absolutely no package that could be installed via this crappy
eclass, already tried to explain about 4 times but you don't listen. Oh
well, I give up; go fix the slot, never mind that it's utterly useless.
--
Best regards,
Jakub Moc
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
GPG signature:
http://subkeys.pgp.net
Bryan Østergaard napsal(a):
On Sun, Jan 28, 2007 at 12:02:39PM +0100, Jakub Moc wrote:
Jakub, please stop making a fool of yourself with your endless rants.
Quite a few experienced ebuild developers have already told you why it's
not being removed. As such your rants are only wasting time
.
Maybe someone could at least punt the single unusable ebuild that
remains in the tree so that something marginally useful would come out
of this.
Thanks, bye.
--
Best regards,
Jakub Moc
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
GPG signature:
http://subkeys.pgp.net:11371/pks/lookup?op=getsearch
or even removing it
(plus the unusable single ebuild which inherits it) does.
[1] http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=162960
--
Best regards,
Jakub Moc
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
GPG signature:
http://subkeys.pgp.net:11371/pks/lookup?op=getsearch=0xCEBA3D9E
Primary key fingerprint: D2D7
Rob C napsal(a):
I'm sorry I dont have a test box for this but is it not needed for
people maintaining 2.4 systems?
No, it's not... Been in kernel since 2.4.20.
--
Best regards,
Jakub Moc
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
GPG signature:
http://subkeys.pgp.net:11371/pks/lookup?op=getsearch
Now that agriffis retired, this package is orphaned and has quite a
couple of stale bugs... Anyone interested, please see this link:
http://tinyurl.com/26gczq
Thanks!
--
Best regards,
Jakub Moc
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
GPG signature:
http://subkeys.pgp.net:11371/pks/lookup?op=getsearch
this to the official tree, then either fix it
properly or don't commit such stuff at all.
--
Best regards,
Jakub Moc
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
GPG signature:
http://subkeys.pgp.net:11371/pks/lookup?op=getsearch=0xCEBA3D9E
Primary key fingerprint: D2D7 933C 9BA1 C95B 2C95 B30F 8717 D5FD CEBA 3D9E
... still
Mike Frysinger napsal(a):
On Wednesday 10 January 2007 03:40, Jakub Moc wrote:
if you're categorizing those as commercial broken stuff you might want to
look up the word commercial
Huh? I was referring to this link [1] on Bug 161045 (which presumably
started this whole debate)
[1] http
, ideally)...
--
Best regards,
Jakub Moc
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
GPG signature:
http://subkeys.pgp.net:11371/pks/lookup?op=getsearch=0xCEBA3D9E
Primary key fingerprint: D2D7 933C 9BA1 C95B 2C95 B30F 8717 D5FD CEBA 3D9E
... still no signature ;)
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital
Mike Frysinger napsal(a):
On Wednesday 10 January 2007 09:34, Jakub Moc wrote:
Huh? I was referring to this link [1] on Bug 161045 (which presumably
started this whole debate)
so you're replying to a non-gentoo-dev thread on a gentoo-dev thread when the
threads arent even closely related
of inventing new variables to handle this, AFAICR.
--
Best regards,
Jakub Moc
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
GPG signature:
http://subkeys.pgp.net:11371/pks/lookup?op=getsearch=0xCEBA3D9E
Primary key fingerprint: D2D7 933C 9BA1 C95B 2C95 B30F 8717 D5FD CEBA 3D9E
... still no signature
can save
portage folks the trouble... That was the whole point, thanks. :)
BTW, usersandbox is not a valid RESTRICT either (see Bug 136445)
--
Best regards,
Jakub Moc
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
GPG signature:
http://subkeys.pgp.net:11371/pks/lookup?op=getsearch=0xCEBA3D9E
Primary key
Mike Frysinger napsal(a):
On Wednesday 10 January 2007 13:45, Jakub Moc wrote:
Real solution, sure... RESTRICT=sandbox is not a solution, it's
identical to the current hackish workaround, so I guess we can save
portage folks the trouble...
except that RESTRICT is the documented method
Chris Gianelloni napsal(a):
On Wed, 2007-01-10 at 19:06 +0100, Jakub Moc wrote:
Don't see how's userpriv related here; also the original idea was to
stick FEATURES=unattended (or non-interactive or whatever else) into
portage, instead of inventing new variables to handle this, AFAICR.
Wow
Chris Gianelloni napsal(a):
On Wed, 2007-01-10 at 23:02 +0100, Jakub Moc wrote:
The name of the GLEP is even RESTRICT=unattended... not
FEATURES=unattended...
And how's that in contradiction? Why can't a user stick 'unattended'
into FEATURES instead of having to care about yet another
Mike Frysinger napsal(a):
On Wednesday 10 January 2007 18:36, Jakub Moc wrote:
OK, dunno which of us is being dense; the whole point is that the damned
ACCEPT_RESTRICT is completely redundant; hard to grok or what exactly?
You already *don't* accept the restrict by sticking 'unattended
?id=55708 for info about this
# and http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/qa/backtraces.xml to learn how to get
# a debug build.
/eclass snip
--
Best regards,
Jakub Moc
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
GPG signature:
http://subkeys.pgp.net:11371/pks/lookup?op=getsearch=0xCEBA3D9E
Primary key fingerprint
,
Jakub Moc
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
GPG signature:
http://subkeys.pgp.net:11371/pks/lookup?op=getsearch=0xCEBA3D9E
Primary key fingerprint: D2D7 933C 9BA1 C95B 2C95 B30F 8717 D5FD CEBA 3D9E
... still no signature ;)
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Petteri Räty napsal(a):
He hails from Beroun, Czech Republic. He owns his own IT company. On the
personal side he is married and has a little daughter. He likes soccer,
taking trips on bikes and hiking.
Yay, the Czech beer conspiracy is growing! Welcome!
*plop*
--
Best regards,
Jakub Moc
Enrico Weigelt napsal(a):
* Jakub Moc [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb:
Don't want to be rude, but would you damn read the bug finally?
It's already *fixed* in ~arch and waiting for stabilization
(in fact, it's already stabilized almost everywhere due to
security Bug 152783).
As far
William L. Thomson Jr. napsal(a):
On Sat, 2006-12-23 at 20:20 +0100, Enrico Weigelt wrote:
I had some talks w/ tomcat folks
Where? Who? Just curious.
There, you'll love it :P
http://www.mail-archive.com/search?l=users%40tomcat.apache.orgq=tomcat+commercial+crap
--
Best regards,
Jakub
you damn read the bug finally? It's
already *fixed* in ~arch and waiting for stabilization (in fact, it's
already stabilized almost everywhere due to security Bug 152783). What
are you fixing here?
Merry Xmas.
--
Best regards,
Jakub Moc
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
GPG signature:
http
.html
--
Best regards,
Jakub Moc
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
GPG signature:
http://subkeys.pgp.net:11371/pks/lookup?op=getsearch=0xCEBA3D9E
Primary key fingerprint: D2D7 933C 9BA1 C95B 2C95 B30F 8717 D5FD CEBA 3D9E
... still no signature ;)
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital
{serial}==123456789ABCDEF, KERNEL==sd?1, NAME=%k,
SYMLINK+=usbstick
and you'll have /dev/usbstick symlink there.
--
Best regards,
Jakub Moc
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
GPG signature:
http://subkeys.pgp.net:11371/pks/lookup?op=getsearch=0xCEBA3D9E
Primary key fingerprint: D2D7 933C 9BA1 C95B
net-fs/samba has been missing a maintainer since August, and there's
quite a lot of open bugs. Anyone interested in taking over this (at
least temporarily), please see the following list:
http://tinyurl.com/wycqt
Thanks.
--
Best regards,
Jakub Moc
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
GPG signature
://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=123833
http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=153797
http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=156408
Thanks in advance.
--
Best regards,
Jakub Moc
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
GPG signature:
http://subkeys.pgp.net:11371/pks/lookup?op=getsearch=0xCEBA3D9E
Primary key
Caleb Tennis napsal(a):
I was working through a bug report when I noticed someone recommended using
the syntax:
DEPEND=category/app-ver:SLOT
This will cause stable portage to bomb out so please don't use it
anywhere in the tree.
--
Best regards,
Jakub Moc
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED
regards,
Jakub Moc
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
GPG signature:
http://subkeys.pgp.net:11371/pks/lookup?op=getsearch=0xCEBA3D9E
Primary key fingerprint: D2D7 933C 9BA1 C95B 2C95 B30F 8717 D5FD CEBA 3D9E
... still no signature ;)
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
over this
package, please see the following bugs:
https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=130336
https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=142293
https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=144644
https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=150569
Thanks.
--
Best regards,
Jakub Moc
mailto:[EMAIL
://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=147276
If you are interested in fixing this package, please see the above bugs.
Thanks.
--
Best regards,
Jakub Moc
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
GPG signature:
http://subkeys.pgp.net:11371/pks/lookup?op=getsearch=0xCEBA3D9E
Primary key fingerprint: D2D7 933C 9BA1
regards,
Jakub Moc
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
GPG signature:
http://subkeys.pgp.net:11371/pks/lookup?op=getsearch=0xCEBA3D9E
Primary key fingerprint: D2D7 933C 9BA1 C95B 2C95 B30F 8717 D5FD CEBA 3D9E
... still no signature ;)
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Sven Köhler napsal(a):
The files were never removed, since they are protected - aren't they?
Anyway, this really asks for a sollution.
Feel free to solve Bug 8423 then... ;)
http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8423
--
Best regards,
Jakub Moc
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
GPG signature
Andrej Kacian napsal(a):
Dňa Thu, 23 Nov 2006 11:20:16 +0100
Jakub Moc [EMAIL PROTECTED] napísal:
Actually, I don't mind much. There's a developers or two who keep on
adding packages without metadata.xml all the time (won't name anyone,
I'm pretty sure they'll find themselves here :P
recent additions to the tree (~1 year or even
less). However, even for legacy stuff, nothing is preventing the people
from claiming their ebuilds the right way and adding themselves to
metadata.xml - will make assigning bugs much easier for me. ;)
--
Best regards,
Jakub Moc
mailto:[EMAIL
their decisions? Not bloody likely.
No. Not because I didn't like the answer - because I haven't seen a
*single* argument *in favour* of using the IMHO completely broken SPF
thing.
--
Best regards,
Jakub Moc
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
GPG signature:
http://subkeys.pgp.net:11371/pks/lookup?op
. I'll reconsider if it's worth wasting the bandwidth to
vote for anyone next time.
--
Best regards,
Jakub Moc
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
GPG signature:
http://subkeys.pgp.net:11371/pks/lookup?op=getsearch=0xCEBA3D9E
Primary key fingerprint: D2D7 933C 9BA1 C95B 2C95 B30F 8717 D5FD CEBA 3D9E
reasons:
a) SPF is really worthless
b) spamassassin have a SPF_NEUTRAL test, with a score bigger than 1
See http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/43707/focus=43707 .
I second this request... Thanks.
--
Best regards,
Jakub Moc
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
GPG signature:
http
in this decision.
it isnt ... so file a bug for infra
done in bug 154120 .
And WONTFIXed in 15 minutes. In that case, I'd like to resubmit it to
the council... :/
--
Best regards,
Jakub Moc
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
GPG signature:
http://subkeys.pgp.net:11371/pks/lookup?op
Stephen Bennett napsal(a):
On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 18:18:26 +0100
Jakub Moc [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sure I did... Could you tell me why should we accumulate broken and
vulnerable junk in the tree for years? (Outdated ebuild A depends on
junky outdated ebuild B which depends on crappy
something
newer for months harms everyone who uses rsync, wastes disk space for
users, wastes disk space on mirrors, makes CVS and portage slower,
wastes maintainers time... No harm? Nonsense.
--
Best regards,
Jakub Moc
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
GPG signature:
http://subkeys.pgp.net:11371/pks
Stephen Bennett napsal(a):
On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 17:57:06 +0100
Jakub Moc [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Of course it does... Lots of people can't remove outdated broken cruft
because $ebuild still depends on something since $arch has been
slacking for months. Lots of people are forced to maintain
, one could just as easily claim that the
packages should be removed entirely since the arch teams don't care
enough to keyword them.
See above, perhaps? And, we have some ebuilds without any keywords in
the tree? If we do, then yes, they should be removed.
--
Best regards,
Jakub Moc
mailto
Fernando J. Pereda napsal(a):
On Tue, Oct 31, 2006 at 07:12:58PM +0100, Jakub Moc wrote:
Oh well, this apparently doesn't go anywhere, slacking is just
wonderful, maintainers should just STFU and obey the almighty slacking
arches, security is the least of a concern and no priority
the keywords nor the package.
--
Best regards,
Jakub Moc
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
GPG signature:
http://subkeys.pgp.net:11371/pks/lookup?op=getsearch=0xCEBA3D9E
Primary key fingerprint: D2D7 933C 9BA1 C95B 2C95 B30F 8717 D5FD CEBA 3D9E
... still no signature ;)
signature.asc
Description
a particular
version.
As you have might have noticed, they already have a newer version
stable. But apparently asking them to respond on a bug within 5 months
is way too much. :P
--
Best regards,
Jakub Moc
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
GPG signature:
http://subkeys.pgp.net:11371/pks/lookup?op
-2006-1518
http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=132146
What on earth are you talking about here? And why almost 6 months is not
enough for someone to respond on a bug with a simple we'll only support
newer versions and don't care about MySQL 4.0.x any more, go drop it?
--
Best regards,
Jakub
if they can't be bothered to write one sentence for months.
--
Best regards,
Jakub Moc
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
GPG signature:
http://subkeys.pgp.net:11371/pks/lookup?op=getsearch=0xCEBA3D9E
Primary key fingerprint: D2D7 933C 9BA1 C95B 2C95 B30F 8717 D5FD CEBA 3D9E
... still no signature
is broken by design.
--
Best regards,
Jakub Moc
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
GPG signature:
http://subkeys.pgp.net:11371/pks/lookup?op=getsearch=0xCEBA3D9E
Primary key fingerprint: D2D7 933C 9BA1 C95B 2C95 B30F 8717 D5FD CEBA 3D9E
... still no signature ;)
signature.asc
Description
wanted
| to mask it ahead of time.
So what happens when users have an old, masked package installed that's
no longer masked thanks to this change?
Err, exactly nothing? If they didn't unmerge it, they'll continue to
have it installed as they did before?
--
Best regards,
Jakub Moc
mailto
David Shakaryan napsal(a):
Alec Warner wrote:
Jakub Moc wrote:
Ciaran McCreesh napsal(a):
So what happens when users have an old, masked package installed that's
no longer masked thanks to this change?
Err, exactly nothing? If they didn't unmerge it, they'll continue to
have it installed
regards,
Jakub Moc
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
GPG signature:
http://subkeys.pgp.net:11371/pks/lookup?op=getsearch=0xCEBA3D9E
Primary key fingerprint: D2D7 933C 9BA1 C95B 2C95 B30F 8717 D5FD CEBA 3D9E
... still no signature ;)
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
, the behaviour is retarded, period, fix it or live
with people replying off-list because they've lost track of which list
did the mail come from.
--
Best regards,
Jakub Moc
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
GPG signature:
http://subkeys.pgp.net:11371/pks/lookup?op=getsearch=0xCEBA3D9E
Primary key fingerprint
fixed... I don't care
any more, if the reply does wrong way, complain to infra/mailing lists
admin.
--
Best regards,
Jakub Moc
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
GPG signature:
http://subkeys.pgp.net:11371/pks/lookup?op=getsearch=0xCEBA3D9E
Primary key fingerprint: D2D7 933C 9BA1 C95B 2C95 B30F 8717
for such nonsense.
--
Best regards,
Jakub Moc
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
GPG signature:
http://subkeys.pgp.net:11371/pks/lookup?op=getsearch=0xCEBA3D9E
Primary key fingerprint: D2D7 933C 9BA1 C95B 2C95 B30F 8717 D5FD CEBA 3D9E
... still no signature ;)
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP
Donnie Berkholz napsal(a):
Jakub Moc wrote:
I don't see what's there to fix, already told that the behaviour is
damned inconsistent with all other mailing lists. Fix the mailing list,
ktnxbye, don't have time for such nonsense.
Why don't you use Reply All or Reply to List, like everyone
guarantee you that you'll have these weird
giraffe threads here couple of times every month).
--
Best regards,
Jakub Moc
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
GPG signature:
http://subkeys.pgp.net:11371/pks/lookup?op=getsearch=0xCEBA3D9E
Primary key fingerprint: D2D7 933C 9BA1 C95B 2C95 B30F 8717 D5FD CEBA
Ciaran McCreesh napsal(a):
What's so hard about paying attention when replying?
What's so hard about making the behaviour consistent?
--
Best regards,
Jakub Moc
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
GPG signature:
http://subkeys.pgp.net:11371/pks/lookup?op=getsearch=0xCEBA3D9E
Primary key
://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=45715
--
Best regards,
Jakub Moc
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
GPG signature:
http://subkeys.pgp.net:11371/pks/lookup?op=getsearch=0xCEBA3D9E
Primary key fingerprint: D2D7 933C 9BA1 C95B 2C95 B30F 8717 D5FD CEBA 3D9E
... still no signature ;)
signature.asc
use flags
so that other ebuilds don't pull in unwanted dependencies, check all the
no* flags that exist just because of this missing feature.
Sigh...
--
Best regards,
Jakub Moc
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
GPG signature:
http://subkeys.pgp.net:11371/pks/lookup?op=getsearch=0xCEBA3D9E
Primary
Ciaran McCreesh napsal(a):
On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 22:35:10 +0200 Jakub Moc [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| Which is why I suggested changing Portage's behaviour earlier in the
| thread. Like it or not, overlays are already getting complex enough
| that they'd benefit from profile behaviour
Ciaran McCreesh napsal(a):
On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 23:19:03 +0200 Jakub Moc [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| You mean, than sticking a + before foo in IUSE in every ebuild, and
| ensuring that changes are kept in sync and consistent with the
| behaviour of every single existing profile.
|
| Erm
, what kind of conflicting behaviour and what sanity checks are you
talking about here? Did you _really_ miss the whole point of this feature?
--
Best regards,
Jakub Moc
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
GPG signature:
http://subkeys.pgp.net:11371/pks/lookup?op=getsearch=0xCEBA3D9E
Primary key
for
| default flags that should be enabled regardless of profile.
Isn't that why we have base profiles? It's kinda icky moving that
metadata partially into ebuilds IMO...
Eh no... Enough of profiles bloat with flags specifically needed for one
package...
--
Best regards,
Jakub Moc
mailto
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 16:32:33 +0200 Jakub Moc [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
| On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 02:40:59 -0700 Zac Medico [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| wrote:
| | At the profile level, I've added support for package.use
| | which behaves like /etc
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 17:29:57 +0200 Jakub Moc [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| Hardly bloat... And far less so that having the same data across
| zillions of different ebuilds. Or rather, confusingly slightly
| different data, which is how it'll end up...
|
| Apparently
] for
networkless installs, but you didn't bother to check even, right?
[1] http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/handbook/2006.1/index.xml
Sigh. :(
--
Best regards,
Jakub Moc
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
GPG signature:
http://subkeys.pgp.net:11371/pks/lookup?op=getsearch=0xCEBA3D9E
Primary key
.tar.bz2
http://gentoo.osuosl.org/releases/hppa/2006.1/stages/hppa1.1/stage3-hppa1.1-2006.1.tar.bz2
http://gentoo.osuosl.org/releases/mips/2006.1/stages/mips3/stage3-mips3-2006.1.tar.bz2
http://gentoo.osuosl.org/releases/mips/2006.1/stages/mips4/stage3-mips4-2006.1.tar.bz2
--
Best regards,
Jakub Moc
/can't support any more with the limited manpower
available.
--
Best regards,
Jakub Moc
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
GPG signature:
http://subkeys.pgp.net:11371/pks/lookup?op=getsearch=0xCEBA3D9E
Primary key fingerprint: D2D7 933C 9BA1 C95B 2C95 B30F 8717 D5FD CEBA 3D9E
... still no signature
all the profiles in there.
[1] http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=149508#c26
Sigh...
--
Best regards,
Jakub Moc
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
GPG signature:
http://subkeys.pgp.net:11371/pks/lookup?op=getsearch=0xCEBA3D9E
Primary key fingerprint: D2D7 933C 9BA1 C95B 2C95 B30F 8717 D5FD
Michael Cummings wrote:
Geo-IP
Can you please leave this one, it's rather useful :)
--
Best regards,
Jakub Moc
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
GPG signature:
http://subkeys.pgp.net:11371/pks/lookup?op=getsearch=0xCEBA3D9E
Primary key fingerprint: D2D7 933C 9BA1 C95B 2C95 B30F 8717 D5FD CEBA
Michael Cummings wrote:
On Sun, 2006-10-01 at 15:48 +0200, Jakub Moc wrote:
Michael Cummings wrote:
Geo-IP
Can you please leave this one, it's rather useful :)
Just let me know what in the tree is using it :)
Mind you, the actual removal of packages will be a group
effort
. Additionally, it
would be nice if these discussions involved concerned arches and were
not done ex post in future cases.
Thanks.
--
Best regards,
Jakub Moc
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
GPG signature:
http://subkeys.pgp.net:11371/pks/lookup?op=getsearch=0xCEBA3D9E
Primary key fingerprint: D2D7 933C
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 14:37:59 +0200 Jakub Moc [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| Additionally, it would be nice if these discussions involved
| concerned arches and were not done ex post in future cases.
Uh, Jakub, part of the design of the devmanual was that it would
the inconsistent behaviour vanish in any way, it
will just hide it.
So, I'd kinda appreciate if concerned folks (including portage and
relevant affected arches) were involved in this discussion, instead of
sneaking the changes in under QA disguise.
Thanks.
--
Best regards,
Jakub Moc
mailto
Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Saturday 30 September 2006 13:02, Jakub Moc wrote:
Eh, the whole technical point here is that paludis behaviour differs
from portage (and differs from pkgcore, FWIW).
the technical point is what is the expected behavior of the packages file ...
seems silly
Mark Stier wrote:
How about entering the removed ebuilds into bugzilla under an adequate
section?
Uhm...
http://sources.gentoo.org/viewcvs.py/gentoo-x86/
--
jakub
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
I was under the impression that you were supposed to GLEP anything of
this scope and get council approval... The anyone can make a project
rule doesn't replace the requirement to GLEP large changes.
http://dev.gentoo.org/~chriswhite/xml_source/flame.xml - Code Listing
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 22:41:11 +0200 Jakub Moc [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
| I was under the impression that you were supposed to GLEP anything
| of this scope and get council approval... The anyone can make a
| project rule doesn't replace
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 23:42:02 +0200 Jakub Moc [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| Not that bugging people w/ pointless paperwork would contribute
| anything useful to this new project or get any work done... What
| exactly is there to GLEP at this point?
A GLEP is not pointless
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 18:42:13 -0400 Alec Warner [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| As Donnie said; if this is the thanks one gets for trying out a new
| idea; then why try at all.
The complaints are not that Stuart tried a new idea. Stop trying to
spin things that way. The
time I
asked, noone wanted to touch the FUBARed ebuild, IIRC. :)
--
Best regards,
Jakub Moc
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
GPG signature:
http://subkeys.pgp.net:11371/pks/lookup?op=getsearch=0xCEBA3D9E
Primary key fingerprint: D2D7 933C 9BA1 C95B 2C95 B30F 8717 D5FD CEBA 3D9E
... still
Java bugs! :P
*plop*
--
Best regards,
Jakub Moc
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
GPG signature:
http://subkeys.pgp.net:11371/pks/lookup?op=getsearch=0xCEBA3D9E
Primary key fingerprint: D2D7 933C 9BA1 C95B 2C95 B30F 8717 D5FD CEBA 3D9E
... still no signature ;)
signature.asc
Description
sucks and keeps changing the tarballs silently over
and over again, so the only solution to the above bug is to remove all
of the modules/themes/etc. from the ebuild.
--
Best regards,
Jakub Moc
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
GPG signature:
http://subkeys.pgp.net:11371/pks/lookup?op=getsearch
/gentoo-x86/kde-base/kdelibs/kdelibs-3.5.0.ebuild?hideattic=0r1=1.4r2=1.5
[2]
http://sources.gentoo.org/viewcvs.py/gentoo-x86/kde-base/kdelibs/kdelibs-3.5.4-r1.ebuild?r1=1.3r2=1.4
So, how exactly is this public bitching useful?
--
Best regards,
Jakub Moc
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
GPG
]
http://sources.gentoo.org/viewcvs.py/gentoo-x86/kde-base/kdelibs/kdelibs-3.5.4-r1.ebuild?r1=1.4r2=1.5
carlo, you might want to revert it properly, instead of reverting only
half of the previous commit you've been complaining about here.
--
Best regards,
Jakub Moc
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
GPG
arch keywording this way. I'd find it more foolproof and consistent,
if repoman would catch this and Portage would warn.
Warn about what exactly? About blocker that $arch doesn't have even
keyworded? I fail too see why this would be useful.
--
Best regards,
Jakub Moc
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED
Doug Goldstein wrote:
The following global USE flags have been deleted from the tree because
no ebuild uses them.
While you are cleaning up, could you take care of
http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=144534 please (ming/flash use flags).
Thanks!
--
Best regards,
Jakub Moc
mailto
for me as well).
Thanks.
--
Best regards,
Jakub Moc
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
GPG signature:
http://subkeys.pgp.net:11371/pks/lookup?op=getsearch=0xCEBA3D9E
Primary key fingerprint: D2D7 933C 9BA1 C95B 2C95 B30F 8717 D5FD CEBA 3D9E
... still no signature ;)
signature.asc
Description
of Gentoo devs
responsible for this.
Thanks.
--
Best regards,
Jakub Moc
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
GPG signature:
http://subkeys.pgp.net:11371/pks/lookup?op=getsearch=0xCEBA3D9E
Primary key fingerprint: D2D7 933C 9BA1 C95B 2C95 B30F 8717 D5FD CEBA 3D9E
... still no signature
mess, that doesn't compile even w/ gcc-3.3 without patching. You'd
probably prefer to never put out a new release, I guess? How many people
are using this one, and how does it justify delaying the release even more?
--
Best regards,
Jakub Moc
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
GPG signature:
http
mail). Not to mention that some
of the flags require commercial software installed that's not in
portage, so they are actually unsupported.
--
Best regards,
Jakub Moc
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
GPG signature:
http://subkeys.pgp.net:11371/pks/lookup?op=getsearch=0xCEBA3D9E
Primary key
GPL like everyone else, I
don't want any debburn. Besides, we don't distribute any binaries (if we
do on release media, we'll have to stop until JS regains a bit of mental
sanity).
--
Best regards,
Jakub Moc
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
GPG signature:
http://subkeys.pgp.net:11371/pks/lookup?op
Chris White wrote:
On Friday 01 September 2006 12:46, Jakub Moc wrote:
WTH is debburn??? Geeez, make the folk respect GPL like everyone else, I
don't want any debburn. Besides, we don't distribute any binaries (if we
do on release media, we'll have to stop until JS regains a bit of mental
(see above) and it's a huge PITA to maintain a
thing that's completely dead upstream.
--
Best regards,
Jakub Moc
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
GPG signature:
http://subkeys.pgp.net:11371/pks/lookup?op=getsearch=0xCEBA3D9E
Primary key fingerprint: D2D7 933C 9BA1 C95B 2C95 B30F 8717 D5FD CEBA 3D9E
://bugs.gentoo.org/enter_bug.cgi?product=Gentoo%20Linuxformat=guided
@jforman: Can you bring it back, people are filing bad bugs w/ missing
info over and over again. (It's been mentioned a couple of times in
Bug 115796 already).
Thanks.
--
Best regards,
Jakub Moc
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
GPG
it does say make it an attachment if it's too long, but how long
is too long?
8K characters (and bugzilla will actually send you to places where the
sun doesn't shine if you try to post something that exceeds this limit).
--
Best regards,
Jakub Moc
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
GPG signature
become a lot more complicated and confusing instead.
--
Best regards,
Jakub Moc
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
GPG signature:
http://subkeys.pgp.net:11371/pks/lookup?op=getsearch=0xCEBA3D9E
Primary key fingerprint: D2D7 933C 9BA1 C95B 2C95 B30F 8717 D5FD CEBA 3D9E
... still no signature
Enrico Weigelt wrote:
Hi folks,
some packages print out important notices on install/update.
I'd like to see those notes before actually updating, so when
using --pretend.
http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/glep/glep-0042.html
cu
better not.
--
Best regards,
Jakub Moc
mailto:[EMAIL
, this doesn't work any more in -r4.
--
Best regards,
Jakub Moc
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
GPG signature:
http://subkeys.pgp.net:11371/pks/lookup?op=getsearch=0xCEBA3D9E
Primary key fingerprint: D2D7 933C 9BA1 C95B 2C95 B30F 8717 D5FD CEBA 3D9E
... still no signature ;)
signature.asc
have a
look at other distros, which might more closely match your view. ;)
--
Best regards,
Jakub Moc
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
GPG signature:
http://subkeys.pgp.net:11371/pks/lookup?op=getsearch=0xCEBA3D9E
Primary key fingerprint: D2D7 933C 9BA1 C95B 2C95 B30F 8717 D5FD CEBA 3D9E
101 - 200 of 391 matches
Mail list logo
