On Wed, Mar 01, 2006 at 11:28:32AM +, Francesco Riosa wrote:
Before to this to happen I'll try my best to close the greatest number
of bugs still open (many already are but not committed) and manage to
bring MySQL back to the unslotted version.
[1]
Yes. 12% [ 12 ]
No. 75% [ 72 ]
No pref
Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Wednesday 01 March 2006 21:53, Mark Loeser wrote:
>> Here is my updated version after some feedback from people:
>>
>> * In case of emergency, or if package maintainers refuse to cooperate,
>> the QA team may take action themselves to fix the problem.
>> * The QA team m
On Wed, Mar 01, 2006 at 01:24:26AM +0900, Kalin KOZHUHAROV wrote:
Well there are a few problems, but yes I cannot name them now.
Using Japanese, Cyrillic and English in a few encodings each is a big nightmare.
It's true! We in xUSSR use KOI8-R, KOI8-U, CP1251 ( aka Windows-1251),
CP866.
Nowa
On Fri, 3 Mar 2006 22:44:22 +,
"Stuart Herbert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Unless a user looks inside the ebuild, they're not going to
> understand why the USE flags they've selected has resulted in a
> package that doesn't actually have those features.
...
> This is going to *create* more s
On Friday 03 March 2006 23:32, Grant Goodyear wrote:
> Stuart Herbert wrote:
> > I agree. Adopting a policy like this is a low quality solution for
> > servers. I've no opinion on how this affects desktops, but packages
> > for servers need to be precise.A policy that says "if two USE
> > fla
On Saturday 04 March 2006 00:29, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Fri, 3 Mar 2006 23:14:41 + "Stuart Herbert"
>
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> | If we're going to do this, then at least we should be implementing a
> | consistent standard across all ebuilds. F.ex, when SSL and TLS
> | conflict, we s
Hi Thomas,
Am Samstag, 4. März 2006 14:24 schrieb Thomas de Grenier de Latour:
> One point of view on this issues is that the ebuilds are wrong, because
> they are abusing the said USE flags, and they should rather die. Imho,
> it makes sense, but if such a strict policy was applied to every
> eb
4.3.2006, 2:57:51, Alec Warner wrote:
>> The whole argument here is that bailing out with conflicting use flags
>> breaks some extensive compiles. So you suppose users will be sitting in
>> front of their monitor and stare on the screen waiting for a scary warning?
>> No, they won't. And even if
Hi Ciaran,
On 3/3/06, Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> And what of gtk vs qt, where for many packages one is clearly the
> preferred choice, but which one this is varies between packages? Do
> *you* know which GUI is the best option for gvim and why?
No, I don't. But that doesn't mea
Hi Mike,
On 3/4/06, Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> bad idea ...
Yes it is a bad idea; policy belongs with users. It shouldn't be
hardcoded into ebuilds, whether across the whole tree or per package.
But ... I realise I'm flogging a dead horse here.
We'll come up with a new revisio
On Saturday 04 March 2006 23:45, Danny van Dyk wrote:
> Am Samstag, 4. März 2006 14:24 schrieb Thomas de Grenier de Latour:
> > One point of view on this issues is that the ebuilds are wrong, because
> > they are abusing the said USE flags, and they should rather die. Imho,
> > it makes sense, but
Hi Ciaran,
On 3/4/06, Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Explanation: a USE flag for trivial stuff that isn't in /etc, doesn't
> slow anything down, doesn't introduce any dep bloat and generally
> doesn't change anything noticeable isn't a USE flag that's giving the
> user any meaningful
Hi Danny,
On 3/4/06, Danny van Dyk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Just to throw in my 2 cents into this discussion: I'm all against die-ing
> during the update process. However, i think that stopping before the update
> process would be the best solution at hand. I'd like to propose the addition
> o
On Saturday 04 March 2006 17:15, Stuart Herbert wrote:
> Hi Ciaran,
>
> On 3/4/06, Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Explanation: a USE flag for trivial stuff that isn't in /etc, doesn't
> > slow anything down, doesn't introduce any dep bloat and generally
> > doesn't change anything n
Stuart Herbert wrote:
> Another point of view are servers, where there's simply no need to
> have docs installed on each and every box in a rack. There's no need
> to install what a user doesn't need, and having doc and example USE
> flags more widely supported means that Gentoo does a better job
On Saturday 04 March 2006 16:43, Dan Armak wrote:
> If you're concerned about diskspace you can filter out /usr/share/doc
> entirely, so users do have the choice. The problem here is that the docs
> USE flag is off by default. Making more packages use the flag would install
> less docs. Has anyone
On Saturday 04 March 2006 02:04, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> This is undocumented and unofficial, so feel free to utterly ignore it
> and commit whatever the heck you want.
>
> The 'doc' and 'examples' (yay for consistency!)
Don't now, if I guess right what you want to say, but there's no plural of
On Sat, Mar 04, 2006 at 05:43:22PM +0200, Dan Armak wrote:
> Has anyone actually complained that too many docs are installed by
> default?
Don't know about docs, but if examples count here too, see bug #111508.
pgpWPL45zC4Dq.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Stuart Herbert posted
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, excerpted
below, on Sat, 04 Mar 2006 15:15:30 +:
> On 3/4/06, Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Explanation: a USE flag for trivial stuff that isn't in /etc, doesn't
>> slow anything down, doesn't introduce any dep bloat and generally
>>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sat, 4 Mar 2006, MIkey wrote:
Stuart Herbert wrote:
Another point of view are servers, where there's simply no need to
have docs installed on each and every box in a rack. There's no need
to install what a user doesn't need, and having doc and
Ferris McCormick wrote:
>> I
>> would also like to have them excluded from binary packages.
>>
>
> That can't be right can it? You mean, like openoffice-bin, or like the
> ones you build yourself? I know that I often build on one system, install
> on several, and when I do that, I really want
On Sat, 4 Mar 2006 05:20:06 + Marius Mauch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| "* Portage must extend portageq to implement a command which
| returns whether or not the profile used for a given repository ID
| matches a certain base path (e.g. portageq profile_used
| default-linux/sparc/sparc64/2004.3
On Sat, 04 Mar 2006 12:04:11 -0600 MIkey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| At my job we aim to eventually rid ourselves completely of MS
| products on several thousand (local and remote) desktops and replace
| them with some sort of thin linux client running the citrix metaframe
| client. They will be
On Saturday 04 March 2006 18:00, Carsten Lohrke wrote:
> On Saturday 04 March 2006 16:43, Dan Armak wrote:
> > If you're concerned about diskspace you can filter out /usr/share/doc
> > entirely, so users do have the choice. The problem here is that the docs
> > USE flag is off by default. Making mo
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Sat, 04 Mar 2006 12:04:11 -0600 MIkey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> | At my job we aim to eventually rid ourselves completely of MS
> | products on several thousand (local and remote) desktops and replace
> | them with some sort of thin linux client running the citrix me
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sat, 4 Mar 2006, MIkey wrote:
Ferris McCormick wrote:
I
would also like to have them excluded from binary packages.
That can't be right can it? You mean, like openoffice-bin, or like the
ones you build yourself? I know that I often build
Ferris McCormick wrote:
> I misinterpreted what you wrote. I thought you meant "physically included
> in the package," not "installed from a binary package." I just completely
> read what looks like a reasonable request and turned it into nonsense
> without thinking about it, I guess.
I am not
Alexander Simonov wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 01, 2006 at 01:24:26AM +0900, Kalin KOZHUHAROV wrote:
>> Well there are a few problems, but yes I cannot name them now.
>> Using Japanese, Cyrillic and English in a few encodings each is a big
>> nightmare.
>>
>
> It's true! We in xUSSR use KOI8-R, KOI8-U, CP
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sat, 4 Mar 2006, MIkey wrote:
Ferris McCormick wrote:
I misinterpreted what you wrote. I thought you meant "physically included
in the package," not "installed from a binary package." I just completely
read what looks like a reasonable reques
MIkey posted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, excerpted
below, on Sat, 04 Mar 2006 12:18:22 -0600:
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 04 Mar 2006 12:04:11 -0600 MIkey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> | At my job we aim to eventually rid ourselves completely of MS
>> | products on several thousand (local and
On Sat, 04 Mar 2006 12:18:22 -0600,
MIkey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Can it exclude things from being included in binary packages?
AFAIK, no. But what you could use (with portage-2.1) is a hook
function in /etc/portage/bashrc:
post_src_install() { rm -rf ${D}usr/share/doc ; }
This way, fil
Thomas de Grenier de Latour wrote:
> post_src_install() { rm -rf ${D}usr/share/doc ; }
> This way, files will be deleted for real, before getting merged or
> added to your binary package.
No, that function never gets executed with binary packages. You probably meant
post_pkg_preinst.
--
Kind R
On Sat, 04 Mar 2006 23:04:22 +0100,
Simon Stelling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Thomas de Grenier de Latour wrote:
> > post_src_install() { rm -rf ${D}usr/share/doc ; }
> > This way, files will be deleted for real, before getting merged or
> > added to your binary package.
>
> No, that function
Danny van Dyk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Just to throw in my 2 cents into this discussion: I'm all against die-ing
> during the update process. However, i think that stopping before the update
> process would be the best solution at hand. I'd like to propose the addition
> of a dedicated USE con
kang wrote: [Thu Nov 03 2005, 02:29:11PM EST]
> I can maintain it if no one else can.
Feel free. I've bumped the version once and added a patch, but
I would rather not be the primary maintainer.
Regards,
Aron
--
Aron Griffis
Gentoo Linux Developer
pgp2uMipSEbc5.pgp
Description: PGP signatur
It looks like xemacs is currently in need of maintainers. The herd is
currently nonexistent and there is no one on the alias. There are a
number of bugs open about xemacs: http://tinyurl.com/makfd
I'm not sure how we currently handle such a situation, but I personally
think we should mask all of
36 matches
Mail list logo
