Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] C++ herd proposal

2005-09-20 Thread Alin Nastac
Georgi Georgiev wrote: - that package in my overlay that has net-wireless/gnome-phone-manager in its *DEPENDs to work for as long as needed gnome-phone-manager can be found in portage tree under app-mobilephone category. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] C++ herd proposal

2005-09-20 Thread Georgi Georgiev
maillog: 20/09/2005-09:37:23(+0300): Alin Nastac types Georgi Georgiev wrote: - that package in my overlay that has net-wireless/gnome-phone-manager in its *DEPENDs to work for as long as needed gnome-phone-manager can be found in portage tree under app-mobilephone category. So

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] C++ herd proposal

2005-09-20 Thread Alin Nastac
Georgi Georgiev wrote: maillog: 20/09/2005-09:37:23(+0300): Alin Nastac types Georgi Georgiev wrote: - that package in my overlay that has net-wireless/gnome-phone-manager in its *DEPENDs to work for as long as needed gnome-phone-manager can be found in portage tree under

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] C++ herd proposal

2005-09-20 Thread Martin Schlemmer
On Tue, 2005-09-20 at 08:54 +0200, Kevin F. Quinn wrote: On 20/9/2005 7:37:19, Georgi Georgiev ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: maillog: 20/09/2005-07:21:08(+0200): Christian Parpart types On Monday 19 September 2005 15:22, warnera6 wrote: Mark Loeser wrote: Paul de Vrieze wrote: I

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] C++ herd proposal

2005-09-20 Thread Brian Harring
On Tue, Sep 20, 2005 at 10:01:39AM +0300, Alin Nastac wrote: Georgi Georgiev wrote: maillog: 20/09/2005-09:37:23(+0300): Alin Nastac types Georgi Georgiev wrote: - that package in my overlay that has net-wireless/gnome-phone-manager in its *DEPENDs to work for as long as needed

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] C++ herd proposal

2005-09-20 Thread Donnie Berkholz
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Martin Schlemmer wrote: | Technically it does support it if said developer gets Infra to move it | server side some nasty side effects, etc, but lots better than our | current situation where some bright spark removed most if not all | history

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] C++ herd proposal

2005-09-19 Thread Paul de Vrieze
On Saturday 17 September 2005 22:24, Mark Loeser wrote: Mike Frysinger wrote: On Saturday 17 September 2005 02:22 pm, Mark Loeser wrote: The reason for me adding that bit is the metadata from dev-cpp: The dev-cpp category contains libraries and utilities relevant to the c++ programming

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] C++ herd proposal

2005-09-19 Thread Mark Loeser
Paul de Vrieze wrote: I think that dev-util is a very specific category containing development utilities of some sort. There might be some misclassifications in them, but from a user perspective I don't really care about the language anything is written in. As C++ is so widespread I don't

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] C++ herd proposal

2005-09-19 Thread warnera6
Mark Loeser wrote: Paul de Vrieze wrote: I think that dev-util is a very specific category containing development utilities of some sort. There might be some misclassifications in them, but from a user perspective I don't really care about the language anything is written in. As C++ is so

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] C++ herd proposal

2005-09-19 Thread Christian Parpart
On Monday 19 September 2005 15:22, warnera6 wrote: Mark Loeser wrote: Paul de Vrieze wrote: I think that dev-util is a very specific category containing development utilities of some sort. There might be some misclassifications in them, but from a user perspective I don't really care

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] C++ herd proposal

2005-09-19 Thread Georgi Georgiev
maillog: 20/09/2005-07:21:08(+0200): Christian Parpart types On Monday 19 September 2005 15:22, warnera6 wrote: Mark Loeser wrote: Paul de Vrieze wrote: I think that dev-util is a very specific category containing development utilities of some sort. There might be some

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] C++ herd proposal

2005-09-18 Thread Christian Parpart
On Saturday 17 September 2005 22:14, Mike Frysinger wrote: On Saturday 17 September 2005 02:22 pm, Mark Loeser wrote: Kevin F. Quinn wrote: I would also like to see many of them, if not all, moved to the dev-cpp category: Is this bit really necessary? The reason for me adding

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] C++ herd proposal

2005-09-17 Thread Robin H. Johnson
On Fri, Sep 16, 2005 at 06:20:57PM -0400, Mark Loeser wrote: dev-util/flawfinder (no-herd, aliz?) dev-util/rats (no-herd, robbat2) I'm a large user of these, but for rats there really isn't any maintaining to do, upstream hasn't changed the code in 18+ months, and it works

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] C++ herd proposal

2005-09-17 Thread Kevin F. Quinn
On 17/9/2005 0:20:57, Mark Loeser ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: C++ herd is a good idea, especially with that number of packages. I would also like to see many of them, if not all, moved to the dev-cpp category: Is this bit really necessary? -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] C++ herd proposal

2005-09-17 Thread Christian Parpart
On Saturday 17 September 2005 01:20, Mike Frysinger wrote: On Friday 16 September 2005 06:20 pm, Mark Loeser wrote: Since we currently have language herds for other languages such as Ada, Perl, and Java, I don't think C++ should be any different. it is different, but i dont mind the idea of

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] C++ herd proposal

2005-09-17 Thread Christian Parpart
On Saturday 17 September 2005 11:36, Kevin F. Quinn wrote: On 17/9/2005 0:20:57, Mark Loeser ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: C++ herd is a good idea, especially with that number of packages. I would also like to see many of them, if not all, moved to the dev-cpp category: Is this bit really

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] C++ herd proposal

2005-09-17 Thread Kevin F. Quinn
On 17/9/2005 13:33:30, Christian Parpart ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: On Saturday 17 September 2005 11:36, Kevin F. Quinn wrote: On 17/9/2005 0:20:57, Mark Loeser ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: C++ herd is a good idea, especially with that number of packages. I would also like to see many

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] C++ herd proposal

2005-09-17 Thread Christian Parpart
On Saturday 17 September 2005 14:01, Kevin F. Quinn wrote: On 17/9/2005 13:33:30, Christian Parpart ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: On Saturday 17 September 2005 11:36, Kevin F. Quinn wrote: On 17/9/2005 0:20:57, Mark Loeser ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: C++ herd is a good idea, especially

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] C++ herd proposal

2005-09-17 Thread Mark Loeser
Kevin F. Quinn wrote: I would also like to see many of them, if not all, moved to the dev-cpp category: Is this bit really necessary? The reason for me adding that bit is the metadata from dev-cpp: The dev-cpp category contains libraries and utilities relevant to the c++ programming

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] C++ herd proposal

2005-09-17 Thread Mike Frysinger
On Saturday 17 September 2005 02:22 pm, Mark Loeser wrote: Kevin F. Quinn wrote: I would also like to see many of them, if not all, moved to the dev-cpp category: Is this bit really necessary? The reason for me adding that bit is the metadata from dev-cpp: The dev-cpp category contains

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] C++ herd proposal

2005-09-17 Thread Mark Loeser
Mike Frysinger wrote: On Saturday 17 September 2005 02:22 pm, Mark Loeser wrote: The reason for me adding that bit is the metadata from dev-cpp: The dev-cpp category contains libraries and utilities relevant to the c++ programming language. Now to me, that means I can find *all* relevant C++

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] C++ herd proposal

2005-09-16 Thread Mike Frysinger
On Friday 16 September 2005 06:20 pm, Mark Loeser wrote: Since we currently have language herds for other languages such as Ada, Perl, and Java, I don't think C++ should be any different. it is different, but i dont mind the idea of having a bunch of C++ experts looking over a bunch of

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] C++ herd proposal

2005-09-16 Thread Aaron Walker
Mark Loeser wrote: Since we currently have language herds for other languages such as Ada, Perl, and Java, I don't think C++ should be any different. There are currently many packages in the tree that are C++ libraries or utilities that are no-herd and are actively maintained, and there are

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] C++ herd proposal

2005-09-16 Thread Ciaran McCreesh
On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 18:20:57 -0400 Mark Loeser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | Since we currently have language herds for other languages such as | Ada, Perl, and Java, I don't think C++ should be any different. | There are currently many packages in the tree that are C++ libraries | or utilities that