Re: [gentoo-dev] Early stabilisation

On Thu, 17 Apr 2008 15:33:17 +0300 Samuli Suominen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > "It works. Do it." Oh by the way. This isn't directed toward you personally, but I personally detest this "do it" attitude. You wouldn't say that to my face, would you? (Trust me, you would regret it.) :) JeR -

Re: [gentoo-dev] Early stabilisation

On Thu, 17 Apr 2008 15:33:17 +0300 Samuli Suominen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Thu, 17 Apr 2008 09:43:59 +0200 > Vlastimil Babka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> kirjoitti: > > > Okay. So we can just agree it's better if the maintainer tells his > > reasons when opening the bug, to spare the later clarifica

[gentoo-dev] Early stabilisation

Dear ebuild maintainers, thirty days is the norm for the minimal period between an ebuilds last non-keywording change while in the tree and the usual call for stabilisation. If you cannot find a pressing reason to push stabilisation forward, then don't ask. In the last few days I have seen s

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in profiles/default-linux/alpha: ChangeLog use.mask

On Wed, 2 Apr 2008 01:40:37 +1100 Daniel Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, 2 Apr 2008 12:51:59 am Christian Faulhammer wrote: > > Hi, > > > > "Daniel Black (dragonheart)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > + 01 Apr 2008; Daniel Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> use.mask: > > > + mask ssh2 as net-libs/l

Re: OT: offensive (Re: [gentoo-dev] explicit -r0 in ebuild filename)

On Mon, 31 Mar 2008 09:40:42 +0200 Thilo Bangert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Please think things through before asking to have pkgcore's bugs > > 'fixed' via specification next time... > > maybe my english language skills or social interaction qualities are > failing me, but i find the above

[gentoo-dev] Last rites: net-firewall/conntrack

# Jeroen Roovers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (19 Mar 2008) # Deprecated in favour of net-firewall/conntrack-tools, which # merges both conntrack and conntrackd (bug #213084). # Going for removal on or about 19 Apr 2008: net-firewall/conntrack -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in media-gfx/inkscape: ChangeLog inkscape-0.46-r1.ebuild

On Sun, 16 Mar 2008 21:51:12 +0100 Dawid Węgliński <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Not if COPYING file is inside $DOCS and is installed in the loop. Doing something like this would work as well (and go equally unnoticed): local DOCS="foo bar COPYING baz" dodoc ${DOCS} Using a loop in the ebuild wo

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in sys-power/nut: ChangeLog nut-2.2.1.ebuild

On Sat, 15 Mar 2008 00:20:31 -0700 Donnie Berkholz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 06:03 Sun 09 Mar , Rajiv Aaron Manglani (rajiv) wrote: > > 1.1 sys-power/nut/nut-2.2.1.ebuild > > > > file : > > http://sources.gentoo.org/viewcvs.py/gentoo-x86/sys-power/nut/nut-2.2.1.ebuild?r

Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for March

On Thu, 06 Mar 2008 22:41:12 +0200 Petteri Räty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Jeroen Roovers kirjoitti: > > On 01 Mar 2008 05:30:01 > > Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >> This is your monthly friendly reminder ! Same bat time (typicall

Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for March

On 01 Mar 2008 05:30:01 Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > This is your monthly friendly reminder ! Same bat time (typically > the 2nd Thursday at 2000 UTC / 1600 EST), same bat channel > (#gentoo-council @ irc.freenode.net) ! > > If you have something you'd wish for us to chat about, m

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: I want to steal your tools

On Mon, 04 Feb 2008 21:21:14 -0600 Ryan Hill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Also very good, thanks. Instead of sourcing, we can instead use > > $ portageq envvar PORTDIR Or simply `portageq portdir'... > $ portageq portdir_overlay I remember reading you wanted a program that did the job *fast*.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Available hardware

On Tue, 15 Jan 2008 16:25:21 -0800 Daniel Ostrow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > If anyone is interested contact me off list. I live in northern > California for shipping reference. That counts all Europeans out, I guess. Shipping is horrendous across the Pond, even to the UK, let alone the hop acro

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for January

On Thu, 10 Jan 2008 07:08:46 + Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > In the mean time, I'll just say that if you don't drop the personal > attacks and apologise, I'll have no choice but to take it up with > devrel. s|devrel|userrel| Thanks, JeR -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org ma

Re: [gentoo-dev] New developer : Richard Freeman (rich0)

On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 10:19:30 +0100 "Denis Dupeyron" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > So please everybody, give a warm welcome to Richard. Welcome, Richard! JeR -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] [GLEP] Use EAPI-suffixed ebuilds (.ebuild-EAPI)

On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 13:34:17 +0100 Piotr Jaroszyński <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thursday 20 of December 2007 19:29:22 Zhang Le wrote: > > So please make those people understand, so they can comment > > usefully. > > Are we in the elementary school or something? Yes, for all intents and pur

Re: [gentoo-dev] [GLEP] Use EAPI-suffixed ebuilds (.ebuild-EAPI)

On Tue, 18 Dec 2007 06:27:02 +0100 Jeroen Roovers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On this mailing list, in the "EAPI placement" thread. OK, it would seem that discussion has now died in favour of forbidding eclasses setting EAPI altogether. But now, if pkg-5.ebuild-zillion

Re: [gentoo-dev] [GLEP] Use EAPI-suffixed ebuilds (.ebuild-EAPI)

On Tue, 18 Dec 2007 04:46:35 + Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, 18 Dec 2007 05:41:45 +0100 > Jeroen Roovers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > How does this chord with eclasses that set EAPI, instead of ebuilds? > > Last I read was that EAPI-se

Re: [gentoo-dev] [GLEP] Use EAPI-suffixed ebuilds (.ebuild-EAPI)

On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 23:20:01 +0100 Piotr Jaroszyński <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hello, > > attaching the GLEP. How does this chord with eclasses that set EAPI, instead of ebuilds? Last I read was that EAPI-set-by-eclass was close to being ratified. Kind regards, JeR -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [gentoo-dev] The return of the old fart: Mark Loeser (halcy0n)

On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 18:00:19 +0200 Petteri Räty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I have an early Christmas present for all of you. Mark "halcy0n" > Loeser is returning [...] Hurrah! -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] OT: Request to participate in a survey for a doctoral thesis about Project Communities

On Wed, 5 Dec 2007 14:08:32 -0500 Philip Webb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 071205 Marius Mauch wrote: > > On Wed, 5 Dec 2007 Bj?rn Benz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> http://dissertation.bjoern-benz.de/output/project_community/ > > b) the page doesn't load for me, seems to be a redirection loop >

Re: [gentoo-dev] New USE flags documentation

On Sat, 24 Nov 2007 15:10:58 +0100 Thilo Bangert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > the idea is really great > > [...] > > now this needs to be [...] made mandatory for all ebuilds. Uh, what? Why? If the idea is that great, then why does it need to be mandatory? Kind regards, JeR -- [EMAIL P

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: Re: eselect_zenity: alpha eselect GUI

On Tue, 13 Nov 2007 11:13:52 -0500 Dan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Mind taking this off list? As much fun as it is to see two people > run around in circles blindfolded with pointy sticks, It really > doesn't belong here. Would you mind not needlessly quoting ~9KB of text, next time? Thanks! :)

Re: [gentoo-dev] EAPI feature suggestion: OBSOLETES (was: gentoo-x86 commit in profiles/updates: 4Q-2007)

On Tue, 6 Nov 2007 16:23:35 -0500 Jim Ramsay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Whether or not 'move' was the correct action in the recent compiz > example, perhaps we need to consider that some times one package does > actually make another obsolete. The correct thing for the PM to > do is to first uni

Re: [gentoo-dev] New global USE flag: modplug

On Fri, 02 Nov 2007 13:40:40 +0100 "Marijn Schouten (hkBst)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Another prime example for use flags with more than two values: > > mod=off > mod=fmod > mod=libmodplug > > the first for disabling mod support, the second for enabling it and > preferring fmod implementatio

Re: [gentoo-dev] New global USE flag: modplug

On Thu, 1 Nov 2007 23:32:34 +0200 Samuli Suominen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'd like to add USE modplug to use.desc. I'll do it tomorrow, > unless someone objects. Remember that tomorrow is always too soon in projects like Gentoo. :) $ euses -s mod fmod modplug media-video/vlc:mod - Enables M

Re: [gentoo-dev] repoman - I cannot handle it...

On Sun, 21 Oct 2007 20:06:25 +0100 Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sat, 20 Oct 2007 23:55:42 +0200 > Jeroen Roovers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...] > Paludis has adjutrix --what-needs-keywording already... Might be a > good starting point... I don't

Re: [gentoo-dev] repoman - I cannot handle it...

On Sat, 20 Oct 2007 14:45:49 +0200 Markus Rothe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hello fellow developers, > > I have a problem with repoman. You have a problem with your scripts. I must admit that in keywording for hppa I do use bash aliases and scripts as helpers but nothing too fancy, let alone au

Re: [gentoo-dev] Modular texlive eclasses up for review

On Tue, 9 Oct 2007 01:03:17 +0200 Alexis Ballier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hi list, A bit of documentation for the (exported) functions would be nice. And maybe some "red tape" to show where the exported bits end/start. And short bits of text explaining why some of the variables are needed

Re: [gentoo-dev] new-style virtual/editor

On Fri, 05 Oct 2007 15:18:11 -0400 Olivier Crête <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I see that both sudo and fcron, while they have some versions that > depend on virtual/editor actually hardcode nano as the default. For the fcron dependency, see https://bugs.gentoo.org/149376#c15 and onward. Kind re

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in dev-scheme/bigloo: ChangeLog bigloo-3.0b_p2.ebuild

On Wed, 26 Sep 2007 19:01:33 -0600 Ryan Hill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Can someone put something in the dev guide about this? I was > looking for exactly this answer a week or so ago and couldn't find > anything. ;) Maybe it's a clue that [1] does /not/ mention FEATURES as a variable to be us

Re: [gentoo-dev] Packages UP for grabs

On Thu, 30 Aug 2007 19:46:39 +0200 Alexis Ballier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > video: > > - media-video/qc-usb (liquidx) > > wouldn't tv be better suited here ? Only if you point your qc-usb at your tv. :) Kind regards, JeR -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Packages of for grabs

On Wed, 29 Aug 2007 21:41:07 +0200 Christian Heim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > net-mon: > - net-analyzer/ifstat (gustavoz) Joink! Kind regards, JeR -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Some ideas on how to reduce territoriality

On Sun, 05 Aug 2007 01:56:47 +0200 Jurek Bartuszek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Just thinking aloud - why not add some (QA?) notice in the summary > when dodoc (and possibly other do*'s) fails? One would be instructed > to file a new bug when he sees it *and*, after all, the package will > have st

Re: [gentoo-dev] Some ideas on how to reduce territoriality

On Fri, 03 Aug 2007 15:06:07 -0700 Chris Gianelloni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > There's a couple more that I wouldn't mind seeing as things developers > can do without the maintainer, but I can see how these might be a bit > more controversial, so I'm asking for input. Another good candidate i

Re: [gentoo-dev] How should I kill a daemon from an ebuild file?

On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 15:52:13 +0200 Jules Colding <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Or is this ultimately a big no-no?? I have seen some ebuilds touching "my processes", usually when it goes wrong and the ebuild messes up. See for example . To me ebuilds should build, i

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Improving developer/user communication (was Re: net-im/pidgin protocols)

On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 20:36:34 +0100 Steve Long <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Marijn Schouten (hkBst) wrote: > > Perhaps we also need to make it more clear where users can ask such > > Gentoo-specific questions about specific packages, so they don't > > need to go and annoy upstream. In #gentoo we *

Re: [gentoo-dev] Smoother moderation scheme? (was: ML changes)

On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 15:46:56 -0400 "Thomas Tuttle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Questions? Comments? How about NO MODERATION? Or better yet, self-moderation? I will start doing that right now, and stop feeding this thread. Yay! :) Kind regards, JeR -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Watch out for license changes to GPL-3.

On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 05:55:26 +0200 Marius Mauch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Well, documention won't help to resolve the legal questions about this > (what exactly is necessary to assign copyright from a person to the > foundation), and that's the main problem IMO. I never realised this was contr

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Watch out for license changes to GPL-3.

On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 15:14:38 -0400 Seemant Kulleen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The question there, I suppose, is: do we *require* contributors to > license ebuilds as GPL-2? The Gentoo Project requires contributors to surrender the copyright to the Gentoo Foundation. The Foundation sets the lice

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Watch out for license changes to GPL-3.

On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 22:11:36 +0100 Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 17:06:05 -0400 > Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > third parties are free to license however they like. > > Could the Foundation make a formal statement to that effect, and could > wolf

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Watch out for license changes to GPL-3.

On Mon, 09 Jul 2007 10:31:23 +0100 Steve Long <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > IMO though, Gentoo is effectively already under GPL3 in that, apart > from portage and python, all the core software is GNU. It'd be pretty > difficult for instance, to run any ebuild without BASH. It's not a matter of opi

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: package with funny licence

On Wed, 04 Jul 2007 15:28:04 +0100 Steve Long <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > It maybe be Published by some group, but they seem to make no > restrictions whatsoever. As such, I'd personally feel quite happy > using it as-is; I don't think they much care either way :-) Hmmm. A license is *needed* as

Re: [gentoo-dev] package with funny licence

On Wed, 4 Jul 2007 22:02:31 +1000 Paul de Vrieze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The whole license is especially completely unintelligeable. Is one > actually allowed to distribute/modify/use the software at all? It is > probably best to dump the package. 1) Again, it's not a license. It's a copyrig

Re: [gentoo-dev] package with funny licence

On Tue, 3 Jul 2007 12:21:12 +0200 Ulrich Mueller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Today I stumbled over a package that has the following funny "licence" > in its file headers: > > ;; Bozoup(P) 1995 The Bozo(tic) Softwar(e) Founda(t)ion, Inc. > ;; See the BOZO Antipasto for further information. > ;; I

Re: [gentoo-dev] app-xemacs/cc-mode not in package app-xemacs/xemacs

On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 02:13:16 +0200 "John-John Tedro" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I was wondering why the app-xemacs/xemacs package doesn't include the > cc-mode package since it is widely used. > I had some real troubles figuring this out (mostly since im not very > familiar with the portage syst

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: phasing out app-accessibility/festival

On Mon, 4 Jun 2007 23:25:07 -0500 William Hubbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > If there is a reason to keep festival in the tree, Bug #163285 [1] has still not been resolved, and some arches have abandoned it without having keyworded espeak, which means that many arches still don't support app-acce

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Bye2u Gentoo

On Thu, 31 May 2007 18:21:06 +0200 Christian Faulhammer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Damn! Who can I bash now regarding MIPS? No one in #gentoo-bugs. Kind regards, JeR -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Marking virtuals stable

On Thu, 31 May 2007 05:28:35 -0400 Michael Cummings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > Ulrich Mueller wrote: > > So, only this reply. > > > > May I conclude that nobody objects to the above? I think marking virtuals is OK. If you cannot mark them be

Re: [gentoo-dev] new herd: theology

On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 09:56:44 +0200 Matti Bickel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Jeroen Roovers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I shall contemplate fiercely on building my own herd of nightly > > bloodsuckers, zombies and cannibals. I don't know whether to call it >

Re: [gentoo-dev] new herd: theology

On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 00:11:26 -0400 Josh Sled <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > If that's the case, might not "humanities" be a better name? > > E.g., I don't know what genealogy has to do with theology, but I do > see that both relate to the human condition. It's a very good question, it was posed at

Re: [gentoo-dev] New project: Gentoo Artwork

On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 01:18:08 +0200 Dawid Węgliński <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > As a fresh developer i would like to introduce you all new subproject > I have just started. It is Gentoo Artwork Project. Its official > webpage is under [1]. Hey, there is no (fresh) artwork to see anywhere yet!?1on

[gentoo-dev] Fw: [gentoo-core] [POLICY] Keywording/Stabilizing Bug Assignment Policy

Begin forwarded message: Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 00:12:26 +0200 From: Jeroen Roovers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [gentoo-core] [POLICY] Keywording/Stabilizing Bug Assignment Policy On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 21:50:26 +0200 "Stefan Schweizer" <[EMAIL PROTE

Re: [gentoo-dev] Why warn for unsupported LINGUA?

On Fri, 16 Mar 2007 14:04:34 +1100 Jonathan Adamczewski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Why is this a warning? (and it's a warning in plenty of ebuilds). I > have LINGUAS defined in /etc/make.conf - warning about an unsupported > LINGUA is like warning about an unsupported USE flag. Exactly. > I wo

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Distrowatch

On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 18:18:58 +0100 Christian Faulhammer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Unfortunately it made its way onto big news site and lowers the view > on Gentoo even more. From many comments I read we are a dying distro. Who cares about views? It is our distro and we just like to make it b

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Little respect towards Daniel please

On Tue, 06 Mar 2007 20:45:25 +1000 Stuart Longland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On a somewhat related note... I've sat back and watched this > argument for some time now. Banning people seems like an extremely > drastic measure. Sure, it's easy. It's also easily circumvented, > and is onl

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: What do you think about removing gtk-1.2 theme engines from tree?

On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 19:08:34 +0100 Andrej Kacian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Because it's much more convenient to just go "emerge theme" instead of > googling up the upstream website, finding the link to download, > download it, unpack and figure out how to install. I don't know about that. One

Re: [gentoo-dev] Slacker archs

On Mon, 19 Feb 2007 20:21:49 -0800 Brian Harring <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Please Brian, make this a monthly. :) Kind regards, JeR -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Portage feature addition

On Sun, 03 Dec 2006 15:03:27 -0800 Zac Medico <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Apparently `repoman fix` doesn't currently work for that particular > case, which is definitely a bug. If you can simply run `repoman > fix`, will that be convenient enough? I would like to be able to run `repoman full` w

Re: [gentoo-dev] Portage feature addition

On Sun, 03 Dec 2006 01:00:24 -0500 Alec Warner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > This 'feature' is currently controlled via strict, so those that hate > hate hate it can turn it off via FEATURES="-strict" It seems that now I have to run repoman with FEATURES=-strict after I do as little as change a k

Re: [gentoo-dev] missing metadata.xml

On Fri, 24 Nov 2006 10:59:32 +0100 Jakub Moc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Andrej Kacian napsal(a): > > Why? If someone does this, they need to be spanked > > Meh, even you got it right on the first try - no need to name > anyone *g* Well, in secret everybody knows that the "no-herd" he

Re: [gentoo-dev] Resolve build time default editor dependency. (was: How get ebuild provider virtual/category.)

On Mon, 13 Nov 2006 11:17:37 +0500 "Anatoly Shipitsin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Okey. I'm remove all get editor from runtime enviroment EDITOR and > disable --with-editor. The run emerge fcron. I'm got: > > checking for vi... no > configure: error: > Cannot determine path to vi: try option --

Re: [gentoo-dev] Resolve build time default editor dependency. (was: How get ebuild provider virtual/category.)

On Mon, 13 Nov 2006 09:20:09 +0500 "Anatoly Shipitsin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Without --with-editor fcrom configure get editor from enviroment > parameter EDITOR. > This is wrong see bug 149376. You mean I ought to go read the bug I referred to a few times in the message you are respondin

Re: [gentoo-dev] Resolve build time default editor dependency. (was: How get ebuild provider virtual/category.)

On Sun, 12 Nov 2006 21:57:07 +0500 "Anatoly Shipitsin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Although I do think you're making a big fuss over a tiny cosmetic > > issue. > > > > This changes need not for sudo. It's need for fcron. And probaly > > any > package use define editor on configuration sta

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Gentoo Commitfests

On Fri, 20 Oct 2006 23:44:50 -0700 "Ilya A. Volynets-Evenbakh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > It's not the commits that should be encouraged - it's the > bug fixing, and GWN section on bugzilla stats is pretty good. Actually, bug fixing, i.e. closing bugs, is not representative of the work you put

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo World Domination. *lol*

On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 15:44:24 +0200 Luca Longinotti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > TreeCleaners, to an extent Security etc. _do_ remove what is dead, > what has reached points of unmaintainability and brokenness that > cannot be anymore supported. The rest still is there because it works > (so why re

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC] CFLAGS paragraph for the GWN

On Sun, 1 Oct 2006 11:23:37 + (UTC) "Duncan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Ryan Hill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted [EMAIL PROTECTED], > excerpted below, on Sat, 30 Sep 2006 16:37:05 -0600: > > > If you want flags that just break > > stuff with 4.1 you can include -ftree-vectorize. > > Could you

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: AT emerge info cruft > attachments on bugs.g.o

On Sat, 12 Aug 2006 13:13:48 +0200 Simon Stelling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Jeroen Roovers wrote: > > On a minor note, I'd also like to see bug reporters use canonical > > package names in bug descriptions, including the category (and > > preferably the sp

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: AT emerge info cruft > attachments to [STABLE] bugs

On Fri, 11 Aug 2006 11:27:29 -0400 Chris Gianelloni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I am on the alpha, amd64, and x86 arch teams. I have found that even > emails from architectures I'm not currently looking at tend to have a > great significance. It seems to me that most of the failures are > USE-f

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: AT emerge info cruft > attachments to [STABLE] bugs

On Fri, 11 Aug 2006 15:25:11 +0200 "Kevin F. Quinn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > In order to decide to change how things are currently done, you need > to show that it is better for a majority of the people affected. (N minus 1 of N arches) times (the number of arch devs minus the number of $ARCH

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: AT emerge info cruft > attachments on bugs.g.o

On Fri, 11 Aug 2006 12:52:30 +0200 "Kevin F. Quinn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > In general it depends what you're doing. Personally I find inline > emerge --info quicker to process, as I tend to do that by scrolling up > and down a bug when trying to determine what triggers a bug. However > tha

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: AT emerge info cruft > attachments on bugs.g.o

On Thu, 10 Aug 2006 23:58:46 +0200 "Kevin F. Quinn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The problem with attachments is that processing the report takes > longer > - you have to go to the web to read the attachment to find out what > config worked (or failed, if that was the case). It's best to have it

Re: [gentoo-dev] Council polls now open

On Thu, 10 Aug 2006 10:42:47 -0700 Greg KH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > What is the current "election" name that we should use when running > votify? > > To vote, log into dev.g.o and type "votify --help" for > > instructions. Doing that explained everything. :) Kind regards, JeR -- gent

[gentoo-dev] RFC: AT emerge info cruft > attachments on bugs.g.o

Hi everybody, I propose the `emerge --info` included in arch testers' comments on stabilisation bugs should rather be posted as attachments. The AT comments clog up the bugs and are usually not interesting at all to devs other than those who are arch devs for the relevant arches. It would ce

Re: [gentoo-dev] Sunrise contemplations

On Tue, 1 Aug 2006 10:21:53 +0200 Tobias Klausmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Idea: should it be more obvious in emerge --info and ebuild > failure that an overlay is involved? If it's obvious enough, I > don't see a problem. Also, a command that lists all installed > packages that come from an

Re: [gentoo-dev] seamonkey -> nss vs nspr

On Wed, 26 Jul 2006 10:04:11 +0200 Martin Schlemmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Anyhow, that is the whole issue with mozilla stuff in general - huge > hunk of code that is not really modular, and have to be rebuild for a > few to many projects. While I am all for getting the POS more modular > (

Re: [gentoo-dev] emerge resume list

On Thu, 06 Apr 2006 13:52:48 +1000 evader <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > When I do an emerge -e world where is the list of files to be merged > stored? For example if I break an emerge, and want to resume later > from a different position, can I edit the packages to be emerged list > so I don't ha

Re: [gentoo-dev] adding a code of conduct

On Tue, 4 Apr 2006 01:27:54 -0400 Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > i recognize i'm a bit of a dick and i'm trying to change. I'll use this opportunity to add that your efforts are not going unnoticed. Thanks. Kind regards to all, JeR -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Official overlay support

On Thu, 23 Mar 2006 10:31:40 -0500 Chris Gianelloni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Your nightmare scenario seems unavoidable. Enabling per-overlay bug > > tracking doesn't stop users posting bugs in bugzilla. It just > > causes confusion for users, because they're not sure where to go. > > Norma

Re: [gentoo-dev] Global logrotate use flag

On Tue, 21 Mar 2006 13:28:38 + Markus Rothe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > [1] http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/27451 I read that at the time. This is just a reminder. JeR -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

[gentoo-dev] Global logrotate use flag

Hi everyone, I noticed 'logrotate' is becoming quite generic as a use flag: # euses logrotate app-backup/bacula:logrotate - Install support files for logrotate mail-filter/dspam:logrotate - Install support files for logrotate net-ftp/vsftpd:logrotate - Use logrotate for rotating logs net-misc/nt

Re: [gentoo-dev] Misquoted in the GWN

On Mon, 28 Nov 2005 19:46:57 +0100 Patrick Lauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Why not bring back the "the GWN is a community thing and YOU can also > contribute!!!" mentality? Release early, release often? JeR -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] New Dev: Jeroen Roovers aka JeR

On Sun, 20 Nov 2005 22:53:47 -0600 Brian Harring <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: tx, Brian. This needs some patching after two months: > I have lived in the Nederlands all my life and still intend to change > that. I am married and I have two children (now aged 5 and nearly 4). s|nearly|| > I cur

Re: [gentoo-dev] Request for changes to GLEP 41

On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 16:26:20 + Kurt Lieber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > * Drop the idea of giving the arch testers an email alias altogether > > * Change @subdomain.gentoo.org to @gentoo.org. > > * Create an entirely new domain > And fourthly: * Give those arch testers a temporary [EMAI

<    2   3   4   5   6   7