On Sunday 10 April 2005 4:55 pm, Brian Jackson wrote:
How about not breaking apache?
We did not break apache, we broke *binary compatibility* within apache.
Are you aware of *why* we decided to break binary compatibility?
Well, if not, I can say we did so to provide LFS to the end-users.
You
On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 19:44:19 +0200 Christian Parpart [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| So, sooner or shorter, we're announcing here some news on
| this subject (oops, did I already by this?, so, I can say,
| we're offering already existing svn repositories to be
| merged into the gentoo svn repository
On Sun, Apr 10, 2005 at 10:30:29PM +0100, Daniel Drake wrote:
A while back, we had to move the gentoo kernel patches out of the Gentoo CVS
because we realised it conflicted with the old copyright assignment form: I
have signed an agreement saying that everything I put in gentoo cvs will be
On Sunday 10 April 2005 8:34 pm, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 20:27:03 +0200 Christian Parpart [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| Both have pros and cons. Well, the ASF has everyting converted into a
| single repository and they seem to be just lucky with it. KDE is
| about to convert
Christian Parpart wrote:
could you be please more specific? I mean. why isn't it a current solution?
because SVN isn't right in place or because of the copyright problems still
around or ...?
He means the copyright issues. I believe that Greg also signed the form, and
he was the one who
Should I *not* emerge this gcc? I usually hold off on gcc updates when
I'm in the middle of other testing. Right now, I'm doing a lot of beta
testing with R and Atlas, so I held off when the latest gcc showed up
after emerge sync.
Spider wrote:
On Sun, 2005-04-10 at 16:22 -0400, Mike Frysinger
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Greg KH wrote:
Thanks for bringing this up, I was going to do so this week. I can get
the cvs data out of the bk tree, if we want to move it anywhere else, so
we will not loose the history (if that's an issue.) But we need to get
moved off of
