Hi all,
Webnodes #3 and #4 have been launched for Bugzilla.
They'll ultimately replace nodes #1 and #2, but meanwhile all 4 nodes
are running. The new DB nodes aren't 100% ready yet.
If you to specifically reach a node instead of the load balancer:
https://bugs-web{1,2,3,4}.gentoo.org/
(and
Mike Frysinger schrieb:
by splitting my reply, you changed the meaning. having qutecom in the
tree with a depend on versions that i'm now removing breaks the
depgraph.
The depgraph is broken after the old versions are removed, not before.
which is what i said
So qutecom is not broken and
On Thu, 13 Oct 2011 12:23:07 +0200
Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn chith...@gentoo.org wrote:
So qutecom is not broken and needs not be removed as long as
linux-headers-2.6.38 is in the tree.
Dependencies using , =, =, ~ or =* are broken, except in certain
special situations inside ||.
--
Ciaran
Ciaran McCreesh schrieb:
On Thu, 13 Oct 2011 12:23:07 +0200
Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn chith...@gentoo.org wrote:
So qutecom is not broken and needs not be removed as long as
linux-headers-2.6.38 is in the tree.
Dependencies using , =, =, ~ or =* are broken, except in certain
special
Per previous discussion, Arfrever will be maintaining these packages
outside of the main tree.
This entry was committed just under a month ago, but it seems the
announcement was not sent at that time.
# Mike Gilbert flop...@gentoo.org (15 Sep 2011)
# Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis
On Wed, 2011-10-12 at 18:49 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Wed, 12 Oct 2011 23:00:23 +0530
Nirbheek Chauhan nirbh...@gentoo.org wrote:
Then please continue with udev in package.mask and kindly stop trying
to impose your workflow on the rest of the world.
Isn't the point here that the
On Wed, 2011-10-12 at 00:40 -0400, Walter Dnes wrote:
Hi all
Recently, there was a firestorm on the gentoo-user list over the idea
that udev would eventually require /usr to be on the same physical
parition as /, or else use initramfs, which is its own can of worms. I'm
not a programmer,
On Thu, 13 Oct 2011 14:13:11 +0100
Ciaran McCreesh ciaran.mccre...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Thu, 13 Oct 2011 12:23:07 +0200
Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn chith...@gentoo.org wrote:
So qutecom is not broken and needs not be removed as long as
linux-headers-2.6.38 is in the tree.
On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 11:26 AM, Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org wrote:
So, in your opinion, if we have 'foo' and 'libfoo' which are strictly
version-bound, we can't allow users to install older versions?
Obviously the real issue is when libfoo is libpng or openssl or whatever.
It almost makes
2011/10/13 Olivier Crête tes...@gentoo.org:
We're imposing our deep integration because it's the only way to make a
compelling platform that just works, forcing users to tell the
computer something the computer already knows is just plain lazy and
stupid.
I'd also look at it another way. It
On Thursday 13 October 2011 11:17:07 Olivier Crête wrote:
That said, we, the GNOME upstream, think that having a separate /usr is
a completely stupid idea.
considering GNOME's track record wrt what they think is a good idea in the
UI land, i'm not sure this statement is terribly compelling
On 13 October 2011 20:58, Rich Freeman ri...@gentoo.org wrote:
2011/10/13 Olivier Crête tes...@gentoo.org:
We're imposing our deep integration because it's the only way to make a
compelling platform that just works, forcing users to tell the
computer something the computer already knows is
On Thursday 13 October 2011 12:30:06 Arun Raghavan wrote:
While I've seen a lot of whining about this whole issue, I certainly
haven't been seen any effort to actually solve the problem within the
existing framework. For example, if someone cares enough, why not
write a wrapper script to track
On Thu, 13 Oct 2011 11:14:31 -0400
Olivier Crête tes...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Wed, 2011-10-12 at 18:49 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Wed, 12 Oct 2011 23:00:23 +0530
Nirbheek Chauhan nirbh...@gentoo.org wrote:
Then please continue with udev in package.mask and kindly stop
trying to
On 10/13/2011 06:09 PM, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote:
Samuli Suominen schrieb:
you're right. sorry. that came out too harsh. lets rephrase this as:
No offense taken :)
This /topic should be in the end-quiz, and mentioned in the mentoring
guide to cover basis as part of the KEYWORDS
On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 1:45 PM, Samuli Suominen ssuomi...@gentoo.org wrote:
Merely saying if we had some documentation snippet, or an end-quiz
question for this, QA could more easily/faster revoke access if someone
were to do this intentionally in tree. This could be minor motivation
for me
On Thu, 13 Oct 2011 13:52:37 -0400
Rich Freeman ri...@gentoo.org wrote:
While slotting libraries is often an option, that gets a lot messier
when you're talking about things like header files.
You can make slots mutually blocking if you do it carefully. It does
get a bit horrible without :=
Am 13.10.2011 15:13, schrieb Ciaran McCreesh:
On Thu, 13 Oct 2011 12:23:07 +0200
Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn chith...@gentoo.org wrote:
So qutecom is not broken and needs not be removed as long as
linux-headers-2.6.38 is in the tree.
Dependencies using , =, =, ~ or =* are broken, except in
On 10/13/2011 08:02 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Thursday 13 October 2011 12:30:06 Arun Raghavan wrote:
While I've seen a lot of whining about this whole issue, I certainly
haven't been seen any effort to actually solve the problem within the
existing framework. For example, if someone cares
On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 10:02 AM, Mike Frysinger vap...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Thursday 13 October 2011 12:30:06 Arun Raghavan wrote:
While I've seen a lot of whining about this whole issue, I certainly
haven't been seen any effort to actually solve the problem within the
existing framework. For
On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 11:55 AM, Canek Peláez Valdés can...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 10:02 AM, Mike Frysinger vap...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Thursday 13 October 2011 12:30:06 Arun Raghavan wrote:
While I've seen a lot of whining about this whole issue, I certainly
haven't been
On Thursday 13 October 2011 14:55:45 Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 10:02 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Thursday 13 October 2011 12:30:06 Arun Raghavan wrote:
While I've seen a lot of whining about this whole issue, I certainly
haven't been seen any effort to actually
On 10/12/2011 08:20 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Wednesday 12 October 2011 11:09:56 Zac Medico wrote:
How about if we add a `emerge --upgrade` target that is analogous to
`apt-get upgrade`?
isn't that already done with @installed ? `emerge --upgrade @installed`
At this time, @installed
Samuli Suominen schrieb:
This is something that I have been asking for all the time. If you think
that what qutecom did should be illegal in Gentoo, then disallow it in
policy or code.
Drop that should be act, please. It looks as if you were still
suggesting it was fine to do what qutecom
small news item for stable users. lets keep it simple...
Title: Upgrade to libpng15
Author: Samuli Suominen ssuomi...@gentoo.org
Content-Type: text/plain
Posted: 2011-10-14
Revision: 1
News-Item-Format: 1.0
Display-If-Installed: media-libs/libpng-1.5
After upgrading from libpng14 to libpng15
i've found myself a few times having to implement logic like so:
CFLAGS=${BUILD_CFLAGS:--O1 -pipe} \
CXXFLAGS=${BUILD_CXXFLAGS:--O1 -pipe} \
CPPFLAGS=${BUILD_CPPFLAGS} \
LDFLAGS=${BUILD_LDFLAGS} \
CC=$(tc-getBUILD_CC) \
LD=$(tc-getBUILD_LD) \
В Птн, 14/10/2011 в 01:01 +0300, Samuli Suominen пишет:
small news item for stable users. lets keep it simple...
I think it's better to put all knowledge from forum post inside:
1. --keep-going option for revdep-rebuild.
2. better find:
find /usr -name *.la -o -name *.pc -o -name *-config -exec
On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 4:48 PM, Mike Frysinger vap...@gentoo.org wrote:
i've found myself a few times having to implement logic like so:
CFLAGS=${BUILD_CFLAGS:--O1 -pipe} \
CXXFLAGS=${BUILD_CXXFLAGS:--O1 -pipe} \
CPPFLAGS=${BUILD_CPPFLAGS} \
On Thursday 13 October 2011 21:41:02 Alec Warner wrote:
On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 4:48 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
i've found myself a few times having to implement logic like so:
CFLAGS=${BUILD_CFLAGS:--O1 -pipe} \
CXXFLAGS=${BUILD_CXXFLAGS:--O1 -pipe} \
On Fri, 14 Oct 2011 01:01:50 +0300
Samuli Suominen ssuomi...@gentoo.org wrote:
Title: Upgrade to libpng15
Author: Samuli Suominen ssuomi...@gentoo.org
Content-Type: text/plain
Posted: 2011-10-14
Revision: 1
News-Item-Format: 1.0
Display-If-Installed: media-libs/libpng-1.5
After
On Fri, 14 Oct 2011 01:01:50 +0300
Samuli Suominen ssuomi...@gentoo.org wrote:
Title: Upgrade to libpng15
Author: Samuli Suominen ssuomi...@gentoo.org
Content-Type: text/plain
Posted: 2011-10-14
Revision: 1
News-Item-Format: 1.0
Display-If-Installed: media-libs/libpng-1.5
After
Samuli Suominen wrote:
On 10/12/2011 06:30 AM, Steven J Long wrote:
Michał Górny wrote:
I don't think that passing multiple files to epatch actually improves
readability. Simple example:
# bug #123456, foo, bar
epatch ${FILESDIR}/${P}-foo.patch
# bug #234567, baz bazinga blah blah
epatch
On Friday 30 September 2011 11:27:18 Diego Elio Pettenò wrote:
Il giorno ven, 30/09/2011 alle 11.06 -0400, Mike Frysinger ha scritto:
and azarah ;)
Right, by the way have you (or anyone else) got any news of him?
want to do a brain dump into the @DESCRIPTION part of libtool.eclass ?
On Fri, 14 Oct 2011 04:30:56 +0400
Peter Volkov p...@gentoo.org wrote:
2. better find:
find /usr -name *.la -o -name *.pc -o -name *-config -exec grep
-H png14 {} \;
find /usr -name *.la -o -name *.pc -o -name *-config \
-exec grep -H png14 {} +
This is going to take less grep calls,
34 matches
Mail list logo
