# Michael Sterrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] (08 Mar 2007)
# masked for removal on April 9
# Doesn't work with dev-perl/sdl-perl-2 and no upstream release
# since 2004.
# http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=155934
games-puzzle/sdlvexed
Michael Sterrett
-Mr. Bones.-
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
On 09/03/07, Anant Narayanan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip
I forgot to add that the dev-lang/dmd-bin ebuild might also require
the special DMD license to be included in the tree. I'm attaching a
copy of the license. I'm not much of a legal person, but it seems
like this license is different from
Hi all,
There was a brief discussion a coupla weeks about getting better syntax
highlighting and context help for ebuilds. Well, sorry can't help with the
second yet, but I hacked together a syntax highlighting file for katepart
(as used in kwrite and kate of course ;) based on the BASH one.
Steve Long [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
but I hacked together a syntax highlighting file for katepart (as
used in kwrite and kate of course ;) based on the BASH one. You can
d/l the first version from: http://phpfi.com/214109
Just for the records: Emacs has support by app-emacs/ebuild-mode, vim
has it
Bryan Østergaard wrote:
Gentoo has an etiquette policy as well at
http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/devrel/handbook/handbook.xml?part=3chap=2
for interested people.
One thing worth noting is that we've just decided that the policy needs
to be updated so hopefully we'll see a new/expanded policy
Bryan Østergaard wrote:
I'm not a dev, just a lowly user, but maybe this policy needs to be
posted here since according to some of what I have read lately, this has
not been read before by several. Maybe when you first subscribe, it
should be included in the subscribe confirmation email.
Jim Ramsay wrote:
I suppose the alternative would be to split the ebuild into 'gkrellm'
and 'gkrellmd' ebuilds, which would indeed remove the need for the
'built_with_use' check. How is this normally done for other packages
that have, for example, both a client and server part?
Well mysql
Christian Faulhammer wrote:
Steve Long [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
but I hacked together a syntax highlighting file for katepart (as
used in kwrite and kate of course ;) based on the BASH one. You can
d/l the first version from: http://phpfi.com/214109
Just for the records: Emacs has support by
Alex Howells wrote:
On 09/03/07, Anant Narayanan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip
I forgot to add that the dev-lang/dmd-bin ebuild might also require
the special DMD license to be included in the tree. I'm attaching a
copy of the license. I'm not much of a legal person, but it seems
like this
On 3/9/07, Anant Narayanan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi All,
I'm currently in the process of introducing a bunch of ebuilds
related to the D programming language into the tree. I'll begin with
the binary compiler provided by Digital Mars and then move onto the
GCC based compiler.
1) The
On Fri, 09 Mar 2007 13:54:12 +0200
Petteri Räty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Alex Howells wrote:
On 09/03/07, Anant Narayanan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip
I forgot to add that the dev-lang/dmd-bin ebuild might also require
the special DMD license to be included in the tree. I'm attaching a
Thomas de Grenier de Latour [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
- I am sure my review of the 73 ebuilds i had installed do contains
some mistakes. It was just a first pass to get a raw idea on the
heuristic itself and the amount of false-positives. Don't worry, i
will not go open 73 bug reports. Actually, i
On Fri, 2007-03-09 at 15:32 +0530, Anant Narayanan wrote:
redistribution which means we would need RESTRICT=nomirror.
RESTRICT=mirror please... nomirror is deprecated and will go away at
some point in the future.
--
Chris Gianelloni
Release Engineering Strategic Lead
Alpha/AMD64/x86
On Fri, 2007-03-09 at 11:10 +, Steve Long wrote:
I don't know how it would work technically, how difficult it would be, or
indeed if anyone is prepared to do the work, besides maybe some of the
users.
No.
Once we have USE-based dependencies across the board, then yes. Until
that time, we
On Fri, 9 Mar 2007 10:41:57 -0500 Philip Webb [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
My own rules for netiquette are very simple: Always be parliamentary;
never be personal; have a point to make; know when to stop.
'Parliamentary' means 'follow the rules for MPs in Ottawa or
Westminster'.
If you think that
070309 Stephen Bennett wrote:
On Fri, 9 Mar 2007 10:41:57 -0500 Philip Webb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Always be parliamentary;
never be personal; have a point to make; know when to stop.
'Parliamentary' means 'follow the rules for MPs in Ottawa or Westminster'.
If you've seen what goes on in
Stephen Bennett wrote:
On Fri, 9 Mar 2007 10:41:57 -0500
Philip Webb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Always be parliamentary;
never be personal; have a point to make; know when to stop.
'Parliamentary' means 'follow the rules for MPs in Ottawa or
Westminster'.
If you've seen what goes on
On Friday 09 March 2007, Anant Narayanan wrote:
2) The dev-lang/d-gcc ebuild
there's no need for a sep ebuild
I'd appreciate it if one of the toolchain ninjas could clarify their
stance on D :)
as Nguyen said, please review the referenced bug ... it has all the info you
need
-mike
Stephen Bennett wrote:
On Fri, 9 Mar 2007 10:41:57 -0500
Philip Webb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Always be parliamentary;
never be personal; have a point to make; know when to stop.
'Parliamentary' means 'follow the rules for MPs in Ottawa or
Westminster'.
If you've seen what goes on in
portage has been doing the right thing with $D in pkg_* functions and IMAGE is
just an annoying nuance that most people screw up
so in your pkg_* functions, use $D, not $IMAGE, to refer to the temporary
install
-mike
pgpOofLWN3RsP.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Fri, 2007-03-09 at 12:03 -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote:
portage has been doing the right thing with $D in pkg_* functions and IMAGE
is
just an annoying nuance that most people screw up
so in your pkg_* functions, use $D, not $IMAGE, to refer to the temporary
install
-mike
Good to know
On Fri, 2007-09-03 at 15:57 +, Jeff Rollin wrote:
On 09/03/07, Stephen Bennett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 9 Mar 2007 10:41:57 -0500
Philip Webb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Always be parliamentary;
never be personal; have a point to make;
On Friday 09 March 2007, Seemant Kulleen wrote:
On Fri, 2007-03-09 at 12:03 -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote:
portage has been doing the right thing with $D in pkg_* functions and
IMAGE is just an annoying nuance that most people screw up
so in your pkg_* functions, use $D, not $IMAGE, to
Mike Frysinger wrote:
portage has been doing the right thing with $D in pkg_* functions and IMAGE
is
just an annoying nuance that most people screw up
so in your pkg_* functions, use $D, not $IMAGE, to refer to the temporary
install
-mike
[EMAIL PROTECTED] /mnt/checkouts/devmanual $
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Jim Ramsay wrote:
Where can I learn more about the progress of this USE-based
dependencies feature? I couldn't find an appropriate GLEP -- only
bug 2272 [1] seemed relevant, and it doesn't mention what (if anything)
is actually being done to get
Am Freitag, 9. März 2007 19:08 schrieb Petteri Räty:
Mike Frysinger wrote:
so in your pkg_* functions, use $D, not $IMAGE, to refer to the
temporary install
-mike
[EMAIL PROTECTED] /mnt/checkouts/devmanual $ grep IMAGE -r .
Chris Gianelloni schrieb:
On Fri, 2007-03-09 at 11:10 +, Steve Long wrote:
I don't know how it would work technically, how difficult it would be, or
indeed if anyone is prepared to do the work, besides maybe some of the
users.
No.
Once we have USE-based dependencies across the
On Thu, 8 Mar 2007 12:34:59 -0600
Jim Ramsay [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Petteri Räty wrote:
Jim Ramsay wrote:
ECLASS=gkrellm-plugin
INHERITED=$INHERITED $ECLASS
No need to set INHERITED yourself any more either. Ciaran already
pointed out ECLASS.
Indeed, thanks for that!
They
I've been planning to write a new dependency resolver for portage in
order to solve some of the issues tracked by bug 155723. Now that
portage-2.1.2.2 has been stabilized (for the 2007.0 release media),
I can focus more on trunk. I hope to make a lot of progress on it
during the next week
Mike Kelly wrote:
That comes from the app-vim/gentoo-syntax package, in the
plugin/newebuild.vim file. I'll have that fixed in the next release of
gentoo-syntax.
Speaking of vim masterdriverz pointed out this python indenter:
http://www.vim.org/scripts/script.php?script_id=974
dunno if that
Thomas Rösner wrote:
Once we have USE-based dependencies across the board, then yes. Until
that time, we should really be building both client and server for *all*
packages.
I can understand that rationale for the client part, but which packages
would depend on the server part of e.g.
On Sat, Mar 10, 2007 at 12:56:51AM +0100, Thomas R?sner wrote:
I can understand that rationale for the client part, but which packages
would depend on the server part of e.g. MySQL if they could?
And building the server part to get the small client lib is a larger
PITA than building the
Robin H. Johnson wrote:
It depends hugely on the structure of the code-base. In MySQL for
example, if you wanted to build only the server, you'd still need a big
hunk of the shared code (it's one set of code, that is compiled in two
different ways, once for the client, and once for the
33 matches
Mail list logo
