On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 10:44 PM, Mike Frysinger vap...@gentoo.org wrote:
there's a trivial patch needed to make 1.49 work. forcing people to use 1.50
is purely the boost's maintainers choice.
[...]
there's a trivial patch long been available that you've refused to merge. so
any errors
On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 10:50 PM, Tiziano Müller dev-z...@gentoo.org wrote:
I'm already working on some of the boost-1.49/50 breakages and 1.51 is
already in the pipeline, so 1.50 has to leave p.mask in a month or so
anyway.
Thanks, at least somebody's doing something to help.
By the way I
On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 23:25:10 -0400
Mike Frysinger vap...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Thursday 16 August 2012 16:19:44 Michał Górny wrote:
--- a/eutils.eclass
+++ b/eutils.eclass
+# Install all specified files into directory. This doesn't
modify global +# 'insinto' path. Alike doins, calls
On Saturday 18 August 2012 02:01:12 Diego Elio Pettenò wrote:
On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 10:44 PM, Mike Frysinger vap...@gentoo.org wrote:
there's a trivial patch needed to make 1.49 work. forcing people to use
1.50 is purely the boost's maintainers choice.
[...]
there's a trivial patch
On Saturday 18 August 2012 03:21:20 Michał Górny wrote:
On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 23:25:10 -0400 Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Thursday 16 August 2012 16:19:44 Michał Górny wrote:
--- a/eutils.eclass
+++ b/eutils.eclass
+# Install all specified files into directory. This doesn't
modify
On Sat, Aug 18, 2012 at 8:42 AM, Mike Frysinger vap...@gentoo.org wrote:
yes, the patch here is trivial. it removes 1 line of unused code and has
fixed
a lot of other packages. deflecting the argument to a flawed system of your
own
creation doesn't change it. if you're worried about
On 18/08/12 18:42, Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Saturday 18 August 2012 02:01:12 Diego Elio Pettenò wrote:
On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 10:44 PM, Mike Frysinger vap...@gentoo.org wrote:
there's a trivial patch needed to make 1.49 work. forcing people to use
1.50 is purely the boost's maintainers
*yawn* such a drama queen.
i never said i am going to do this everyone else be damned. i did say i
will probably do this soon. but that is why i posted to gentoo-dev in the
first place -- to get feedback from others.
gnutls breakage: not relevant. you're causing that breakage by not adding
On Sat, 18 Aug 2012 12:00:17 -0400
Mike Frysinger vap...@gentoo.org wrote:
*yawn* such a drama queen.
i never said i am going to do this everyone else be damned. i did
say i will probably do this soon. but that is why i posted to
gentoo-dev in the first place -- to get feedback from
On 8/16/2012 6:26 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 4:05 PM, Michael Mol mike...@gmail.com wrote:
The limited-visibility build feature discussed a week or so ago would
go a long way in detecting unexpressed build dependencies.
[snip]
If portage has the
dependency tree in RAM
On 2012-08-17, at 11:00 PM, Gregory M. Turner g...@malth.us wrote:
It has come to my attention that gentoo supports relative ROOT, which is to
say that, by design, portage will act as though (in bash terms):
ROOT
equals
${PWD}/${ROOT}
when (again in bash terms):
[[ $ROOT !=
11 matches
Mail list logo
