El mié, 21-09-2011 a las 04:00 +, Duncan escribió:
> Patrick Lauer posted on Tue, 20 Sep 2011 19:00:38 +0200 as excerpted:
>
> > On 09/20/11 15:09, Pacho Ramos wrote:
> > > > What do you guys think?
> >> I haven't ever tried it but, what would occur if that people with
> >> really updated sys
Patrick Lauer posted on Tue, 20 Sep 2011 19:00:38 +0200 as excerpted:
> On 09/20/11 15:09, Pacho Ramos wrote:
> > > What do you guys think?
>> I haven't ever tried it but, what would occur if that people with
>> really updated systems simply unpack an updated stage3 tarball in their
>> / and, lat
El mar, 20-09-2011 a las 13:57 +, Duncan escribió:
> Pacho Ramos posted on Tue, 20 Sep 2011 15:09:01 +0200 as excerpted:
>
> > I haven't ever tried it but, what would occur if that people with really
> > updated systems simply unpack an updated stage3 tarball in their / and,
> > later, try to
Pacho Ramos posted on Tue, 20 Sep 2011 15:09:01 +0200 as excerpted:
> I haven't ever tried it but, what would occur if that people with really
> updated systems simply unpack an updated stage3 tarball in their / and,
> later, try to update?
I believe it was Mike that pointed me at the error in th
> On Tue, 20 Sep 2011, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>> Paludis wise, it's eapi2 indirictely due to boost and eselect.
> The eselect dependency is hard, and can't easily be made optional,
> so ideally eselect should stick with older EAPIs.
Eselect's maintainer is well aware of this. I intend to kee
On Tue, 20 Sep 2011 04:07:44 -0700
Brian Harring wrote:
> You didn't answer the static question btw...
Because the answer's complicated!
The short version is, it could be made to work, if there's a need for
it, and so long as you've got gcc 4.5 for static libstdc++ support, but
it won't work rig
On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 11:40:13AM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Sep 2011 03:28:48 -0700
> Brian Harring wrote:
> > Paludis wise, it's eapi2 indirictely due to boost and eselect.
> > Looking at the eapi depgraph for that, doesn't look particularly
> > viable for upgrading from a EA
On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 12:28, Brian Harring wrote:
> Intent is to restore it to EAPI0- frankly it really depends on what
> the python teams intentions are for EAPI0, currently that support is
> marked to be removed on "06/2011".
We'd have to take a look at the complexity distribution, but I thin
On Tue, 20 Sep 2011 03:28:48 -0700
Brian Harring wrote:
> Paludis wise, it's eapi2 indirictely due to boost and eselect.
> Looking at the eapi depgraph for that, doesn't look particularly
> viable for upgrading from a EAPI<2 manager for paludis. I'll leave
> it to Ciaran to comment on the fea
On 09/20/11 09:12, Alex Alexander wrote:
>> The only real gotcha is if portage is so old that it can't handle the
>> binary packages. However, to get around that we really just need a
>> set of step-wise binary updates for portage itself so that you can
>> sequence it up to something that can inst
On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 08:46:10PM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 6:53 PM, Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote:
> > At least an initial read suggests that you just multiplied the mirror
> > space requirements by however many times you use this trick. ?I don't
> > believe infra
On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 08:46:10PM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 6:53 PM, Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote:
> > At least an initial read suggests that you just multiplied the mirror
> > space requirements by however many times you use this trick. I don't
> > believe infra
On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 10:53:15PM +, Duncan wrote:
> Alex Alexander posted on Tue, 20 Sep 2011 01:14:38 +0300 as excerpted:
>
> > At the moment, all systems have a SYNC line similar to this:
> >
> > SYNC="rsync://rsync.europe.gentoo.org/gentoo-portage"
> >
> > My idea is simple. When incomp
Rich Freeman posted on Mon, 19 Sep 2011 20:46:10 -0400 as excerpted:
> For most changes, honestly, I think the cleanest option is to use binary
> packages. If you build a generic set of @system binary packages then
> you can emerge -K them and get a bootstrappable system no matter how
> out-of-da
On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 6:53 PM, Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote:
> At least an initial read suggests that you just multiplied the mirror
> space requirements by however many times you use this trick. I don't
> believe infra's going to go for that.
>
Yup - and everybody needs to mirror all th
Alex Alexander posted on Tue, 20 Sep 2011 01:14:38 +0300 as excerpted:
> At the moment, all systems have a SYNC line similar to this:
>
> SYNC="rsync://rsync.europe.gentoo.org/gentoo-portage"
>
> My idea is simple. When incompatible changes have to be introduced to
> the tree, push a new version
16 matches
Mail list logo
