc-porting qa toolchain x86) email - halcy0n AT gentoo DOT org mark AT halcy0n DOT com web - http://dev.gentoo.org/~halcy0n/ http://www.halcy0n.com pgpGnRACNwnmx.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] SRC_URI component naming collision
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: -snip- > Current offenders shall be receiving bugs shortly, since That Which > Shall Not Be Named now checks for this. > The One Tool To Rule Them All? TOT4A -> TOTAL -- Doug Goldstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://dev.gentoo.org/~cardoe/ signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] SRC_URI component naming collision
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: Two ways this one can occur. Way the first: foo-1.0 has a file in SRC_URI called foo.pdf. Then foo-1.1 comes along, and has a different foo.pdf. Way the second: foo-1.0 has a file called examples-1.0.tar.bz2. bar-1.0 also has a file called examples-1.0.tar.bz2. To avoid this, ensure that your packages use versioned SRC_URI component names, and that the name part is something that's reasonably likely to be unique (e.g. includes the package name). this gives problems on a number off packages... i'm not pro... Side note: if the packages in question are fetch restricted, you're screwed, and will not be able to add them to the tree. Current offenders shall be receiving bugs shortly, since That Which Shall Not Be Named now checks for this. -- "Defer no time, delays have dangerous ends" "Ne humanus crede" Jochen Maes Gentoo Linux Gentoo Belgium http://sejo.be http://gentoo.be http://gentoo.org signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Find apps not ported to modular X
The last change: 203 to 187, over 3 days -- that's 5 packages a day, which is OK but ought to be better. Good job again, to those who have been fixing games! Anyone who would like to help, please start concentrating on unmaintained packages. They make up close to half of the remaining unported packages. Progress graph: http://dev.gentoo.org/~spyderous/broken_modular/broken_modular_progress.png Latest list: http://dev.gentoo.org/~spyderous/broken_modular/broken_modular_maintainers.txt.20060224 Herds and people with 5 or more unported packages, and change in # of packages: 46 none (individual or no maintainer) (-1) 27 games (-13) 26 (no metadata.xml) (-0) 16 desktop-wm (-0) 13 video (-1) 8 cjk (-0) 6 sound (-0) 6 afterstep (-0) 6 vapier (-0) 6 stuart (-0) --- Total: 160 of 187 unported IRC: #gentoo-x Documentation: http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/desktop/x/x11/modular-x-howto.xml http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/desktop/x/x11/porting-modular-x-howto.xml Metabug: http://bugs.gentoo.org/112675 If you can't figure out what needs to get done and you've already read the docs, ask in #gentoo-x. Thanks, Donnie signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
[gentoo-dev] dev-lang/nqc could use a maintainer...
Does someone want to pick up dev-lang/nqc? It's a "C-like compiler for Lego Mindstorms", and it needs some version bump loving (bug #89257) and some nasty global scope code replacing. -- Ciaran McCreesh : Gentoo Developer (Wearer of the shiny hat) Mail: ciaranm at gentoo.org Web : http://dev.gentoo.org/~ciaranm signature.asc Description: PGP signature
[gentoo-dev] Last rites for dev-util/glimmer
Hello, dev-util/glimmer has been package masked. It is a very old gtk+-1 code editor. This package will be removed one week from today, March 3rd 2006. Please respond if you feel it should not be removed. Thanks, -John (AllanonJL) -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
[gentoo-dev] SRC_URI component naming collision
Two ways this one can occur. Way the first: foo-1.0 has a file in SRC_URI called foo.pdf. Then foo-1.1 comes along, and has a different foo.pdf. Way the second: foo-1.0 has a file called examples-1.0.tar.bz2. bar-1.0 also has a file called examples-1.0.tar.bz2. To avoid this, ensure that your packages use versioned SRC_URI component names, and that the name part is something that's reasonably likely to be unique (e.g. includes the package name). Side note: if the packages in question are fetch restricted, you're screwed, and will not be able to add them to the tree. Current offenders shall be receiving bugs shortly, since That Which Shall Not Be Named now checks for this. -- Ciaran McCreesh : Gentoo Developer (Wearer of the shiny hat) Mail: ciaranm at gentoo.org Web : http://dev.gentoo.org/~ciaranm signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Searching for a person who can advice me
George Prowse wrote: > Pick an area to help in and help with it (file bug reports, submit patches, > comment on mailing lists). If people notice you are working well towards a > specific area you are far more likely to be mentored. Ask this question to > a developer in a few months time, one who you have a rapport with. O.K. I will do it this way. pgpzPQE6UK4kN.pgp Description: PGP signature
