On Fri, 02 Feb 2007 19:29:06 +0100
Tom Fredrik Blenning Klaussen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, 2007-02-02 at 14:04 +0200, Petteri Räty wrote:
> > Tom Fredrik Blenning Klaussen wrote:
> > > Anyway, as I'm developing this program, I'm discovering a lot of minor
> > > bugs in the Gentoo system
On Tue, 30 Jan 2007 14:49:48 +0100
Matthias Langer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> isn't it possible to check the version of gcc that is in _use_ in an
> ebuild, like i can do in a configure script? if so, one could provide a
> "old-gcc" use flag that must be enabled when trying to build with
> whe
On Mon, 29 Jan 2007 08:15:18 +0100 (MET)
Christian Faulhammer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> > On Sun, 28 Jan 2007 19:17:35 +0100 (MET) Christian Faulhammer
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > | As we all notice from time to time, amd64 team is lacking behind
On Sat, 27 Jan 2007 13:11:07 +
Steve Long <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Since this is a different question which got buried in the other
> discussion, I appreciate it should be a new thread:
>
> I'm a bit confused about all the portage tree stuff. There's just
> under 25,000 ebuilds
On Tue, 23 Jan 2007 08:10:22 +1100
Daniel Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> While hanging around lca07 it was mentioned how bandwidth hungry
> Gentoo is.
>
> Given a lot of the world is still on dialup this could increase the
> potential userbase for Gentoo.
>
> As such the project idea is A
On Wed, 10 Jan 2007 16:30:00 +0200
Simon Stelling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> As per bug 148388 [1] comment 1, I'd like to discuss the deprecation
> of /etc/make.profile and the use of a PORTAGE_PROFILE variable
> instead. Reason for this change aside from consistency with all other
On Wed, 10 Jan 2007 19:06:09 +0100
Jakub Moc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Chris Gianelloni napsal(a):
> > Uhh... you missed RESTRICT=userpriv and the upcoming
> > RESTRICT=unattended when calling for no "ACCEPT_RESTRICT"...
>
> Don't see how's userpriv related here; also the original idea was to
On Wed, 10 Jan 2007 14:00:42 -0500
Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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 trou
On Tue, 09 Jan 2007 12:12:55 +0200
Petteri Räty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> As the Manifest 2 format makes the digest-* files unnecessary, does
> anyone have a timetable for removing the digest files? Would be great
> if we could make this one of the features of 2007.0.
Our plan was to disable d
On Mon, 8 Jan 2007 21:01:07 +0100
Thilo Bangert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Marius Mauch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> > Basically if it's for the user to read use elog, if it's just a
> > status message (like "applying patch", "no
On Sun, 7 Jan 2007 17:26:12 +0100
Thilo Bangert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Marius Mauch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> > Just a heads up that in the coming weeks I'll start checking
> > packages that still use einfo for important messages and convert
> > them
Just a heads up that in the coming weeks I'll start checking packages
that still use einfo for important messages and convert them to elog if
appropriate. If you have a problem with me doing that for your
packages that notify me off-list.
You can find the current list of packages to check at
dev.ge
On Tue, 2 Jan 2007 20:21:45 +
Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 2 Jan 2007 21:14:19 +0100 Marius Mauch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> | On Mon, 1 Jan 2007 21:12:47 +
> | Stephen Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> | > Following a d
On Mon, 1 Jan 2007 21:12:47 +
Stephen Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Following a discussion in #gentoo-portage earlier this evening, it was
> suggested that I send out an RFC email for this. So, does anyone
> object to requiring that any variable listed in USE_EXPAND be treated
> as incr
On Thu, 30 Nov 2006 22:17:29 +0100
"Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Today I added a 1.0.13_pre20061130 pre-release version of
> alsa-driver, and I noticed that we currently don't have ALSA_CARDS as
> IUSE-expanded variable, and that people aren't aware of which drivers
> ar
On Wed, 29 Nov 2006 19:34:57 + (UTC)
Duncan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Alec Warner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted [EMAIL PROTECTED],
> excerpted below, on Wed, 29 Nov 2006 11:36:53 -0500:
>
> > Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> >>
> >> Duncan wrote:
> >>> whatever USE flag removal forcing --newuser re
On Thu, 23 Nov 2006 14:10:58 -0800
"Robin H. Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> - USE=server/client/minimal poses problem when it comes to dealing
> with dependencies that require the server or the client. The best
> that is doable with the present portage is checking that the app is
> compiled
On Mon, 27 Nov 2006 10:53:43 -0500
Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Monday 27 November 2006 10:48, Marius Mauch wrote:
> > Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > On Sunday 26 November 2006 18:38, Marius Mauch wrote:
> > > >
On Sun, 26 Nov 2006 18:52:19 -0500
Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sunday 26 November 2006 18:38, Marius Mauch wrote:
> > Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > is there a way in the new GLEP to say "never bother me with any
> &g
On Mon, 27 Nov 2006 11:33:58 +
Steve Long <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > In any event, what I'd like to raise is the issue of having a
> > (semi-)official version of gentoo that lags behind the cutting-edge
> > distro for stability. Is this feasible?
> >
> > Apologies if this is already being
On Tue, 21 Nov 2006 14:03:08 -0500
Chris Gianelloni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It is used to mask the package, correct. When a package is masked, it
> gives the output of the license, or, if the license it too large (I
> think Marius set it at 20K) informs the user to read the license file.
> I
On Sun, 26 Nov 2006 13:07:21 -0500
Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> is there a way in the new GLEP to say "never bother me with any license
> bullcrap" ? i made sure the current check_license() function respected the
> idea of "*" so that i can put this in my make.conf:
> ACCEPT_LICE
$
Author: Jason Stubbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Marius Mauch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Status: Accepted
Type: Standards Track
Content-Type: text/x-rst
Created: 9-Mar-2004
Post-History: 8-Mar-2004 10-Mar-2004 25-Oct-2004 18-Nov-2006
Abstract
Currently, every ebuild in the portage tree
On Sat, 11 Nov 2006 22:55:00 +0200
Alin Nastac <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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
On Thu, 9 Nov 2006 09:10:37 +0100
Marius Mauch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 9 Nov 2006 03:23:42 +
> Saleem Abdulrasool <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Description:
> >GNOME 1.x is no longer supported by upstream GNOME developers.
> >
On Thu, 9 Nov 2006 03:23:42 +
Saleem Abdulrasool <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Description:
>GNOME 1.x is no longer supported by upstream GNOME developers.
>Maintaining GNOME 1.x adds unnecessary complexity to the Gentoo GNOME
>developers' workload. Some of the contributing factors
On Tue, 07 Nov 2006 11:30:02 +
Steve Long <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Robin H. Johnson wrote:
> > My compiles as a dev are of very minimal use to anybody except me.
> > There are too many things that are specific to my systems.
> >
> Sure. Presumably you test packages with standard C-flags as
On Sun, 05 Nov 2006 02:23:02 -0800
David Shakaryan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > Wow. That's about the pettiest and least relevant thing you could ask
> > them to discuss. Why not ask for a vote on what colour the soft
> > icecream machine should be whilst you're at it?
>
On Sat, 28 Oct 2006 23:00:04 -0400
Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Saturday 28 October 2006 22:43, Marius Mauch wrote:
> > Well, I'd go further and question the whole herd concept. What
> > benefits do we actually gain by having "herds"? For
On Sat, 28 Oct 2006 17:09:10 -0400
Alec Warner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It doesn't cover updates/. I don't think that corner case is easily
> covered.
Ehm, if you have a list of CP entries that were added/removed and
access to the update files it shouldn't be all that complicated.
Just mad
On Fri, 27 Oct 2006 22:46:30 -0400
Alec Warner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I request that this tag be made optional in the metadata.xml DTD.
>
> While ideally it is beneficial to have every package in a herd, in
> practice this doesn't occur.
>
> 22:28 <@omp> $ herdstat -pq no-herd | wc -l
> 2
On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 19:51:50 -0700
Zac Medico <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> > It still doesn't make sense. Restricting any other feature
> > disallows it. Restricting interaction allows it. Find a word that's
> > the anto
On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 21:43:56 +0200
Marius Mauch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 12:50:01 -0500
> Grant Goodyear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Marius Mauch wrote: [Thu Oct 26 2006, 12:02:59PM CDT]
> > > Ok, as there is currently a lot of wor
On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 12:50:01 -0500
Grant Goodyear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Marius Mauch wrote: [Thu Oct 26 2006, 12:02:59PM CDT]
> > Ok, as there is currently a lot of work going on for GLEP 23
> > (licese based visibility filtering aka ACCEPT_LICENSE) the topic of
>
On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 12:08:36 -0600
"m h" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Other than a text editor?
>
> I'd like to have a tool that can add USE flags on a per package or
> global level. (I'm doing this in some build scripts and would prefer
> just to have a tool, rather than sed or some other shell
On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 10:15:56 -0700
Donnie Berkholz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Marius Mauch wrote:
> > Ok, as there is currently a lot of work going on for GLEP 23
> > (licese based visibility filtering aka ACCEPT_LICENSE) the topic of
> > license groups came up, in
On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 20:18:40 +0200
Harald van Dijk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 26, 2006 at 07:02:36PM +0200, Marius Mauch wrote:
> > Ok, as there is currently a lot of work going on for GLEP 23
> > (licese based visibility filtering aka ACCEPT_LICENSE) the topic
Ok, as there is currently a lot of work going on for GLEP 23
(licese based visibility filtering aka ACCEPT_LICENSE) the topic of
license groups came up, in particular the way how they should be
(technically) defined.
The simplest way is a line based format
...
however this doesn't allow
On Mon, 23 Oct 2006 23:35:50 +0200
Stefan Schweizer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip]
I don't quite get the point of your mail ...
Don't even know if it's a proposal, a complaint, a rant, a RFC, ...
Marius
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
On Sun, 22 Oct 2006 12:00:56 -0700
David Shakaryan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It seems like you didn't understand exactly what I did. The masks I
> removed are *ONLY* those which are masking a package or version that is
> no longer in the tree.
And what if that was a preventive mask? The assump
On Sat, 21 Oct 2006 13:39:26 -0700
Brian Harring <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> -r* is an ebuild convention; upstream (exemption of older daft portage
> releases) doesn't use it, as such we define it; should define it as
> simple as possible without castrating it's use.
So to you having to unders
On Sat, 21 Oct 2006 20:40:45 +0100
Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, 21 Oct 2006 21:35:06 +0200 Marius Mauch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> | Still have the issue with the = operator though, not sure which way
> | to go there:
>
> The = operator (
On Sat, 21 Oct 2006 08:31:31 -0700
Brian Harring <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 21, 2006 at 02:27:19PM +, Philip Walls wrote:
> > On Sat, Oct 21, 2006 at 02:34:08PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > > On Sat, 21 Oct 2006 12:51:19 + Philip Walls <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > wrote:
>
On Sat, 21 Oct 2006 12:24:59 +0200
Tobias Scherbaum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I think this is a fun way to build some team spirit.
> >
> > Thoughts?
>
> I think it's a *very* bad idea - both from a QA and a "team spirit"
> point of view.
> Instead of having such "commitfests" and bounties f
On Fri, 20 Oct 2006 09:00:29 +0100
Roy Marples <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> FWIW, baselayout 1.13 can use either GNU or BSD userland - hopefully one day
> portage (or package manager of choice) can too :)
Ehm, it does (or at least should do) already. Why else should we have all these
`if userl
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/portage/package.use that everyone is familiar
> with.
In a discussion about bug 151586 we realized that there might be an
issue with profil
On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 02:40:59 -0700
Zac Medico <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Hi everyone,
>
> I've written a patch for portage [1] that implements per-package
> default USE flags at both the ebuild and profile levels (discussed a
> couple of mont
On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 20:00:05 -0400
Alec Warner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> As for the GLEP itself; I'd like to see some patches, particularly
> for the resolver to show the restriction up front. Also a patch to
> the ebuild.5 manpage for RESTRICT=interactive prior to seeing the
> glep get approv
On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 16:17:33 -0700
Donnie Berkholz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Marius Mauch wrote:
> > In that case adding >=bash-3 to "system" isn't sufficient. I'll
> > leave the detailed explanation to Brian, but the only thing you can
> >
On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 01:10:33 +0200
Vlastimil Babka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Marius Mauch wrote:
> > GLEP: 44
>
> 44 or 52? Make up your mind :P
The one on glep.gentoo.org has the right number.
> > Titl
On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 00:50:36 +0200
Vlastimil Babka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Marius Mauch wrote:
> > In that case adding >=bash-3 to "system" isn't sufficient. I'll
> > leave the deta
nothing. And God said, 'Let there be
Light.' And there was still nothing, but you could see a bit better.
GLEP: 44
Title: RESTRICT=interactive
Version: $Revision: 1.1 $
Last-Modified: $Date: 2005/12/06 03:34:21 $
Author: Marius Mauch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Status: Draft
Type: Standar
On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 13:29:24 -0700
Donnie Berkholz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Marius Mauch wrote:
> > On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 10:57:43 -0700
> > Donnie Berkholz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> Someone gave me a patch to mesa that uses bash-3 fe
On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 10:57:43 -0700
Donnie Berkholz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Someone gave me a patch to mesa that uses bash-3 features,
The package or the ebuild?
Marius
--
Public Key at http://www.genone.de/info/gpg-key.pub
In the beginning, there was nothing. And God said, 'Let there be
On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 20:57:58 +0200
Thomas de Grenier de Latour <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Again, if "pkgprofile" was stronger than "conf", then this dev could
> have introduced the "xml" flag and added "pkg/foo -xml" in the base
> profile. And the USE="xml" user would either have merged the pac
On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 06:40:07 +0200
"Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This is a discussion to follow up bug #149508 [1].
>
> The bug points to a behaviour change in handling of the profiles
> file, that, in my opinion at least, needs to be discussed, as there
> are profiles
Ferringb recently told me that this info apparently wasn't
mentioned explicit enough in Glep 44:
Manifest2 records do not contain a MD5 checksum. The only guaranteed
checksum type there is SHA1. So once manifest1 is phased out the tree
will not contain MD5 checksums anymore.
This is just a remind
Sorry for the late reply, had some problem with my mail setup recently.
On Sun, 3 Sep 2006 22:53:44 -0500
Grant Goodyear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Thanks to atarus, I've updated a number of GLEPs:
>
> 40 (arch teams) Now marked Final
> 44 (manifest2)Now marked Final
I wouldn't consider
On Thu, 24 Aug 2006 16:46:12 -0400
Luis Francisco Araujo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Marius Mauch wrote:
> > On Thu, 24 Aug 2006 14:15:18 -0400
> > Luis Francisco Araujo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> Marius Mauch wrote:
> >>> On Thu,
On Thu, 24 Aug 2006 14:15:18 -0400
Luis Francisco Araujo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Marius Mauch wrote:
> > On Thu, 24 Aug 2006 12:53:32 -0400
> > Luis Francisco Araujo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> Lance Albertson wrote:
> >>> I
On Thu, 24 Aug 2006 12:53:32 -0400
Luis Francisco Araujo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Lance Albertson wrote:
> >
> > I thought of that while I was walking to a meeting..heh Basically,
> > Appoint two people to co-lead, or appoint one Lead and one Vice
> > Lead. That way there's some kind of accou
On Mon, 21 Aug 2006 18:56:11 -0400
Alec Warner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It has been noted that certain projects do not communicate their
> activities well.
>
> Many projects provide documentation for things(java), provide status
> updates on things(ppc), have bits in the gwn (x86,userrel,amd6
paul kölle schrieb:
Hi all,
I need to write an init-script for multiple instances of the same
service with different configurations (need to start/stop them
individually) similar to what the net.xx scripts do.
I thought I could get the instance name from $0 and use it as a key to
look up the co
On Wed, 16 Aug 2006 18:11:24 +0200
Enrico Weigelt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> * Thomas Cort <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb:
> > You should look for existing tools which could be enhanced before
> > suggesting a new one. `bugz post` (from www-client/pybugz) allows
> > you to submit a new bug report f
On Sun, 13 Aug 2006 13:01:41 -0400
Alec Warner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Zac Medico wrote:
> > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> > Hash: SHA1
> >
> > Brian Harring wrote:
> >
> >>Said single inheritance protection was added 06/05/06 (rev 3544),
> >>stabled for x86 roughly 06/22/06.
> >>
>
On Mon, 7 Aug 2006 15:26:44 +0200
Enrico Weigelt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> * Noack, Sebastian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb:
>
>
>
> > Hey, come on. We're not Debian! Unnecessary and senseless
> > splitting of packages is against the philosophy of Gentoo.
>
> I don't think "we are not xyz" i
On Sat, 05 Aug 2006 09:29:48 -0400
"Stephen P. Becker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Marius Mauch wrote:
> > On Sat, 5 Aug 2006 13:14:17 +0200
> > Sascha Geschwandtner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> So right now, I'd like to see "
On Sat, 5 Aug 2006 13:14:17 +0200
Sascha Geschwandtner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So right now, I'd like to see "collision-protect sandbox strict"
> included in the default FEATUREs.
sandbox and strict are already default for a long time.
Marius
--
Public Key at http://www.genone.de/info/gpg
On Thu, 3 Aug 2006 16:59:01 +0100
Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 3 Aug 2006 07:07:35 +0200 Marius Mauch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> | "* means match any version of the package so long as the
> specified | base is matched&qu
Repost from gentoo-portage-dev[1]:
Was just brought to my attention that the =* operator doesn't work as I
thought, as for example =foo-1.2* matches foo-1.20 as well as foo-1.2.3.
This wouldn't be a bug problem if it could be used as a general glob
operator like with =foo-1.2.*, but it's use is st
On Fri, 07 Jul 2006 13:13:09 +0200
Simon Stelling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Curtis Napier wrote:
> > I could find a million threads in the forums supporting what Ciaran
> > is saying here. We have been told over and over and over until my
> > head feels bashed in that MMX/SSE, etc... are NOT TO
On Thu, 6 Jul 2006 23:51:09 +0200
Marius Mauch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> A few minutes ago I committed the attached patch to
> base/profile.bashrc so this is no longer an issue (for 2.0 users elog
> is merely an alias to einfo).
*sigh*, gotta get rid of this attachment-eating
For the impatient reader:
Ebuilds should stop using einfo() for important messages and use elog()
instead.
Rationale:
I assume most of you are already aware of the new elog framework in
portage-2.1 for handling ebuild messages (like sending them by
mail/syslog or just storing them for later review
Zac Medico schrieb:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Marius Mauch wrote:
Zac Medico schrieb:
If a version of SRC_URI that has all the conditionals evaluated is
needed in the ebuild environment, then I think we should use a new
variable name. Otherwise, it's ambiguous.
Do
Zac Medico schrieb:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Robin H. Johnson wrote:
When FEATURES=mirror, and you try to fetch, it does indeed contain unevaluated
USE flags. However for FEATURES=-mirror, the content of it is correct - no USE
flags at all.
Are you sure about the SRC_URI
Patrick McLean schrieb:
I have absolutely zero experience with catalyst, but couldn't it be made
to create a source CD ISO when it is generating the binary one? Just
make a cd with all the distfiles used in the ISO, and keep the source
ISO with the binary one in /historical.
Creating an ISO isn
On Sat, 24 Jun 2006 22:30:31 -0500
Lance Albertson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Donnie Berkholz wrote:
>
> > I propose that all need-to-know announcements and decisions be
> > posted to a separate, moderated (or restricted posting)
> > gentoo-dev-announce list to ensure that no developers lose tr
On Fri, 23 Jun 2006 07:56:00 -0400 (EDT)
"Caleb Tennis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I suppose I'm not really big on one versus the other. I was for #1
> simply because it required the least amount of effort to implement,
> however the people who are in favor of #2 have volunteered to do the
> wo
On Tue, 20 Jun 2006 13:18:54 -0600
Steve Dibb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Marius Mauch wrote:
> > I don't mind the qt3/qt4 flags for packages that support both, but
> > could we also have a qt flag that selects the "preferred" version
> > (or for pa
On Tue, 20 Jun 2006 19:29:10 +0200
"Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tuesday 20 June 2006 19:10, Joshua Jackson wrote:
> > I don't want to go down the path again of having two nearly
> > identical flags for a different slotted version of a framework. I'd
> > like to see j
On Mon, 19 Jun 2006 14:00:19 +0200
Patrick Lauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 2006-06-19 at 07:37 -0400, Caleb Tennis wrote:
> > I'd like to propose some form of ability to post user comments to
> > GWN stories. I suppose a full blown CMS system would work,
> (Ab)using a blog for that mig
On Tue, 13 Jun 2006 00:00:43 +0100
Stephen Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> My current idea is to draw up a formal specification of what ebuilds
> are allowed to do, and what to assume about the environment in which
> they run, as well as defining the formats of everything under
> profiles/, m
On Mon, 12 Jun 2006 19:26:18 -0400
Alec Warner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Stephen Bennett wrote:
> > * Portage must provide a way for external programs to obtain a list
> > of all repository identifiers for a given system. It is assumed
> > that this will be in the form of a ``portageq`` command
On Mon, 12 Jun 2006 14:06:01 -0700
"Robin H. Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 12, 2006 at 03:41:56PM -0500, Mike Doty wrote:
> > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> > Hash: SHA1
> >
> > Molle Bestefich wrote:
> > > Hi
> > >
> > > Portage takes up a lot of space and time when do
Stefan Schweizer schrieb:
Marius Mauch wrote:
On Sat, 10 Jun 2006 13:37:15 +0200
Markus Ullmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Okay, so after figuring out open problems (thanks to kloeri and
various other people for help here), we now have a resolution that
should satisfy all involved p
On Sat, 10 Jun 2006 13:37:15 +0200
Markus Ullmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Okay, so after figuring out open problems (thanks to kloeri and
> various other people for help here), we now have a resolution that
> should satisfy all involved parties here. This should adress
> dostrow's demands as
On Sun, 11 Jun 2006 01:00:43 +0200
Patrick Lauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, 2006-06-10 at 11:37 -0400, Alec Warner wrote:
> > Have the GWN posted to -core in a sane time period prior to it's
> > release. I seriously doubt anyone cares about whether the
> > publication is always "on tim
On Sat, 10 Jun 2006 15:11:50 +0200
Jan Kundrát <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> b) Localization of Gentoo-developed applications (portage,
> gentoolkit,...) including their manpages
I don't really like this one. Documentation, sure, but for the tools
themselves I think it could cause more problems th
On Fri, 02 Jun 2006 16:17:06 +
Ferris McCormick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Grant,
> Apologies; I can't find your note from yesterday, so I can't respond
> to the correct topic.
> One question just occurred to me; if it's been addressed before,
> apologies about that, too. Your requireme
On Thu, 1 Jun 2006 15:00:13 -0500
Grant Goodyear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Paul de Vrieze wrote: [Thu Jun 01 2006, 02:44:39PM CDT]
> > I would like the council to discuss GLEP 49 as has been discussed on
> > the list some weeks ago. It is about the package manager
> > requirements.
>
> Inciden
On Sat, 20 May 2006 15:41:37 +0100
Stephen Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The primary package manager is the package manager that sets the
> > standards for the tree. All ebuilds in the tree must function
> > with the primary package manager. As the primary package manager
> > se
On Fri, 19 May 2006 19:27:18 +0200
Stefan Schweizer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Also I would want to have it in the stable branch anyway because of
> bugreports by first-time users who do not use the latest version of
> portage. It is better to add it now while in pre-release phase than
> after t
Disclaimer: I'll only targeting technical aspects here, I won't go into
any security analysis.
On Thu, 18 May 2006 23:45:17 +0200
Patrick Lauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 3) Manifest / Manifest2
>
> This is an implementation of a checksum / signature scheme. It is
> described in GLEP 44:
>
>
On Fri, 19 May 2006 12:28:04 -0400
Peter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Who signs the Manifests? Why are some unsigned? Is there a single
> Gentoo Security Key (like I know Slackware has and some other distros
> to ensure the authenticity of their files)?
Because the whole signing stuff isn't offic
On Fri, 19 May 2006 15:13:48 +0200
Stefan Schweizer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Marc Hildebrand wrote:
> > Otoh LC_ALL=C could help if you intend to use a .utf-8 locale as
> > root, though. So if it does help solving bugs and causes no
> > trouble, why not.
>
>
> ok, we have prepared a patch no
On Fri, 19 May 2006 15:13:15 +0100
"Chris Bainbridge" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> find /usr/portage -path '/usr/portage/metadata' -prune -o -path
> '/usr/portage/distfiles' -prune -o -path '/usr/portage/packages'
> -prune -o -type f -exec cat {} > /tmp/blah \;
> time gpg --detach-sign -a /tmp/bla
On Thu, 18 May 2006 11:44:40 -0500
Grant Goodyear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > | 4) Will Paludis ever become a Gentoo Project?
> >
> > Pretty unlikely, past events considered. Personally I kind of like
> > having commit access to my own code...
>
> I thought we (Gentoo
On Tue, 16 May 2006 16:15:49 +0100
Stephen Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If noone has any strong reasonable objections, I'd like to add a
> Paludis profile to the tree. This would use Paludis as the default
> provider for virtual/portage (which is a less than ideal name, but
> that is anoth
On Thu, 04 May 2006 16:29:56 -0700
Michael Kirkland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I would suggest opening a middle ground tag, where things can be
> moved to from "~arch" when they work for reasonable configuration
> values, but still have open bugs for some people.
More work for devs, yay!
Mariu
Jakub Moc schrieb:
Well, it should not be loaded first of all... Hence why I want to have
an ability to turn off the coldplug thing *completely* on udev level. I
don't have any use for such automagic stuff, it just complicates things
instead of making them easier.
Well said.
Marius
--
gentoo-d
201 - 300 of 432 matches
Mail list logo
