On Wed, 2014-06-25 at 22:42 -0700, Matt Turner wrote:
> alexxy added it more than a year ago to the tree as part of the x11
> herd, of which he isn't a maintainer. It hasn't been really seen any
> attention and is broken with current versions of Mesa. I've pinged him
> multiple times to see if he's
alexxy added it more than a year ago to the tree as part of the x11
herd, of which he isn't a maintainer. It hasn't been really seen any
attention and is broken with current versions of Mesa. I've pinged him
multiple times to see if he's planning to handle any of the
outstanding bugs.
Someone plea
On 25/06/14 06:42 PM, Jörg Schaible wrote:
> Except if they're locally hard masked ... ;-)
there's nothing we can do if you intentionally break your own system
>> In that case I think revbump is not warranted since it should continue
>> to work for existing installation and new installations shou
hasufell wrote:
> Jörg Schaible:
>> Alexandre Rostovtsev wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 2014-06-23 at 22:15 +0200, Jörg Schaible wrote:
So, why the heck, was the dependency to dev-libs/glib changed for an
existing ebuild without increasing its version (e.g.
dbus-glib-0.100.2-r2)?
>>>
>>> Pl
hasufell wrote:
> Kristian Fiskerstrand:
>> On 06/24/2014 09:25 PM, Jörg Schaible wrote:
>>> Alexandre Rostovtsev wrote:
>>
On Mon, 2014-06-23 at 22:15 +0200, Jörg Schaible wrote:
> So, why the heck, was the dependency to dev-libs/glib changed
> for an existing ebuild without increas
Jan Matejka wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA512
>
> On Tue, 24 Jun 2014 21:25:40 +0200
> Jörg Schaible wrote:
>
>> Alexandre Rostovtsev wrote:
>>
>> > On Mon, 2014-06-23 at 22:15 +0200, Jörg Schaible wrote:
>> >> So, why the heck, was the dependency to dev-libs/glib chan
Am Mittwoch 25 Juni 2014, 15:11:40 schrieb Rich Freeman:
> On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 2:44 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
> > Long story short, doing anything to Gentoo profiles is utter pain
> > and comes with random breakage guarantee. Therefore, I'm asking -- nuke
> > those damn profiles, and start over!
On 06/25/14 15:00, Chris Reffett wrote:
On June 25, 2014 2:44:57 PM EDT, "Michał Górny" wrote:
Dnia 2014-06-25, o godz. 13:01:48
Ian Stakenvicius napisał(a):
At the moment there are two profiles in particular that do this,
amd64/no-multilib and hardened/linux/uclibc/amd64 .. It's possible
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 2:44 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
> Long story short, doing anything to Gentoo profiles is utter pain
> and comes with random breakage guarantee. Therefore, I'm asking -- nuke
> those damn profiles, and start over! The current situation is
> completely unmaintainable.
++
But,
On June 25, 2014 2:44:57 PM EDT, "Michał Górny" wrote:
>Dnia 2014-06-25, o godz. 13:01:48
>Ian Stakenvicius napisał(a):
>
>> At the moment there are two profiles in particular that do this,
>> amd64/no-multilib and hardened/linux/uclibc/amd64 .. It's possible
>or
>> likely there are others, to
Dnia 2014-06-25, o godz. 13:01:48
Ian Stakenvicius napisał(a):
> At the moment there are two profiles in particular that do this,
> amd64/no-multilib and hardened/linux/uclibc/amd64 .. It's possible or
> likely there are others, too, on other arches perhaps.
>
> In general, it's good that repom
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Hey everyone -- so right now (and it's been this way for a very long
time, it seems), amd64 no-multilib profiles will always report repoman
'dependency.badindev' warnings whenever a package either depends on an
emul-* package or an abi_x86_32 use dep
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On Tue, 24 Jun 2014 21:25:40 +0200
Jörg Schaible wrote:
> Alexandre Rostovtsev wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 2014-06-23 at 22:15 +0200, Jörg Schaible wrote:
> >> So, why the heck, was the dependency to dev-libs/glib changed for
> >> an existing ebuild with
13 matches
Mail list logo
