On Friday 16 March 2007 18:58, Luca Barbato wrote:
> Jason Stubbs wrote:
> > That's not entirely true. The main trouble with refactoring portage code
> > is that there is no defined public API and so even the littlest changes
> > are likely to break things in gentoolkit
Rearranging and snipping a bit to clarify my points.
On Friday 16 March 2007 09:17, Daniel Drake wrote:
> Jason Stubbs wrote:
> > 2) Each technical area usually has a clear authority - ie. a spokesman
> > whom is listened to and usually has one's posts challenged with clear
no
> way of evaluating the impact.
That's not entirely true. The main trouble with refactoring portage code is
that there is no defined public API and so even the littlest changes are
likely to break things in gentoolkit and several of the portage gui front end
packages.
--
Jason Stubbs
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
re solving the right problem? (That's not a rhetorical
> question; I really don't know the answer.)
Good question. I wouldn't have a clue as to the best resolution either.
--
Jason Stubbs
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
On Sunday 04 March 2007 02:05, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Sun, 4 Mar 2007 01:51:39 +0900 Jason Stubbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> wrote:
> > There were two separate specifications - glep42 and multiple
> > repositories - that should have been discussed seperately. On a
This is really irrelevant. It's not matter of "if" he gets access but only as
to "when". After the initial work is done and the team is ready to go public
all his "noise" will come out. I can only think of two choices here:
1) whether you and he both continue to be visceral or instead try to build a
good working relationship; and
2) whether you discuess any issues with the spec now or when it goes public.
--
Jason Stubbs
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
On Saturday 24 February 2007 13:17, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 13:09:40 +0900 Jason Stubbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> | Okay, I must be missing something here. If package foo can work with
> | either bar or baz equily as well but not both, why should it force an
On Saturday 24 February 2007 12:34, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 12:27:35 +0900 Jason Stubbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> wrote:
> | For the 14 cases you mentioned that were making a mistake, they
> | probably can be rewritten so as to force an install of the first
On Saturday 24 February 2007 03:57, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Feb 2007 22:56:19 +0900 Jason Stubbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> wrote:
> | Disallowing it would be the cleaner in terms of package manager
> | responsibilities, but ...
>
> Well, I looked through the
e an error because there was no successful result
among the possibilities? While my gut feeling says "yes" and (I think)
portage currently says "no", I can't really see any strong reason for either
case.
Disallowing use clauses directly beneath || constructs would completely
sidestep that issue too. ;)
But I still what TGL described even if only for EAPI-1 or beyond...
--
Jason Stubbs
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
On Sunday 17 December 2006 16:04, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Dec 2006 15:10:57 +0900 Jason Stubbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> | I've tried to be objective here so if my viewpoint isn't obvious I'll
> | state it outright. I think all packages should depe
every package that they
need to build and/or run. Whether this is done explicitly or with
meta-packages, I don't really care. The only reason for not being explicit
with deps is to cater for old sloppy versions of portage. Unless there are
other reasons not stated here?
--
Jason Stubbs
app-admin/
eck_license and ebuilds for packages that must have their license
explicitly accepted. In other words there should be no "*" and the default
ACCEPT_LICENSE should default to everything except ebuilds that are currently
using check_license. The NON-INTERACTIVE group specified in the original GLEP
specified that set.
--
Jason Stubbs
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
On Monday 06 November 2006 17:55, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Wed, 8 Nov 2006 02:18:41 +0000 Jason Stubbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> wrote:
> | Yes, I'm also sick of this negative level of civility. If I don't
> | preempt it now, I'll likely be told that I'
100+ comment bug about this, though, which ended up with his
dismissal so discussing it further won't help any.
--
Jason Stubbs
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
t;if you
want a job done right, you've got to do it yourself."
--
Jason Stubbs
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
l licenses, it boils down to "This software is provided
AS IS - except that you can't make copies, resell, use on more than one
computer or by more than one person, etc."
> In any event, when was the decision made to kill the Universal LiveCD for
> x86 and replace it with the installer? I'd like to read the discussion.
I have a feeling the discussion took place about 18 months ago on -core, but
I'm not sure as to the answer to this.
--
Jason Stubbs
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
On Monday 02 October 2006 16:03, Jason Stubbs wrote:
> 1) Specifying >=sys-libs/glibc-2.4 and thus a corresponding entry in package.mask
... is redundant
--
Jason Stubbs
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
was a long time ago though, so masking should really be dropped from packages
altogether at this late stage.
However, masking in packages only is still supported. If there is a reason
that the plans for killing off that support should be suspended, that's also
viable.
--
Jason Stubbs
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
The resolver as it stands now is not overly difficult. One does really need
to know it back to front though. I should really make splitting it out and
documenting it my big project for 2.2.
--
Jason Stubbs
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
there
> were no QA warnings when there should have been...etc..
I also committed support for a USE_EXPAND_HIDDEN. Individual flags don't
need to be added to it. USE_EXPAND_HIDDEN="USERLAND ARCH ..." is enough.
--
Jason Stubbs
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
sounds the most reasonable. I can't see portage ever supporting "the 'foo'
and 'bar' flags can be used together except when 'baz' is also used" type flag
interdepency complexity. As Mike pointed out, check_license also needs to be
accounted for as well as possible others.
--
Jason Stubbs
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
t; takes between
> five and ten minutes
>
>emerge -NDuvp world 321.05s user 77.90s system 94% cpu 7:02.77 total
>
> I am using sys-apps/portage-2.1_pre4-r1.
Open a bug for this please.
--
Jason Stubbs
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
On Thursday 09 February 2006 20:23, Jason Stubbs wrote:
...
Wrong list :/
--
Jason Stubbs
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
On Thursday 09 February 2006 15:00, Brian Harring wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 05, 2006 at 03:04:08PM +0900, Jason Stubbs wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Time again for one of those mails; this time from me. Due to time
> > constraints,
> > real life and coming close to
On Thursday 09 February 2006 09:30, Mark Loeser wrote:
> Jason Stubbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> > It was my understanding that it is needed for the 3.3 -> 3.4 upgrade.
> > Various packages that will build fine against either are broken until
> > being recompiled
this with dependencies.
--
Jason Stubbs
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
On Tuesday 31 January 2006 22:39, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Tuesday 31 January 2006 06:31, Jason Stubbs wrote:
> > On Monday 30 January 2006 20:54, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > > 1. Because for things like LINGUAS, there are arbitrarily many legal
> > > values, and docum
On Wednesday 01 February 2006 02:28, Mark Loeser wrote:
> Jason Stubbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> > Is there any need for the packages to go into stable without the X deps
> > being
> > fixed? Why not just open a bug for the package maintainer and mark it
>
On Monday 30 January 2006 20:54, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Jan 2006 20:46:28 +0900 Jason Stubbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> | On Monday 30 January 2006 16:43, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> | > On Mon, 30 Jan 2006 06:17:36 +0100 "Diego 'Flameeyes' Pett
On Tuesday 31 January 2006 13:49, Joshua Jackson wrote:
> Mark Loeser gentoo.org> writes:
> > Donnie Berkholz gentoo.org> said:
> > > Jason Stubbs wrote:
> > > > The patch now has the debugging output and x11-base/xorg-x11 check
> > > > removed.
ds? More precisely, how should they be documented if not
via use.desc?
--
Jason Stubbs
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
ge difference but not exactly minor either. And of course LINGUAS=""
wouldn't be shown at all if nothing had changed with regard to it and
--verbose wasn't specified.
--
Jason Stubbs
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
On Thursday 26 January 2006 22:09, Jason Stubbs wrote:
> There is no way that I can see around this without highly increasing the
> possibility of false positives.
I extracted a list of cps from repoman, modified your script to check all cpvs
(rather than only the best) and compared tha
hat I can see around this without highly increasing the
possibility of false positives. Are you planning to treat arch flags
separately?
--
Jason Stubbs
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
That's a standard repoman thing. Details are only printed if there are less
than 12 occurrences of a specific warning unless "repoman full" is run. Not
sure why it wasn't being displayed if there was only one occurrence.
The patch now has the debugging output and x11-base/xorg-x11 check removed.
--
Jason Stubbs
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
On Wednesday 25 January 2006 21:47, Brian Harring wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 25, 2006 at 09:18:28PM +0900, Jason Stubbs wrote:
> > There's no other way to do it given repoman's state and the requirements.
>
> I was talking long term. One time kludges suck (but occur), would l
On Wednesday 25 January 2006 20:46, Brian Harring wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 25, 2006 at 08:27:22PM +0900, Jason Stubbs wrote:
> > On Wednesday 25 January 2006 18:10, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> > > Jason Stubbs wrote:
> > > > DEPEND="x11-base/xorg-x11"
On Wednesday 25 January 2006 18:10, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> Jason Stubbs wrote:
> > DEPEND="x11-base/xorg-x11" # wrong
> > DEPEND="virtual/x11"# wrong
> > DEPEND="|| ( x11? ( virtual/x11 ) )"# wrong
On Wednesday 25 January 2006 17:43, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> Jason Stubbs wrote:
> > I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "broken" in the first paragraph nor
> > how a check can help with unmaintained (=no commits, no?) packages, but if
> > a repoman che
On Wednesday 25 January 2006 16:40, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 16:08:07 +0900 Jason Stubbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> > | The premise for not doing this is that packages will never be fixed,
> > | right? Why not m
On Wednesday 25 January 2006 16:19, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> Jason Stubbs wrote:
> > Only by modifying every ebuild that has a virtual/x11 dependency. The atom
> > "virtual/x11" cannot be limited to specific versions on its own with old
> > style virtuals.
>
ng pulled in.
The premise for not doing this is that packages will never be fixed, right?
Why not make the modular X provide virtual/x11 and just institute a policy
that no new packages can go into stable with a virtual/x11 dependency? It
could even be easily enforcable if necessary.
--
Jason Stubbs
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
)
There's also a more general poll at
http://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-t-423275.html which also allows
further discussion if anybody is wanting to offer detailed opinions.
Thanks in advance.
--
Jason Stubbs
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
On Saturday 31 December 2005 18:57, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> i'm injecting sh KEYWORDS as quickly as my lantank can emerge ...
So that's one package every two weeks then? ;)
--
Jason Stubbs
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
ounds messy given the
current redesign of atom handling, but it would seem to offer a better chance
of not being bug-ridden...
--
Jason Stubbs
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
On Friday 30 December 2005 21:17, Spider (DmD Lj) wrote:
> On Fri, 2005-12-30 at 10:35 +0900, Jason Stubbs wrote:
> > On Friday 30 December 2005 01:35, Spider (DmD Lj) wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2005-12-27 at 19:06 +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > > > On Tue, 27 Dec 2005
SLOT...
I suggested this last Tuesday..
> I can smell sooo much breakage from this solution. Even though it could
> work : )
I'm not sure to interpret this as "yet another snide remark" or not so I'll
give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're referring to
ge.
If backtracking was all there was to it, it could be done very quickly of
course. However, it's essentially a brute force method; I'm not very good
with O notation but I think it's O(n^n). I've got an algorithm in my head
that'll do it but it goes into an infinite
On Tuesday 27 December 2005 22:45, Carsten Lohrke wrote:
> On Tuesday 27 December 2005 14:00, Jason Stubbs wrote:
> > If all three of those packages were first built against kdelibs:3.4 and
> > then kdelibs:3.5 became available then rebuilding any one of them without
> > rebui
verload the meaning of SLOT.
If overloading, dependencies would be flattened (meaning "|| ( kdelibs:3.5
kdelibs:3.4 )" would have became "kdelibs:3.4" for the original install)
within the installed package database but there's also there's the
implication that only one slot of a package be allowed in a connected set of
nodes. Is that what you're getting at?
--
Jason Stubbs
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
uilds, etc.
> etc.
Sigh... None of these issues have made there way to dev-portage.
--
Jason Stubbs
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
d by it (for us it's just an api change).
As a side note, dodoc didn't return non-zero when specified files don't exist
up until a month or two ago. dohtml was updated yesterday. Hence, up until
now the above was not possible.
--
Jason Stubbs
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
s done to prioritized
according to what I see as the needs of users. Needs of "those of us who
provide the tree" are prioritized by how much benefit will be translated
to end users combined with how much work will be required.
--
Jason Stubbs
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
On Saturday 24 December 2005 12:58, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Sat, 24 Dec 2005 12:50:33 +0900 Jason Stubbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> wrote:
> | SLOT is currently an arbitrary string (without spaces) so general
> | matching of "*" might be useful. Of course, there&#x
so general matching of
"*" might be useful. Of course, there's no restriction of not using "*" in
SLOTs at the moment either...
--
Jason Stubbs
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
On Saturday 24 December 2005 05:45, Spider (DmD Lj) wrote:
> On Sat, 2005-12-24 at 03:37 +0900, Jason Stubbs wrote:
> > On Saturday 24 December 2005 03:23, Paul de Vrieze wrote:
> > > On Friday 23 December 2005 19:12, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > > > On Fri, 23 Dec 2005
On Saturday 24 December 2005 03:42, Thomas de Grenier de Latour wrote:
> On Sat, 24 Dec 2005 02:22:06 +0900
>
> Jason Stubbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > PackageA is installed, PackageB is installed, PackageB is
> > uninstalled -> PackageA is broken. Does this c
On Saturday 24 December 2005 03:43, Duncan wrote:
> Jason Stubbs posted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, excerpted
>
> below, on Sat, 24 Dec 2005 02:22:06 +0900:
> > A quick patch makes symlinks handled similarly to regular files and
> > solves the issue. I'll put it into te
se them.
> >
> > Not in anything end users should be using. The syntax is pretty much
> > decided upon though...
>
> Glad that they are comming though. Even though I'd probably not hold my
> breath.
Trolling?
--
Jason Stubbs
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
ctions work. *shrug* I guess it's down to whether you consider a
>
> Do those already work then? I'd like to be able to use them.
:slot and [use]? Not yet. I'm sure that once they do the shouts will be
resounding across the globe such that it would not be possible for you to be
unaware of it... ;)
--
Jason Stubbs
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
On Saturday 24 December 2005 02:52, Harald van Dijk wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 24, 2005 at 02:22:06AM +0900, Jason Stubbs wrote:
> > Symlinks are handled within portage differently to regular files. Regular
> > files get an mtime check and are removed if it matches. Symlinks don't
&g
dosym /usr/bin /test
> > }
> >
> > When unmerging, portage won't remove /test/bin because its target still
> > exists.
>
> That is fixed in portage-2.0.53 (latest stable).
>
> http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=59593
Similar characteristics but slightly different.
--
Jason Stubbs
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
On Friday 23 December 2005 22:13, Harald van Dijk wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 23, 2005 at 10:00:20PM +0900, Jason Stubbs wrote:
> > On Friday 23 December 2005 21:39, Harald van Dijk wrote:
> > > On Fri, Dec 23, 2005 at 08:31:06PM +0900, Jason Stubbs wrote:
> > > > On Friday
On Friday 23 December 2005 21:39, Harald van Dijk wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 23, 2005 at 08:31:06PM +0900, Jason Stubbs wrote:
> > On Friday 23 December 2005 20:19, Stefan Schweizer wrote:
> > > Well, you should know that those are because of portage bugs or some
> > > po
On Friday 23 December 2005 21:39, Harald van Dijk wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 23, 2005 at 08:31:06PM +0900, Jason Stubbs wrote:
> > On Friday 23 December 2005 20:19, Stefan Schweizer wrote:
> > > Well, you should know that those are because of portage bugs or some
> > > po
Log that I can see
nor in the ebuilds themselves...
--
Jason Stubbs
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
-fR /usr/share/doc/${PF}
net-print/cups/cups-1.1.23-r4.ebuild: [ -n "${PN}" ] && rm -fR
/usr/share/doc/${PN}-*
net-print/cups/cups-1.1.23-r5.ebuild: [ -n "${PN}" ] && rm -fR
/usr/share/doc/${PN}-*
I'll let others do the yelling.
--
Jason Stubbs
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
ver...
I don't see the need for this. Resolution will the same repository to satisfy
a package's dependencies where possible. If you just want to be able to state
that a package from one repository needs packages from a different
repository, wouldn't something like REPO_URI="mirror://gentoo/repo" suffice
just as well without making a mess of the atom syntax?
--
Jason Stubbs
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
On Wednesday 14 December 2005 06:16, Grant Goodyear wrote:
> Jason Stubbs wrote: [Mon Dec 12 2005, 08:06:54PM CST]
>
> > The purpose of GLEPs is to coordinate several teams into providing an
> > overall enhancement to Gentoo. However, the GLEP itself is written by
> > a sin
On Wednesday 14 December 2005 09:52, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 09:11:51 +0900 Jason Stubbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> wrote:
> | newsdir="$(portageq envvar PORTDIR)/metadata/news"
> | newsdir="$(portageq newsdir gentoo)"
> |
> | Both h
On Wednesday 14 December 2005 08:54, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 08:44:39 +0900 Jason Stubbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> wrote:
> | Modifications are required to portage anyway. Why postpone it until
> | after several readers are written and force all
On Wednesday 14 December 2005 07:12, Grant Goodyear wrote:
> Jason Stubbs wrote: [Mon Dec 12 2005, 07:51:51PM CST]
> > > | As I said already, there will immediately be a bug asking for overlay
> > > | support. Portage already supports multiple in a form whether anybody
> &g
On Tuesday 13 December 2005 11:58, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Dec 2005 11:39:49 +0900 Jason Stubbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> wrote:
> | > So... If, hypothetically speaking, someone were to write a GLEP
> | > saying "move developer documentation into the
On Tuesday 13 December 2005 11:48, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Dec 2005 11:39:14 +0900 Jason Stubbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> wrote:
> | And how can that be adapted to work with overlays, completely
> | ignoring the possibility of distinct repositories. Overlays is
>
On Tuesday 13 December 2005 11:45, Andrew Muraco wrote:
> Jason Stubbs wrote:
> >On Tuesday 13 December 2005 11:22, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> >>On Tue, 13 Dec 2005 11:17:30 +0900 Jason Stubbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >>
> >>wrote:
> >>| So what
On Tuesday 13 December 2005 11:24, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Dec 2005 11:15:43 +0900 Jason Stubbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> wrote:
> | A GLEP should list whom has been solicited and provide evidence that
> | each has given their explicit approval of the GLEP. A GLEP
On Tuesday 13 December 2005 11:22, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Dec 2005 11:17:30 +0900 Jason Stubbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> wrote:
> | So what are you going to do? I asked already but you didn't answer.
> | How are you going to find $PORTDIR/metadata/news?
>
&g
On Tuesday 13 December 2005 11:11, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Dec 2005 10:51:51 +0900 Jason Stubbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> wrote:
> | Without a list of future features, you think the best way to go must
> | be the least agile? As Zac said, all that matters to keep f
On Tuesday 13 December 2005 11:06, Jason Stubbs wrote:
> Abstract
>
> The purpose of GLEPs is to coordinate several teams into providing an
> overall enhancement to Gentoo. However, the GLEP itself is written by a
> single person rather than a cooperative effort between the teams.
&
Abstract
The purpose of GLEPs is to coordinate several teams into providing an overall
enhancement to Gentoo. However, the GLEP itself is written by a single person
rather than a cooperative effort between the teams.
Motivation
Recent GLEPs have attempted to force things on other teams. This
On Tuesday 13 December 2005 02:16, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Dec 2005 23:49:31 +0900 Jason Stubbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> wrote:
> | No need for a glep as far as portage support goes anymore than Ciaran
> | needs a glep to change or add syntax highlighting in vim.
. What should be of concern is establishing a robust API between the
readers and portage such that future changes won't cause breakage.
--
Jason Stubbs
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
On Monday 12 December 2005 09:20, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Dec 2005 09:11:53 +0900 Jason Stubbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> wrote:
> | Regardless of what you think about the current plans for multiple
> | repository support, the details that readers will need to
On Monday 12 December 2005 09:01, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Dec 2005 08:44:00 +0900 Jason Stubbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> wrote:
> | Repositories will be user-labelled. However, all that readers need be
> | concerned with is how to extract the repository name from the
On Monday 12 December 2005 02:43, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Dec 2005 13:32:05 +0900 Jason Stubbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> wrote:
> | Repositories will definitely have a unique identifier. Perhaps it
> | would be better to use the repository-identifing format from the
'suggested'
> display tool; other display tools (for example, a news to email forwarder,
> which would be ideal for users who sync on a ``cron``) are left as options
> for those who desire them.
By "suggested" you mean that it should be referenced in the news help?
--
Jason Stubbs
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
On Sunday 11 December 2005 00:56, Luca Barbato wrote:
> svn so far was good but I don't know which big projects had it deployed.
KDE uses subversion, depending on what you call big of course.
--
Jason Stubbs
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
es what the macos profiles have in
package.provided...
> I plan to remove the virtual/x11 definition from base/virtuals in a
> couple of days, because this should provide a full (and non-broken)
> replacement.
This can be easily tested in advance by adding the following:
# cat /etc/po
On Tuesday 06 December 2005 21:37, Alec Warner wrote:
> Jason Stubbs wrote:
> > On Tuesday 06 December 2005 11:17, Ned Ludd wrote:
> > > On Mon, 2005-12-05 at 23:06 +0900, Jason Stubbs wrote:
> > > > Okay, new suggestion.
> > > >
> > > > Postpo
> bring up2date an old installation snapshot.)
Perhaps you were using one of the broken versions?
--
Jason Stubbs
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
On Monday 28 November 2005 00:05, Jason Stubbs wrote:
> 3) FEATURES="noman" is dropped in favour of USE="man" or USE="manpages"
>
> In light of the above requirements and the fact that dyn_* will likely be
> moved into the tree down the track, #3 seems
On Sunday 27 November 2005 23:50, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
> On Sunday 27 November 2005 15:39, Jason Stubbs wrote:
> > Core packages or not, they are all broken. When the requirement came up,
> > the respective maintainers should have spoken up so that a proper
&g
On Sunday 27 November 2005 23:43, Jakub Moc wrote:
> 27.11.2005, 15:39:48, Jason Stubbs wrote:
> > On Sunday 27 November 2005 22:09, Ned Ludd wrote:
> >> On Sun, 2005-11-27 at 07:58 -0500, Ned Ludd wrote:
> >> > On Fri, 2005-11-25 at 12:46 +0200, Marius Mauch wrot
On Sunday 27 November 2005 23:50, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
> On Sunday 27 November 2005 15:39, Jason Stubbs wrote:
> > Core packages or not, they are all broken. When the requirement came up,
> > the respective maintainers should have spoken up so that a proper
&g
spective maintainers should have spoken up so that a proper solution could
be found. When are the quick hacks going to stop? :|
--
Jason Stubbs
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
rtageq has_version ${ROOT} sys-fs/udev && use !udev && (
ewarn "You have udev installed but do not the udev USE flag enabled."
ewarn "${PN} might behave incorrectly."
)
Except with better bash style of course.. But that's just what I'd do. Once
#x27;ll ask the council to add the decision to the
> agenda for its next meeting (sorry, just don't want to be the bad guy
> here ;)
/me adds a vote for later to even it up.
--
Jason Stubbs
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
On Friday 25 November 2005 08:58, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> Of course, if FEATURES were in the USE expand list, you could use
> ! features_noman ? ( ) ...
All the way up until FEATURES="noman" is changed to FEATURES="man"...
--
Jason Stubbs
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
On Thursday 24 November 2005 10:07, Marius Mauch wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 09:49:20 +0900
>
> Jason Stubbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Thursday 24 November 2005 09:32, Marius Mauch wrote:
> > > On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 01:04:32 +0100
> > >
>
1 - 100 of 250 matches
Mail list logo
