On Monday 03 July 2006 15:41, Henrik Brix Andersen wrote:
On Mon, Jul 03, 2006 at 03:04:55PM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
the entire point of these threads is to address developer concerns
to that sunrise can be folded back into Gentoo
Really? According to who?
presumably the Sunrise guys
On Tuesday 04 July 2006 06:08, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
- superh - 64/32
i wouldnt ever worry about this since, afaik, the sh64 port is still really
developmental and no one really has hardware for end users to worry about ...
plus they werent really designed to be compatible
-mike
On Monday 03 July 2006 21:00, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
If you have an ebuild with a non-standard pkg_nofetch, please ensure
that you use $SRC_URI instead of $A!
This is because if you have FEATURES=mirror or FEATURES=cvs, attempts to
download all of the source files for digesting or
On Tuesday 04 July 2006 13:07, Enrico Weigelt wrote:
* Mike Frysinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb:
perhaps i wasnt clear enough:
it doesnt matter who the maintainer of gpm in Gentoo is until
this is resolved upstream
The upstream seems to be quite dead at the moment. No traffic
goes
On Saturday 01 July 2006 02:46, Mike Frysinger wrote:
well it's about that time of the year ... time for nominating
people for the next Gentoo Council
i guess i'll start off some mass nominations of random people off the top of
my head who i think would do a good job ... there's
On Tuesday 04 July 2006 14:45, Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Monday 03 July 2006 21:00, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
If you have an ebuild with a non-standard pkg_nofetch, please ensure
that you use $SRC_URI instead of $A!
This is because if you have FEATURES=mirror or FEATURES=cvs, attempts
On Tuesday 04 July 2006 16:10, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
On Tue, Jul 04, 2006 at 03:32:47PM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
sorry, i just re-read your message ... perhaps a better fix would be to
not force people to download all the packages when something has fetch
restrictions ?
That's
On Tuesday 04 July 2006 18:43, Enrico Weigelt wrote:
We should think about mechanisms to check if the service is
actually running. This could also be used for frequently service
checks and notification.
there is no fool proof way to do this
-mike
pgpKkEmrK36b2.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Tuesday 04 July 2006 18:47, Enrico Weigelt wrote:
* Mike Frysinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb:
BTW: libgpm is an fork-off from gpm, which just contains the client
stuff. Maybe it will evolve to an more generic mouse library, ie.
supporting other interfaces, like sysmouse directly
can someone remind me why our arch USE flags are in an opt-out system rather
than opt-in ? instead of adding things like:
dmi
icc
mmx
svga
...
to every non-x86 profile, why dont we mask these things in base/use.mask and
then un-mask them in default-linux/x86 ? doesnt that make more sense ?
On Wednesday 05 July 2006 04:55, Simon Stelling wrote:
Mike Frysinger wrote:
can someone remind me why our arch USE flags are in an opt-out system
rather than opt-in ? instead of adding things like:
to every non-x86 profile, why dont we mask these things in base/use.mask
and then un-mask
On Tuesday 04 July 2006 16:39, Kevin F. Quinn wrote:
On Sat, 1 Jul 2006 02:46:59 -0400
Mike Frysinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
well it's about that time of the year ... time for nominating
people for the next Gentoo Council
I nominate SpanKY, vapier and Mike Frysinger.
thanks, one
On Wednesday 05 July 2006 04:31, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
I really appreciate your bringing my name up. But I want to take a year
to rediscover the reasons I joined Gentoo in the first place and the
things I joined it to do, so I'm going to decline this for now. Maybe
next time around. =)
i
On Thursday 06 July 2006 04:45, Martin Schlemmer wrote:
I would like to refrain from accepting until just before the final
nominees are put out, as currently my life is pretty much in flux. If
possible that is.
sure ... you can wait until the 31st to accept ;)
-mike
pgpAU0QKJ2ClD.pgp
On Thursday 06 July 2006 14:40, Grant Goodyear wrote:
Vapier wrote: [Tue Jul 04 2006, 02:04:38PM CDT]
i'd also nominate g2boojum, but i kind of like his current unofficial
role as honorary council adviser guy ...
*Grin* I'm rather fond of that role myself, so I cheerfully accept the
On Thursday 06 July 2006 15:27, Albert Hopkins wrote:
On Tue, 2006-07-04 at 18:58 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Tuesday 04 July 2006 18:43, Enrico Weigelt wrote:
We should think about mechanisms to check if the service is
actually running. This could also be used for frequently service
On Wednesday 05 July 2006 12:28, Alexandre Buisse wrote:
Please correct me if I am wrong, but there is no point in nominating
people multiple times, right?
*shrug* gives a good indication of who you think is competent and/or who has
the best abs (seemant does btw)
-mike
pgpwmfns69sHU.pgp
i'll be keeping track of nominations here:
http://dev.gentoo.org/~vapier/council-2006-nominees.html
lemme know if i missed one of you suckers
yes it's very basic, when i get a min i'll guide-xml it :P
-mike
pgphwOfWz2WSL.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Thursday 06 July 2006 15:56, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
Selective and partial backporting of patches that leads to the C++
standard library code getting broken?
that patch was picked up by more than just Gentoo and then just as summarily
punted
-mike
pgpmw8k1Bgvxk.pgp
Description: PGP
On Thursday 06 July 2006 15:55, Harald van Dijk wrote:
I don't have a lot of trust in Gentoo's patches, as they have resulted
in completely and utterly unusable ld, and (minor) data loss due to a
miscompilation by Gentoo's gcc, in the past.
historically i'd agree with you but i'm pretty
On Thursday 06 July 2006 16:14, Harald van Dijk wrote:
Gentoo's gcc with the vanilla flag isn't the official GCC. Most patches
don't get appplied, but some do. Plus, gcc[vanilla] isn't a supported
compiler in Gentoo.
you're just griping because i forced ssp/pie regardless of USE=vanilla ...
On Thursday 06 July 2006 07:48, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
On Thursday 06 July 2006 13:40, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
How will you handle non-gcc compilers?
We don't support any, to start with.
this sort of closed mindedness isnt really encouraging ... plus it's kind of
funny, this
On Thursday 06 July 2006 10:03, Simon Stelling wrote:
c) This is not about regaining control. Currently, users who want to
cross-compile are screwed and need nasty use.mask-hacks to not end up
with broken binaries. The inability to provide per-package CFLAGS is a
missing feature in portage,
On Thursday 06 July 2006 20:58, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
On Friday 07 July 2006 02:50, Mike Frysinger wrote:
as for broken binaries, i kind of doubt that statement ... when was the
last time you saw a cross-toolchain accept assembly code written for a
different architecture
On Thursday 06 July 2006 20:57, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
I'm just saying that I wouldn't discard entirely a solution just because
some unsupported software _might_ not work (note the conditional). I
wouldn't discard a solution just because it _might_ not work on
GNU/kFreeBSD; I would
On Friday 07 July 2006 13:22, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
On Friday 07 July 2006 17:31, Martin Schlemmer wrote:
As I pointed out on irc (to clarify), its still an issue even with
gcc-3.4.6. Its just well enough filtered, and as Mike pointed out, they
'fixed' it in 3.4.5 via specs, and
On Friday 07 July 2006 12:53, Harald van Dijk wrote:
On Fri, Jul 07, 2006 at 04:00:09PM +0200, Kevin F. Quinn wrote:
If you take out the stub patches (which incidentally have no impact on
code generation), many builds will simply fail because they expect the
additional flags from ssp, htb
On Friday 07 July 2006 01:46, Harald van Dijk wrote:
On Thu, Jul 06, 2006 at 07:44:34PM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Thursday 06 July 2006 16:14, Harald van Dijk wrote:
Gentoo's gcc with the vanilla flag isn't the official GCC. Most patches
don't get appplied, but some do. Plus, gcc
On Friday 07 July 2006 12:18, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Fri, 7 Jul 2006 16:20:08 +0200 Danny van Dyk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| I suggest to add a CPUFLAGS USE_EXPAND variable to the tree.
| This should be set to sane defaults in the profiles. I.e. for x86,
| it should not set CPUFLAGS at all, and on
On Friday 07 July 2006 17:53, Harald van Dijk wrote:
On Fri, Jul 07, 2006 at 05:12:21PM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Friday 07 July 2006 01:46, Harald van Dijk wrote:
On Thu, Jul 06, 2006 at 07:44:34PM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Thursday 06 July 2006 16:14, Harald van Dijk wrote
On Friday 07 July 2006 18:15, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Fri, 7 Jul 2006 18:06:24 -0400 Mike Frysinger [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| The issue with this is that $feature on amd64 is not exactly the
| same as $feature on x86. Would a better name be ${ARCH}_FEATURES or
| somesuch? That way there would
On Friday 07 July 2006 19:04, Harald van Dijk wrote:
I hope this is specific enough: toolchain.eclass revision 1.234
(separating ssp/... from vanilla) log message:
ssp/pie/htb have their own USE flags sep from vanilla, so people can
utilize those
when in fact the old USE=vanilla behaviour is
On Saturday 08 July 2006 02:20, Harald van Dijk wrote:
I also mentioned it in a bugzilla comment, though admittedly not as a
question there. (The gcc 2 bug, I think.) Bugzilla comments are safe to
assume read, right?
the gcc2 bug has a lot of things in there i need to review/merge so it's in
On Saturday 01 July 2006 03:34, Mike Frysinger wrote:
This is your monthly friendly reminder ! Same bat time (typically the
2nd Thursday once a month), same bat channel (#gentoo-council @
irc.freenode.net) !
we're pushing this to the 3rd due to it being a better time for some of us
(blame me
On Monday 10 July 2006 14:38, Joshua Jackson wrote:
So who's planning on going? Basically I'd like to know who's planning
on going. I'm still undecided about it honestly, and if I go it'd only
be for a few days. Its also probably a good way to find a roomate to
make the cost of rooms a bit
On Wednesday 12 July 2006 20:26, Daniel Black wrote:
there is always,
not for joe blow who just wants to use Gentoo, the implementation details of
portage be damned
-mike
pgp52zW9PEvg6.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Wednesday 12 July 2006 18:12, John Myers wrote:
On Wednesday 12 July 2006 14:36, Steve Dibb wrote:
Well, it could happen while testing an ebuild. :) I'd be pretty ticked
if I were testing Qt and I didn't realize they did change the doc files
around before doing a test run.
Besides
On Wednesday 12 July 2006 13:37, Stefan Schweizer wrote:
SpanKY complained that he cannot set a custom die message then. But this is
not needed here, since every do* command can be clearly identified by the
argument and the directory it will be installed to.
except for the times where the do
On Saturday 15 July 2006 13:41, Ned Ludd wrote:
On Sat, 2006-07-15 at 17:45 +0100, Daniel Drake wrote:
The local root exploit-of-the-week would have been unable to run if our
users systems had /proc mounted with nosuid and/or noexec
It would be worthwhile considering making this a
On Friday 14 July 2006 11:09, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
On Friday 14 July 2006 16:43, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
While it is a working solution, it isn't necessarily a sensible one.
You can take over xine-lib and fix it however you prefer.
As this, as well as any other idea you can
On Tuesday 04 July 2006 21:54, Mike Frysinger wrote:
can someone remind me why our arch USE flags are in an opt-out system
rather than opt-in ?
patch attached ... no complaints, i'll merge it in a day or two :p
-mike
pgpkf9VkbsyOW.pgp
Description: PGP signature
cleanup-arch-use
On Saturday 08 July 2006 11:58, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Sat, 8 Jul 2006 11:50:47 -0400 Mike Frysinger [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| and i was saying in the namespaced solution you wouldnt need to
| use.mask things because $ARCH_CPU_FEATURES would be set by users in
| the make.conf ... if they go
On Monday 17 July 2006 11:14, Aron Griffis wrote:
Vapier wrote: [Thu Jul 13 2006, 11:32:39PM EDT]
On Wednesday 12 July 2006 13:37, Stefan Schweizer wrote:
SpanKY complained that he cannot set a custom die message then. But
this is not needed here, since every do* command can be clearly
On Saturday 15 July 2006 23:37, Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Tuesday 04 July 2006 21:54, Mike Frysinger wrote:
can someone remind me why our arch USE flags are in an opt-out system
rather than opt-in ?
patch attached ... no complaints, i'll merge it in a day or two :p
merged
-mike
On Wednesday 19 July 2006 17:26, Lance Albertson wrote:
Curtis Napier wrote:
viewcvs.gentoo.org is no more. It has been migrated to
sources.gentoo.org and the links on the website have been updated.
Thanks neysx and ramereth.
Just to clarify...
viewcvs.g.o will still work, it just
thanks to solar and yoswink we have a xml version now:
http://dev.gentoo.org/~vapier/council-2006-nominees.xml
for you peeps who have yet to speak up at all, please do so in the next week,
or i'll start hunting you down when i get back from China :)
-mike
pgpdvKQjYIPWR.pgp
Description: PGP
On Thursday 20 July 2006 02:22, Tuan Van wrote:
Mike Frysinger wrote:
thanks to solar and yoswink we have a xml version now:
http://dev.gentoo.org/~vapier/council-2006-nominees.xml
please update above link for rl03 and wolf31o2 ( unless he has changed
his mind). snipped from -core
On Thursday 20 July 2006 17:17, Joshua Nichols wrote:
Could I get notice of whether or not your architecture is supporting
Java?
in Gentoo or in general ? in general, kaffe should support pretty much all
our arches, but in Gentoo, i dont have time to get it working for:
arm
m68k
s390
sh
-mike
On Friday 28 July 2006 06:02, Henrik Brix Andersen wrote:
On Fri, Jul 28, 2006 at 11:35:24AM +0200, Martin Schlemmer wrote:
Mike asked you repeatedly to voice your issues or concerns in relation
to Project Sunrise, which you failed to reply to.
How many times are we supposed to raise our
On Monday 24 July 2006 20:28, Peper wrote:
Comments are welcome again :]
what ebuilds would this actually be useful in ? looking through the code
largely gives me the impression of over engineering and not much else
-mike
pgpdWFj2i5blA.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Sunday 30 July 2006 18:07, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
Personally I'd expect the council to block the thing permanently.
hard to address any sort of concerns here, so i guess i'll just regurgitate
the council log to you
it's hard for users to get involved in our development process ... i imagine
On Sunday 30 July 2006 18:47, Stephen P. Becker wrote:
There is nothing you or anyone else can say
well if you're coming forth with such stout resolution of ignoring any one
else's input, then there's no point in debating the topic with you now is
there ?
-mike
pgpRLmOrTjAue.pgp
Description:
On Sunday 30 July 2006 22:28, Dan Meltzer wrote:
1) Users can submit patches/ideas to bugs.g.o at whatever frequency
they desire, contributing to gentoo casually.
load up your browser and check out how many bugs are assigned
to '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
opening a bug, putting together an
On Sunday 30 July 2006 22:35, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 22:19:56 -0400 Mike Frysinger [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| we take a risk with this project (like every single other
| project) ... if sunrise turns out to suck and cause problems, then we
| kill it, no big deal
How many more
On Sunday 30 July 2006 23:32, Brett I. Holcomb wrote:
- first for my systems - are that it is allowing essentially anybody to
submit almost anything with no QA.
no, read the FAQ
On Monday 31 July 2006 01:53, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 01:38:42 -0400 Seemant Kulleen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| Please note the difference between pulling and pushing. Pushing
| implies that people who don't want sunrise on their systems have to
| have it and have to use it. This
On Monday 31 July 2006 02:21, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
I don't have a perfect solution, no. Unfortunately, knowing why one
thing won't work doesn't automatically let you know what will.
and knowing what does/doesnt work comes a lot from experience, not solely
making conjectures about how we
i'm tired of looking at this package, anyone care about this thing enough to
be its maintainer ?
-mike
pgpKcazDf3HyB.pgp
Description: PGP signature
This is your monthly friendly reminder ! Same bat time (typically the
2nd Thursday once a month), same bat channel (#gentoo-council @
irc.freenode.net) !
If you have something you'd wish for us to chat about, maybe even
vote on, let us know ! Simply reply to this e-mail for the whole
Gentoo dev
On Wednesday 02 August 2006 10:21, Roy Marples wrote:
On Wednesday 02 August 2006 15:09, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
Perhaps because other options exist? I'd have suggested WIRELESS_DEVICES
(or even ETHERNET_DEVICES or NET_DEVICES) instead, which would work for
your case and also be applicable
On Thursday 03 August 2006 01:44, Harald van Dijk wrote:
On Thu, Aug 03, 2006 at 07:07:35AM +0200, Marius Mauch wrote:
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
On Thursday 03 August 2006 22:43, Daniel Black wrote:
app-arch/sharutils
not such a big deal as base-system is the fall back
-mike
pgpFMHbv297Me.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Saturday 05 August 2006 09:29, Stephen P. Becker wrote:
P.S. Note that we have offered various portage devs hardware and/or an
account on Iluxa's ginormous Origin 2000 machine in the past with the
intention of getting this fixed, and nobody has taken us up on that...
so ? none of the
On Saturday 05 August 2006 06:57, Kevin F. Quinn wrote:
On Sat, 5 Aug 2006 11:49:53 +0200
Danny van Dyk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Please re-read the list of packages that fail tests:
* glibc
* autoconf
* gettext
* tar
That makes _4_ system packages. Before I would consider making
On Saturday 05 August 2006 10:12, Christian Heim wrote:
I went looking for the reason, looked into the eutils, multilib and finally
autotools eclasses and saw that the autotools.eclass is setting the DEPEND
but not the RDEPEND. IIRC portage-2.1 is now setting RDEPEND to DEPEND if
nothing other
On Saturday 05 August 2006 14:56, Stephen P. Becker wrote:
The metadata for sandbox suggests that it is under the control of the
portage team, even if they lack a herd:
... because it is tightly integrated with portage ... there is the aspects of
portage which require some sandbox env
On Saturday 05 August 2006 14:48, Harald van Dijk wrote:
Then RESTRICT=test, or use a src_test which warns on test failures
rather than aborting, could be used. Or am I missing something?
some architectures pass fine
my [hidden] point was that globally enabling/disabling FEATURES=test isnt a
On Saturday 05 August 2006 15:32, Zac Medico wrote:
The actual fault is in libpng-1.2.12-r1.ebuild where RDEPEND= should be
explicitly set.
the actual fault is portage
instead of half-assing all this DEPEND/RDEPEND garbage, why not fix portage to
do it consistently
either it implicitly sets
On Saturday 05 August 2006 16:07, Stephen P. Becker wrote:
Of course I know this, and it sucks. If sandbox is so tightly
integrated with portage, then why *isn't* there a portage team member
who works on sandbox?
because portage requires deep knowledge in python/bash
sandbox requires deep
not sure the impact of this, but i just finished fixing three packages with
this issue, and the problem arises due to system packages being updated ...
a recent upgrade with gettext causes some packages to fail with errors like:
/bin/sh: @MKINSTALLDIRS@: No such file or directory
if you hit
On Monday 07 August 2006 13:36, Carsten Lohrke wrote:
On Sunday 06 August 2006 00:26, Mike Frysinger wrote:
and i'm on the opposite side where implicit RDEPEND should be clean:
Why? I for one consider explicit dependencies much more clean.
i prefer to make the common behavior the default
On Monday 07 August 2006 21:44, W.Kenworthy wrote:
My personal opinion is that whilst things like modular X are good for
developers, they are not so good for users - particularly gentoo users.
we provide meta packages (X/kde/gnome/etc...) for the split packages so users
can just emerge 1
someone remind me why our emul packages install in some obscure directory tree
rooted in /emul
if we moved these things to the standard lib32 dirs, it would certainly ease
the pain of people doing multilib building
-mike
pgp0iUxwqWpVd.pgp
Description: PGP signature
why god why do we have this file ? it pollutes ld.so.conf and makes me so
angry
-mike
pgpOFUoFK4Ze9.pgp
Description: PGP signature
looks like your mail server ate this ...
someone remind me why our emul packages install in some obscure directory tree
rooted in /emul
if we moved these things to the standard lib32 dirs, it would certainly ease
the pain of people doing multilib building, both in and out of portage
it'd also
On Tuesday 08 August 2006 16:28, Enrico Weigelt wrote:
hmm, what do you do if there's a need for arch specific defaults ?
not accounted for as we really havent found this to be a big deal
IMHO its better to have these defaults somewhere within the profile.
Maybe another package.use alike
On Tuesday 08 August 2006 15:18, Zac Medico wrote:
Stuart Herbert wrote:
Any chance of per-package USE defaults support? That's much more useful
to me.
Attached to bug 61732 there's a patch that implements this via a new
IUSE_DEFAULTS ebuild variable. If people like that particular
On Tuesday 08 August 2006 19:46, Jason Wever wrote:
On Tue, 8 Aug 2006 22:57:44 +0100
Stuart Herbert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As a package maintainer, I'm happy :) Is this going to cause problems
for arch teams at all?
I hope not. I've been looking forward to this for arch specific
On Wednesday 09 August 2006 10:57, Duncan wrote:
Mike Frysinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] posted
looks like your mail server ate this ...
someone remind me why our emul packages install in some obscure
directory tree rooted in /emul
if we moved these things to the standard lib32 dirs
as the subject says, i'd like to move gen_usr_ldscript() to
toolchain-funcs.elcass ... the reason for this is that i have an improvement
to the function which will start writing OUTPUT_FORMAT() to ldscripts, but
this requires $(tc-getCC)
motivation: better multilib handling :)
speak now
On Thursday 10 August 2006 15:42, Kevin F. Quinn wrote:
On Thu, 10 Aug 2006 12:26:10 -0500
Mike Doty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Donnie Berkholz wrote:
Olivier Crete wrote:
It makes sense that you wouldn't want these binary packages going
On Thursday 10 August 2006 19:32, Doug Goldstein wrote:
Also, I can probably hit brad_mssw for you if you want. Since I work
with him now.
hindsight is 20/20 eh ? no point in blaming people for decisions made when
at the time, said decisions were the best
-mike
pgp0p9SR79Nsv.pgp
On Sunday 20 August 2006 05:35, sHadoW MaN wrote:
I am never has programmed on Linux but I looked on the net about hardware
interrupts library
try http://forums.gentoo.org/
-mike
pgpkWVRc0kd7g.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Sunday 20 August 2006 11:22, paul kölle wrote:
Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Sunday 20 August 2006 08:01, paul kölle wrote:
How do I get the name of the called script in /etc/init.d? Better ideas?
use $SVCNAME
see the sshd init.d script for some examples
thanks mike, you got me
On Thursday 17 August 2006 05:20, Duncan wrote:
excerpted below, on Wed, 16 Aug 2006 18:01:37 -0700:
I told a friend that there were some in the community who called
proprietary software slaveryware. His response? Holy shit! If that
term spreads, we can forget about convincing otherwise
On Monday 21 August 2006 10:29, Olivier Crête wrote:
On Mon, 2006-21-08 at 12:21 +0100, Herbie Hopkins wrote:
I've always viewed the emul libs as a temporary measure until we had full
multilib fuctionality in portage. Afaik the only person working on this
was eradicator who has been mia for
On Monday 21 August 2006 13:39, Olivier Crete wrote:
Will we make emul-x86-gtk-libs block gtk+? We dont have use based
deps/blockers...
building for ABI is unrelated to USE flags
how long will it take before we have API/arch based
ones.
you really think having users build ABI stuff on the
On Tuesday 22 August 2006 11:17, Duncan wrote:
FWIW, eradicator active once again
sorry, but not really
active when it comes to something core like toolchain does not describe
eradicator's behavior
After all, there'd have
never been a need for eselect-compiler if gcc-config wasn't broken re
On Thursday 24 August 2006 05:28, Lars Weiler wrote:
See attached a list of Attic-files which are +500k in size.
If you want to keep one of these files, tell me. Otherwise
I'll remove them on Sunday.
i thought the entire point of the CVS attic is that when we want to retrieve
something,
On Sunday 27 August 2006 04:11, Robert Cernansky wrote:
On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 19:03:16 +0100 Luis Medinas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sounds like we have volunteers to maintain xmms for a couple of
years. I offered a good solution but looks like nobody likes
it. I'm still open for sugestions.
On Tuesday 29 August 2006 10:44, Simon Stelling wrote:
head -n4 $(~/.sig) ~/.sig
seriously, when did this turn into the forums ? well at least he doesnt have
a 640x480 animated gif in there (yet?) ...
-mike
pgpaBmIXK5PiT.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Tuesday 29 August 2006 14:22, Wernfried Haas wrote:
On Tue, Aug 29, 2006 at 01:41:26PM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
seriously, when did this turn into the forums ? well at least he doesnt
have a 640x480 animated gif in there (yet?) ...
Actually there's an 80x80 px limit for avatars
just found another broken package that uses the 'static' USE flag to control
generation of static libraries (aka libfoo.a)
this is very much wrong ... USE=static is only to control the static-ness of
binaries ... if your package has an option to build shared and static
libraries, then it had
On Wednesday 30 August 2006 11:54, Daniel Drake wrote:
For this reason we are suggesting everyone migrates to the b44 in-kernel
driver
works great for me :)
(I guess net-misc/bcm4400 doesn't really have any users anyway...).
i tried it, it killed my kernel everytime :(
-mike
On Thursday 31 August 2006 13:19, Enrico Weigelt wrote:
BTW: is there a way to control whether static libs should be
installed ?
`man make.conf` - INSTALL_MASK
dont even think about filing a bug though when something breaks because it's
missing static libs cause it'll just make me stab you
On Thursday 31 August 2006 18:53, Chris White wrote:
On Thursday 31 August 2006 15:42, Doug Goldstein wrote:
I just filed bug #140776 for you because I masked out all shared
libraries and my system doesn't work. You only mentioned masking out
static libraries so I didn't mask those out.
On Thursday 31 August 2006 19:41, Alec Warner wrote:
He didn't say use install masked to mask out shared libraries he said
use install mask to mask static libraries.
looks like two people missed the short bus actually ...
-mike
pgpL1XLzxTYzu.pgp
Description: PGP signature
This is your monthly friendly reminder ! Same bat time (typically the
2nd Thursday once a month), same bat channel (#gentoo-council @
irc.freenode.net) !
If you have something you'd wish for us to chat about, maybe even
vote on, let us know ! Simply reply to this e-mail for the whole
Gentoo dev
On Friday 01 September 2006 14:26, Greg KH wrote:
On Fri, Sep 01, 2006 at 02:44:59PM +0200, Carsten Lohrke wrote:
As discussed here?, the author of cdrtools, J?rg Schilling, violates the
GPL in his application, by building GPL software with CDDL licensed
makefiles as well as linking mkisofs
On Friday 01 September 2006 15:18, Chris White wrote:
On Friday 01 September 2006 11:26, Greg KH wrote:
No, we should just stop distributing the prebuild image in our release
and live cds. We do not have to do anything with the package in
portage, as it is the user who builds cdrtools that
301 - 400 of 3211 matches
Mail list logo
