On Wed, 11 Nov 2009 18:11:37 +0100
Torsten Veller wrote:
> > Tomáš Chvátal wrote:
> > > But if we look on tag of screen-4.0.3 or its release:
> > > screen-4.0.3.tar.gz07-Aug-2008 06:30 821K
> > > screen-4.0.3.tar.gz.sig07-Aug-2008 06:30 65
>
> *screen-4.0.3 (25 Oct 2006)
>
> Tomáš Chvátal wrote:
> > But if we look on tag of screen-4.0.3 or its release:
> > screen-4.0.3.tar.gz07-Aug-2008 06:30 821K
> > screen-4.0.3.tar.gz.sig07-Aug-2008 06:30 65
*screen-4.0.3 (25 Oct 2006)
Part of the famous "Software from the future" series.
Proudly presented
Christian Faulhammer posted on Sun, 08 Nov 2009 16:13:22 +0100 as
excerpted:
> Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net>:
>> 1) Users using ** in their package.keywords file should know enough
>> about what they're doing to use their own package.mask, as well. If
>> they're using ** in the keywords file, the
Duncan wrote:
In theory that's what those stupid version string thingys are for, but
it's s much easier just to forget one! =:^[
Maybe something about this should go in the handbook -- a suggestion that
if one is going to use a package.unmask entry, that they copy the
package.mask entry o
Hi,
Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net>:
> 1) Users using ** in their package.keywords file should know enough
> about what they're doing to use their own package.mask, as well. If
> they're using ** in the keywords file, they're /saying/ they're
> reading to handle such things, after all, why shouldn'
On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 1:08 PM, Nirbheek Chauhan wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 12:33 AM, Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote:
> > 2) That won't necessarily stop the bugs from rolling in. Some devs may
> > get tired of live pkg bugs and package.mask it, thus putting up a double-
> > barrier to t
Nirbheek Chauhan posted on Sun, 08 Nov 2009 05:38:56 +0530 as excerpted:
> We had something interesting happen with policykit. It was masked for a
> very long time, and so all users of policykit had "sys-auth/policykit"
> in p.unmask. Then it was unmasked, but of course who bothers cleaning up
> t
On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 12:33 AM, Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote:
> 2) That won't necessarily stop the bugs from rolling in. Some devs may
> get tired of live pkg bugs and package.mask it, thus putting up a double-
> barrier to the live ebuild. If users jump BOTH barriers and fall over
> the
Christian Faulhammer posted on Sat, 07 Nov 2009 19:33:12 +0100 as
excerpted:
> William Hubbs :
>> > * Masking live...
>> > Heck no. This is not proper usage. Just use keywords mask.
>> > KEYWORDS="". Problem solved and the package.mask is smaller. (Note,
>> > in overlays do what ever you want, sin
On Sat, Nov 07, 2009 at 07:33:12PM +0100, Christian Faulhammer wrote:
> Hi,
>
> William Hubbs :
> > > * Masking live...
> > > Heck no. This is not proper usage. Just use keywords mask.
> > > KEYWORDS="". Problem solved and the package.mask is smaller. (Note,
> > > in overlays do what ever you want
Hi,
William Hubbs :
> > * Masking live...
> > Heck no. This is not proper usage. Just use keywords mask.
> > KEYWORDS="". Problem solved and the package.mask is smaller. (Note,
> > in overlays do what ever you want, since it does not polute the
> > main mask from g-x86).
>
> True. If we mask l
11 matches
Mail list logo
