Re: [gentoo-dev] virtual/x11-7* hides real bugs and breaks good ebuilds

2006-06-11 Thread Jakub Moc
Donnie Berkholz wrote: Jakub Moc wrote: Olivier Crete wrote: Is there a recent list of non-ported packages ? Maybe we should do a last effort to port everything for a week or two and then package.mask the packages that no one cares enough about to port them. Hmmm, not a up2date one, AFAIK...

Re: [gentoo-dev] virtual/x11-7* hides real bugs and breaks good ebuilds

2006-06-11 Thread Donnie Berkholz
Jakub Moc wrote: Donnie, pingy! ;) Just a friendly reminder to run the script again, so that we can do a last attempt on fixing the remaining stuff before resorting to more drastic solutions... Yeah, it's on my list, but I've got family here all weekend so no time to work on stuff. Thanks,

Re: [gentoo-dev] virtual/x11-7* hides real bugs and breaks good ebuilds

2006-06-07 Thread Jakub Moc
@4u wrote: After posting and closing the bug report: http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=135870 Jakub Moc noticed that the current =virtual/x11-7.0 ebuild misses its task and creates trouble. Indeed. To re-iterate here, I'll basically re-paste what I've said on the bug, so that people

Re: [gentoo-dev] virtual/x11-7* hides real bugs and breaks good ebuilds

2006-06-07 Thread Donnie Berkholz
Jakub Moc 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. Thanks, Donnie signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] virtual/x11-7* hides real bugs and breaks good ebuilds

2006-06-07 Thread Arek (James Potts)
Donnie Berkholz wrote: Jakub Moc 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. Thanks, Donnie Hmmm...Looks to me like it would be a

Re: [gentoo-dev] virtual/x11-7* hides real bugs and breaks good ebuilds

2006-06-07 Thread Jakub Moc
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. Hmmm...Looks to me like it would be a great idea to fix the

Re: [gentoo-dev] virtual/x11-7* hides real bugs and breaks good ebuilds

2006-06-07 Thread Olivier Crete
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.

Re: [gentoo-dev] virtual/x11-7* hides real bugs and breaks good ebuilds

2006-06-07 Thread Chris Gianelloni
On Thu, 2006-06-08 at 05:26 +0930, Raymond Lewis Rebbeck wrote: Is there a recent list of non-ported packages ? Maybe we should do a last effort to port everything for a week or two and then package.mask the packages that no one cares enough about to port them. games-roguelike/slashem is

Re: [gentoo-dev] virtual/x11-7* hides real bugs and breaks good ebuilds

2006-06-07 Thread Jakub Moc
Olivier Crete wrote: Is there a recent list of non-ported packages ? Maybe we should do a last effort to port everything for a week or two and then package.mask the packages that no one cares enough about to port them. Hmmm, not a up2date one, AFAIK... There's a tracker bug

Re: [gentoo-dev] virtual/x11-7* hides real bugs and breaks good ebuilds

2006-06-07 Thread Donnie Berkholz
Jakub Moc wrote: Olivier Crete wrote: Is there a recent list of non-ported packages ? Maybe we should do a last effort to port everything for a week or two and then package.mask the packages that no one cares enough about to port them. Hmmm, not a up2date one, AFAIK... There's a tracker bug