On Wednesday 16 November 2005 16:16, Alec Warner wrote:
Brian asked me to split this up, and the first patch had some
cruft...and I broke things, both from old messing around. So I started
with a clean installed of rc7, hopefully these are a bit better.
One patch is for the backend stuff,
On Wednesday 16 November 2005 04:41, solar wrote:
For those of you that do not know we Mike Frysinger and myself have
written a general purpose ELF Q/A tool called pax-utils
The tool itself can be used to preform a number of tasks. What ferringb
would like todo is take advantage of this tool
Zac Medico wrote:
Brian Harring wrote:
This makes portage go looking in two different locations for
overrides; I know from looking through the code,
/etc/portage/package.* overrides the includes, but users won't.
This behavior could be documented and possibly configurable.
Adding another
On Sat, Nov 19, 2005 at 12:46:04AM +0900, Jason Stubbs wrote:
On Wednesday 16 November 2005 04:41, solar wrote:
For those of you that do not know we Mike Frysinger and myself have
written a general purpose ELF Q/A tool called pax-utils
The tool itself can be used to preform a number of
Brian Harring wrote:
Adding another configurable to control it gets back to my point-
should be a simple, extensible *singular* method of doing this, not N
methods.
Agreed.
Not so much transactional as groupping/seperation of each apps files.
(sort of).
The type of changes you're talking
Hello,
I'm a newcomer here.
The subject deal here was originaly posted here :
http://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-t-403287.html
I have always wanted to display the keywords
involved when you emerge a package.
Per exemple, i want to know if the xchat-2.6.0 i'll emerge is a stable
version, an
Brian Harring wrote:
The modification is pretty straight forward offhand; the notable
difference this time around is rather then extending portage_exec to
have the capability to 'spawn' python funcs (something I always found
ugly), this handles the fork itself.
This patch seems to work well
On Fri, Nov 18, 2005 at 09:25:57AM -0800, Zac Medico wrote:
Brian Harring wrote:
The type of changes you're talking about could just as easily be
integrated into package.* with source command added to it.
Where's the gain in adding a secondary location for these files, when
the same can
On Wed, Nov 16, 2005 at 04:33:02AM +0100, Marius Mauch wrote:
On Wed, 16 Nov 2005 04:07:56 +0100
Marius Mauch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hey,
IIRC we (=Gentoo as a whole) pretty much agreed to drop the digest
files in favor of a extended Manifest format. Well, today I wrote some
On 11/18/05, Brian Harring [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Feedback? Well, I don't like it mainly. :)
This makes portage go looking in two different locations for
overrides; I know from looking through the code,
/etc/portage/package.* overrides the includes, but users won't.
Configuration in two
10 matches
Mail list logo
