On Sun, 05 Aug 2007 16:26:50 +0200
Jan Kundrát [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Stephen P. Becker wrote:
I will say that this is still a better situation than the closed
drivers, which instantly hard lock my computer the first time I
exit X after the initial startup.
Perhaps this might help you
On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 10:16:43 +0100
Steve Long [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Stephen P. Becker wrote:
So (without a Portage tree) it replaces the oldgrown single-liner
wget foo; tar -xzf foo; cd foo; ./configure; make; make install
Are you implying that there would be much more involved
*snip*
--8
21:36 @spb next step is making paludis the officially supported
package manager on alpha
21:36 @eroyf yes
21:36 @eroyf like it is on mips
21:36 * eroyf giggles
21:36 @eroyf all the mips devs are using it anyways
21:37 @spb and of course the ultimate aim is to drop
On Tue, 05 Jun 2007 21:44:23 +0100
Roy Bamford [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 2007.06.05 21:09, Benjamin Judas wrote:
This is problably going to start a flamewar, but I am sick of such
(insert appropriate term for animal excrements here) on mailing
lists,
[snip]
Ladies and Gentlemen,
On Thu, 31 May 2007 14:58:00 +0200
Wernfried Haas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, May 31, 2007 at 03:35:20AM +0200, Bryan Østergaard wrote:
No matter how hard I try fighting for what I feel is right
we seem to end up with petty fights, flamewars or what I consider
even worse - people
What experience? So far there have been no news items. The issue
about elog messages being one shot things is rather outdated (at least
for portage), and post-merge information is the domain of elog (as
stated in the GLEP).
As Ciaran explained below, the paludis overlay has been using them
On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 11:36:09 +0100
Steve Long [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And from the comments of others, *he gets the result*.
Incidentally, many tried to make that same argument about Ciaran.
-Steve
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 01:35:32 +
Ciaran McCreesh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It is widely perceived that Gentoo has a huge problem with slacker
archs cluttering up the tree and making maintainers' work harder.
Clearly, something needs to be done about this.
snip
Wow, I almost don't know where
On Thu, 8 Feb 2007 14:28:52 +
Ciaran McCreesh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 08 Feb 2007 09:20:17 -0500 Doug Goldstein [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| Do *YOU* have anything useful to contribute to the discussion
because | all I've seen is your useless FUD which countless times
people have
On Thu, 1 Feb 2007 21:37:05 +0100
Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thursday 01 February 2007, Christian Heim wrote:
Dean is joining us from Bangor (that's in Maine). Don't know
anything else about him, so feel free to harass him on IRC.
Welcome Dean... but where Maine
On Tue, 28 Nov 2006 14:56:47 -0600
James Potts [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This looks good on the surface, Chris, but what happens in the case
where somebody wants to use the Release tree, but also wants (or
needs) one or more packages from the Live tree, and doesn't want to
switch completely
And then create a KDE licence group, and a Gnome licence group, and
so on? Remember that there are only a few X licences once you ignore
copyright line differences, just as there are only a few KDE
licences once you ignore copyright line differences.
The other option is to submit
Stuart Herbert wrote:
On 10/31/06, Ciaran McCreesh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Uh, security bugs are not the highest priority.
Would it be possible to have some arch team leaders join in this
debate? Atm, it just seems to be bouncing back and forwards between
package maintainers asking
Charlie wrote:
On 03/10/06, Daniel Ostrow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Gentoo-wiki does not now nor will it ever get linked to from official
Gentoo media, documentation, or anything else within the www.gentoo.org
namespace...
Brian Harring wrote:
On Wed, Sep 06, 2006 at 10:37:21PM -0400, Stephen P. Becker wrote:
Carsten Lohrke wrote:
On Sunday 03 September 2006 16:36, Stefan Schweizer wrote:
I am not adding stuff. I am fixing existing packages. And I am taking
responsibility.
How wonderful this sort
Carsten Lohrke wrote:
On Sunday 03 September 2006 16:36, Stefan Schweizer wrote:
I am not adding stuff. I am fixing existing packages. And I am taking
responsibility.
How wonderful this sort of maintenance is you can read here:
https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=146626
Am I the only
Donnie Berkholz wrote:
Mike Doty wrote:
What vote? I don't remember one.
5 nominees, 5 positions. Did you want a popularity contest among them?
Hmm, wasn't there some sort of question as to whether or not simply
accepting them was valid under current policy? I seem to recall that
somebody
Stephen P. Becker wrote:
Donnie Berkholz wrote:
Mike Doty wrote:
What vote? I don't remember one.
5 nominees, 5 positions. Did you want a popularity contest among them?
Hmm, wasn't there some sort of question as to whether or not simply
accepting them was valid under current policy? I
Torsten Veller wrote:
* Michael Cummings [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Stuart Herbert wrote:
On 9/5/06, Stephen P. Becker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I just remembered something. Didn't Stuart say that he planned on
leaving Gentoo when he was nominated for the Council recently (and
declined)?
Yes I did
I know my tools but not necessarly the normal user who wanna use gentoo
and is ending frustrated.
cu
Edgar (gimli) Hucek
Enrico? Is that you in disguise?
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Duncan wrote:
Wernfried Haas [EMAIL PROTECTED] posted
[EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Sat, 26 Aug
2006 12:17:03 +0200:
Quit assuming I mean anything, you're batting zero for two right now.
What's the problem? I wasn't sure how you meant it, so i assumed you
meant it that way. As for
Note that neither mplayer or xine work on mips particularly well. Xine
Could you please help us fixing it on mips? (in particular currently
there is work in improving ffmp3 in order to ditch mad, that has issues
with mips iirc)
Well, it depends on your definition of help. I'd be perfectly
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Thu, 24 Aug 2006 15:48:41 -0400 Stephen P. Becker
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| I have a couple indys that I'm willing to donate to anyone willing to
| help with sound development
What happened to the one you sent to Jeremy? Wasn't he supposed to be
doing sound things
Mike Cvet wrote:
On Thu, 2006-08-17 at 21:05 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 14:42:52 -0500 James Potts [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| hmmmdoesn't the GNU ClassPath implement enough of Java's runtimes
| to handle a command-line app like this (the app needs, basically, to
| be
Well, I don't see the current lack of an proper java runtime
on certain platforms an real blocker for some additional tool.
Uhh...I'm not even sure what I can say in response to such an asinine
statement.
Java generally is designed for a very wide range of platforms
and architectures. If
That's just because Debian has to do the upstream's work.
So if you are so in love with how Debian does everything, why don't you
just use Debian instead of Gentoo and stop wasting our time with your
silly rants on how we should do everything just like them.
-Steve
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org
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 collision-protect sandbox strict
included in the default FEATUREs.
sandbox and strict are already default for a long time.
Not 100% true. Sandbox has been
Mike Frysinger wrote:
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
Mike Frysinger wrote:
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
Every time you post it's like fingernails on a chalkboard...
http://arcanux.org/scarecrow.png
Ha ha ha! Oh gosh that's funny! That's really funny! Do you photoshop
your own material? Do you? Because that is so fresh. Ciaranm is like a
scarecrow. You know, I've, I've never heard anyone make
Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Thursday 27 July 2006 18:21, Stephen P. Becker wrote:
Looking at the meeting log, the
council even noted that the concerns had not been addressed
no, we noted that people claimed they had concerns but when cornered and asked
what exactly their concerns were, no more
Stefan Schweizer wrote:
In last weeks council meeting [1] it was decided that the Sunrise project is
no longer suspended. I can give a short overview of the current status of
the overlay:
- we currently have 154 ebuilds in 58 categories in the overlay
not counting the ebuilds that got into
Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
Further, we keep track of other hardware-related
metadata in USE_EXPAND, too. See INPUT_DEVICE and VIDEO_CARDS.
Quite a different thing to me, considering the wide quantity of them.
But for an handful of useflag it would be a bit of overkill.
Perhaps you are
Harald van Dijk wrote:
On Thu, Jul 06, 2006 at 09:42:20PM +0200, Kevin F. Quinn wrote:
On Thu, 6 Jul 2006 21:06:18 +0200
Harald van Dijk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The GNU toolchain is not supported by Gentoo, and in fact gets
actively broken with unsupported command-line options. Only the GNU
Patrick Lauer wrote:
No, it just shows that two different standards are applied and jakub (as
well as some others) do not wish for any discrimination.
If sunrise gets blocked with the argument it's an overlay then, by
logic, the Java overlay should get the same treatment, even if this is
Where else would these bugs go except for arch
teams, seeing as we clearly can't assign them to end users who
originally submitted the maintainer-wanted ebuilds?
These are not expected to be filed as bugs, they should be fixed by the
users in question.
Apparently, this is not the case.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
* (I'm not sending mails through gentoo.org account cause
http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/infrastructure/dev-email.xml
asks me to not use it to send mails unless absolutely necessary. , and
I have others mean of sending emails)
You should always use it on official
Having to troll through some overlay only increases our work load.
That and it would become an an official Gentoo BMG-style repo. Please,
let us not officially encourage the ricers. Some of us work very hard
to discourage this type of user behavior.
-Steve
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing
Starting a new thread here for a new angle...
As Stuart mentioned, bugs for any ebuild on o.g.o would go through
Gentoo bugzilla. It seems like genstef and jokey have completely
ignored support from arch teams for this overlay. What are you
proposing with respect to arch keywords and
Am I missing something obvious?
-g2boojum-
Probably just the blatant Ciaran hate, and the realization that people
will have to suck it up and deal with him if his package manager ever
becomes official for Gentoo. Who was it that mentioned this GLEP
stacked the desk against Paludis?
-Steve
Paul de Vrieze wrote:
On Monday 22 May 2006 17:29, Grant Goodyear wrote:
Jon Portnoy wrote: [Mon May 22 2006, 09:38:23AM CDT]
On Mon, May 22, 2006 at 09:21:34AM -0400, Ned Ludd wrote:
Please don't change your wording on that. The feel really strongly
about the primary pkg manager of Gentoo
Brian Harring wrote:
On Mon, May 22, 2006 at 11:54:25AM -0400, Stephen P. Becker wrote:
Am I missing something obvious?
-g2boojum-
Probably just the blatant Ciaran hate, and the realization that people
will have to suck it up and deal with him if his package manager ever
becomes official
Roberto Griso wrote:
Hello, i try to install new ati driver on my linux system. The
installation on Xorg and the modprobe action for the fglrx module works
very well, but wharn i try to start an X session, it exits with the
follow error message :
(EE) fglrx(0): No V_BIOS found
(EE) fglrx(0):
Roberto Griso wrote:
Please use the gentoo-desktop mailing list for these kinds of questions.
-Steve
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailto:gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
this is not gentoo-desktop mailing list question, vai a cacare, tu e
tre quarti della palazzina tua.
Bertrand Jacquin wrote:
On 4/19/06, Donnie Berkholz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Bertrand Jacquin wrote:
Is it planned to release some xserver ebuilds ?
Could you rephrase the question? I don't understand it.
I can't any ebuild for xserver
(http://www.jabber.no/ejabberd-1.0.0.tar.bz2) (X over
didn't he ask for people who know a particular application very well?
If you actually read the GLEP, you will note that there is a provision
to expand the idea to include herd testers.
i think there is a big difference between agreeing to test one
particular package since they know it very
Kari Hazzard wrote:
On Tuesday 04 April 2006 2:28 am, Stephen P. Becker wrote:
I fail to see how pointing out a post was offtopic is mean. Rather, it
will save that individual (and hopefully others) from making the same
mistake in the future.
Then refer the poster to the correct place
Kari Hazzard wrote:
On Tue, 4 Apr 2006 11:35 am, Stephen P. Becker wrote:
I hate to break it to you, but there really is no such place for such
queries. We generally consider it rude when users whine about stable
keywording. Therefore, I don't feel bad about a short response
Danny van Dyk wrote:
Hi list,
[Another late one. You know already, I'm a slacker]
Please help me to welcome Benigno Batista Júnior aka bbj, the latest addition
to the growing population of the Gentoo/ALT Project.
bbj is located somewhere between Sao Paulo, Rio de Janeiro and Minas
Mike Frysinger wrote:
dont get me wrong, i hate documenting common sense as much as the next sane
guy, but it seems Gentoo has come to the point where this needs to be done
many thanks to the Ubuntu guys and to solar for doing the real work here:
m h wrote:
Subject says it all.
This isn't meant as flamebait. I'm running stable on my laptop and
unstable on my desktop. It seems like most KDE release get better
over time, so I'm just wondering what the process is with KDE?
Whether it is meant to be flamebait or not is irrelevant.
Kari Hazzard wrote:
This is Gentoo. We have a reputation of good community support to maintain
here. You're not helping that reputation by being mean to people who ask
legitimate questions. The issue that the question may have been sent to the
wrong list is irrelevant. RTFM is never the
Ned Ludd wrote:
On Tue, 2006-04-04 at 03:14 +0100, Stephen Bennett wrote:
On Mon, 03 Apr 2006 21:40:54 -0400
Ned Ludd [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Umm ok. I've decided that root is root no matter how you look at it
and it's not worth getting into a vertical pissing contest over.
So this is
You still haven't posted posted a *single example* of webapp-config
brokeness. You, I'd say you should either back up claims about all the ways
in which webapp-config is broken or apologize to the concerned developers
for false claims.
Still waiting.
OK, here is one. It seems that
webapp-config should be updated to handle such situation more gracefully, so
why don't you file a bug about this? Is that all you have wrt all the ways
in which webapp-config is broken? If so, that's not really much of a
justification of the broad claim ciaranm has made as a QA project member.
which part dont you understand ? the user sets a variable and then is told
that the package probably contains a bug ... seems pretty confusing to me
-mike
rl03 already replied to that. I don't see any QA issues there, and if
someone from QA team does, then he probably has too much time to
Grant Goodyear wrote:
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
My point is that that's a nasty QA bug that's relying upon input from
Stuart to be fixed. Whilst that one's still alive, I'm not going to go
around filing more similar breaks non-interactively bugs because the
discussion will just get repeated over
Donnie Berkholz wrote:
Tony Vroon wrote:
Good afternoon,
Please note that I am planning to remove beep-media-player and
accompanying plugin packages from the portage tree on March 4, 2006,
unless
anyone can convince me of a good reason why they should stay.
This software has been abandoned
The point is...
The point is...
The point is...
The point is...
The point is, you need to stop polluting this list with completely
off-topic sub-rants which have nothing to do with gentoo development.
You do a very good job at killing useful threads with your essays on
world peace.
MIkey wrote:
Paul de Vrieze wrote:
Using this flags on a freshly compiled stage3 (from a stage1, just running
emerge system without setting useflags) I get no blockers at all, when
setting the useflags at the point that system has been recompiled.
Depclean does suggest removing a number of
Mikey wrote:
On Wednesday 25 January 2006 19:49, Stephen P. Becker wrote:
You aren't serious, are you? Did *you* read the fucking manual *and*
comprehend it? Methinks not...upgrading from 3.3 to 3.4 in a
I didn't write the manual, so save your hubris for whoever did. I just
followed its
The FUD is that stage3 is a better installation process than a (corrected)
stage1. The facts are right there in what I posted. Stage3's take twice
as long rebuilding the same number of packages and introduce a plethora of
roadblocks in the build process unless you stay on a very narrow path.
Mikey wrote:
On Wednesday 25 January 2006 19:13, Stephen P. Becker wrote:
Ahh, so you were the idiot that ran those tests. Congratulations...you
needlessly did a --emptytree world after you had already done
--emptrytree system in order to bloat your results.
RTFM - http://www.gentoo.org/doc
OK, so because every 3rd gnome user is not able to add the proper use flag
to make.conf, every non-gnome user is stuck with investigating and putting
-eds into make.conf to avoid pulling in gnome crap. Wonderful.
Yes, I am ranting, because this kind of use flags basically pulls in huge
number or
Since nobody else has asked, I will. What is the point? What problem
are you trying to solve with this ebuild? As far as I can tell, there
is no point, other than trying to sound like you are doing something
important.
I can tell you that I would be disappointed if this replaces the
Sigh...The point was to take 3, potentially 4, ebuilds and make 1.
Well, nvidia-xconfig should probably be part of hte nvidia-settings
ebuild, but I really don't think the drivers and kernel module should be
included. Why not create a meta-ebuild which pulls all of these ebuilds
in, so that
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 been really nice on a protocol side,
Of course, all of these points would have made it into the GLEP *if* it
had been posted with plenty of time for people to comment on it instead
of one day.
harping on this old point solves nothing. we've already established quite
clearly that this will not happen again in the future.
| I suggest that in the future, all developers who are directly quoted
| in the GWN are contacted prior to posting the quotes. I realize that
| this will put a bit more work load on the GWN authors, but it should
| be as simple as sending a mail with the relevant section quoted for
| the
Kurt Lieber wrote:
We have received *numerous* complaints from users about the decision to
remove stage 1 and 2 from the installation documentation. I realize it's
still available if users are willing to dig for it, but not all users do.
In my years of monitoring [EMAIL PROTECTED], we've
Stage1: Changing CHOST= and run ./bootstrap.sh
(well you can do it but it's dumb)
You can do the same from a stage3.
Stage3: has full cxx/berkdb/ssl/pam/libwrap and all the cruft pulled in
from having use flags enabled thats not easy to get rid of otherwise.
Fair point, however this is the
The last link should settle it for you?
Can we now comfortably say that Gentoo is about choice? The other 652,998
links might reveal a few more places where we can get the choice idea from
but I hope that all these links should be sufficient to give anyone this
idea.
Ok, fine. Gentoo is
Testing ebuilds when keywording/marking stable is supposed to be
mandatory and such stuff does not belong into changelogs.
Sorry, but that's a big no. People that add/remove keywords without
making note in the Changelog deserve a massive kick in the nuts. I'm
not sure if you have been
*ALL* of the official docs are GuideXML; Gentoo *expects* users to have
a web browser by default. Otherwise a vast majority of users would never
get Gentoo installed in the first place. The lightweight requirement
appears to just be your way of subverting the current documentation
standards
So you installed your server without reading *any* documenation? (Don't
lie). And you expect that the average user installs a Gentoo server
without at least referencing the documentation? Pa-leaze.
Funny, I've done three fresh installs on my various mips machines in the
past couple of weeks,
What would be your recommendation on how to handle this for mips, then?
Make the virtual alsa-driver?
This wouldn't work, as none of our alsa drivers are actually provided by
alsa-driver.
-Steve
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Chris Gianelloni wrote:
On Mon, 2005-10-24 at 11:03 -0400, Stephen P. Becker wrote:
What would be your recommendation on how to handle this for mips, then?
Make the virtual alsa-driver?
This wouldn't work, as none of our alsa drivers are actually provided by
alsa-driver.
OK. How does
Tomasz Mloduchowski wrote:
Now, that I've got your attention. IMHO above should NOT fail - most of
the software in portage is already using ${HOST}-gcc instead and gcc
symlink is just a convenience.
But it does. In packages I will never suspect being nasty (qt, lynx) and
ones I would, but they
Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Saturday 22 October 2005 10:02 am, Tomasz Mloduchowski wrote:
Altough geoman raised a valid point with separate distcc server, I'm
glad something is being done to fix this issue.
you could also work around it by exporting CC and CXX before emerging to say
Hi, as I mentioned, I built LFS without this (and I have coreutils on
it ;)
Not at all - if we need to modify or create configure files during build
as Paul and Martin said ... we need autoconf/automake
And furthermore, many programs (or upstream authors if you prefer) are
braindead and don't
I think you need to rethink that. Notifying a maintainer that there is
an update or new add on to an existing project is not really getting
involved. It's HELPING. I realize that maintainers cannot stay on top of
all 120,000 packages. That's where the everyday users come in. They,
selfishly,
Not that I'm against this proposal necessarily, but it seems like this
is everything short of giving them commit access to the tree. Perhaps
the arch tester job could simply be made as a probationary period for
developer recruits. The good ATs typically go on to be developers
anyway, no?
Donnie Berkholz wrote:
Simon Stelling wrote:
Additionally, the mentoring period should be shortened to two weeks if
an AT
wants to take the end quiz to become a developer, assuming he has been
AT for
at least two weeks. Users which want to become developers should also run
through the
Homer Parker wrote:
On Mon, 2005-09-12 at 16:30 -0400, Stephen P. Becker wrote:
I guess what I'm *really* asking is
whether this GLEP is necessary?
There are those that want to help, and so become an AT. The project has
worked well for amd64 and ppc, so we are proposing the GLEP
Chris White wrote:
Alright, so here's what I think on the whole thing now that I made a nice tidy
[Summary] thread.
There seems to be some concern about AT testers having more privileges than
some other devs. First off, I hope everyone saw the readonly access, and
even so, the whole point
Let me clarify here. I'm not concerned about ATs having more privileges
at all. I just want to know why if we're making them full developers
for all intents and purposes, we don't go the extra step and get them
commit access after a probationary period? It seems like this is
supposed to be the
Thank you for the opportunity. Apparently though, my submissions have
already been rejected Ciaran. It's important to realize that the
submissions were intended to AID the developers, not to necessarily be
PERFECT in every way.
Of course they have been criticized by Ciaran. In case you didn't
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 23:19:43 +0200 Martin Schlemmer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| What about !arch or something (to connect with the one reply to the
| summary thread) to really indicate unstable on that arch? Should
| cover those things that sorda work on the arch, but you
Dave Shanker wrote:
On 9/6/05, *Martin Schlemmer* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
arch - in theory stable
~arch - in theory should work, but needs testing
-arch - do not work at all
Just out of curiosity, why are there know broken packages in portage?
What
Philip Webb wrote:
Having gone over to Udev, I went to unmerge Devfs got a big red warning.
It appears that the 2005.1 profile gives Devfs as a virtual:
is this an oversight or is there a reason behind it ?
I would have assumed that Udev would now be the required device manager.
Using a single keyword would make us unable to mark for example helixplayer
(source) x86 and -amd64 at the same time (as it's now).
So package.mask it in the (now hypothetical) amd64 sub-profile, and it
is fixed.
-Steve
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
I hope this not. As (iirc) I already said, it's impossible to combine x86 with
anything else that's not 100% source and binary compatible with itself...
The reason is actually simple: x86 is, or at least was, the reference
architecture for almost all programmers.
Witih amd64 becoming so
Simon Stelling wrote:
Stephen P. Becker wrote:
Using a single keyword would make us unable to mark for example
helixplayer (source) x86 and -amd64 at the same time (as it's now).
So package.mask it in the (now hypothetical) amd64 sub-profile, and it
is fixed.
That's exactly why i don't
Also, you can't compare sparc32/sparc64 to x86/amd64: sparc64 is just a
64bit kernel with a 32bit userland.
Oh yeah, I forgot, sparc32 uses a different userland than sparc64 in
Gentoo. Shall I stop shooting holes in this type of argument now? :)
-Steve
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
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 standards the other
arches have to follow to be part of Gentoo.
Is this also a good time to note that the amd64 and x86 could
*easily* be covered under the same keyword? We cover a large
variety of mips machines/userlands under one keyword, with
differences much more significant then that between x86 and amd64.
Sorry I disagree with this, differences
Nathan L. Adams wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Jon Portnoy wrote:
On Sat, Jul 09, 2005 at 10:54:46AM -0400, Nathan L. Adams wrote:
So when can we discuss the salaries you're going to pay the team leads
to waste fairly significant quantities of time staring over
foser wrote:
On Tue, 2005-06-07 at 22:58 +0200, Danny van Dyk wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Luca Barbato schrieb:
Stephen P. Becker wrote:
alpha++
alpha++
once again, alpha++
It's not a vote, it's a discussion. You guys--.
Whoever said we were voting? I
I was up late on a friday evening hacking up a nifty addition to my
system and in my excitement and exuberance jumped on IRC to the dev
channel to get pointers to the best official references to ebuild
crafting and submission.
As it was absolutely silent, I waited a few minutes and
Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Monday 06 June 2005 06:26 pm, Aron Griffis wrote:
alpha
i'm all for alpha (as many know seeing as how they've cursed me profusely
when
i first started doing it) ... seeing as how i tend to mark for 4 or 5 arches,
alpha is a huge help since i know about
1 - 100 of 102 matches
Mail list logo
