2006-06-10, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò sanoi, jotta:
I'm actually going to work to add to Portage (will-be-2.2) i18n
capabilities next week, and I'll be doing for sure the Italian
translation.
Would this be a fix to Portage NLS bug
http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13618? If so, have you
All of a sudden, emerge -uD --newuse world is showing dozens of ebuild
that are replaced due to removed use flags. Did someone change the default
use flags? Upgraded yesterday to portage 2.1.
--
Peter
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
On Monday 12 June 2006 12:42, Peter wrote:
All of a sudden, emerge -uD --newuse world is showing dozens of ebuild
that are replaced due to removed use flags. Did someone change the default
use flags? Upgraded yesterday to portage 2.1.
Look at the first section of [1]. Just so you know it this
Thanks, I have worked in your ideas and made the +CC and bug-updates clear
in the HOWTO.
Kind regards,
Stefan
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
On Mon, 12 Jun 2006 12:57:00 +0200, Bo Ørsted Andresen wrote:
On Monday 12 June 2006 12:42, Peter wrote:
All of a sudden, emerge -uD --newuse world is showing dozens of ebuild
that are replaced due to removed use flags. Did someone change the
default use flags? Upgraded yesterday to portage
Henrik Brix Andersen wrote:
On Sun, Jun 11, 2006 at 06:53:51PM +0100, Stuart Herbert wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Henrik Brix Andersen wrote:
| However, as has been pointed out several times in this thread already,
| back when the devloper community agreed to the
Daniel Ostrow wrote:
3) a yes from herds required, keeping a timeout to avoid bugspam
after a comment has been placed on a maintainer-wanted bug in bugzie,
there's a grace time of two weeks for herds to either leave a comment on
whether they're fine with take over or not. When this time is
On Mon, 12 Jun 2006 09:23:42 -0400, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
On Mon, 2006-06-12 at 06:42 -0400, Peter wrote:
All of a sudden, emerge -uD --newuse world is showing dozens of ebuild
that are replaced due to removed use flags. Did someone change the
default use flags? Upgraded yesterday to
On Mon, 2006-06-12 at 15:19 +0200, Stefan Schweizer wrote:
All current contributors to the Sunrise overlay take effort to improve their
ebuild skills and listen to our words closely. I would consider them all as
devs-in-spee, I am personally planning to recruit some of them when they
have
On Mon, 2006-06-12 at 15:19 +0200, Stefan Schweizer wrote:
I'm 100% against implicit acceptance. If someone from the sunrise
project wishes to add an ebuild to the overlay they should have to get
an explicit OK from the team in question.
we are not doing this, because we do not want to put
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Chris Gianelloni wrote:
On Mon, 2006-06-12 at 15:19 +0200, Stefan Schweizer wrote:
You've broken this one before, so I just want to point it out to you
again.
The bug was of course discussed in IRC with the games team and the lead in
advance. I
Last year right after LWE August, Corey set up a 1-day Gentoo developer
conference. Is anyone who's attending LWE going to pick up the ball, now
that he's gone?
Much of the information is supposedly on the devwiki [1], but it's
somewhat broken right now. The infra folks are working on fixing that
Hi
Portage takes up a lot of space and time when doing server backups.
How much of Portage needs to be backup up?
Any large parts of the tree that I can just dump?
Thanks!
CC appreciated :).
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Molle Bestefich wrote:
Hi
Portage takes up a lot of space and time when doing server backups.
How much of Portage needs to be backup up?
Any large parts of the tree that I can just dump?
Thanks!
CC appreciated :).
anything in
On Mon, Jun 12, 2006 at 03:41:56PM -0500, Mike Doty wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Molle Bestefich wrote:
Hi
Portage takes up a lot of space and time when doing server backups.
How much of Portage needs to be backup up?
Any large parts of the tree that I
On Mon, Jun 12, 2006 at 09:58:01PM +0100, Stephen Bennett wrote:
Many things were discussed in the last round of this thread (Paludis
and Profiles, in case anyone missed it), and many useful points raised.
One of these, which seems to have been largely missed in amongst the
other noise, forms
On Mon, Jun 12, 2006 at 10:01:32PM +0100, Stuart Herbert wrote:
That's not my decision to make, as o.g.o lead. That decision rightly
belongs with the Council. I'm referring this to the Council for them to
decide.
I would like to propose a last-minute change of the agenda for
Thursdays
On Mon, 12 Jun 2006 23:07:34 +0200 Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| On Monday 12 June 2006 22:58, Stephen Bennett wrote:
| I would like to think that this proposal addresses most of the
| concerns raised in the last thread -- it implies nothing about
| support for any other
On Mon, 12 Jun 2006 23:09:38 +0200
Luca Barbato [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If you can spot those issues and fix them w/out rush on package
mantainers, no problems at all.
I was assuming that they would be treated more or less as minor QA
issues are currently.
PS: there is a formal spec about
Since GLEP 42's original author and sponsor has left the project, I've
taken it over, and would like to have another go at getting it
implemented. I've just updated the version in CVS[1], which should be
making its way onto the www nodes, but with any luck the full text
should be attached here for
Continuing in the series of issues raised during the previous package
manager discussions, I'd like to continue by mentioning the tree
format. At present, it isn't defined beyond what the current portage
supports, which is frankly a fairly silly way to do things. Following
discussion in
Stephen Bennett wrote:
Continuing in the series of issues raised during the previous package
manager discussions, I'd like to continue by mentioning the tree
format. At present, it isn't defined beyond what the current portage
supports, which is frankly a fairly silly way to do things.
On Mon, 12 Jun 2006 19:04:39 -0400
Luis Francisco Araujo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I like the idea. This would be some kind of portage-tree standard?
This would be, in essence, a formal definition of the layout of the
tree, and the format of and assumptions made by every file contained
within
Do make sure you back up the base /var/cache/edb/
Why? Anything in /var/cache doesn't need to be in a backup,
because it can be generated when necessary (in theory...)
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Stephen Bennett wrote:
Since GLEP 42's original author and sponsor has left the project, I've
taken it over, and would like to have another go at getting it
implemented. I've just updated the version in CVS[1], which should be
making its way onto the www nodes, but with any luck the full text
On Mon, 12 Jun 2006 19:26:18 -0400 Alec Warner [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| I have no problem with basically writing up 'fake' portageq calls.
| However often people tell me overlays are important, they don't serve
| as multipile repos and don't have metadata/news, so they are excluded
| in this
On Tue, Jun 13, 2006 at 01:26:39AM +0200, Luca Barbato wrote:
Stephen Bennett wrote:
This would be, in essence, a formal definition of the layout of the
tree, and the format of and assumptions made by every file contained
within it.
I'm all for it.
Definately. Go for it.
Regards,
On Mon, 2006-06-12 at 19:04 -0400, Luis Francisco Araujo wrote:
Stephen Bennett wrote:
Continuing in the series of issues raised during the previous package
manager discussions, I'd like to continue by mentioning the tree
format. At present, it isn't defined beyond what the current portage
On Mon, 12 Jun 2006 19:26:18 -0400
Alec Warner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* Portage must provide a way for external programs to obtain a list
of all repository identifiers for a given system. It is assumed
that this will be in the form of a ``portageq`` command (e.g.
``portageq
On Mon, 12 Jun 2006 14:06:01 -0700
Robin H. Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Jun 12, 2006 at 03:41:56PM -0500, Mike Doty wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Molle Bestefich wrote:
Hi
Portage takes up a lot of space and time when doing server
On Mon, 12 Jun 2006 19:26:18 -0400
Alec Warner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Stephen Bennett wrote:
* Portage must provide a way for external programs to obtain a list
of all repository identifiers for a given system. It is assumed
that this will be in the form of a ``portageq`` command (e.g.
On Tue, 13 Jun 2006 00:00:43 +0100
Stephen Bennett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My current idea is to draw up a formal specification of what ebuilds
are allowed to do, and what to assume about the environment in which
they run, as well as defining the formats of everything under
profiles/,
Daniel Ostrow wrote:
On Mon, 2006-06-12 at 19:04 -0400, Luis Francisco Araujo wrote:
Stephen Bennett wrote:
Continuing in the series of issues raised during the previous package
manager discussions, I'd like to continue by mentioning the tree
format. At present, it isn't defined beyond what
Alec Warner wrote:
I prefer gentoo-x86, although others hate that x86-centric moniker ;)
ebuilds' tree could be ok (now after the transgender cow Larry we greet
the transgenic fruits that grown on trees but have to be herded: the
Ebuilds!)
Ok, I should not post after midnight, local time...
On Sunday 11 June 2006 12:50, Brian Harring wrote:
On Fri, Jun 09, 2006 at 05:08:23PM -0400, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
On Fri, 2006-06-09 at 16:19 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Thursday 08 June 2006 21:08, Brian Harring wrote:
One additional to this- the location for the file in the tree
On Tue, Jun 13, 2006 at 11:49:58AM +1000, Daniel wrote:
On Sunday 11 June 2006 12:50, Brian Harring wrote:
On Fri, Jun 09, 2006 at 05:08:23PM -0400, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
On Fri, 2006-06-09 at 16:19 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Thursday 08 June 2006 21:08, Brian Harring wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Brian Harring wrote:
Well, all that's required is modification to rsync gen script;
I'll do it, assuming that a location has been agreed upon.
$PORTDIR/metadata/herds.xml is the place?
Zac
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.3
Did I understand it wrong or did they get this mixed up in the GWN
announcement:
/etc/portage/package.unmask/kde, /etc/portage/package.unmask/xorg
Shouldn't it be:
/etc/portage/kde/package.*, /etc/portage/xorg/package.*
--
Brian [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
gentoo-portage-dev@gentoo.org mailing
Brian wrote:
Did I understand it wrong or did they get this mixed up in the GWN
announcement:
/etc/portage/package.unmask/kde, /etc/portage/package.unmask/xorg
Shouldn't it be:
/etc/portage/kde/package.*, /etc/portage/xorg/package.*
You understood it wrong. /etc/portage/package.unmask/foo
On Mon, 12 Jun 2006 17:18:44 -0700
Brian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 2006-12-06 at 18:58 -0500, Andrew Gaffney wrote:
Brian wrote:
Did I understand it wrong or did they get this mixed up in the GWN
announcement:
/etc/portage/package.unmask/kde,
On Tue, 2006-13-06 at 02:38 +0200, Marius Mauch wrote:
On Mon, 12 Jun 2006 17:18:44 -0700
Brian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 2006-12-06 at 18:58 -0500, Andrew Gaffney wrote:
Brian wrote:
Did I understand it wrong or did they get this mixed up in the GWN
announcement:
On Mon, 12 Jun 2006 18:20:16 -0700
Brian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I also just did a man portage and the man page did not appear to be
updated for this change.
I guess quite a few docs aren't up to date in 2.1. Anyone wanna work on
that?
Marius
--
Public Key at
42 matches
Mail list logo
