On Fri, 3 Apr 2009, I wrote:
Since most of the stuff in net-www seems to be browser plugins,
we could create www-plugins.
Is the following a reasonable scheme?
net-www/adobesvg - www-plugins/adobesvg
net-www/awstats - www-misc/awstats
net-www/diamondx
On 04-04-2009 18:49:50 -0600, Ryan Hill wrote:
+ # killing these two on OSX/Intel will disable SSE, resulting in failing
+ # compilations, as the headers expect SSE to be enabled (Apple knows
what
+ # hardware they run on afterall, don't they?)
+ [[ ${CHOST} ==
Mike Frysinger vap...@gentoo.org posted
200904042353.30988.vap...@gentoo.org, excerpted below, on Sat, 04 Apr
2009 23:53:29 -0400:
+local sources=$@
this doesnt do what you think it does. it's the same as $* which
means this function does not handle quoted arguments properly.
??
I'm
Hi,
Christian Faulhammer fa...@gentoo.org:
Repost of news item as I forgot to cc the PR project. Commit
postponed by one day.
Forgot to attach the actual news item. Gnah.
V-Li
--
Christian Faulhammer, Gentoo Lisp project
URL:http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/lisp/, #gentoo-lisp on FreeNode
On Sunday 05 April 2009 03:49:52 Duncan wrote:
Mike Frysinger vap...@gentoo.org posted
+ local sources=$@
this doesnt do what you think it does. it's the same as $* which
means this function does not handle quoted arguments properly.
??
I'm confused. Maybe you meant something
Mike Frysinger schrieb:
On Saturday 04 April 2009 08:59:22 Thomas Sachau wrote:
i would like to hear about other opinions about real multilib support
within our tree and package managers. From what i know, there are mainly 2
different ideas:
1. Do the main stuff in the package manager (e.g.
On Sunday 05 April 2009 04:18:34 Thomas Sachau wrote:
Mike Frysinger schrieb:
On Saturday 04 April 2009 08:59:22 Thomas Sachau wrote:
i would like to hear about other opinions about real multilib support
within our tree and package managers. From what i know, there are mainly
2 different
On 04-04-2009 23:53:29 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Saturday 04 April 2009 13:17:56 Fabian Groffen (grobian) wrote:
grobian 09/04/04 17:17:56
Modified: toolchain-funcs.eclass
Log:
Add support for all Prefix arches, in particular for gen_usr_ld_script,
and add
Am Sonntag, den 05.04.2009, 10:18 +0200 schrieb Thomas Sachau:
Mike Frysinger schrieb:
On Saturday 04 April 2009 08:59:22 Thomas Sachau wrote:
i would like to hear about other opinions about real multilib support
within our tree and package managers. From what i know, there are mainly 2
Mike Frysinger vap...@gentoo.org posted
200904050401.19301.vap...@gentoo.org, excerpted below, on Sun, 05 Apr
2009 04:01:18 -0400:
what you've read/quoted matters at the expansion step, but that isnt
what i'm talking about. i'm pointing out that the expansion is lost by
assigning through the
В Вск, 05/04/2009 в 09:38 +0200, Ulrich Mueller пишет:
Is the following a reasonable scheme?
net-www/adobesvg - www-plugins/adobesvg
This one probably should be removed from the tree:
http://www.adobe.com/svg/eol.html
net-www/gnash- www-plugins/gnash
Tiziano Müller schrieb:
Am Sonntag, den 05.04.2009, 10:18 +0200 schrieb Thomas Sachau:
Mike Frysinger schrieb:
On Saturday 04 April 2009 08:59:22 Thomas Sachau wrote:
i would like to hear about other opinions about real multilib support
within our tree and package managers. From what i know,
On Sun, 05 Apr 2009 14:07:37 +0200
Thomas Sachau to...@gentoo.org wrote:
Tiziano Müller schrieb:
With this, i would also like to see any
changes that need an EAPI to get into EAPI-3.
No. Won't happen.
Can you also explain your statement?
EAPI-3 is closed for new features. We want it
On Sun, Apr 5, 2009 at 4:50 PM, Peter Volkov p...@gentoo.org wrote:
net-www/gnash - www-plugins/gnash
Gnash is a GNU Flash movie player. May be media-video then?
It's a browser plugin first, movie player second. Just like totem is
a movie player first, browser plugin
On Sat, 4 Apr 2009 23:58:04 -0400
Mike Frysinger vap...@gentoo.org wrote:
get a *working* implementation first and *then* worry about specing
it. once you have something running with portage, the spec should
fall naturally out. previous multilib methods attempted to spec
things out without
On Sunday 05 April 2009 10:26:39 Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Sat, 4 Apr 2009 23:58:04 -0400 Mike Frysinger wrote:
get a *working* implementation first and *then* worry about specing
it. once you have something running with portage, the spec should
fall naturally out. previous multilib
On Saturday 04 April 2009 18:12:09 Thilo Bangert wrote:
'guess'. Like how you have to guess what use flags are really being
used for the package in question, because it doesn't tell you?
i'd like to ask the developers of package managers to standardize this.
having packagmanager --info be
The attached list notes all of the packages that were added or removed
from the tree, for the week ending 2009-04-05 23h59 UTC.
Removals:
app-emulation/vmware-esx-console2009-04-01 12:24:08 ikelos
dev-haskell/hs-plugins 2009-04-05 17:07:51 kolmodin
Timothy Redaelli wrote:
On Saturday 04 April 2009 18:12:09 Thilo Bangert wrote:
'guess'. Like how you have to guess what use flags are really being
used for the package in question, because it doesn't tell you?
i'd like to ask the developers of package managers to standardize this.
Andrew D Kirch wrote:
I think it's best as a general rule to NEVER _EVER_ under any
circumstances emulate paludis.
While I'm not personally a fan of paludis, it doesn't help anyone to post crap
like that to any mailing list. Please take it elsewhere. Thanks.
--
Andrew Gaffney
Andrew Gaffney wrote:
Andrew D Kirch wrote:
I think it's best as a general rule to NEVER _EVER_ under any
circumstances emulate paludis.
While I'm not personally a fan of paludis, it doesn't help anyone to post crap
like that to any mailing list. Please take it elsewhere. Thanks.
On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 9:19 AM, Andrew D Kirch trel...@trelane.net wrote:
Why is it inappropriate to discuss the poor UI, and implementation of
software we use especially in open source? Maybe if we're closed to
valid argument against poor methodology we can fail like everyone else
who
Nirbheek Chauhan wrote:
On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 9:19 AM, Andrew D Kirch trel...@trelane.net wrote:
Why is it inappropriate to discuss the poor UI, and implementation of
software we use especially in open source? Maybe if we're closed to
valid argument against poor methodology we can fail
23 matches
Mail list logo
