Or you haven't talked to me or Beandog at all; since he has been
working on this a while (now with upgraded tools!).
what i'd like to see is a system, to which one would give a package name,
which then handles the removal (almost) automatically.
that way devs would have an easier time
the packages
www-servers/spawn-fcgi and
dev-libs/localizer
where originally added as support for lighttpd. in the meantime lighttpd
provides the same functionality and no version of lighttpd depends on
these packages anymore - in fact, they block.
furthermore no other package has ever
On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 06:40:07 +0200 Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| This is a discussion to follow up bug #149508 [1].
https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=149536#c4
--
Ciaran McCreesh
Mail: ciaranm at ciaranm.org
Web : http://ciaranm.org/
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 06:40:07 +0200 Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| This is a discussion to follow up bug #149508 [1].
https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=149536#c4
If I were you, I'd rather not mention that bug. Really don't see what
you are
On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 14:37:59 +0200 Jakub Moc [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| Additionally, it would be nice if these discussions involved
| concerned arches and were not done ex post in future cases.
Uh, Jakub, part of the design of the devmanual was that it would be
possible for the right people to
On Saturday 30 September 2006 14:25, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=149536#c4
You bring up the point that you don't take any argument?
The argument is still valid, nobody provided a reason for the change.
I don't take anybody's word as a granted, so I don't care
On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 14:40:44 +0200 Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| On Saturday 30 September 2006 14:25, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
| https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=149536#c4
|
| You bring up the point that you don't take any argument?
|
| The argument is still valid,
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 14:37:59 +0200 Jakub Moc [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| Additionally, it would be nice if these discussions involved
| concerned arches and were not done ex post in future cases.
Uh, Jakub, part of the design of the devmanual was that it would be
On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 06:40:07 +0200
Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is a discussion to follow up bug #149508 [1].
The bug points to a behaviour change in handling of the profiles
file, that, in my opinion at least, needs to be discussed, as there
are profiles relying
seriously jakub, stop responding ... you have nothing technical to offer to
the issue at hand
let the people who work on portage handle it
-mike
pgpiPg7pzkzw4.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Mike Frysinger wrote:
seriously jakub, stop responding ... you have nothing technical to offer to
the issue at hand
let the people who work on portage handle it
-mike
Eh, the whole technical point here is that paludis behaviour differs
from portage (and differs from pkgcore, FWIW).
So,
On Saturday 30 September 2006 13:02, Jakub Moc wrote:
Eh, the whole technical point here is that paludis behaviour differs
from portage (and differs from pkgcore, FWIW).
the technical point is what is the expected behavior of the packages file ...
seems silly to duplicate masking across two
Am Samstag, 30. September 2006 19:02 schrieb Jakub Moc:
Mike Frysinger wrote:
seriously jakub, stop responding ... you have nothing technical to
offer to the issue at hand
let the people who work on portage handle it
-mike
Eh, the whole technical point here is that paludis behaviour
On Saturday 30 September 2006 00:40, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
For what I can tell, the current behaviour has the advantage of providing a
different masking reason for packages that are *needed to some version* for
the profile to be complete, and for packages that are know not to work on
Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Saturday 30 September 2006 13:02, Jakub Moc wrote:
Eh, the whole technical point here is that paludis behaviour differs
from portage (and differs from pkgcore, FWIW).
the technical point is what is the expected behavior of the packages file ...
seems silly to
Hi fellow devs,
I discovered that ppp-2.4.4 set a default route without a gateway. It is
totally fine from IP routing point of view (the simple fact that route
is through the point-to-point link is enough to know the next hop),
except that openswan's %defaultroute need a default gateway in order
On Wednesday 27 September 2006 03:54, Brian Harring wrote:
On Wed, Sep 27, 2006 at 02:24:41AM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
as i said, if you have changed ABI without an ABI bump, then the upstream
package maintainer is screwing everyone who uses the package, not just
Gentoo ... so perhaps
On Saturday 30 September 2006 18:59, Alin Nastac wrote:
I discovered that ppp-2.4.4 set a default route without a gateway. It is
totally fine from IP routing point of view (the simple fact that route
is through the point-to-point link is enough to know the next hop),
except that openswan's
Chris Gianelloni wrote:
games-arcade/tuxracer - the last open source version of the game
games-arcade/tuxracer-demo - the demo for the closed-source version
Good riddance, I say. ppracer for the win! :)
--
Peter Gordon (codergeek42)
Gentoo Forums Global Moderator
GnuPG Public Key ID:
On Sat, Sep 30, 2006 at 02:01:08PM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Wednesday 27 September 2006 03:54, Brian Harring wrote:
Bleh, this is getting back to exactly my point that it's unbounded
resolution. To support this, every step of execution would require
scanning for dangling nodes
Roy Marples wrote:
So how does that look in the routing table?
default dev ppp0 scope link instead default via a.b.c.d dev ppp0.
If say a DHCP client renewed it's lease and it set a new default route, would
this have any effect?
I guess a DHCP client would override the default route
I discovered that ppp-2.4.4 set a default route without a gateway. It is
totally fine from IP routing point of view (the simple fact that route
is through the point-to-point link is enough to know the next hop),
except that openswan's %defaultroute need a default gateway in order to
work.
default dev ppp0 scope link instead default via a.b.c.d dev ppp0.
And? What the difference? For the P-t-P connection, there is not
difference. There is only one destination, you can send the packets to:
the ppp-server on the other side.
Only for normal network-connections (eth0, ...), you have
Hi, I just had an unpleasant experience with -ffast-math and GCC 4.1.1
(it borked my LDAP authentication on several systems which worked with
the same CFLAGS as long as GCC 3.4.6 was used).
There is a lot of material out there about CFLAGS and Gentoo (google
returns 387000 pages) but what's
Lionel Bouton wrote:
There are already good resources (http://gentoo-wiki.com/CFLAGS_matrix
was mentioned to me by robbat2) but they may not be advertised enough.
Most of the info on that page is wrong.
I'd like to propose a paragraph to the GWN editor which presents some
gotchas and good
On Saturday 30 September 2006 16:35, Lionel Bouton wrote:
There is a lot of material out there about CFLAGS
`man gcc` always seemed fine to me
in fact, lets read the -ffast-math section:
-ffast-math
This option should never be turned on by any -O option since it can
On Sat, Sep 30, 2006 at 03:48:53PM -0600, Ryan Hill wrote:
Lionel Bouton wrote:
There are already good resources (http://gentoo-wiki.com/CFLAGS_matrix
was mentioned to me by robbat2) but they may not be advertised enough.
Most of the info on that page is wrong.
The items on there that note
Robin H. Johnson wrote:
On Sat, Sep 30, 2006 at 03:48:53PM -0600, Ryan Hill wrote:
Lionel Bouton wrote:
There are already good resources (http://gentoo-wiki.com/CFLAGS_matrix
was mentioned to me by robbat2) but they may not be advertised enough.
Most of the info on that page is wrong.
The
Mike Frysinger wrote the following on 30.09.2006 23:48 :
[...]
`man gcc` always seemed fine to me
in fact, lets read the -ffast-math section:
-ffast-math
This option should never be turned on by any -O option since it can
result in incorrect output for programs
Lionel Bouton wrote:
I'll wait and see if other devs are aware of common CFLAGS gotchas
plaguing bugzilla.
Flags such as -fforce-addr and -fweb that change the way registers are
handled can often cause errors when compiling hand-optimised ASM on
architectures with a very limited number of
Danny van Dyk wrote:
Am Samstag, 30. September 2006 19:02 schrieb Jakub Moc:
Mike Frysinger wrote:
seriously jakub, stop responding ... you have nothing technical to
offer to the issue at hand
let the people who work on portage handle it
-mike
Eh, the whole technical
On Saturday 30 September 2006 19:39, Mike Frysinger wrote:
isnt that the point of putting a comment above a mask ?
# this package wont work on this profile
bar/foo
Indeed, but the problem is that the masks are all normalised in one big mask.
Which means that users might want to unmask certain
Lionel Bouton wrote:
Hi, I just had an unpleasant experience with -ffast-math and GCC 4.1.1
(it borked my LDAP authentication on several systems which worked with
the same CFLAGS as long as GCC 3.4.6 was used).
There is a lot of material out there about CFLAGS and Gentoo (google
returns 387000
On Sat, Sep 30, 2006 at 04:37:05PM -0600, Ryan Hill wrote:
I thought he wanted flags that broke upgrading between GCC 3.4 and 4.1.
tree-loop-linear wasn't in 3.4. If you want flags that just break
stuff with 4.1 you can include -ftree-vectorize.
Thanks.
The objective here was mainly to
Hi guys,
If I'm not mistaken, behaviour in portage changed recently. USE=-* in
make.conf disabled use expand as well. Now use expand stays enabled. What is
the proper way to disable it globally? I couldn't find anything in the
documentation. Thanks!
Regards,
Michiel.
--
35 matches
Mail list logo
