Duncan wrote:
Matti Bickel [EMAIL PROTECTED] posted [EMAIL PROTECTED],
excerpted below, on Thu, 10 Aug 2006 23:59:51 +0200:
Thomas Cort [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why do arch testers need to post `emerge --info` if everything works?
Shouldn't we be able to trust that they have sane CFLAGS,
http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=67179 is marked
RESOLVED/WORKSFORME, which according to the descriptions means that I
should be able to re-open the bug. But there is no option to do so.
Why?
-Richard
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
it does say make it an attachment if it's too long, but how long
is too long?
8K characters (and bugzilla will actually send you to places where the
sun doesn't shine if you try to post something that exceeds this limit).
--
Best regards,
Jakub Moc
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
GPG signature:
Being an amd64 dev, I want to basically add a 'me too!' here. I think
it's not necessary to add the --info output when all worked well,
though, if instead the output of -pv $PN was given. Except when there
was a failure reported before, because then we need it to compare the two.
Regarding the
On Sat, Aug 12, 2006 at 01:13:48PM +0200, Simon Stelling wrote:
Jeroen Roovers wrote:
On a minor note, I'd also like to see bug reporters use canonical
package names in bug descriptions, including the category (and
preferably the specific version, not some =foo-3*!!!one, not to
mention
On Sat, 12 Aug 2006 13:13:48 +0200
Simon Stelling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jeroen Roovers wrote:
On a minor note, I'd also like to see bug reporters use canonical
package names in bug descriptions, including the category (and
preferably the specific version, not some =foo-3*!!!one, not to
[...]
$ cd gentoo-x86/*/foo
This works better:
$ cd gentoo-x86/*/foo/
This avoids the case where a file by the same name exists (for
example, in licenses/).
may be
$ cd gentoo-x86/*-*/foo/
?
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
On Sat, 12 Aug 2006 13:08:50 +0200
Simon Stelling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Being an amd64 dev, I want to basically add a 'me too!' here. I think
it's not necessary to add the --info output when all worked well,
though, if instead the output of -pv $PN was given. Except when there
was a
On Sat, Aug 12, 2006 at 02:42:32PM +, Francesco Riosa wrote:
[...]
$ cd gentoo-x86/*/foo
This works better:
$ cd gentoo-x86/*/foo/
This avoids the case where a file by the same name exists (for
example, in licenses/).
may be
$ cd gentoo-x86/*-*/foo/
?
Maybe. That
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi everyone,
Currently, portage only allows single inheritance in profiles, but it's easy to
enable multiple inheritance. In order to do this, we only need to unconstrain
the number of parents allowed in the parent file (only 1 is currently
On Sat, 12 Aug 2006 13:24:49 -0700 Zac Medico [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| Currently, portage only allows single inheritance in profiles, but
| it's easy to enable multiple inheritance. In order to do this, we
| only need to unconstrain the number of parents allowed in the parent
| file (only 1 is
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Sat, 12 Aug 2006 13:24:49 -0700 Zac Medico [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| Currently, portage only allows single inheritance in profiles, but
| it's easy to enable multiple inheritance. In order to do this, we
| only need to
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Sat, 12 Aug 2006 13:24:49 -0700 Zac Medico [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| Currently, portage only allows single inheritance in profiles, but
| it's easy to enable multiple inheritance. In order to do this, we
| only need to unconstrain the number of parents allowed in the
On Sat, 12 Aug 2006 16:11:25 -0400 Alec Warner [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
| On Sat, 12 Aug 2006 13:24:49 -0700 Zac Medico [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| wrote:
| | Currently, portage only allows single inheritance in profiles, but
| | it's easy to enable multiple inheritance. In
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Sat, 12 Aug 2006 16:11:25 -0400 Alec Warner [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
| On Sat, 12 Aug 2006 13:24:49 -0700 Zac Medico [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| wrote:
| | Currently, portage only allows single inheritance in profiles, but
| | it's easy to enable
Alec Warner wrote:
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
You can get the best of both worlds using straight MI, if the profile
tree is structured properly. Use the existing hierarchy for the 'main'
profile and mixins (nodes with no parent) as extras. The only problem
with this is Portage's current reliance
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Sat, 12 Aug 2006 16:54:41 -0500 Andrew Gaffney [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| It will also cause QA problems, since the profiles wouldn't be
| strictly controlled by the arch teams and releng anymore.
Uh, that's easily solved. Demand that anyone changing non-arch profile
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: MD5
Alec Warner wrote:
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Sat, 12 Aug 2006 16:54:41 -0500 Andrew Gaffney [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| It will also cause QA problems, since the profiles wouldn't be
| strictly controlled by the arch teams and releng anymore.
Uh,
On Sat, Aug 12, 2006 at 01:24:49PM -0700, Zac Medico wrote:
Hi everyone,
Currently, portage only allows single inheritance in profiles, but
it's easy to enable multiple inheritance. In order to do this, we
only need to unconstrain the number of parents allowed in the parent
file (only 1
Andrew Gaffney wrote:
This is pretty much exactly what Kumba was talking about. I didn't like
the idea simply because it allowed the user to shoot themselves in the
foot way too easily. It will also cause QA problems, since the profiles
wouldn't be strictly controlled by the arch teams and
20 matches
Mail list logo
