On Tue, 2 Apr 2013 00:43:31 +0200
Andreas K. Huettel dilfri...@gentoo.org wrote:
Am Dienstag, 2. April 2013, 00:27:59 schrieb Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn:
I would like to suggest unifying use-flag usage, and use zeroconf
anywhere.
Sounds good. Do you think the same should apply to
On Mon, 18 Mar 2013 12:34:30 + (UTC)
Andreas Schuerch (nativemad) native...@gentoo.org wrote:
nativemad13/03/18 12:34:30
Modified: ChangeLog ardour-2.8.16.ebuild
ardour-2.8.14-r1.ebuild
Added:ardour-3.0.ebuild
Log:
new
On Mon, 1 Apr 2013 11:19:51 +0200
Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Sat, 23 Mar 2013 17:25:32 +0100
Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org wrote:
I've finally got around to writing the header wrapping functions for
multilib. That's an initial yet working draft. I will send patches
in
01.04.2013 11:52, Michael Palimaka пишет:
On 1/04/2013 04:29, Denis M. wrote:
Hello,
(I was redirected from gentoo-doc@ to ask this here.)
I think it's a good idea to expand the categories' descriptions (found
in the corresponding metadata.xml files) with more accurate descriptions
of
On Tue, 2 Apr 2013 12:59:43 +0200
Alexis Ballier aball...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Mon, 1 Apr 2013 11:19:51 +0200
Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Sat, 23 Mar 2013 17:25:32 +0100
Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org wrote:
I've finally got around to writing the header wrapping
bash-3.1 seems to break ebuild sourcing and is blocked in most package
managers. So I was wondering how can it still be stable then or even in
the tree? I'd say mask it with a note that this breaks the shit out of
gentoo, no matter what PM you use. Otherwise, just punt it?
On Tue, 02 Apr 2013 14:25:43 +0200
hasufell hasuf...@gentoo.org wrote:
bash-3.1 seems to break ebuild sourcing and is blocked in most package
managers. So I was wondering how can it still be stable then or even
in the tree? I'd say mask it with a note that this breaks the shit
out of gentoo,
On 04/02/2013 02:29 PM, Alexis Ballier wrote:
On Tue, 02 Apr 2013 14:25:43 +0200
hasufell hasuf...@gentoo.org wrote:
bash-3.1 seems to break ebuild sourcing and is blocked in most package
managers. So I was wondering how can it still be stable then or even
in the tree? I'd say mask it with
On Tue, 02 Apr 2013 14:32:26 +0200
hasufell hasuf...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 04/02/2013 02:29 PM, Alexis Ballier wrote:
On Tue, 02 Apr 2013 14:25:43 +0200
hasufell hasuf...@gentoo.org wrote:
bash-3.1 seems to break ebuild sourcing and is blocked in most
package managers. So I was
On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 8:37 AM, Alexis Ballier aball...@gentoo.org wrote:
but what's the problem with keeping it and not breaking older
upgrade paths?
This whole discussion seems a bit academic. Somebody pointed out that
we have a version of bash we might not need any longer. If by some
On 2 April 2013 13:48, Rich Freeman ri...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 8:37 AM, Alexis Ballier aball...@gentoo.org wrote:
but what's the problem with keeping it and not breaking older
upgrade paths?
This whole discussion seems a bit academic. Somebody pointed out that
we have a
On 02/04/13 15:25, hasufell wrote:
bash-3.1 seems to break ebuild sourcing and is blocked in most package
managers. So I was wondering how can it still be stable then or even in
the tree? I'd say mask it with a note that this breaks the shit out of
gentoo, no matter what PM you use. Otherwise,
Samuli Suominen wrote:
imho,
..
we should stick to the latest stable is the stable mantra
(i'm not sure if this is even documented anywhere? and propably
should not be? keep it as maintainer specific decision like it's now?)
If it's the agreen-upon way then why not document it?
//Peter
On Tue, 2 Apr 2013 14:07:16 +0100
Markos Chandras hwoar...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 2 April 2013 13:48, Rich Freeman ri...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 8:37 AM, Alexis Ballier
aball...@gentoo.org wrote:
but what's the problem with keeping it and not breaking older
upgrade paths?
On 2 April 2013 14:34, Alexis Ballier aball...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Tue, 2 Apr 2013 14:07:16 +0100
Markos Chandras hwoar...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 2 April 2013 13:48, Rich Freeman ri...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 8:37 AM, Alexis Ballier
aball...@gentoo.org wrote:
but what's
Hey devs, and hopefully fellow devs before long.
Just joined this list as suggested on irc and I'm going to be lurking for
awhile to see what you guys actually do every day.
Carry on.
On Tue, 2 Apr 2013 15:01:08 +0100
Markos Chandras hwoar...@gentoo.org wrote:
bikeshedding
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it
means.
--
Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Tue, 2 Apr 2013 15:01:08 +0100
Markos Chandras hwoar...@gentoo.org wrote:
Here we go again. Fine, keep arguing about the really important
question why old X is in the tree when new X is stable.
Nobody besides that part of the thread is arguing about anything like
that. If you are upset about
On 2 April 2013 15:21, Alexis Ballier aball...@gentoo.org wrote:
Did you even check if my first reply to this thread was not complete
BS ? I didn't.
Alexis.
Apologies. My reply was below yours because it was the last one in the
thread. It was not referred to you but to the endless
oh lets
You know guys, I just joined this list so I could get an inside look at how
gentoo development is supposed to work, and hopefully find a few role
models so I know what to do to get the ball rolling on becoming a developer
myself.
I never expected to walk into this sort of tit for tat mud slinging
On 04/02/2013 04:01 PM, Markos Chandras wrote:
Here we go again. Fine, keep arguing about the really important
question why old X is in the tree when new X is stable.
Did anyone actually consider to ask the maintainers instead of opening
a public debate on this? I guess no, because
On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 9:39 AM, hasufell hasuf...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 04/02/2013 04:01 PM, Markos Chandras wrote:
Here we go again. Fine, keep arguing about the really important
question why old X is in the tree when new X is stable.
Did anyone actually consider to ask the maintainers
# Michael Sterrett mr_bon...@gentoo.org (02 Apr 2013)
# masked for removal on 20130502
# replaced by games-emulation/sdlmess
games-emulation/xmess
On Tue, 2 Apr 2013 07:10:27 -0700
Raymond Jennings shent...@gmail.com wrote:
Hey devs, and hopefully fellow devs before long.
Just joined this list as suggested on irc and I'm going to be lurking
for awhile to see what you guys actually do every day.
Carry on.
Hello Raymond!
Actions
On Tuesday 02 April 2013 08:25:43 hasufell wrote:
bash-3.1 seems to break ebuild sourcing and is blocked in most package
managers. So I was wondering how can it still be stable then or even in
the tree? I'd say mask it with a note that this breaks the shit out of
gentoo, no matter what PM you
Raymond Jennings posted on Tue, 02 Apr 2013 07:35:26 -0700 as excerpted:
You know guys, I just joined this list so I could get an inside look at
how gentoo development is supposed to work, and hopefully find a few
role models so I know what to do to get the ball rolling on becoming a
El mar, 02-04-2013 a las 00:42 +0200, Andreas K. Huettel escribió:
[...]
I will try to remember the issue, but not sure if probably a bug or a
tracker bug would be better to prevent this from being forgotten
again :/
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi,
I have a question:
Bug https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=453778 is assigned to
Dustin Polke gentoobugsie.20.dsuraw...@spamgourmet.com
While the bug is easy to fix and close, no action happens.
So I tried to find out whats the meaning of
On Apr 2, 2013 9:24 PM, Martin Dummer martin.dum...@gmx.net wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi,
I have a question:
Bug https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=453778 is assigned to
Dustin Polke gentoobugsie.20.dsuraw...@spamgourmet.com
While the bug is easy to fix
On Tue, 2 Apr 2013 21:37:45 +0100
Markos Chandras hwoar...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Apr 2, 2013 9:24 PM, Martin Dummer martin.dum...@gmx.net wrote:
Bug https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=453778 is assigned to
Dustin Polke gentoobugsie.20.dsuraw...@spamgourmet.com
While the bug is easy
On Apr 2, 2013 9:46 PM, Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Tue, 2 Apr 2013 21:37:45 +0100
Markos Chandras hwoar...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Apr 2, 2013 9:24 PM, Martin Dummer martin.dum...@gmx.net wrote:
Bug https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=453778 is assigned to
Dustin Polke
On Apr 2, 2013 9:47 PM, Diego Elio Pettenò flamee...@flameeyes.eu wrote:
On 02/04/2013 22:37, Markos Chandras wrote:
The developer is active he just does not need a working e-mail address.
Some bugs take time to be fixed. Please be patient. We are just volunteers
here.
I would argue that we
On 2 April 2013 21:49, Markos Chandras hwoar...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Apr 2, 2013 9:47 PM, Diego Elio Pettenò flamee...@flameeyes.eu wrote:
On 02/04/2013 22:37, Markos Chandras wrote:
The developer is active he just does not need a working e-mail address.
Some bugs take time to be fixed.
Hello,
Currently, the multilib-build eclass uses abi_* constants only for USE
flags and only ${ABI} is exported to the function. This is bad since it
basically requires a reverse mapping of ABI-abi_* values, often
inlined as ${ABI} checks.
The patches which I will send in reply to this thread
---
gx86/eclass/multilib-build.eclass | 41 ++-
1 file changed, 36 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
diff --git a/gx86/eclass/multilib-build.eclass
b/gx86/eclass/multilib-build.eclass
index dbaed70..fdaed6b 100644
--- a/gx86/eclass/multilib-build.eclass
+++
---
gx86/eclass/autotools-multilib.eclass | 21 -
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)
diff --git a/gx86/eclass/autotools-multilib.eclass
b/gx86/eclass/autotools-multilib.eclass
index 5ecbd2f..55d32d7 100644
--- a/gx86/eclass/autotools-multilib.eclass
+++
Le mardi 02 avril 2013 à 09:43 +0200, Michał Górny a écrit :
On Tue, 2 Apr 2013 00:43:31 +0200
Andreas K. Huettel dilfri...@gentoo.org wrote:
Am Dienstag, 2. April 2013, 00:27:59 schrieb Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn:
I would like to suggest unifying use-flag usage, and use zeroconf
37 matches
Mail list logo
