On Mon, Dec 26, 2005 at 02:51:26AM -0500, Michael Sterrett -Mr. Bones.- wrote:
Like in here?
app-doc/halibut/halibut-0.9.ebuild: BUILDDIR=${S}/build \
net-dns/maradns/maradns-1.0.27.ebuild:BUILDDIR=${S}/build \
net-dns/maradns/maradns-1.0.32.ebuild:
On Monday 26 December 2005 09:33, Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Monday 26 December 2005 02:24, Doug Goldstein wrote:
well there is always USE enabling... (i.e. When I emerge x11-libs/qt,
it'll turn on the qt USE flag)
which we've already established quite clearly as something we wish to get
rid
Currently there are quite a few ebuilds in the tree that execute dodoc or
dohtml for files that do not exist. I think it would be nice to have
ebuilds die if this is the case. To not break current ebuilds this would
only happen with FEATURES=stricter.
Sigh... There are already bugs flowing
Alle 13:50, sabato 24 dicembre 2005, Peter ha scritto:
Also, I find it absolutely fascinating that the only people against this
concept are devs, and the only people for it are users. Remember that
users are your customers. Every effort should be made to keep them happy.
As a user, I wouldn't
Doug Goldstein wrote:
the USE defaults are a bit INSANE... We need to get rid of some of this
crap...
./default-linux/x86/2005.0/make.defaults:USE=alsa apm arts avi berkdb
bitmap-fo nts crypt cups eds emboss encode fortran foomaticdb gdbm gif
gnome gpm gstreamer gtk gtk2 imlib ipv6 jpeg kde
Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
On Monday 26 December 2005 03:28, Chris White wrote:
I'm not sure if we're on the same page as far as the target audience of
this change. The target audience is developers/those with strict in their
features.
Actually stricter, and there are way too many
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Jakub Moc schrieb:
|
|Currently there are quite a few ebuilds in the tree that execute dodoc or
|dohtml for files that do not exist. I think it would be nice to have
|ebuilds die if this is the case. To not break current ebuilds this would
|only
Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
I'm not sure if we're on the same page as far as the target audience of
this change. The target audience is developers/those with strict in their
features.
Actually stricter, and there are way too many people to put that in without
knowing what that do... or
Bastiaan Visser wrote:
On Monday 26 December 2005 09:33, Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Monday 26 December 2005 02:24, Doug Goldstein wrote:
well there is always USE enabling... (i.e. When I emerge x11-libs/qt,
it'll turn on the qt USE flag)
which we've already established quite clearly as
Hi all.
Jörg Bornkessel (hd_brummy) hails from Berlin, Germany and joined the
Gentoo team about two weeks ago to help with Video Disk Recorder related
ebuilds.
Outside Gentoo Jörg is self-employed, doing webdesign and fixing
computers. Jörg also enjoys spending time with his Harley motorcycle.
Brian Harring [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Dec 26, 2005 at 02:51:26AM -0500, Michael Sterrett -Mr. Bones.- wrote:
Like in here?
app-doc/halibut/halibut-0.9.ebuild: BUILDDIR=${S}/build \
net-dns/maradns/maradns-1.0.27.ebuild:BUILDDIR=${S}/build \
Petteri Räty wrote:
R Hill wrote:
Daniel Ahlberg wrote:
* if ebuild installs COPYING and/or INSTALL into doc.
Is this actually important? There are a hell of a lot of ebuilds that fail
under this rule. I'd like to start filing patches for some of the packages in
this list so I'm
On Monday 26 December 2005 20:01, Jakub Moc wrote:
Currently there are quite a few ebuilds in the tree that execute dodoc
or dohtml for files that do not exist. I think it would be nice to have
ebuilds die if this is the case. To not break current ebuilds this would
only happen with
26.12.2005, 14:28:12, Jason Stubbs wrote:
On Monday 26 December 2005 20:01, Jakub Moc wrote:
Currently there are quite a few ebuilds in the tree that execute dodoc
or dohtml for files that do not exist. I think it would be nice to have
ebuilds die if this is the case. To not break current
Petteri R??ty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Petteri R??ty wrote:
R Hill wrote:
Daniel Ahlberg wrote:
* if ebuild installs COPYING and/or INSTALL into doc.
Is this actually important? There are a hell of a lot of ebuilds that fail
under this rule. I'd like to start filing patches for some of
Drake Wyrm wrote:
Petteri R??ty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Petteri R??ty wrote:
R Hill wrote:
Daniel Ahlberg wrote:
* if ebuild installs COPYING and/or INSTALL into doc.
Is this actually important? There are a hell of a lot of ebuilds that fail
under this rule. I'd like to start filing
The GDP does very good work and i think you did your part to make this
happen. Thanks!
On Fri, Dec 23, 2005 at 04:44:28PM +0100, Sven Vermeulen wrote:
With kind regards (yes, that's what Wkr stands for),
Wkr, too :-)
Wernfried
--
Wernfried Haas (amne) - amne at gentoo dot org
Gentoo
On Monday 26 December 2005 13:59, Simon Stelling wrote:
Actually stricter, and there are way too many people to put that in
without knowing what that do... or is it a default nowadays, I'm not even
sure.
You're mixing up 'strict' with 'stricter'.
Well if I'm mixing up, someone moved the QA
On Monday 26 December 2005 14:57, Drake Wyrm wrote:
You're going to be hard-pressed to get any kind of consensus on this
issue. Many dev seems to feel that the license belongs there. In some
cases the COPYING, LICENSE, and/or INSTALL files contain, not boilerplate
drivel, but actually unique,
On 12/26/05, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Monday 26 December 2005 13:59, Simon Stelling wrote:
Actually stricter, and there are way too many people to put that in
without knowing what that do... or is it a default nowadays, I'm not even
sure.
You're mixing up
and my bad.
I am not yet awake.
It died cause of runpaths on strict, it just showed both, and I wasn't
thinking when I sent earlier email...
On 12/26/05, Dan Meltzer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 12/26/05, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Monday 26 December 2005 13:59,
Welcome aboard and have a good time!
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
On Mon, 26 Dec 2005 00:09:57 -0500 Doug Goldstein [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| the USE defaults are a bit INSANE... We need to get rid of some of
| this crap...
No, you just don't understand how they work. It's not an issue of
is foo important. It's an issue of for packages with optional foo
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
All,
please help me to welcome Peter Gordon aka codergeek42, our latest
addition to the ranks of Gentoo Developers. And someone please explain
to him how to secure his bum in SpanKY's immediate vicinity ;-)
Peter is a global moderator in the Gentoo
Dale wrote:
I'm not a dev but I can see both sides. I learned why some things are
being pulled in that I couldn't figure out. I use KDE but do not want
Gnome and it appears that I have some gnome stuff installed and didn't
know it, because of the USE line. I guess they are in there because
Petteri Räty wrote:
aint it worth it to mention -* in the handbook ?
If you make a decision, http://bugs.gentoo.org/ please.
And then mentioning stuff like pam that almost everyone wants? There are
also things that should be on by default.
If it should be on by default, let's add it to the
On Monday 26 December 2005 17:32, Jan Kundrát wrote:
If it should be on by default, let's add it to the profile, don't ask
users to turn it on themselves.
That s what it s done now. But -* would disable it...
--
Diego Flameeyes Pettenò - http://dev.gentoo.org/~flameeyes/
Gentoo/ALT lead,
26.12.2005, 16:35:33, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Mon, 26 Dec 2005 00:09:57 -0500 Doug Goldstein [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| the USE defaults are a bit INSANE... We need to get rid of some of
| this crap...
No, you just don't understand how they work. It's not an issue of
is foo important.
On Mon, 26 Dec 2005 17:57:17 +0100 Jakub Moc [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| alsa - this does not make most sense definitely, this horrible thing
| needs to die.
Why? On x86, alsa is the least broken sound system, and on x86, the
target for the default profiles is desktops, and most desktops have
Doug Goldstein wrote:
the USE defaults are a bit INSANE... We need to get rid of some of this
crap...
./default-linux/x86/2005.0/make.defaults:USE=alsa apm arts avi berkdb
bitmap-fo nts crypt cups eds emboss encode fortran foomaticdb gdbm gif
gnome gpm gstreamer gtk gtk2 imlib ipv6 jpeg kde
26.12.2005, 18:07:45, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Mon, 26 Dec 2005 17:57:17 +0100 Jakub Moc [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| alsa - this does not make most sense definitely, this horrible thing
| needs to die.
Why? On x86, alsa is the least broken sound system, and on x86, the
target for the
Petteri Räty wrote:
Bastiaan Visser wrote:
On Monday 26 December 2005 09:33, Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Monday 26 December 2005 02:24, Doug Goldstein wrote:
well there is always USE enabling... (i.e. When I emerge x11-libs/qt,
it'll turn on the qt USE flag)
which
Simon Stelling wrote:
Doug Goldstein wrote:
the USE defaults are a bit INSANE... We need to get rid of some of this
crap...
./default-linux/x86/2005.0/make.defaults:USE=alsa apm arts avi berkdb
bitmap-fo nts crypt cups eds emboss encode fortran foomaticdb gdbm gif
gnome gpm gstreamer
On Mon, 2005-12-26 at 17:57 +0100, Jakub Moc wrote:
eds - please, fix the ebuilds properly instead of throwing the thing on
everyone. This has already caused numerous invalid bugs with people
wondering why the heck portage wants to emerge gnome with USE=-gtk -gnome
How do you suggest the
On Monday 26 December 2005 19:36, Joe McCann wrote:
This whole thread seems to have come from a
misunderstanding of how use.defaults work and 20 min of boredom.
use.defaults are based on the idea that having an ebuild installed should
activate the relevant use flag(s) behind the users back.
On Monday 26 December 2005 18:07, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
Because it makes sense. For any application which has IUSE=emboss,
chances are emboss should be enabled. There was a long discussion about
this on the -user list a while back where I ended up posting a
newbie-friendly explanation of the
Jakub Moc posted [EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below,
on Mon, 26 Dec 2005 18:53:55 +0100:
26.12.2005, 18:07:45, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Mon, 26 Dec 2005 17:57:17 +0100 Jakub Moc [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| alsa - this does not make most sense definitely, this horrible thing
| needs to
26.12.2005, 19:36:23, Joe McCann wrote:
On Mon, 2005-12-26 at 17:57 +0100, Jakub Moc wrote:
eds - please, fix the ebuilds properly instead of throwing the thing on
everyone. This has already caused numerous invalid bugs with people
wondering why the heck portage wants to emerge gnome with
On Mon, 26 Dec 2005 20:03:42 +0100 Carsten Lohrke [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| On Monday 26 December 2005 18:07, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
| Because it makes sense. For any application which has IUSE=emboss,
| chances are emboss should be enabled. There was a long discussion
| about this on the
On Saturday 24 December 2005 02:04, Brian Harring wrote:
dev-lang/python[tcltk]
^^^ need that atom resolved with use flag tcltk enabled
I think that's exactly what someone told me months ago. :)
=sys-apps/portage-2.0[sandbox,!build]
^^^ need =portage-2.0 merged with sandbox on, build off.
On Mon, 26 Dec 2005 21:09:31 +0100 Carsten Lohrke [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| I wonder if portage deals fine with subtle dependency
| incompatibilities, when one package has foo[!bar] and another one
| foo[bar] as dependency and spits out a reasonable error message to
| apply mutual blockers.
If
On Mon, 2005-12-26 at 20:24 +0100, Jakub Moc wrote:
26.12.2005, 19:36:23, Joe McCann wrote:
On Mon, 2005-12-26 at 17:57 +0100, Jakub Moc wrote:
eds - please, fix the ebuilds properly instead of throwing the thing on
everyone. This has already caused numerous invalid bugs with people
On Monday 26 December 2005 08:24, Petteri Räty wrote:
Petteri Räty wrote:
R Hill wrote:
Daniel Ahlberg wrote:
* if ebuild installs COPYING and/or INSTALL into doc.
Is this actually important? There are a hell of a lot of ebuilds that
fail under this rule. I'd like to start filing
On Monday 26 December 2005 08:24, Drake Wyrm wrote:
Brian Harring [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Dec 26, 2005 at 02:51:26AM -0500, Michael Sterrett -Mr. Bones.-
wrote:
Like in here?
app-doc/halibut/halibut-0.9.ebuild: BUILDDIR=${S}/build \
OK, so because every 3rd gnome user is not able to add the proper use flag
to make.conf, every non-gnome user is stuck with investigating and putting
-eds into make.conf to avoid pulling in gnome crap. Wonderful.
Yes, I am ranting, because this kind of use flags basically pulls in huge
number or
26.12.2005, 22:21:14, Diego 'Flameeyes' Petteno wrote:
On Monday 26 December 2005 20:24, Jakub Moc wrote:
exactly the same thing with motif - would
someone explain why the heck do do we need this thing in make.defaults?
Because people emerges xpdf waiting for xpdf binary and they won't find
Mark Loeser [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Mark Loeser [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
So, everyone that has a binary package in the tree, I would appreciate it if
you could put the sys-libs/libstdc++-v3 depend into your package if
necessary.
Well, you can tell I didn't exactly think about this too
On Mon, 26 Dec 2005 15:19:47 -0700 Lares Moreau
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| Is it feasible and or useful to have a 'meta-flag' that that enables
| all the 'necessary' USE flags for a given group of packages? So
| something like USE='meta-flagname'.
USE flags are for things that're optional, not
Lares Moreau wrote:
On Mon, 2005-12-26 at 12:36 -0600, Joe McCann wrote:
For the record, the eds flag was
added as a default flag because every 3rd gnome user would file bugs or
complain via forums because they installed gnome, found no
evolution-data-server integration, and then be bummed
Fellow Gentooers,
Here is a draft of an enhancement proposal that should allow upstream
information to be included in metadata.xml:
http://dev.gentoo.org/~vanquirius/glep-0099.txt
It is authored by ciaranm and me (vanquirius).
Please comment :-).
Cheers,
Marcelo
--
Marcelo Góes
[EMAIL
On Mon, 26 Dec 2005 22:11:46 -0200 Marcelo Góes [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| Here is a draft of an enhancement proposal that should allow upstream
| information to be included in metadata.xml:
|
| http://dev.gentoo.org/~vanquirius/glep-0099.txt
Should show up in nicely rendered HTML here within an
On Monday 26 December 2005 21:28, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
If they're purely in DEPEND, that one isn't even an incompatability.
Right. But it's not that unlikely to see such a corner case sooner or later
and it would be good if Portage catches it, instead spitting out a weird
message, leaving
That will increase the sync time for all of our users - can we please
keep this info out of the sync-tree?
I do not see why this is necessary to be in the tree - we can do fine
with a webbased database for that.
- Stefan
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
On Tue, 27 Dec 2005 01:33:13 +0100 Carsten Lohrke [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| The problem is not the SLOT change, but to build foo depending on
| bar against KDE X, while bar is built against KDE Y. foo and
| bar support all slotted KDE versions, but they need to be build
| against the same one.
On Tue, Dec 27, 2005 at 12:46:49AM +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
| The existing syntax is just as extensible. Up the EABI revision, and
| start adding new syntax as needed.
|
| EAPI has nothing to do with the consistency of the syntax. Getting it
| once right, is what you usually call for.
On Tue, 27 Dec 2005 01:45:00 +0100 Stefan Schweizer
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| That will increase the sync time for all of our users - can we please
| keep this info out of the sync-tree?
Learn to use the rsync exclude list.
--
Ciaran McCreesh : Gentoo Developer (I can kill you with my brain)
On Mon, 26 Dec 2005 16:57:07 -0800 Brian Harring [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| Not saying it's a great idea, but EAPI exists to provide immediate
| transition to incompatible changes instead of the usual work out a
| semi backwards compatible way, don't use it for 6 months, then deal
| with the
On Tue, 2005-12-27 at 00:59 +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Tue, 27 Dec 2005 01:45:00 +0100 Stefan Schweizer
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| That will increase the sync time for all of our users - can we please
| keep this info out of the sync-tree?
Learn to use the rsync exclude list.
I
On Tue, Dec 27, 2005 at 12:59:34AM +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Tue, 27 Dec 2005 01:45:00 +0100 Stefan Schweizer
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| That will increase the sync time for all of our users - can we please
| keep this info out of the sync-tree?
Learn to use the rsync exclude list.
On 12/26/05, Lares Moreau [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 2005-12-27 at 00:59 +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Tue, 27 Dec 2005 01:45:00 +0100 Stefan Schweizer
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| That will increase the sync time for all of our users - can we please
| keep this info out of the
On Tue, Dec 27, 2005 at 01:03:49AM +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Mon, 26 Dec 2005 16:57:07 -0800 Brian Harring [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| Not saying it's a great idea, but EAPI exists to provide immediate
| transition to incompatible changes instead of the usual work out a
| semi
On Mon, 26 Dec 2005 17:17:54 -0800 Brian Harring [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| On Tue, Dec 27, 2005 at 01:03:49AM +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
| On Mon, 26 Dec 2005 16:57:07 -0800 Brian Harring
| [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| | Not saying it's a great idea, but EAPI exists to provide
| | immediate
On Mon, Dec 26, 2005 at 08:12:03PM -0500, Dan Meltzer wrote:
On 12/26/05, Lares Moreau [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 2005-12-27 at 00:59 +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Tue, 27 Dec 2005 01:45:00 +0100 Stefan Schweizer
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| That will increase the sync time for
On Mon, Dec 26, 2005 at 09:09:31PM +0100, Carsten Lohrke wrote:
On Saturday 24 December 2005 02:04, Brian Harring wrote:
dev-lang/python[tcltk]
^^^ need that atom resolved with use flag tcltk enabled
I think that's exactly what someone told me months ago. :)
Lares Moreau wrote:
I'm relatively ignorant of USE Flag intricacies, so please forgive me if
things don't 'fit'.
Ditto for me. I have a question or two. I have servers that have no
GUI at all. I just use them to run folding on. Would I benefit from
puting in USE=-* in my USE line?
On Tuesday 27 December 2005 01:46, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
You solve this either by SLOTting bar and making each bar SLOT use a
SLOT dep upon KDE, or by using USE flags and [use]:slot deps.
It's not a that uncommon case and would lead to dozens, very likely (depending
on the future development
Lares Moreau wrote:
There are already complaints about syncs taking to long.
As a dial-up user, I may be one of them. Sorry. It takes me 30 to 45
minutes to sync. That's if it has few changes. It took almost a hour
when KDE was upgraded. This does NOT include downloading any
Stefan Schweizer wrote:
That will increase the sync time for all of our users - can we please
keep this info out of the sync-tree?
I do not see why this is necessary to be in the tree - we can do fine
with a webbased database for that.
The additional time is not significant as this will be a
On Mon, 26 Dec 2005 18:07:29 -0700 Lares Moreau
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| On Tue, 2005-12-27 at 00:59 +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
| On Tue, 27 Dec 2005 01:45:00 +0100 Stefan Schweizer
| [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| | That will increase the sync time for all of our users - can we
| | please
Marcelo Góes wrote:
Fellow Gentooers,
Here is a draft of an enhancement proposal that should allow upstream
information to be included in metadata.xml:
http://dev.gentoo.org/~vanquirius/glep-0099.txt
It is authored by ciaranm and me (vanquirius).
Please comment :-).
Will those new tags
On 12/26/05, Brian Harring [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Dec 26, 2005 at 08:12:03PM -0500, Dan Meltzer wrote:
On 12/26/05, Lares Moreau [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 2005-12-27 at 00:59 +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Tue, 27 Dec 2005 01:45:00 +0100 Stefan Schweizer
[EMAIL
On Tue, 27 Dec 2005 02:43:19 +0100 Marius Mauch [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| Will those new tags support the restrict attribute?
Is restrict something that's in use and working, or did it never get
off the drawing board?
--
Ciaran McCreesh : Gentoo Developer (I can kill you with my brain)
Mail
On Tuesday 27 December 2005 02:29, Brian Harring wrote:
So... basically, your concern is with the resolver, not use/slot deps
syntax.
I did not say that this would have anything to do with the syntax. Am I right
to extract from your words that we get rid of ~arch users complains about
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Tue, 27 Dec 2005 02:43:19 +0100 Marius Mauch [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| Will those new tags support the restrict attribute?
Is restrict something that's in use and working, or did it never get
off the drawing board?
Well, it's listed in metadata.dtd, so any package
On Tuesday 27 December 2005 02:23, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
Nooo! That's exactly the point I was making. Carsten is assuming that
by using [slot:bar] syntax, no backwards incompatibility will be
introduced by adding a new [fish:] key.
Nooo! ;) I said it would look more consistent, than always
On Tue, Dec 27, 2005 at 03:01:13AM +0100, Carsten Lohrke wrote:
On Tuesday 27 December 2005 02:29, Brian Harring wrote:
So... basically, your concern is with the resolver, not use/slot deps
syntax.
I did not say that this would have anything to do with the syntax. Am I right
to extract
On Tuesday 27 December 2005 02:42, Brian Harring wrote:
Well, we all seem to be missing the issue, so please spell it out
clearly (rather then it's going to get bad). Didn't grok it from
the previous email, so spell it out please :)
Just did so in the answer on your other email.
Carsten
On Tue, Dec 27, 2005 at 03:07:52AM +0100, Carsten Lohrke wrote:
On Tuesday 27 December 2005 02:23, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
Nooo! That's exactly the point I was making. Carsten is assuming that
by using [slot:bar] syntax, no backwards incompatibility will be
introduced by adding a new [fish:]
On Tuesday 27 December 2005 03:11, Brian Harring wrote:
Either way, still not totally following your complaint, thus an actual
example would help (easiest to assume I'm a moron, and start at that
level of explanation).
O.k.
1. You have KDE 3.4 and Digikam (version doesn't matter) installed
2.
On Tuesday 27 December 2005 03:11, Brian Harring wrote:
Never said anything about 2.1 + resolver enhancements (no clue where
that one came from). Merely commenting on your raised issues about
use/slot deps.
From your words. Thanks for destroying my hope in two sentences. ;p
So we add this
On Tue, Dec 27, 2005 at 03:32:04AM +0100, Carsten Lohrke wrote:
On Tuesday 27 December 2005 03:11, Brian Harring wrote:
Either way, still not totally following your complaint, thus an actual
example would help (easiest to assume I'm a moron, and start at that
level of explanation).
O.k.
On Tue, Dec 27, 2005 at 03:36:00AM +0100, Carsten Lohrke wrote:
On Tuesday 27 December 2005 03:11, Brian Harring wrote:
Never said anything about 2.1 + resolver enhancements (no clue where
that one came from). Merely commenting on your raised issues about
use/slot deps.
From your words.
On Tuesday 27 December 2005 03:40, Brian Harring wrote:
The version of digikam being merged requires slot=3.5- it should be
depending on libk* slot=3.5, also, no?
No! It (and also its dependencies) can be built against each 3.x slot.
As long as the information is represented dependency wise,
On Tue, 27 Dec 2005 03:54:38 +0100 Carsten Lohrke [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| On Tuesday 27 December 2005 03:40, Brian Harring wrote:
| The version of digikam being merged requires slot=3.5- it should be
| depending on libk* slot=3.5, also, no?
|
| No! It (and also its dependencies) can be built
On Tue, Dec 27, 2005 at 03:54:38AM +0100, Carsten Lohrke wrote:
On Tuesday 27 December 2005 03:40, Brian Harring wrote:
The version of digikam being merged requires slot=3.5- it should be
depending on libk* slot=3.5, also, no?
No! It (and also its dependencies) can be built against each
Lares Moreau wrote:
On Mon, 2005-12-26 at 12:36 -0600, Joe McCann wrote:
For the record, the eds flag was
added as a default flag because every 3rd gnome user would file bugs or
complain via forums because they installed gnome, found no
evolution-data-server integration, and then be bummed
On Mon, Dec 26, 2005 at 11:28:17PM -0500, Chandler Carruth wrote:
It occurs to me that this could be (to an extent) accomplished by having
a few more specialized subprofiles for x86: base, desktop, gnome, and kde.
base - as the name implies, a _basic_ starting point... very similar to
server
Brian Harring wrote:
On Mon, Dec 26, 2005 at 11:28:17PM -0500, Chandler Carruth wrote:
It occurs to me that this could be (to an extent) accomplished by having
a few more specialized subprofiles for x86: base, desktop, gnome, and kde.
base - as the name implies, a _basic_ starting point...
On Tue, Dec 27, 2005 at 12:10:04AM -0500, Chandler Carruth wrote:
Brian Harring wrote:
On Mon, Dec 26, 2005 at 11:28:17PM -0500, Chandler Carruth wrote:
3) there is _no_ functionality added by any of this, only
user-friendliness after a fashion, and as such, perhaps it should all
be chucked
Carsten Lohrke wrote:
On Monday 26 December 2005 14:57, Drake Wyrm wrote:
You're going to be hard-pressed to get any kind of consensus on this
issue. Many dev seems to feel that the license belongs there. In some
cases the COPYING, LICENSE, and/or INSTALL files contain, not boilerplate
On Tuesday 27 December 2005 02:01, R Hill wrote:
AFAIK most licenses need to be included with the distribution of the
source, not installed on the system after compilation. But I could be
wrong too.
anyone who installs a program in portage already has a copy of the license on
their system
On Tue, Dec 27, 2005 at 02:08:25AM -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Tuesday 27 December 2005 02:01, R Hill wrote:
AFAIK most licenses need to be included with the distribution of the
source, not installed on the system after compilation. But I could be
wrong too.
anyone who installs a
On Tuesday 27 December 2005 02:23, Brian Harring wrote:
On Tue, Dec 27, 2005 at 02:08:25AM -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Tuesday 27 December 2005 02:01, R Hill wrote:
AFAIK most licenses need to be included with the distribution of the
source, not installed on the system after
Le Mardi 27 Décembre 2005 02:52, Dan Meltzer a écrit :
On 12/26/05, Brian Harring [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Dec 26, 2005 at 08:12:03PM -0500, Dan Meltzer wrote:
On 12/26/05, Lares Moreau [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 2005-12-27 at 00:59 +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On
On Tuesday 27 December 2005 02:43, Julien Allanos (dju`) wrote:
Are the $HOMEPAGE, $DESCRIPTION
possibly
$LICENSE or even $SRC_URI
this answer should be pretty obvious, of course these values could change
drastically across even revisions, let alone versions
package or version specific
On Monday 26 December 2005 16:11, Marcelo Góes wrote:
``maintainer`` can contain the tags ``name`` and ``email``, indicating the
person/organization responsible for upstream maintainership of the package.
What if upstream is more than one person, but less than an organization? What
if there is
On Monday 26 December 2005 07:18, Petteri Räty wrote:
I propose we improve the emerge -pv output to be something like the
following:
[ebuild U ] media-sound/alsa-driver-1.0.10-r1 [1.0.10] NEW=-debug
OLD=-doc oss 0 kB
This would keep the functionality with --verbose.
The NEW and OLD
Jason Stubbs wrote:
On Monday 26 December 2005 07:18, Petteri Räty wrote:
I propose we improve the emerge -pv output to be something like the
following:
[ebuild U ] media-sound/alsa-driver-1.0.10-r1 [1.0.10] NEW=-debug
OLD=-doc oss 0 kB
This would keep the functionality with --verbose.
Yo.
So I'm getting antsy, and looking to start using fun features like
sets, generator expressions, etc.
Not a 2.2 thing however. So the question is, when are we going to
give the finger to 2.2 and move forward? :)
~harring
pgpjw5zAtLPH9.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Tuesday 27 December 2005 00:52, Brian Harring wrote:
So I'm getting antsy, and looking to start using fun features like
sets, generator expressions, etc.
Not a 2.2 thing however. So the question is, when are we going to
give the finger to 2.2 and move forward? :)
i think it's safe to
100 matches
Mail list logo
