On Monday 05 June 2006 02:07, Harald van Dijk wrote:
> Some gnustep stuff inherits cvs, but uses -D in the cvs options to
> always download exactly the same thing.
then arent you just adding overhead to the poor gnustep cvs servers ? why not
roll a cvs snapshot tarball and distro via our mirrors
On Mon, Jun 05, 2006 at 03:45:50AM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Monday 05 June 2006 02:07, Harald van Dijk wrote:
> > Some gnustep stuff inherits cvs, but uses -D in the cvs options to
> > always download exactly the same thing.
>
> then arent you just adding overhead to the poor gnustep cvs s
On Mon, Jun 05, 2006 at 10:19:41AM +0200, Harald van Dijk wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 05, 2006 at 03:45:50AM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On Monday 05 June 2006 02:07, Harald van Dijk wrote:
> > > Some gnustep stuff inherits cvs, but uses -D in the cvs options to
> > > always download exactly the same t
On Mon, Jun 05, 2006 at 01:54:08AM -0700, Brian Harring wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 05, 2006 at 10:19:41AM +0200, Harald van Dijk wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 05, 2006 at 03:45:50AM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > > On Monday 05 June 2006 02:07, Harald van Dijk wrote:
> > > > Some gnustep stuff inherits cvs, but
On Mon, Jun 05, 2006 at 11:14:45AM +0200, Harald van Dijk wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 05, 2006 at 01:54:08AM -0700, Brian Harring wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 05, 2006 at 10:19:41AM +0200, Harald van Dijk wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jun 05, 2006 at 03:45:50AM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > > > On Monday 05 June 2006 0
On Mon, Jun 05, 2006 at 02:24:24AM -0700, Brian Harring wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 05, 2006 at 11:14:45AM +0200, Harald van Dijk wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 05, 2006 at 01:54:08AM -0700, Brian Harring wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jun 05, 2006 at 10:19:41AM +0200, Harald van Dijk wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Jun 05, 2006 at 0
The options are just :
1) local flags or
2) expanded var.
3) I've also tried to reuse the "LINGUAS" expanded flag but is something
hackish: not enogh control to the ebuild,
people in foreign country can do nothing, there are some issues for
country with non-exclusive language
(think about switzerl
On Monday 05 June 2006 06:01, Matteo Azzali wrote:
> 1) local flags or
> 2) expanded var.
if xmltv is the only package which would benefit from this, then you should
use local flags
-mike
pgplS49zhZlYF.pgp
Description: PGP signature
I already did it , check http://pastebin.com/759475 , but truedfx wrote :
"Please don't do that. LINGUAS is for translations, nothing more, and
using it for xmltv grabbers will be a huge pain for everyone using
different languages than implied by their locations."
My solution is 3 use flags, tv_c
On Mon, 5 Jun 2006 11:56:16 +0200 Harald van Dijk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| The devmanual states that they should not "generally" be added to the
| tree softmasked or unmasked. It does not state that they should never
| be added as such at all. Or, in other words, there can be exceptions.
It's n
Harald van Dijk wrote:
On Mon, Jun 05, 2006 at 02:24:24AM -0700, Brian Harring wrote:
On Mon, Jun 05, 2006 at 11:14:45AM +0200, Harald van Dijk wrote:
On Mon, Jun 05, 2006 at 01:54:08AM -0700, Brian Harring wrote:
On Mon, Jun 05, 2006 at 10:19:41AM +0200, Harald van Dijk wrote:
On Mon, Jun 0
On Mon, Jun 05, 2006 at 12:57:08PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Mon, 5 Jun 2006 11:56:16 +0200 Harald van Dijk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> | The devmanual states that they should not "generally" be added to the
> | tree softmasked or unmasked. It does not state that they should never
> | be
On Mon, 5 Jun 2006 14:41:43 +0200 Harald van Dijk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| I then said that *you* say there can be legitimate reasons for them.
| So why do *I* have to come up with examples of it?
Well that's just it. I didn't say there were legitimate reasons, I just
didn't commit myself to sa
On Mon, 2006-06-05 at 00:13 +0200, Alfredo Tupone wrote:
> Going to apply if I get no negative answer in, say, 10 days.
Go ahead and do it now. It really shouldn't break anything, as I can't
think of a single thing using make_desktop _entry with a space in the
executable name.
--
Chris Gianello
On Mon, Jun 05, 2006 at 01:51:31PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Mon, 5 Jun 2006 14:41:43 +0200 Harald van Dijk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> | I then said that *you* say there can be legitimate reasons for them.
> | So why do *I* have to come up with examples of it?
>
> Well that's just it.
On Mon, 2006-06-05 at 15:16 +0200, Harald van Dijk wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 05, 2006 at 01:51:31PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > On Mon, 5 Jun 2006 14:41:43 +0200 Harald van Dijk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> > | I then said that *you* say there can be legitimate reasons for them.
> > | So why do
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Alec Warner wrote:
> [...]
Gets my vote. Good idea. :)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFEhFG6rsJQqN81j74RAsO1AKCybk+IHs6Bta0Jj/ZCoo2UP3YqZACeNLms
bJowAD/7a9ukWOzX+qPVcAo=
=a6gy
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
--
ge
Hi,
today I would like to propose a few default keywords for removal. They are
outdated and no longer needed on current systems:
-apm - only very old notebooks use apm
-foomaticdb - foomaticdb is only used for development foomatic xml files.
SInce most of our users do not develop printer drivers
Stefan Schweizer wrote: [Mon Jun 05 2006, 11:03:57AM CDT]
> -fortran - Do we really need this outdated language as a default in gcc?
Although outdated, there are still a lot of applications that use it.
More importantly, there are a lot of well-tested numerical libraries
that exist in fortran that
Stefan Schweizer wrote:
> -fortran - Do we really need this outdated language as a default in gcc?
I am not on the toolchain team, but I _think_ the reason this is on by
default is because fortran is considered part of a standard gcc
installation (by upstream, etc).
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailin
On Mon, Jun 05, 2006 at 06:03:57PM +0200, Stefan Schweizer wrote:
> Hi,
>
> today I would like to propose a few default keywords for removal. They are
> outdated and no longer needed on current systems:
>
> -imlib - imlib depends on gtk-1, which imo should not be installed in a
> default gentoo i
On Monday 05 June 2006 18:03, Stefan Schweizer wrote:
> I would like to make the changes in a new 2006.1 profile, how do I go about
> that? I think the current profiles should not be touched, since some users
> may still be using the flags.
Yes, 2006.1.
> Any comments/objections - any outdated us
On 6/5/06, Chris Gianelloni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Go ahead and do it now. It really shouldn't break anything, as I can't
> think of a single thing using make_desktop _entry with a space in the
> executable name.
What about games-board/gnubg-0.14.3 ?
Denis.
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org maili
On Mon, Jun 05, 2006 at 06:59:22PM +0200, Carsten Lohrke wrote:
> > Any comments/objections - any outdated useflags I forgot?
> > Have a look at /usr/portage/profiles/default-linux/x86/2006.0/make.defaults
> > for the list of current default use flags.
>
> I think gtk2 should be finally removed¹ f
Monday, 5. June 2006 18:03, Stefan Schweizer Ви написали:
> -fortran - Do we really need this outdated language as a default in gcc?
Which one, Fortran-99 or Fortran-2006? ;)
(Well, Ok, gfortran in gcc does not do 2006 yet, but still..)
On the usage side: if you do that (i.e. remove it) you will b
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Since no one has shown concern for these poor, frightened packages,
they will be humanely removed from portage.
- -Jon
Jon Hood wrote:
> If anyone has ever tried to run a gnutella gwebcache, they've
> probably noticed about 8-10 requests a second. And
Denis Dupeyron wrote:
> dev-embedded/sdcc-cvs will be masked right now, and then removed in a month
> or so if nobody complains.
dev-embedded/sdcc-cvs is now removed.
Denis.
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
On Mon, 2006-06-05 at 18:03 +0200, Stefan Schweizer wrote:
> I would like to make the changes in a new 2006.1 profile, how do I go about
> that? I think the current profiles should not be touched, since some users
> may still be using the flags.
Considering most architectures already have a 2006.1
On Mon, 2006-06-05 at 17:24 +, Denis Dupeyron wrote:
> On 6/5/06, Chris Gianelloni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Go ahead and do it now. It really shouldn't break anything, as I can't
> > think of a single thing using make_desktop _entry with a space in the
> > executable name.
>
> What a
thus package is a branch of the rtl8180-sa2400http://sourceforge.net/projects/rtl818xonly cvsthanks--aryix
On Mon, Jun 05, 2006 at 07:03:57PM +0200, Stefan Schweizer wrote:
> today I would like to propose a few default keywords for removal. They are
> outdated and no longer needed on current systems:
What do you want to remove, the use flags themselves or just turn them
off in the profiles?
> -xmms -
On Monday 05 June 2006 20:08, Harald van Dijk wrote:
> No, the decision with the gtk/gtk2 USE flag mess was to have package
> maintainers decide for each ebuild whether to support only gtk1 or only
> gtk2, but not have support for both in a single ebuild.
I know about the decision of the Gnome team
On Monday 05 June 2006 20:52, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> > Have a look at
> > /usr/portage/profiles/default-linux/x86/2006.0/make.defaults for the list
> > of current default use flags.
I think it's a bad idea to have win32codecs in make.defaults. There's quite a
number of codecs in the package an
I maintain very few packages these days, so it was quite a surprise to
me today when I discovered that peer review is now effectively a part of
the x86 stabilization process. When I wrote GLEP 40, the problem that I
was trying to solve was that of devs stabling packages without ever
testing the pa
On Mon, 2006-06-05 at 21:22 +0200, Wernfried Haas wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 05, 2006 at 07:03:57PM +0200, Stefan Schweizer wrote:
> > today I would like to propose a few default keywords for removal. They are
> > outdated and no longer needed on current systems:
>
> What do you want to remove, the use
Grant Goodyear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> I maintain very few packages these days, so it was quite a surprise to
> me today when I discovered that peer review is now effectively a part of
> the x86 stabilization process. When I wrote GLEP 40, the problem that I
> was trying to solve was that of d
On Mon, Jun 05, 2006 at 03:00:57PM -0500, Grant Goodyear wrote:
> I maintain very few packages these days, so it was quite a surprise to
> me today when I discovered that peer review is now effectively a part of
> the x86 stabilization process. When I wrote GLEP 40, the problem that I
> was trying
On Mon, Jun 05, 2006 at 09:58:46PM +0100, Luis Medinas wrote:
> > xmms is still in the tree? People (ok, at least me ;-) ) still use it?
> > I don't mind if it has to go and there are alternatives, but why would
> > you just want to remove its use flag and not the package itself?
> > If it needs t
Mark Loeser wrote: [Mon Jun 05 2006, 03:25:02PM CDT]
> Well, since you decided to bring this up on here, I guess we'll just try
> to address everything.
Where else would I have brought this up? Paraphrasing, I noted that the
x86 team is now doing peer review, I asked if other arch teams are doing
On Mon, 2006-06-05 at 21:57 +0200, Carsten Lohrke wrote:
> On Monday 05 June 2006 20:52, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> > > Have a look at
> > > /usr/portage/profiles/default-linux/x86/2006.0/make.defaults for the list
> > > of current default use flags.
>
> I think it's a bad idea to have win32codecs
On Saturday 03 June 2006 17:43, Alec Warner wrote:
> I propose a new QA subproject, the TreeCleaners.
Great initiative! I'm all for it.
For a sidenote, If it is possible, can a unmaintained repo be created for
removed packages? If an interested developer comes along the day some time
later, and
On Tuesday 06 June 2006 00:12, Eldad Zack wrote:
> If an interested developer comes along the day some time
> later, and the ebuild is untrivial, it can be a time-saver starting from
> the last version at some cases - especially if the ebuild was punted
> because of security issues.
That's why we
On Monday 05 June 2006 23:25, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> Well, it doesn't affect stages, and GRP stuff is done w/ USE=bindist, so
> again, this is a non-issue.
Well, I didn't mean our binary releases, but being held liable for making
property of others available by default, without the permission
This list is for development discussions. Please file a request at
http://bugs.gentoo.org
Carsten
pgppRNCcOVLoi.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Mon, 2006-06-05 at 18:03 +0200, Stefan Schweizer wrote:
> -foomaticdb - foomaticdb is only used for development foomatic xml files.
> SInce most of our users do not develop printer drivers I suggest
> making "ppds" a default use flag instead.
Should we have ppds in the 2006.1 profile, or 2006.1
Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> On Mon, 2006-06-05 at 18:03 +0200, Stefan Schweizer wrote:
>> -foomaticdb - foomaticdb is only used for development foomatic xml files.
>> SInce most of our users do not develop printer drivers I suggest
>> making "ppds" a default use flag instead.
>
> Should we have ppds
On Mon, 5 Jun 2006, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
So does anyone have any objections to the others being removed?
(apm imlib mikmod motif xmms)
removing mikmod would probably make things ugly for games as well.
A lot of games need mikmod support compiled into sdl-mixer in order to
function correctly
On Tue, 2006-06-06 at 04:10 +0200, Stefan Schweizer wrote:
> > There are *many* applications in the tree that do not use ALSA, but work
> > only via the OSS emulation. Removing this is a bad idea and it would
> > definitely be blocked by the games team. Probably half of the packages
> > that I ma
Carsten Lohrke wrote:
On Monday 05 June 2006 20:08, Harald van Dijk wrote:
No, the decision with the gtk/gtk2 USE flag mess was to have package
maintainers decide for each ebuild whether to support only gtk1 or only
gtk2, but not have support for both in a single ebuild.
I know about t
On Mon, 5 Jun 2006 15:00:57 -0500
Grant Goodyear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Are other arch's also requiring peer review?
On SPARC, we normally keyword everything ourselves and get all up in
your hizzouze if you keyword something that you haven't asked us
about. We normally will let devs keywor
On Monday 05 June 2006 12:16, Patrick McLean wrote:
> Stefan Schweizer wrote:
> > -fortran - Do we really need this outdated language as a default in gcc?
>
> I am not on the toolchain team, but I _think_ the reason this is on by
> default is because fortran is considered part of a standard gcc
> i
On Monday 05 June 2006 12:03, Stefan Schweizer wrote:
> -apm
> -imlib
> -motif
kill em !
> -fortran - Do we really need this outdated language as a default in gcc?
fortran 4 eva
-mike
pgpZ84k1Z4HDK.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Monday 05 June 2006 21:23, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> On Mon, 2006-06-05 at 18:03 +0200, Stefan Schweizer wrote:
> > -oss - oss is a legacy audio interface that has been superseeded by alsa
> > in most current installs, a default use flag is no longer needed
>
> There are *many* applications in t
On Tue, Jun 06, 2006 at 12:07:42AM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Monday 05 June 2006 21:23, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> > On Mon, 2006-06-05 at 18:03 +0200, Stefan Schweizer wrote:
> > > -oss - oss is a legacy audio interface that has been superseeded by alsa
> > > in most current installs, a def
On Tuesday 06 June 2006 01:31, Harald van Dijk wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 06, 2006 at 12:07:42AM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On Monday 05 June 2006 21:23, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> > > On Mon, 2006-06-05 at 18:03 +0200, Stefan Schweizer wrote:
> > > > -oss - oss is a legacy audio interface that has b
On Tue, Jun 06, 2006 at 01:48:37AM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Tuesday 06 June 2006 01:31, Harald van Dijk wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 06, 2006 at 12:07:42AM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > > On Monday 05 June 2006 21:23, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> > > > On Mon, 2006-06-05 at 18:03 +0200, Stefan Sc
On Monday 05 June 2006 23:13, Harald van Dijk wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 06, 2006 at 01:48:37AM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On Tuesday 06 June 2006 01:31, Harald van Dijk wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jun 06, 2006 at 12:07:42AM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > > > On Monday 05 June 2006 21:23, Chris Gianelloni
On Mon, 05 Jun 2006 21:23:58 -0400,
Chris Gianelloni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> There are *many* applications in the tree that do not use ALSA, but
> work only via the OSS emulation. Removing this is a bad idea and it
> would definitely be blocked by the games team. Probably half of the
> pack
Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> On Tue, 2006-06-06 at 04:10 +0200, Stefan Schweizer wrote:
>>> There are *many* applications in the tree that do not use ALSA, but work
>>> only via the OSS emulation. Removing this is a bad idea and it would
>>> definitely be blocked by the games team. Probably half of
Mike Frysinger wrote:
>
>> -fortran - Do we really need this outdated language as a default in gcc?
>
> fortran 4 eva
> -mike
Mike,
Are you flashing fortran gang signs at us?
--
Doug Goldstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
http://dev.gentoo.org/~cardoe/
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital sig
60 matches
Mail list logo
