On Tue, 2007-06-02 at 20:34 +, Roy Marples wrote:
Keeping it as is has the advantage that an
upgrade/downgrade cycle wouldn't change much in functionality based on
config, which is pretty good (ie, backwards compatibility). In this
case, I'm not sure legacy is all that bad, simply
On Tue, 2007-06-02 at 21:11 +, Roy Marples wrote:
On Tue, 06 Feb 2007 16:03:50 -0500
Olivier Crete [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What so wrong with bash?
Unsuited to an init system that wants to work everywhere, like embedded
systems.
Also, being tied to one shell causes problems when
On Tue, 2007-06-02 at 00:54 +0200, Mohammed Hagag wrote:
Hi all, Today i discovered that *box ebuilds doesn't depend on x11 is
this a common ? or should i submit a bug ?
i'm tried to emerge blackbox fluxbox openbox and all of them didn't
depend on x11.
They do not need an X server to run,
On Mon, 2007-29-01 at 14:01 -0600, Grant Goodyear wrote:
Ned Ludd wrote: [Mon Jan 29 2007, 09:50:28AM CST]
Then it should be offered to the 8th person, at which point either
he/she will then refuse the nomination and it's offered to the 9th.
Rinse and repeat.
If we run out of nominees
On Tue, 2006-31-10 at 17:02 +0100, Stuart Herbert wrote:
This leaves package maintainers in the situation that there are
'old'/'insecure'/insert preferred adjective here versions of
packages that are hanging around only because arches have fallen
behind. Package maintainers want to be able to
On Mon, 2006-30-10 at 08:26 -0800, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
Alternate subject: On the sudden appearance of USE=X for tons of stuff
I really want to use font.eclass in x-modular.eclass to get rid of a lot
of code duplication and more possible bugs. Problem is, it brings in
IUSE=X for every
On Mon, 2006-30-10 at 17:40 +0100, George Shapovalov wrote:
понеділок, 30. жовтень 2006 17:16, Chris Gianelloni Ви написали:
allow valid devs, and maintainer-needed in maintainer.
Should we also disallow adding new no-herd/maintainer-needed ebuilds?
(As the apparent use of maintainer-needed
On Mon, 2006-23-10 at 22:34 +0300, Alin Nastac wrote:
Up till now, I relied on implicit dependencies (dependencies of my
dependencies).
Apparently now (see https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=152534) we
should add every atom that an ebuild depends on to (R)DEPEND.
In the pkg-config case,
On Fri, 2006-01-09 at 16:20 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
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
On Mon, 2006-21-08 at 13:28 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
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
On Thu, 2006-10-08 at 10:57 -0500, Grant Goodyear wrote:
Well, we don't yet have reliable software in place to _count_ votes,
but that's no reason not to start collecting them. The polls are now
open, and will remain so until UTC 20060911 (one month). To vote,
log into dev.g.o and type
On Wed, 2006-07-06 at 18:41 +0200, Jakub Moc wrote:
Arek (James Potts) wrote:
Donnie Berkholz wrote:
=virtual/x11-7 is hiding breakage in ebuilds that are not ported for
modular X.
I couldn't agree more, but I was forced to add this rather than allow
unported ebuilds to break.
On Tue, 2006-11-04 at 19:35 -0500, Daniel Goller wrote:
Isn't this why we already have the arch tester position as described by
GLEP 41 (http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/glep/glep-0041.html)?
Furthermore, are you saying that users would enroll themselves via this
hypothetical web
On Mon, 2006-10-04 at 18:25 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Monday 10 April 2006 15:37, Grant Goodyear wrote:
In any event, I think we need to remove the flying saucer guy. When
drobbins left and turned over the Gentoo IP to us, one thing that he
kept was the flying saucer guy. I believe
On Wed, 2006-22-03 at 15:16 -0800, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
Hi all,
There aren't really any remaining blockers to keep modular X out of
~arch, as far as I can see.
If anyone's got one, please bring it up now. I'm planning to unmask
later tonight.
If modular X is used and
On Thu, 2006-02-03 at 21:14 +0100, Lars Strojny wrote:
Am Sonntag, den 26.02.2006, 21:25 -0800 schrieb Donnie Berkholz:
[...]
You might want to talk to the maintainer and herd, not all of us. Or
even file a bug for updates -- some people are very busy and just don't
notice there's a new
On Mon, 2006-13-02 at 16:51 -0500, Forrest Voight wrote:
What about env.d? Gnome could install and env file that by default
sets XSESSION to gnome.
Can't do... you can have gnome, kde, xfce, etc all installed at the same
time.
On 2/13/06, Paul de Vrieze [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Monday
On Tue, 2006-24-01 at 13:32 -0800, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
Mark Loeser wrote:
On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 23:06:12 -0800 Donnie Berkholz
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What's wrong with the original idea of just making any unported ebuild
pull in all of modular X (minus drivers)? Yes, it means that some
On Thu, 2006-19-01 at 17:56 -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote:
- USE=debug *never* changes CFLAGS or LDFLAGS or what have you, it *only*
enables additional runtime code (such as assert()'s or helpful debug
output) ... if you're confused by what i mean, run `USE=debug emerge nano`
and then run
On Tue, 2006-17-01 at 08:11 -0700, Richard Fish wrote:
On 1/15/06, Olivier Crête [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why not use the splitdebug instead of nostrip? And make building with -g
the default, then tell small HD users how to disable it in the docs. And
it needs to disable
On Tue, 2006-17-01 at 18:03 +0100, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
On Tuesday 17 January 2006 17:51, Olivier Crete wrote:
The argument in favor of splitdebug is that it allows users to give
useful bugreports when using tools such as gnome's bug-buddy.
Erm actually it does not. Unless gnome
On Fri, 2006-06-01 at 09:39 -0800, Brian Harring wrote:
On Fri, Jan 06, 2006 at 10:05:49AM -0500, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
On Fri, 2006-01-06 at 09:00 +, Chris Bainbridge wrote:
On 06/01/06, Brian Harring [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
1) Manpower. There are already 10,000 open bugs in
On Mon, 2005-19-12 at 12:19 +0100, George Shapovalov wrote:
Ugh, it is the only one that reliably connects to icq (yea, I am stuck using
it for many people whom I contact as this is pretty much the only protocol
honored there) *and* handles various encodings in a sane way (no, gaim,
while
On Mon, 2005-19-12 at 21:08 +0100, George Shapovalov wrote:
Thanks, I'll try, but seeing gnome in the name I am quite skeptical. It's
really nothing personal. Its just in my experience gnome/gtk apps could never
handle cyrillic well enough in all situations..
Yea, cyrillic is a bitch. Its
On Tue, 2005-13-12 at 20:43 +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Tue, 13 Dec 2005 21:35:44 +0100 Danny van Dyk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| I don't think that we need a GLEP for it, no matter how 'mini' it
| would be.. Just asked Grant if I can convert dates in current GLEPs,
| and he's ok with,
On Tue, 2005-13-12 at 21:09 +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Tue, 13 Dec 2005 15:53:45 -0500 Olivier Crete [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| Why not just modify GlEP 1 ?
Going back and retroactively modifying standards is icky, and it
*still* doesn't address the issue of documenting why the change
On Tue, 2005-06-12 at 17:04 +0100, Marius Mauch wrote:
As promised here the GLEP for Manifest2 support:
http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/glep/glep-0044.html
I see nothing about GPG in the GLEP.. Would those manifest files be
signed like the current ones? Would it be possible to have per-line
On Mon, 2005-21-11 at 02:18 -0500, Curtis Napier wrote:
I'm asking for everyone (developers and users alike) to please have a
look at the updated site and send any feedback you may have. I'm
especially interested in feedback from anyone who uses accessibilty
programs such as screen readers
On Tue, 2005-25-10 at 20:16 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 13:55:36 -0400 solar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| Please do not put words in my mouth. I've already asserted to you
| several times that the definition of RDEPEND= is unclear and that we
| do infact need a new set of
On Fri, 2005-16-09 at 16:21 -0400, Aron Griffis wrote:
Paul de Vrieze wrote:[Fri Sep 16 2005, 04:11:14PM EDT]
Those should be in package.mask. ~arch is for candidates for arch that
haven't yet proven themselves.
It's often the case that those ebuilds in principle work, but there
are
On Thu, 2005-15-09 at 16:51 -0400, Aron Griffis wrote:
3. glep40: Standardizing arch keywording across all archs
Vote asked by Grant Goodyear
Approved.
What does that glep mean anyways ? Appart from the creation of the x86
team, is there any action to be taken?
- Is the maint keyword
On Mon, 2005-12-09 at 20:50 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 21:39:48 +0200 Simon Stelling [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| This has been in the todo-list for quite a while, but finally it's
| done. I'm curious what you think of it.
Could we get some numbers? How many arch
On Thu, 2005-01-09 at 07:09 -0500, Grant Goodyear wrote:
Thanks to the 148 people who voted. I think that's slightly less than a
50% turnout, but it's still not too shabby.
The new Gentoo Council is:
seemant
vapier
agriffis
solar
azarah
Swift
Koon
As your friendly election
On Thu, 2005-01-09 at 19:02 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Thu, 1 Sep 2005 19:50:11 +0200 Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| On Thursday 01 September 2005 19:41, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
| Untrue.
|
| Can I have reasoning?
Take a look at how sparc and mips currently
On Thu, 2005-01-09 at 19:53 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Thu, 1 Sep 2005 20:46:46 +0200 Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| On Thursday 01 September 2005 20:32, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
| Ideally they wouldn't be keyworded at all.
| I live in a real world, not an ideal
On Thu, 2005-01-09 at 15:25 -0400, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
So would just making an x86 arch team. It would also be much less of a
problem than merging x86 and amd64. How about this? I proclaim and x86
arch team now exists. It already has a security liason.
$ cat /var/mail/alias/arch/x86
On Tue, 2005-30-08 at 10:46 -0400, Stephen P. Becker wrote:
Shouldn't this fall under the x86 arch team rather than releng? The
I'm sorry, but *what* x86 arch team?
That's the point. Ciaran is just pointing out for the gazillionth time
that x86 is an unsupported arch, if you go by the
On Tue, 2005-30-08 at 21:40 +0100, Stephen Bennett wrote:
On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 21:15:18 +
Luis Medinas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I belive the worse QA is in x86 and not in AMD64 and MIPS. Between
AMD64 and x86 there's a lot of differences i.e. many packages in the
tree that needs to be
On Tue, 2005-30-08 at 21:56 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 16:45:24 -0400 Olivier Crete [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| And I dont think the QA is worst on x86.. Most herd devs are on x86
| and its their responsability to do their QA.
QA needs coordination. Otherwise we end up
On Tue, 2005-23-08 at 11:16 +0200, Paul de Vrieze wrote:
As an aside to this. Does anyone know how debug information can be changed
to have a different basedir. My idea was to create a custom strip
wrapper that would create external debugging files (like now possible
with gdb/binutils) and
On Tue, 2005-23-08 at 12:40 -0500, Brian Harring wrote:
First, sidenote (mild ot to this thread also), pardon the dupe posts,
thick fingered typing dumping an old message :)
On Tue, Aug 23, 2005 at 01:34:33PM -0400, Olivier Crete wrote:
On Tue, 2005-23-08 at 11:16 +0200, Paul de Vrieze
On Tue, 2005-23-08 at 21:27 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 8:52:13 +0200 Kevin F. Quinn
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| On 21/8/2005 23:05:05, Ciaran McCreesh ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
| Now the proposal. This isn't something that can happen immediately,
| but it's something
On Fri, 2005-12-08 at 13:53 +0900, Chris White wrote:
I really do agree with not only this, but the need for stable marking
as well. Gentoo is very bleeding edge at this point, and I feel that
stable packages are somewhat lacking. However, the problems I see is
what is considered Let the
On Thu, 2005-30-06 at 15:09 -0500, Caleb Tennis wrote:
On Thursday 30 June 2005 03:01 pm, Thomas de Grenier de Latour wrote:
It seems that portage evaluates disjonction left to right and
stops on the first match it founds. Thus, if you want want it to
choose the best matching version, you
On Tue, 2005-28-06 at 07:20 -0400, Jon Portnoy wrote:
On Tue, Jun 28, 2005 at 12:57:46PM +0200, Ioannis Aslanidis wrote:
On 6/28/05, Shyam Mani [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The only difference I see b/w Staff and Developers is that you might
not have access to CVS. You'll have an email ID and
On Thu, 2005-09-06 at 10:40 -0700, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Sven Vermeulen wrote:
On Thu, Jun 09, 2005 at 09:35:26AM -0700, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
It would still be useful to keep the titles and other info, just
removing the link. Otherwise,
On Tue, 2005-07-06 at 17:44 -0400, Aron Griffis wrote:
Marcus D. Hanwell wrote:[Tue Jun 07 2005, 05:32:31PM EDT]
I also vote for alpha. I would like to see some indication of
maintainer arch in metadata too, but in general agree with the
policy of if one arch stabilises then we can assume
47 matches
Mail list logo
