-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
The first release candidate was announced roughly 12 hours ago. And
fitting the Gentoo you know as up to the minute, so far beyond the
bleeding edge that it's wearing a Band-Aid before it starts to bleed,
comes the complete package in Portage -- all
Alle 16:06, lunedì 17 ottobre 2005, Francesco R. ha scritto:
mysql-4.1.14 has been added to the tree on 29 Aug 2005, should be
time to stabilize the 4.1 branch of mysql.
MySQL 4.1 is (keyworded) stable for amd64 and x86 .
Going through step 2 now, unmasking MySQL 5.0 .
As a security measure
Donnie Berkholz skrev:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
The first release candidate was announced roughly 12 hours ago. And
fitting the Gentoo you know as up to the minute, so far beyond the
bleeding edge that it's wearing a Band-Aid before it starts to bleed,
comes the complete
Kumba wrote:
Initially, this can be found in my dev directory here:
http://dev.gentoo.org/~kumba/mips/releases/livecd-rc5/
But it will soon be up onto the mirrors under the experimental/mips folder.
I have grabbed the files from kumba's home directory on dev and placed
them in the
On Thu, 2005-10-20 at 00:11 -0700, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
The first release candidate was announced roughly 12 hours ago. And
fitting the Gentoo you know as up to the minute, so far beyond the
bleeding edge that it's wearing a Band-Aid before it
Simon Strandman posted [EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on
Thu, 20 Oct 2005 10:37:42 +0200:
Donnie Berkholz skrev:
The first release candidate was announced roughly 12 hours ago. And
fitting the Gentoo you know as up to the minute, so far beyond the
bleeding edge that it's wearing a
On Thursday 20 October 2005 09:11, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
Metabuilds should be forthcoming shortly. I'd appreciate input on
http://dev.gentoo.org/~spyderous/xorg-x11/metabuilds.txt and in
particular from people on the GNOME and KDE teams.
KDE doesn't have any special requirements. It doesn't
On Thu, 2005-20-10 at 15:26 +0200, Dan Armak wrote:
On Thursday 20 October 2005 09:11, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
Metabuilds should be forthcoming shortly. I'd appreciate input on
http://dev.gentoo.org/~spyderous/xorg-x11/metabuilds.txt and in
particular from people on the GNOME and KDE teams.
Am Donnerstag, den 20.10.2005, 00:11 -0700 schrieb Donnie Berkholz:
Thanks to the dedicated work of Joshua Baergen and me, you've got just
what you asked for -- newer X than even money can buy. Pound on it, test
it, break it, and file bugs. Let us know how it works.
I had some issues updating
On Thursday 20 October 2005 14:26, Dan Armak wrote:
To keep the current behaviour, the kde metaebuild (and gnome and the other
WMs) would have to depend on xorg-x11, which strictly speaking is
unnecessary. Opinions? How can we educate the users to manually 'emerge
xorg-x11'? Personally I'm in
On Fri, 2005-10-21 at 01:46 +1100, Ben Skeggs wrote:
The only issue I've encountered so far is that XKB appears to be
completely broken for me. I can't quite track down why at this stage.
bug 109926
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Dan Armak wrote:
On Thursday 20 October 2005 09:11, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
To keep the current behaviour, the kde metaebuild (and gnome and the other
WMs) would have to depend on xorg-x11, which strictly speaking is
unnecessary. Opinions? How can we educate the users to manually 'emerge
On Thursday 20 October 2005 17:23, Mike Williams wrote:
On Thursday 20 October 2005 14:26, Dan Armak wrote:
To keep the current behaviour, the kde metaebuild (and gnome and the
other WMs) would have to depend on xorg-x11, which strictly speaking is
unnecessary. Opinions? How can we educate
On Thursday 20 October 2005 17:28, Luca Barbato wrote:
Dan Armak wrote:
On Thursday 20 October 2005 09:11, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
To keep the current behaviour, the kde metaebuild (and gnome and the
other WMs) would have to depend on xorg-x11, which strictly speaking is
unnecessary.
Am Donnerstag, den 20.10.2005, 16:28 +0100 schrieb Herbie Hopkins:
On Fri, 2005-10-21 at 01:46 +1100, Ben Skeggs wrote:
The only issue I've encountered so far is that XKB appears to be
completely broken for me. I can't quite track down why at this stage.
bug 109926
Thanks! That got rid
On Wed, 2005-10-19 at 17:31 -0400, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
Actually, genkernel does have the --callback option, which runs an
external command before finalizing the build. We use it for building
external modules and packages that require a configured kernel when
building the releases, but I
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Dan Armak wrote:
| KDE doesn't have any special requirements. It doesn't use any kind of X11
| build tool (what is there other than imake?). It does use some X apps
like
| xmessage, xset etc. After you commit your metaebuilds we'll update the
deps
|
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Dan Armak wrote:
| On Thursday 20 October 2005 09:11, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
|
|Metabuilds should be forthcoming shortly. I'd appreciate input on
|http://dev.gentoo.org/~spyderous/xorg-x11/metabuilds.txt and in
|particular from people on the GNOME
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Dan Armak wrote:
| On Thursday 20 October 2005 17:28, Luca Barbato wrote:
|a useflag could solve the issue as well a all inclusive metaebuild for X.
|
| To solve this issue it would have to be an on-by-default flag, i.e.
| 'noxserver'. I know some
On 10/20/05, Dan Armak [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
To solve this issue it would have to be an on-by-default flag, i.e.
'noxserver'. I know some people are strongly against nofoo flags.
What about an off-by-default 'xserver' flag?
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
On Thursday 20 October 2005 20:37, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
I'd prefer that people don't come to depend on metabuilds at all.
OK, we can do this.
See
http://dev.gentoo.org/~spyderous/xorg-x11/porting_to_modular_x_howto.txt.
That file says there won't be any x11-related virtuals anymore. Are
On Thu, 2005-10-20 at 18:19 +0100, John Mylchreest wrote:
On Wed, 2005-10-19 at 17:31 -0400, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
Actually, genkernel does have the --callback option, which runs an
external command before finalizing the build. We use it for building
external modules and packages that
On Thursday 20 October 2005 20:58, Matthijs van der Vleuten wrote:
On 10/20/05, Dan Armak [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
To solve this issue it would have to be an on-by-default flag, i.e.
'noxserver'. I know some people are strongly against nofoo flags.
What about an off-by-default 'xserver'
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Dan Armak wrote:
| On Thursday 20 October 2005 20:37, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
|
|I'd prefer that people don't come to depend on metabuilds at all.
|
| OK, we can do this.
|
|
|See
On Thursday 20 October 2005 20:43, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
- gpg control packet
Dan Armak wrote:
| On Thursday 20 October 2005 17:28, Luca Barbato wrote:
|a useflag could solve the issue as well a all inclusive metaebuild for X.
|
| To solve this issue it would have to be an on-by-default
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Dan Armak wrote:
| On Thursday 20 October 2005 20:43, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
|Or, you could just activate it in the base profile.
|
| True. I forget - why can't we solve the problem of all nofoo USE flags
this
| way? Or is the (remaining) problem
On Thursday 20 October 2005 21:25, Dan Armak wrote:
True. I forget - why can't we solve the problem of all nofoo USE flags this
way? Or is the (remaining) problem only with local flags?
Too many people using -* (due to auto flags) so that will break for most of
them.
It's one of the reasons we
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
| On Thursday 20 October 2005 21:25, Dan Armak wrote:
|
|True. I forget - why can't we solve the problem of all nofoo USE flags
this
|way? Or is the (remaining) problem only with local flags?
|
| Too many people using
On 20/10/2005 21:16:47, Dan Armak ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
On Thursday 20 October 2005 20:58, Matthijs van der Vleuten wrote:
On 10/20/05, Dan Armak [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
To solve this issue it would have to be an on-by-default flag, i.e.
'noxserver'. I know some people are strongly
On 20/10/2005 21:16:47, Dan Armak ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
On Thursday 20 October 2005 20:58, Matthijs van der Vleuten wrote:
On 10/20/05, Dan Armak [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
To solve this issue it would have to be an on-by-default flag, i.e.
'noxserver'. I know some people are strongly
Your mua or some gateway has inserted really ugly linebreaks in the text you
quoted. I tried to make it prettier.
On Thursday 20 October 2005 21:17, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
I'm not aware of any. The only similar thing I'm aware of is a few
incredibly broken packages that require Xvfb at build
On Thu, 20 Oct 2005 21:35:39 +0200 Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| On Thursday 20 October 2005 21:25, Dan Armak wrote:
| True. I forget - why can't we solve the problem of all nofoo USE
| flags this way? Or is the (remaining) problem only with local flags?
| Too many people
On Thursday 20 October 2005 21:48, Kevin F. Quinn wrote:
On 20/10/2005 21:16:47, Dan Armak ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
On Thursday 20 October 2005 20:58, Matthijs van der Vleuten wrote:
On 10/20/05, Dan Armak [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
To solve this issue it would have to be an
On Thursday 20 October 2005 21:42, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
I think you're missing the context. He's saying we solve the nofoo
problem by adding foo to profiles instead, not by adding nofoo.
Exactly
Add foo to profiles, users sets -* to remove the use.defaults flags, then the
user has no foo :)
On 10/20/05, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Add foo to profiles, users sets -* to remove the use.defaults flags, then the
user has no foo :)
Which is exactly as it should be. If someone is going to use -*, then
they should learn to live with the consequences. Even I, as a
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
| On Thursday 20 October 2005 21:42, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
|
|I think you're missing the context. He's saying we solve the nofoo
|problem by adding foo to profiles instead, not by adding nofoo.
|
| Exactly
|
| Add
On Thursday 20 October 2005 23:06, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
Selected arbitrarily by the x11 team based on requirement, common use
and prettiness factor. Probably font-misc-misc, font-bh-ttf,
font-adobe-utopia-type1 and maybe some others that are brought to my
attention.
Nnn! No Type1
Dan Armak wrote:
On Thursday 20 October 2005 21:48, Kevin F. Quinn wrote:
On 20/10/2005 21:16:47, Dan Armak ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
On Thursday 20 October 2005 20:58, Matthijs van der Vleuten wrote:
On 10/20/05, Dan Armak [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
To solve this issue it would have to
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Chris Gianelloni wrote:
| On Thu, 2005-10-20 at 12:17 -0700, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
|Selected arbitrarily by the x11 team based on requirement, common use
|and prettiness factor. Probably font-misc-misc, font-bh-ttf,
|font-adobe-utopia-type1 and
Every once in a while I see people wanting to use nosomething use flags.
Why don't we have a package.use like we already have a package.mask
file? This would make it possible for developers to turn on use flags by
default in a way that would not cruft the base profiles for every local
use flag.
On Thursday 20 October 2005 23:47, Petteri Räty wrote:
Every once in a while I see people wanting to use nosomething use flags.
Why don't we have a package.use like we already have a package.mask
file? This would make it possible for developers to turn on use flags by
default in a way that
Carsten Lohrke wrote:
On Thursday 20 October 2005 21:35, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
Too many people using -* (due to auto flags) so that will break for most of
them.
So we have the three things we should deprecate in a single thread:
a) no* flags
b) auto flags
c) -* and -foo for all
On Thursday 20 October 2005 05:47 pm, Petteri Räty wrote:
Every once in a while I see people wanting to use nosomething use flags.
Why don't we have a package.use like we already have a package.mask
file? This would make it possible for developers to turn on use flags by
default in a way that
Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Thursday 20 October 2005 05:47 pm, Petteri Räty wrote:
Every once in a while I see people wanting to use nosomething use flags.
Why don't we have a package.use like we already have a package.mask
file? This would make it possible for developers to turn on use flags by
On Thursday 20 October 2005 10:03 pm, Alec Warner wrote:
Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Thursday 20 October 2005 05:47 pm, Petteri Räty wrote:
Every once in a while I see people wanting to use nosomething use flags.
Why don't we have a package.use like we already have a package.mask
file? This
i still dont see how this addresses the nocxx / USE=-*
noFOO is used because FOO is on by default, and noFOO turns it off.
AutoUSE is the same way, package bar is included in the buildplan and to
have sane defaults, certain flags are turned on.
that was a great explanation however
On Thursday 20 October 2005 10:19 pm, Dave Nebinger wrote:
i still dont see how this addresses the nocxx / USE=-*
noFOO is used because FOO is on by default, and noFOO turns it off.
AutoUSE is the same way, package bar is included in the buildplan and to
have sane defaults, certain
On Thu, 2005-10-20 at 22:26 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Thursday 20 October 2005 10:19 pm, Dave Nebinger wrote:
i still dont see how this addresses the nocxx / USE=-*
noFOO is used because FOO is on by default, and noFOO turns it off.
AutoUSE is the same way, package bar is
On Thursday 20 October 2005 10:34 pm, Spider (D.m.D. Lj.) wrote:
On Thu, 2005-10-20 at 22:26 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Thursday 20 October 2005 10:19 pm, Dave Nebinger wrote:
i still dont see how this addresses the nocxx / USE=-*
noFOO is used because FOO is on by default,
Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Thursday 20 October 2005 10:03 pm, Alec Warner wrote:
Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Thursday 20 October 2005 05:47 pm, Petteri Räty wrote:
Every once in a while I see people wanting to use nosomething use flags.
Why don't we have a package.use like we already have a
On 10/20/05, Mike Frysinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thursday 20 October 2005 10:34 pm, Spider (D.m.D. Lj.) wrote:
On Thu, 2005-10-20 at 22:26 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Thursday 20 October 2005 10:19 pm, Dave Nebinger wrote:
i still dont see how this addresses the nocxx /
On Thursday 20 October 2005 10:47 pm, Alec Warner wrote:
Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Thursday 20 October 2005 10:03 pm, Alec Warner wrote:
Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Thursday 20 October 2005 05:47 pm, Petteri Räty wrote:
Every once in a while I see people wanting to use nosomething use
flags.
On Thursday 20 October 2005 10:49 pm, Dan Meltzer wrote:
On 10/20/05, Mike Frysinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thursday 20 October 2005 10:34 pm, Spider (D.m.D. Lj.) wrote:
On Thu, 2005-10-20 at 22:26 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Thursday 20 October 2005 10:19 pm, Dave Nebinger
there is nothing hard about USE=-* cxx but while most here want to say
'fuck
the users' (and i'm inclined to agree), i'd rather not field those
bugs/questions/etc...
The average gentoo newbie is not going to know anything about -* in
/etc/make.conf. Mostly it's folks that have been around
On Thursday 20 October 2005 11:09 pm, Dave Nebinger wrote:
So basically if only 'experienced', yet misguided, folks are using '-*',
then the only bugs to come up from this would be ABKB bugs, leaving them
with egg on their face for messing with '-*' in the first place.
Before anyone asks, ABKB
Before anyone asks, ABKB is help-desk lingo for A**hole
Behind Key Board. I
always preferred that to the id10t error (idiot).
See also: PEBKAC
Thanks,
Chris
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
On Saturday 15 October 2005 07:05, Brian Harring wrote:
On Fri, Oct 14, 2005 at 05:02:02PM -0500, Brian Harring wrote:
Jason, your thoughts on this 53 wise?
Bleh, pardon, meant .54 for inclussion
Just to be sure it's clear to everybody (although I think Brian knows
already), my job is not
On Thu, Oct 20, 2005 at 11:37:07PM +0900, Jason Stubbs wrote:
On Saturday 15 October 2005 07:05, Brian Harring wrote:
On Fri, Oct 14, 2005 at 05:02:02PM -0500, Brian Harring wrote:
Jason, your thoughts on this 53 wise?
Bleh, pardon, meant .54 for inclussion
Just to be sure it's clear
On Friday 21 October 2005 08:07, Brian Harring wrote:
Bash hooks would exist in 3.0; they're user specific hooks only, hence
the bit about java being an evil exception till 3.0 comes to town. I
intend to lock down the pre/post hooks prior to ebuild sourcing under
ebd, so ebuilds/eclasses
59 matches
Mail list logo
