Allen Rohner wrote:
I have been a Gentoo user for several years, but this is my first step
into gentoo development. I'm looking at the feasability of using
gentoo for a product at work. Is it possible to use a Gentoo host
machine to create a linux 'image' (ramdisk/ext2fs/iso) that does not
Peter wrote:
Nonetheless, the bug is active, with a good number of people subscribing
to it and contributing to it. The sunshine overlay would be an ideal place
to store a kernel source tree or any project which would never find a home
in portage.
Pardon me if I'm totally confused, but isn't
Stefan Schweizer wrote:
Hi,
solar has requested an account on overlays.gentoo.org for the embedded
overlay for you.
Your password: DX7wnSe40Y
Kind regards,
Stefan
o_O
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Arek (James Potts) wrote:
If they don't actually build against the kernel,
couldn't/shouldn't they look at either kernel-headers or the output of
`uname -r`?
Kernel headers being the virtual/linux-headers dependency that Georgi
mentioned. `uname -r` works, but is annoying because you can't
George Prowse wrote:
pauldv jr
seconded :D
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Mike Doty wrote:
Vote Taco!
If elected, I promise to add 2 minutes to nap time every Friday and
double juice boxes every third Wednesday of the month.
WTF!
I want to be a dev if there's juice boxes involved!
*runs off to take the ebuild quiz*
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Peter Gordon wrote:
Zac Medico wrote:
The difference with use.force is that it prevents flags, that are deemed
extremely important, from being accidentally disabled by the user.
If they were so extremely important then they would not be optional,
and hence not even be USE flags at all, no? Or
Brian Harring wrote:
Question your method of bootstraping then- note that for gcc it's
nocxx, not cxx.
Meaning, USE=nocxx _disables_ building cxx; this is why default IUSE
is requested, to kill off the 'no' (and it's seperate from my point)-
c++ related failures there would be due to either
Duncan wrote:
Just to let you guys know, us users thank you too. It's not a glamorous
job, but there was a lot of cruft built up and it needed done, and some of
us (yes, even users) appreciate it.
++
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
snip
However, by bitching about problems, there are some users that decide to
check WTF is this warning, in turn they urge devs to fix it (and that is the
main point of QA,
right?), they report it with their bug reports and so on. In other words, the
problem gets _NOTICED_
by everybody.
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Sun, 05 Nov 2006 01:35:43 -0800 Peter Gordon
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| On Wed, 2006-11-01 at 08:40 +, Mike Frysinger wrote:
| If you have something you'd wish for us to chat about, maybe even
| vote on, let us know ! Simply reply to this e-mail for the whole
|
Robin H. Johnson wrote:
On Tue, Nov 28, 2006 at 02:50:43AM +0100, Marius Mauch wrote:
Two things I'm always wondering about when this topic comes up:
- is there really a need for USE=client? In most cases people request
to exclude the server part, can't remember ever seeing a request to
exclude
12 matches
Mail list logo
