Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Sunday 07 January 2007 00:13, Steve Long wrote:
>> is it possible for dodoc to do a `make doc' (or whatever the standard is)
>
> there is no such standard
> -mike
well are there any general usage examples? i've just had to amend an ebuild
so that it did make doc, and i t
On Sunday 07 January 2007 00:13, Steve Long wrote:
> is it possible for dodoc to do a `make doc' (or whatever the standard is)
there is no such standard
-mike
pgpDj99We5oHj.pgp
Description: PGP signature
if u need help with the clean room stuff, give me a shout. when i meet a
coder i really respect, i tell them i'm a clean-room engineer. only then.
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Alec Warner wrote:
> Talk to solar about binhost, I know he has a better implementation lying
> around; it's a matter of finalizing it ;)
solar: where is it on your site?
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Alon Bar-Lev wrote:
> I think a specific version should be specified only if something
> breaks with latest,
> thus it should be the default.
++
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
is it possible for dodoc to do a `make doc' (or whatever the standard is) if
called without any filenames?
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
On Sunday 07 January 2007 02:47, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
> This is a very sad blog by my side, although I hope this can be cleared up
> soon so that I don’t have to be this sad anymore in the future.
Edit: Timothy (drizzt) found us the escape route. Applying
ftp://ftp.cs.berkeley.edu/pub/
Copying from my latest blog post, to let the news be spread without surprises:
--
This is a very sad blog by my side, although I hope this can be cleared up
soon so that I don’t have to be this sad anymore in the future.
Basically, the public Gentoo/FreeBSD development is officially halted start
On Saturday 06 January 2007 13:32, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
> On Saturday 06 January 2007 19:23, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > why not just get rid of the idea of "latest" ? is there a scenario where
> > autotools would be inherited but not actually used/added to DEPEND ? i
> > guess that's w
As per summary, this is a last rites message for jmode.
It's an IME engine that still uses GTK+ 1.2 (we all know what that means), and
that was last touched to fix something useful - beside the einfo -> elog move
yesterday - on 2004-11-23, by usata, adding the following postinst message:
On Saturday 06 January 2007 19:23, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> why not just get rid of the idea of "latest" ? is there a scenario where
> autotools would be inherited but not actually used/added to DEPEND ? i
> guess that's what this all comes down to really ...
If autotools were to be inherited by a
On Saturday 06 January 2007 13:00, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
> On Saturday 06 January 2007 18:25, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > the reason was so in the *eclass* you could translate latest to "1.10
> > 1.9" and drop the need of executing that helper function in local scope
>
> Right, but I thoug
On Saturday 06 January 2007 18:25, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> the reason was so in the *eclass* you could translate latest to "1.10 1.9"
> and drop the need of executing that helper function in local scope
Right, but I thought the other one, too..
Well, I suppose it would do little harm at this point
Steve Long wrote:
>> maybe, but no one has this as the default behavior, so ...
>> -mike
>
> Yeah, but it's still a good idea, as others have discussed.
>
Just wanted to apologise for my rudeness there- after all it was your
proposal in the first place. Just been a bit strung out recently, so ple
Having read the other thread, I have to agree that the N+ approach is
better, as you could have GPL3+ as well with simple parsing.
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Paul de Vrieze wrote:
> My idea for the second way is basically to make the life of tools easier.
> It would make explicit that someone accepting GPL-3, but not GPL-2 would
> be able to accept a GPL-2 and later license.
>
Ah, I see what I'm missing- you're saying a tool could just check for the
sp
Ryan Hill wrote:
> Robert Buchholz wrote:
>> I don't want to sound negative and I like the idea a lot, but two things
>> are on my mind about this:
>>
>> It should also sync with changes in the tree, like package removals,
>> additions and package moves.
>
> For sure.
>
>> When you're talking ab
Ryan Hill wrote:
> I just use a local db to keep track of stuff like this, but haven't
> thought of a way to turn this into a service and i don't think it's
> really doable. I think you'd need an entry for every ebuild in portage,
> times the number of archs, times an unlimited number of arbitrary
On Saturday 06 January 2007 11:05, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
> On Saturday 06 January 2007 16:42, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > what does it matter if all of the ebuilds declare latest or the eclass
> > declares latest ?
>
> Weren't we going to allow declaring "1.10 1.9" soon, so that we could s
Robert Buchholz wrote:
>>> But I had the impression the idea was discarded anyway. So I should
>>> focus my thoughts somewhere else :-)
>> Please focus your thoughts wherever you wish. I gotta ask tho; what idea?
>> I thought we were just talking about excess dependencies in the tree.
>
> I someho
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Wed, 03 Jan 2007 23:59:23 + Steve Long
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> | Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> | > At the top level, we set an environment variable to the pid of the
> | > main ebuild process. Then we install a signal trap handler, which,
> | > thanks to how bash
On Saturday 06 January 2007 16:42, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> what does it matter if all of the ebuilds declare latest or the eclass
> declares latest ?
Weren't we going to allow declaring "1.10 1.9" soon, so that we could stop
using "latest" ?
--
Diego "Flameeyes" Pettenò - http://farragut.flameey
On Saturday 06 January 2007 10:22, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
> On Saturday 06 January 2007 11:10, Alon Bar-Lev wrote:
> > Is there any reason why not setting "latest" as default for WANT_AUTO*
> > variables?
>
> Because then stuff will "magically" work in stable, and break in ~arch, and
> yo
On Saturday 06 January 2007 09:47, Kevin F. Quinn wrote:
> Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Saturday 06 January 2007 05:10, Alon Bar-Lev wrote:
> > > Is there any reason why not setting "latest" as default for
> > > WANT_AUTO* variables?
> > >
> > > I believe that an ebuild should s
On Saturday 06 January 2007 11:10, Alon Bar-Lev wrote:
> Is there any reason why not setting "latest" as default for WANT_AUTO*
> variables?
Because then stuff will "magically" work in stable, and break in ~arch, and
you won't know why it's happening.
Instead if you follow the procedure (set the
On 1/6/07, Kevin F. Quinn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Not sure. Would we run the risk that working ebuilds would start to
fail when newer autotools versions arrive?
So what do you suggest of putting? Current revision?
And we can drop the "latest" support... right?
But then we should handle old
On Sat, 6 Jan 2007 05:21:48 -0500
Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Saturday 06 January 2007 05:10, Alon Bar-Lev wrote:
> > Is there any reason why not setting "latest" as default for
> > WANT_AUTO* variables?
> >
> > I believe that an ebuild should set these variables only if there i
On Sat, Jan 06, 2007 at 12:27:31AM -0800, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
> And we're done!
> Thanks to myself, kingtaco, ramereth, solar, jforman and cshields for
> all playing a part of getting this together so far!
>
> A special thank you to our sponsor GNi (gni.com) for the hardware.
> I hear there
We have created the overlay, hosting it on sourceforge:
http://gentoo-gis.sourceforge.net/
Can it be added to Layman default list?
Thanks
Luca
On 12/6/06, Donnie Berkholz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Luca Casagrande wrote:
> Hi to all!
>
> I am a user of geographic information system (GIS) on
Another note, there were 97 emails that had gotten queued up in
Bugzilla, and never sent, but they are flushed out now, so a few people
will see some emails dating back as far as Feb 2006 coming out.
--
Robin Hugh Johnson
Gentoo Linux Developer
E-Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
GnuPG FP : 11AC BA4
On Saturday 06 January 2007 05:10, Alon Bar-Lev wrote:
> Is there any reason why not setting "latest" as default for WANT_AUTO*
> variables?
>
> I believe that an ebuild should set these variables only if there is
> some exception.
that seems like a not-too-shabby idea actually
-mike
pgp7qE8JnVb
Hello,
Is there any reason why not setting "latest" as default for WANT_AUTO*
variables?
I believe that an ebuild should set these variables only if there is
some exception.
Best Regards,
Alon Bar-Lev.
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
On Thu, Jan 04, 2007 at 02:54:24PM -0800, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
> This is tentatively scheduled to start at 02h00 UTC on 6th January 2007.
> I am estimating 3 hours for all of it, but I hope to have it done is
> less than that.
And we're done!
Some delays were experienced getting it up (total mi
Gustavo Felisberto wrote:
> My main issue is with size. Right now portage has to pull ALL the packages in
> the PORTAGE_BINHOST to create the dep tree. Is there a way for me to say:
>
> emerge -u --use-bynary-packages-if-possible system and portage will build the
> dep tree based on the local port
34 matches
Mail list logo
