Doug Goldstein wrote:
As some people may have already noticed, I have recently added OpenRC
0.3.0 to the tree. This will be the stabilization candidate in
approximately 30 days.
I encourage everyone to kick the tires on this one.
Current Bugs: *http://tinyurl.com/4housz*
I need
El lun, 06-10-2008 a las 23:13 +, Duncan escribió:
Jeremy Olexa [EMAIL PROTECTED] posted [EMAIL PROTECTED],
excerpted below, on Mon, 06 Oct 2008 15:07:14 -0500:
AFAIK, it is incorrect right now to exclude s390, arm, sh, etc on
stablereqs right now..But, I ask this question to the dev
Duncan wrote:
Thomas Sachau [EMAIL PROTECTED] posted [EMAIL PROTECTED],
excerpted below, on Sun, 05 Oct 2008 14:24:55 +0200:
I just had a user in bugzilla who thought, the developer profile would
be for software developers, not just for gentoo developers. Probably he
is not the only one.
Petteri Räty wrote:
Doug Goldstein kirjoitti:
As some people may have already noticed, I have recently added OpenRC
0.3.0 to the tree. This will be the stabilization candidate in
approximately 30 days.
I encourage everyone to kick the tires on this one.
Current Bugs:
Robert Buchholz wrote:
On Sunday 05 October 2008, Thilo Bangert wrote:
Ciaran McCreesh [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Sun, 5 Oct 2008 03:44:20 -0700
Robin H. Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Either we need special cases to declare that it no longer has a
homepage, or we need to allow
Alexis Ballier wrote:
Indeed; different names could be given to different implementations of
the same thing, but that might completely kill the point of abstracting
it.
Maybe eclasses should die on unknown eapi; the fact is I really hate the
current way it's done when switching an ebuild to
On Tue, 07 Oct 2008 17:07:21 +0100
Steve Long [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It's illegal, according to PMS. It also won't work with Paludis,
since phase function definitions aren't made available until just
before that phase executes (there is a reason for this -- it
provides us with a way of
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Sun, 5 Oct 2008 17:38:11 +0200
Ulrich Mueller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
By the way, do we really want to special case eapi-2 in every
eclass ? That's lot of code duplication and will get even worse
when we'll reach eapi-42. That would have been cool to have a pm
On E, 2008-10-06 at 03:46 +0300, Petteri Räty wrote:
With USE=doc the GNOME packages behave like what you expect but it's
the USE=-doc case that's in question here. With USE=-doc you don't
get any use flags installed normally and if it's in the tarball and is
always installed then there is no
On Tue, Oct 07, 2008 at 05:07:21PM +0100, Steve Long wrote:
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Sun, 5 Oct 2008 17:38:11 +0200
Ulrich Mueller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
By the way, do we really want to special case eapi-2 in every
eclass ? That's lot of code duplication and will get even worse
Ryan Hill wrote:
On Thu, 2 Oct 2008 22:24:35 +0200
Jeroen Roovers[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Please people,
if you want to get something tested, then don't mask it.
Um... no? One thing that package.mask has always been used for is
temporarily masking a package until it can be tested and
11 matches
Mail list logo
