# Daniel Gryniewicz (13 Apr 2011)
# Masked for removal in 30 days. Functionality is merged into and maintained
in
# the upstream kernel. Use any kernel (e.g. gentoo-sources) instead.
sys-kernel/usermode-sources
Daniel
On Mon, 2009-03-23 at 23:08 +0100, Peter Alfredsen wrote:
> Since genstef has been .away for some time, I arranged with him that I'd
> send a list of his ebuilds that need maintenance to be put up for grabs.
> This list contains all ebuilds that have no herd, at least one open bug
> and where genst
On Sat, 2009-02-21 at 19:44 -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > i'll tweak the eclasses to use quoting for now
>
> no one suggested doing any of this crap you're talking about. if you want to
> get all retarded, dont install the masked ebuild. i gave a heads up to
> pe
On Tue, 2008-12-09 at 04:09 +0200, Petteri Räty wrote:
> Maciej Mrozowski wrote:
> > Following advise from https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=250179, I'm
> > bringing it here.
> >
>
> I think this is probably a good idea after EAPI 2 is stable and we
> eliminate built_with_use usage from th
On Tue, 2008-11-18 at 15:18 -0600, Ryan Hill wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Nov 2008 11:57:23 -0500
> Daniel Gryniewicz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 2008-11-17 at 19:08 -0600, Ryan Hill wrote:
> > > On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 10:10:57 -0500
> > > Dani
On Tue, 2008-11-18 at 17:50 +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Nov 2008 11:57:23 -0500
> Daniel Gryniewicz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > This is not about arches just being slackers. This is about arches
> > denying stable (or even ~) for some reason. If I cannot
On Mon, 2008-11-17 at 19:08 -0600, Ryan Hill wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 10:10:57 -0500
> Daniel Gryniewicz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 2008-11-16 at 18:38 -0600, Ryan Hill wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > The maintainer MUST NOT NEVER EV
On Sun, 2008-11-16 at 18:38 -0600, Ryan Hill wrote:
> The maintainer MUST NOT NEVER EVER NOT EVEN A LITTLE BIT remove the
> latest stable ebuild of an arch without the approval of the arch team or
> he/she will be fed to the Galrog.
As long as the maintainer can pass off the maintenance of the
On Tue, 2008-11-04 at 15:44 -0500, Doug Goldstein wrote:
> bonjour is Apple specific branding for zeroconf. This is another case
> that needs to be changed.
>
> zeroconf/avahi/howl/bonjour/mdnsresponder all need to be condensed.
>
I agree. Let's just have zeroconf.
Daniel
On Tue, 2007-06-19 at 21:20 -0400, Daniel Gryniewicz wrote:
> Nothing in the tree depends on the, they don't currently build, and the
> last upstream release was 2003.
>
> Daniel
>
Forgot: scheduled to be removed Jul 19; bug #182612
Daniel
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Nothing in the tree depends on the, they don't currently build, and the
last upstream release was 2003.
Daniel
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
On Wed, 2007-06-13 at 17:36 +0100, Gustavo Felisberto wrote:
> A little background info: Right now there are three versions of
> net-im/skype in the tree:
>
> 1 - the 1.2 series (with a stable version)
> 2- the 1.3 series also with a stable version
> 3- the 1.4 series with a ~/hardmask version
>
On Wed, 2007-06-06 at 17:44 +0300, Samuli Suominen wrote:
> use.local.desc:dev-java/swt:xulrunner - Build native browser integration
> against xulrunner
> use.local.desc:dev-python/gnome-python-extras:xulrunner - Enable support for
> xulrunner instead of firefox
> use.local.desc:dev-util/devhelp:
On Fri, 2007-05-18 at 23:33 +0200, Christian Faulhammer wrote:
> Steve Long <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> > Carsten Lohrke wrote:
> > > the amd64 team is unresponsive on even trivial stabilisation
> > > request form the KDE team as well, lately.
> > >
> > welp's been away ;)
>
> welp does not touch K
+# Daniel Gryniewicz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (3 May 2007)
+# It's now part of gnome-utils; bug #176864
+app-misc/baobab
Scheduled for removal June 2 2007
Daniel
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
On Wed, 2007-05-02 at 01:12 +0100, Stephen Bennett wrote:
> On Tue, 01 May 2007 19:46:56 -0400
> Daniel Gryniewicz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > There is one serious problem with this: Who's going to do the work to
> > figure all this out for the 11,000
On Wed, 2007-05-02 at 01:32 +0200, Marius Mauch wrote:
>
> I'd approach it a bit different: Before creating fixed classification
> groups I'd first identify the attributes of tests that should be used
> for those classifications.
> a) cost (in terms of runtime, resource usage, additional deps)
>
On Tue, 2007-05-01 at 15:08 +0200, Piotr Jaroszyński wrote:
> Hello,
>
> There was some discussion about forcing/not forcing tests in EAPI-1, but
> there
> was clearly no compromise. Imho, tests are very important and thus I want to
> discuss them a little more, but in more sensible fashion.
>
On Wed, 2007-04-25 at 20:12 -0400, Michael Cummings wrote:
> Any other cool updates in the last few weeks? (it's been 20 days since
> the last time I started this thread - at this rate, we might make enough input
> to make Chris' job on the gwn easier).
>
For Gnome, 2.18.1 is almost entirely in t
On Mon, 2007-03-05 at 12:18 +0100, Marijn Schouten (hkBst) wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > no, i'm not directing this at any one person as i dont believe singling out
> > any one person addresses anything in our case
> >
> > a video sent to
On Sun, 2007-02-25 at 21:31 -0600, Ryan Hill wrote:
> Andrej Kacian wrote:
> > It makes sense slowly removing *applications* depending on gtk1. Themes
> > should
> > go last, along with gtk1 itself.
> >
> > Gtk1 is already ugly enough, do you want it to be even more ugly?
>
> Point, set, and mat
On Tue, 2007-02-20 at 08:11 -0500, Stephen P. Becker wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 01:35:32 +
> Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > It is widely perceived that Gentoo has a huge problem with slacker
> > archs cluttering up the tree and making maintainers' work harder.
> > Clearly,
On Sat, 2006-11-11 at 22:55 +0200, Alin Nastac wrote:
> Paul de Vrieze wrote:
> > On Friday 10 November 2006 16:28, Daniel Gryniewicz wrote:
> >
> >> On Fri, 2006-11-10 at 08:56 +0100, Marius Mauch wrote:
> >>
> >>> Ok, the list definitely is
On Fri, 2006-11-10 at 08:56 +0100, Marius Mauch wrote:
> Ok, the list definitely isn't accurate. If there is a legitimate reason
> to mask sylpheed-claws-1.x you also have to mask it's reverse deps.
> However I'm still waiting for the explanation why it is on that list.
> (I don't mind if it's mas
On Sat, 2006-10-21 at 08:22 +0200, Hubert Mercier wrote:
> Hi,
>
> When I recently "officially" joined the Gentoo Project, I had the idea
> to share a part of my work, in the way of a scripts set I've been
> working on for more than 2 years now, which I called GeNUS (Gentoo
> Network Update Sys
On Mon, 2006-09-18 at 20:00 +0100, Gustavo Felisberto wrote:
> The list of orphans is:
>
> net-misc/blogtk
I'll take blogtk.
Daniel
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
On Wed, 2006-09-13 at 19:47 +0200, Benno Schulenberg wrote:
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > * If no existing file with the intended target name exists, or if
> > the existing file has identical content to the file to be
> > installed, the file to be installed is installed as normal.
>
> I would
bmitting them.
Overlays are a *great* way of customizing a local network of boxes to be
different than upstream Gentoo for whatever reason. I, personally, find
this to be a more useful function than a place to hold ebuilds not-yet
in portage (although, I do that also).
--
Daniel Gryniewicz
Gento
On Thu, 2006-07-06 at 20:46 -0600, Steve Dibb wrote:
> @devs,
>
> If your blog is being aggregated on Planet Gentoo / Universe, it's time to
> send
> us a copy of your smiling face. I'm putting out a request for some
> hackergotchis. Really, you don't want just a few of us to have all the fun
On Mon, 2006-07-03 at 20:15 -0600, Nick Devito wrote:
> Generating root filesystems for UML and Xen are basically the same
> process. I've heard of domi, but, bleh, I never could get it to work. I
> usually just make my images in chroot, and that usually works well. But,
> since the images are *bas
On Mon, 2006-07-03 at 22:28 +0200, Benedikt Böhm wrote:
> On Monday 03 July 2006 21:56, Nick Devito wrote:
> > Okay, in that case, extend the vserver herd to include a larger range of
> > virtualization stuff, including Xen, Bochs, and so on. It just seems
> > more fitting to group those packages t
On Sun, 2006-05-07 at 14:40 +0100, Daniel Drake wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I've been wrangling with usermode-sources maintenance for some time now,
> but I don't have any interest in it and have no clue how it works.
>
> Any volunteers?
>
> If not, this package will be removed in 30 days. It will be put
On Wed, 2005-12-28 at 17:18 +0100, Carsten Lohrke wrote:
> Hi Daniel,
>
> what you've done breaks runtime dependencies, if not for other packages so at
> least for KDE. Such a change should be announced on the gentoo-dev mailing
> list before you do it. Also a tracking bug to coordinate stabili
On Mon, 2005-11-28 at 19:12 +0100, Bjarke Istrup Pedersen wrote:
>
> Does this mean that we can get rid of the libstd++ dependency of gcc,
> and move it to the binary packages that depends on gcc 3.3 .
> I know this has been discussed before, but once it's stable I see no
> reason to keep the dep
On Thu, 2005-09-22 at 16:33 -0400, Daniel Gryniewicz wrote:
> Hi, all.
>
> app-admin/gwcc has security issues, and has been unmaintained upstream
> for 3 years. The Gnome herd is no longer interested in maintaining it.
> I've masked it, and will remove it in a couple of we
Hi, all.
app-admin/gwcc has security issues, and has been unmaintained upstream
for 3 years. The Gnome herd is no longer interested in maintaining it.
I've masked it, and will remove it in a couple of weeks, if no one steps
forward to maintain it.
Daniel
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
On Tue, 2005-09-13 at 00:05 +0100, Daniel Drake wrote:
> Simon Stelling wrote:
> > This has been in the todo-list for quite a while, but finally it's done.
> > I'm curious what you think of it.
>
> I'm curious how much change this would involve for the people involved.
>
> Perhaps you could expl
On Mon, 2005-09-12 at 19:53 -0400, Stephen P. Becker wrote:
> >>Let me clarify here. I'm not concerned about ATs having more privileges
> >>at all. I just want to know why if we're making them full developers
> >>for all intents and purposes, we don't go the extra step and get them
> >>commit acc
Now that we have a new council that (I hope) will be active in approving
> or rejecting GLEPs, perhaps someone should be writing a GLEP about
> combining x86 and amd64?
>
> -g2boojum-
Just out of curiousity, what makes people think that the amd64 team will
sit still for having all of x
On Sat, 2005-06-11 at 19:53 +0100, Daniel Drake wrote:
> Stuart Longland wrote:
> > This sounds great. And yes, I'd like to participate. I have but one
> > question though...
> >
> > My question is this: Which web-blog script would you recommend for the
> > p.g.o site?
>
> I use wordpress for
On Sun, 2005-05-22 at 09:59 -0500, Homer Parker wrote:
> On Sun, 2005-05-22 at 00:57 -0500, Jason Huebel wrote:
> > It's with pleasure that I announce a new developer: Dang. Dang has been
> > working as an "Arch Tester" for AMD64 for a while now and has proven
> > himself
> > to be an asset to
On Fri, 2005-05-06 at 10:31 +0900, Dulmandakh Sukhbaatar wrote:
> I have Gnome installed Gentoo 2005.0, recently newer version of gnome
> marked as stable, so available to update. I don't need epiphany and
> gnome games, formerly I could just edit .ebuild file and remove lines,
> but at this time i
42 matches
Mail list logo
