On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 10:19 PM, Matt Turner wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 7:15 PM, R0b0t1 wrote:
>> What I wanted to avoid was something I encountered on the GCC mailing
>> list: When I asked why GCJ was removed, I was told that it was hard to
>> maintain. When I asked for an example of past
On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 7:15 PM, R0b0t1 wrote:
> What I wanted to avoid was something I encountered on the GCC mailing
> list: When I asked why GCJ was removed, I was told that it was hard to
> maintain. When I asked for an example of past maintenance issues (and
> made it clear I had no interest
On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 9:00 PM, R0b0t1 wrote:
> Hello friends!
>
> On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 3:02 PM, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
>> Replying to your original question here, to repeat the answer I emphasised
>> before, along with significantly more detail in the history of Portage hashes
>> (pulled fr
Hello friends!
On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 3:02 PM, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
> Replying to your original question here, to repeat the answer I emphasised
> before, along with significantly more detail in the history of Portage hashes
> (pulled from my notes back to GLEP57 and some minor updates).
>
>
Replying to your original question here, to repeat the answer I emphasised
before, along with significantly more detail in the history of Portage hashes
(pulled from my notes back to GLEP57 and some minor updates).
On Wed, Nov 08, 2017 at 12:57:49PM -0600, R0b0t1 wrote:
> These posts are concernin
