On Wed, 03 Nov 2010 16:41:46 +0100
Domen Kožar wrote:
> Just wondering, why did you abuse classes that badly and hack way
> through optparse? If it limits your needs you might want to take a
> look at argparse.
With classes, I hope to clean that up a little soon. My ideas changed
a little during
Just wondering, why did you abuse classes that badly and hack way
through optparse? If it limits your needs you might want to take a look
at argparse.
Domen
On Wed, 2010-11-03 at 14:48 +0100, Michał Górny wrote:
> On Wed, 3 Nov 2010 08:32:07 +0100
> Torsten Veller wrote:
>
> > If nobody is inte
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, 03 Nov 2010 15:29:42 +0100
Tomáš Chvátal wrote:
> And why the heck you are not working on making it part of gentoolkit +
> equery (the same way i incorporated eshowkw).
Because I dislike the all-in-one packaging idea. Separate development
al
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Dne 3.11.2010 14:48, Michał Górny napsal(a):
> On Wed, 3 Nov 2010 08:32:07 +0100
> Torsten Veller wrote:
>
>> If nobody is interested, I'll mask them for removal in one week.
>
> If nobody is interested indeed, I'd appreciate a longer removal period
On Wed, 3 Nov 2010 08:32:07 +0100
Torsten Veller wrote:
> If nobody is interested, I'll mask them for removal in one week.
If nobody is interested indeed, I'd appreciate a longer removal period
as I'm currently working on a replacement script, called flaggie [1].
Although it can be considered w
Moin,
is anybody interested to maintain the following packages?
| app-admin/config_confd
| app-portage/flagedit
| app-portage/profuse
| dev-util/libconf
If nobody is interested, I'll mask them for removal in one week.
https://bugs.gentoo.org/buglist.cgi?quicksearch=app-admin/config_confd,app-por
