On Sat, 13 Mar 2010 11:34:22 +0100
Matti Bickel wrote:
> I have found 4 bugs assigned to treeclea...@gentoo.org, but i'm sure i
> missed something.
>
If you have time to spare, bugs assigned to maintainer-needed@ and
often rotting in bugzilla for ages despite having patches included will
give y
On Thu, 18 Mar 2010 21:27:50 +0100
Ben de Groot wrote:
> > Since the last option will take time in any case, I guess the first
> > option is the best to achieve the desired goal: make sure Python 3
> > stays as far away as possible from any system that doesn't need it.
>
> And the best way to do
On Fri, 19 Mar 2010 10:02:44 -0500
Dale wrote:
> Because in my opinion, portage is the first thing in line to keep a
> system sane. Installing packages that are not needed means that
> portage fails on that. So in your example, portage fails to do its
> due diligence and it falls to the users
The amount of bugs concerning ebuilds that ignore LDFLAGS suggests
that this would be a good idea, b/c it seems a many maintainers are
completely unaware that their ebuilds do not respect LDFLAGS - so I
guess this needs more visibility.
P.S. If you wonder why this flag then
check /usr/lib/portage/
On Sun, 21 Mar 2010 00:52:36 -0400
Mike Frysinger wrote:
> remind me again why this matters ? binutils has been defaulting to
> hash- style=both for quite a while now.
> -mike
Well, I already tried in my P.S. but let me try again: I'm not
suggesting that devs should have more optimized binaries
On Sun, 21 Mar 2010 13:04:01 -0400
Mike Frysinger wrote:
> forcing gnu-only hashes breaks some systems, and is a relatively
> "newish" flag, so it isnt a candidate for global enabling.
> -mike
Well... am I really so difficult to understand?
I do *NOT* want it globally enabled... I want it enabl
On Sun, 21 Mar 2010 18:28:18 +0100
justin wrote:
> I am probably the only one, but I really don't like the way you are
> talking! Please change that, otherwise I feel to do something against
> it!
>
> Having good ideas or pointing out correct things, doesn't give anybody
> the right to talk and
On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 18:35:21 +0100
Ben de Groot wrote:
> I'll take that as a yes then, you are indeed disregarding the concerns
> and recommendations of your fellow Gentoo developers.
>
> CC'ing devrel because this is getting out of hand.
Looks like an extremely "productive" thread... /me poin
