On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 11:07:10PM +0200, Luca Barbato wrote:
Christian Birchinger wrote:
Hello
Anyone interested in maintaining further SDLMame updates?
Beginning with 0.126 it requires GConf to get a font setting
for it's now mandatory debugger.
I use a plain XFCE setup and don't really
Christian Birchinger wrote:
But no matter how wrong i think it is, i usualy respect the
upstreams wishes.
If upstream is wrong I think we should help them...
lu
--
Luca Barbato
Gentoo Council Member
Gentoo/linux Gentoo/PPC
http://dev.gentoo.org/~lu_zero
On Sat, Jul 26, 2008 at 03:13:36PM +0200, Luca Barbato wrote:
Christian Birchinger wrote:
But no matter how wrong i think it is, i usualy respect the
upstreams wishes.
If upstream is wrong I think we should help them...
Upstream thinks it's a bad idea not to give the user any possibility
of
On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 18:36:28 +0200
Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I would like to suggest new policy stating that packages should
respect LDFLAGS. Small amount of packages which ignore LDFLAGS should
be patched to respect them. Such patches are usually small and
2008-07-26 18:06:12 Ryan Hill napisał(a):
On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 18:36:28 +0200
Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I would like to suggest new policy stating that packages should
respect LDFLAGS. Small amount of packages which ignore LDFLAGS should
be patched to
2008-07-26 02:45:57 Ciaran McCreesh napisał(a):
On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 00:15:03 + (UTC)
Duncan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In particular, --as-needed makes a HUGE very practical difference.
It may or may not be the wrong answer to the problem in theory, but
lacking anything even close to as
On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 18:54:20 +0200
Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Respecting LDFLAGS provides also some some degree of optimization.
It's a *very* small degree, and certainly nowhere near on the scale of
the difference made by CFLAGS on some archs.
If CFLAGS only
On 18:37 Sat 26 Jul , Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis wrote:
Mark Loeser (Halcy0n) (QA project leader) said on 2008-07-24 that this policy
doesn't exist. I understand that bug reports about LDFLAGS being ignored are
usually fixed, so I ask for the formal enacting of this policy.
Why
2008-07-26 21:35:08 Donnie Berkholz napisał(a):
On 18:37 Sat 26 Jul , Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis wrote:
Mark Loeser (Halcy0n) (QA project leader) said on 2008-07-24 that this
policy
doesn't exist. I understand that bug reports about LDFLAGS being ignored are
usually fixed,
On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 18:37:06 +0200
Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Mark Loeser (Halcy0n) (QA project leader) said on 2008-07-24 that
this policy doesn't exist. I understand that bug reports about
LDFLAGS being ignored are usually fixed, so I ask for the formal
Since it is time to get Qt 4.4 into testing, here some information how to get
the dependencies in the ebuilds you maintain, right.
Beforehand: Relying on best_version() or the broken qt4_min_version() stuff
from qt4.eclass is not fine.
- Migrating existing ebuilds requires a dependency like
Le samedi 26 juillet 2008 à 21:39 +0200, Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar
Arahesis a écrit :
2008-07-26 21:35:08 Donnie Berkholz napisał(a):
On 18:37 Sat 26 Jul , Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis wrote:
Mark Loeser (Halcy0n) (QA project leader) said on 2008-07-24 that this
policy
On Samstag, 26. Juli 2008, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
Why are you asking us? He's the QA lead, you should be talking with the
QA team about this.
Such issues are not up to a self chosen group, but are topic for this list.
Carsten
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message
On Samstag, 26. Juli 2008, Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis wrote:
Um, this already is the policy. We've always fixed bug reports about
LDFLAGS being ignored.
Mark Loeser (Halcy0n) (QA project leader) said on 2008-07-24 that this
policy doesn't exist. I understand that bug reports about
2008-07-26 23:43:53 Gilles Dartiguelongue napisał(a):
Le samedi 26 juillet 2008 à 21:39 +0200, Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar
Arahesis a écrit :
2008-07-26 21:35:08 Donnie Berkholz napisał(a):
On 18:37 Sat 26 Jul , Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis wrote:
Mark Loeser (Halcy0n) (QA
2008-07-27 00:00:55 Carsten Lohrke napisał(a):
On Samstag, 26. Juli 2008, Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis wrote:
Um, this already is the policy. We've always fixed bug reports about
LDFLAGS being ignored.
Mark Loeser (Halcy0n) (QA project leader) said on 2008-07-24 that this
On Sun, 27 Jul 2008 00:00:55 +0200
Carsten Lohrke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Afaik it has always been the way that *sane* LDFLAGS are to be
respected, but exceptions exist of course and it's up to the
maintainer to mangle or clear your LDFLAGS, if deemed necessary. I'd
like to know, why Mark
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Sun, 27 Jul 2008 00:00:55 +0200
Carsten Lohrke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Afaik it has always been the way that *sane* LDFLAGS are to be
respected, but exceptions exist of course and it's up to the
maintainer to mangle or clear your LDFLAGS, if deemed necessary. I'd
like
Le dimanche 27 juillet 2008 à 02:12 +0300, Nikos Chantziaras a écrit :
Not that I have ever seen a package that breaks with --as-needed though.
Of course that's just me.)
ahah ! now I have an example for you, nemiver. It seems it does the
module loading thingy that was brought up in the
On Sun, 27 Jul 2008 02:12:13 +0300
Nikos Chantziaras [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Not that I have ever seen a package that breaks with --as-needed
though. Of course that's just me.
Well, then, behold:
http://tinyurl.com/5jvkm9
Now you have. Enjoy. :)
--
gcc-porting,
Ryan Hill wrote:
On Sun, 27 Jul 2008 02:12:13 +0300
Nikos Chantziaras [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Not that I have ever seen a package that breaks with --as-needed
though. Of course that's just me.
Well, then, behold:
http://tinyurl.com/5jvkm9
Now you have. Enjoy. :)
Then I must be lucky. I
Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis wrote:
It will at least allow QA team to fix such bugs where patches are already
available.
So, if bugs are being fixed why is there a need to fix something that
isn't broken with regards to a policy _needed_ to enforce this action?
Are bugs being ignored
So I'm running the 2.2-rcs and have been seeing blogs about the new
parallel merge capacities... Having a dual-dual-core Opteron and having
run multiple merges manually for some time, this is VERY welcome news.
=8^)
So after upgrading to -rc3 I set EMERGE_DEFAULT_OPTS to include
--jobs=10
Duncan wrote:
--jobs=10 --keep-going --load-average=15
For a dual-dual-core setup, a load average of 4.0 is fully loaded. Anything
higher than that and you're just causing jobs to queue up unnecessarily and your
system to thrash.
have MAKEOPTS=-j -l20 so it's not going to be low all the
Andrew Gaffney [EMAIL PROTECTED] posted [EMAIL PROTECTED],
excerpted below, on Sat, 26 Jul 2008 16:56:20 -0500:
Duncan wrote:
--jobs=10 --keep-going --load-average=15
For a dual-dual-core setup, a load average of 4.0 is fully loaded.
Anything higher than that and you're just causing jobs
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Duncan wrote:
For the first 100 or so packages, it worked quite well. However, about
there, maybe package 120 or so, so about 20% of the way thru, it reverted
to doing them one-at-a-time again. I'm now on package #279 and it's
still doing
On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 16:56:20 -0500
Andrew Gaffney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Duncan wrote:
--jobs=10 --keep-going --load-average=15
For a dual-dual-core setup, a load average of 4.0 is fully loaded.
Only in ideal cases, when you have long-running processes
hammering the cpu and little or no
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Ali Polatel wrote:
Thanks for the comments.
I haven't been able to finish reviewing your patch yet but I just
want you to know that it's still in my queue.
Zac
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux)
28 matches
Mail list logo