On Saturday 20 May 2006 15:23, Aron Griffis wrote:
Henrik Brix Andersen wrote: [Sat May 20 2006, 04:50:22AM EDT]
On Fri, May 19, 2006 at 10:36:42PM -0400, Aron Griffis wrote:
Along these lines, I added my mercurial.eclass to the tree. I use it
personally for a couple projects, and
On Fri, May 19, 2006 at 11:58:32PM -0700, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
Fernando J. Pereda wrote:
I'd like people who use Git eclass to test it and see if any of the
'features' I introduced break things for them.
I just incorporated much of this into my version (minus some whitespace
changes)
On Sunday 21 May 2006 05:44, Brian Harring wrote:
So... where's the standard? :)
Right, no doc yet that's official, thus at this juncture, what's
there now (portage) is the effective standard.
Said in the last thread, chunking out a formal EAPI=0 definition from
the tree/portage
On Saturday 20 May 2006 22:47, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
The basic form of it, is a vulnerability towards a class of attacks that
require a large supply of signed/encrypted material.
For a primer on various modes of using block ciphers, see
Wikipedia: http://tinyurl.com/bbcmf
It's conceivable
On 20/05/06, Peter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip
Thanks for the clarification. That scheme looks fine. The master
manifest will add about ~700k to the tree, but since it can be rsynced
the actual bandwidth usage day to day should be reasonable.
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
