On Sat, 6 Jan 2018 21:21:16 +0100, Hartmut Figge wrote:
> Mostly stable Gentoo. After having fun with linguas *g*
>
> !!! existing preserved libs found
What's the rest of this output, it should list the packages and files
involved.
> i5-64 /home/hafi # emerge -q @preserved-rebuild
>
> emerge:
Greetings,
Mostly stable Gentoo. After having fun with linguas *g*
!!! existing preserved libs found
i5-64 /home/hafi # emerge -q @preserved-rebuild
emerge: there are no ebuilds to satisfy "dev-lang/ruby:2.1".
(dependency required by "@preserved-rebuild" [argument])
[?] dev-lang/ruby
Hi,
This is a mostly stable machine. Why is what I think is the stable
version of libgnomecanvas-python failing to build?
The newer version portage (2.28.1) requires masked packages so
that's not a good option.
What's a person to do?
Thanks,
Mark
c2stable ~ # eix libgnomecanvas-python
On Sunday 27 June 2010 20:25:03 Mark Knecht wrote:
Hi,
This is a mostly stable machine. Why is what I think is the stable
version of libgnomecanvas-python failing to build?
The newer version portage (2.28.1) requires masked packages so
that's not a good option.
What's a person
On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 11:41 AM, Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sunday 27 June 2010 20:25:03 Mark Knecht wrote:
Hi,
This is a mostly stable machine. Why is what I think is the stable
version of libgnomecanvas-python failing to build?
The newer version portage (2.28.1)
On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 12:42 PM, Mark Knecht markkne...@gmail.com wrote:
SNIP
Different machine getting updated and for the same failure but it
occurred on a different package.
- Mark
/bin/sh ../libtool --tag=CC --mode=link x86_64-pc-linux-gnu-gcc
-I/usr/include/libglade-2.0
On Sunday 27 June 2010 21:42:14 Mark Knecht wrote:
Failed to emerge dev-python/libgnomecanvas-python-2.28.0, Log file:
The build error is before this. Please post that.
Everything below is various elogs to tell you that an error occured, not
what it is.
--
alan dot
On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 1:35 PM, Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sunday 27 June 2010 21:42:14 Mark Knecht wrote:
Failed to emerge dev-python/libgnomecanvas-python-2.28.0, Log file:
The build error is before this. Please post that.
Everything below is various elogs to tell
On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 1:59 PM, Mark Knecht markkne...@gmail.com wrote:
SNIP
emerge @preserved-rebuild is now running again. I'll post back results later.
Thanks,
Mark
So it seems that after a couple of times through each of these tools,
and along with changes to firefox-bin to take care
Hi,
because of that KDE3/4 mess I have to keep kde-base/kdelibs:3.5
(I still need kexi which is not available for koffice, yet.)
But now,
emerge @preserved-rebuild
doesn't work anymore since it terminates after telling me
there are no ebuilds to satisfy kde-base/kdelibs:3.5
That's true but I
Helmut Jarausch wrote:
Hi,
because of that KDE3/4 mess I have to keep kde-base/kdelibs:3.5
(I still need kexi which is not available for koffice, yet.)
But now,
emerge @preserved-rebuild
doesn't work anymore since it terminates after telling me
there are no ebuilds to satisfy
Am Montag, 18. Januar 2010 schrieb Helmut Jarausch:
Hi,
because of that KDE3/4 mess I have to keep kde-base/kdelibs:3.5
(I still need kexi which is not available for koffice, yet.)
But now,
emerge @preserved-rebuild
doesn't work anymore since it terminates after telling me
there are no
On Mon, 18 Jan 2010 10:46:23 +0100 (CET), Helmut Jarausch wrote:
because of that KDE3/4 mess I have to keep kde-base/kdelibs:3.5
(I still need kexi which is not available for koffice, yet.)
But now,
emerge @preserved-rebuild
doesn't work anymore since it terminates after telling me
there
On Sat, 09 Jan 2010 16:58:31 -0600, Dale wrote:
Can you accept the fact that KDE dropped support for KDE 3?
Of course, they have stated so themselves.
KDE dropped the ball.
This is the statement I disagreed with. Dropping support is a fact, based
on a sound decision. This statement is you
Neil Bothwick wrote:
On Sat, 09 Jan 2010 16:58:31 -0600, Dale wrote:
Can you accept the fact that KDE dropped support for KDE 3?
Of course, they have stated so themselves.
KDE dropped the ball.
This is the statement I disagreed with. Dropping support is a fact, based
on a
Dale wrote:
You say they dropped support. I call it dropping the ball. Same thing.
Sorry for butting in...
As I understand it, KDE development is mostly driven by volunteers (like
most OSS projects). Yes, some are probably paid/employed by interested
parties but this doesn't really change
On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 06:20:34 -0600, Dale wrote:
You say they dropped support. I call it dropping the ball. Same thing.
No it's not. One is a bald statement of fact, the other contains a
judgement by using negative terminology.
As bad as I hate M$, one thing I can say, they have never to my
On 10 Jan 2010, at 19:05, Neil Bothwick wrote:
...
Most reasonable people
agree that KDE should have supported KDE 3 for at least a few more
months.
Do you have a citation for that? Preferably one that doesn't define
reasonable people as those that think KDE 3.5 should still be
developed :)
On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 21:41:51 +, Stroller wrote:
reasonable people = those who agree with me.
Or pay you lots of money, even if they can't write an email to save their
life ;-)
--
Neil Bothwick
Synonym: a word you use when you can't spell the other one.
signature.asc
Description: PGP
pk wrote:
Dale wrote:
You say they dropped support. I call it dropping the ball. Same thing.
Sorry for butting in...
As I understand it, KDE development is mostly driven by volunteers (like
most OSS projects). Yes, some are probably paid/employed by interested
parties but this
Neil Bothwick wrote:
On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 06:20:34 -0600, Dale wrote:
You say they dropped support. I call it dropping the ball. Same thing.
No it's not. One is a bald statement of fact, the other contains a
judgement by using negative terminology.
If they didn't drop the ball,
Stroller wrote:
On 10 Jan 2010, at 19:05, Neil Bothwick wrote:
...
Most reasonable people
agree that KDE should have supported KDE 3 for at least a few more
months.
Do you have a citation for that? Preferably one that doesn't define
reasonable people as those that think KDE 3.5 should still
Peter Ruskin wrote:
On Sunday 10 January 2010 23:45:13 Dale wrote:
Stroller wrote:
On 10 Jan 2010, at 19:05, Neil Bothwick wrote:
...
Most reasonable people
agree that KDE should have supported KDE 3 for at least a few
more months.
Do you have a citation for that?
On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 17:44:21 -0600, Dale wrote:
No it's not. One is a bald statement of fact, the other contains a
judgement by using negative terminology.
If they didn't drop the ball,
They didn't, they made a decision. You may not like that decision, but
that does not make it a mistake
Neil Bothwick wrote:
On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 17:44:21 -0600, Dale wrote:
No it's not. One is a bald statement of fact, the other contains a
judgement by using negative terminology.
If they didn't drop the ball,
They didn't, they made a decision. You may not like that
On Fri, 08 Jan 2010 18:16:05 -0600, Dale wrote:
So, as I have been saying all along, repeatedly, Gentoo did not drop
the ball here, KDE did.
It's their ball, they can do whatever they like with it. It doesn't
matter how much you complain, if unpaid, volunteer developers want to
Neil Bothwick wrote:
On Fri, 08 Jan 2010 18:16:05 -0600, Dale wrote:
So, as I have been saying all along, repeatedly, Gentoo did not drop
the ball here, KDE did.
It's their ball, they can do whatever they like with it. It doesn't
matter how much you complain, if unpaid,
On Sat, 09 Jan 2010 08:39:58 -0600, Dale wrote:
No, it was the decision Red Hat made before they sold distros with X
year support contracts, to provide a guaranteed level of support to
their customers. Someone mentioned that 62% of KDE devs are unpaid,
who do you think pays the other 38%.
Neil Bothwick wrote:
On Sat, 09 Jan 2010 08:39:58 -0600, Dale wrote:
No, it was the decision Red Hat made before they sold distros with X
year support contracts, to provide a guaranteed level of support to
their customers. Someone mentioned that 62% of KDE devs are unpaid,
who do you think
Alan McKinnon wrote:
On Friday 08 January 2010 00:25:03 Dale wrote:
Alan McKinnon wrote:
On Thursday 07 January 2010 21:19:27 Stroller wrote:
I hope my above statements don't sound nasty, but you want 3.5, Alan
[1] wants KDE 4. The various developers upstream of you and Alan -
On Friday 08 January 2010 10:06:27 Dale wrote:
Yes, that's reasonable. RH shipped KDE-3.5 with fully supported versions
of RHEL, and those versions are still current. So just like RH backport
useful kernel code into their shipped versions, we can expect RH to at
least deal with critical
On 8 Jan 2010, at 08:06, Dale wrote:
...
But KDE still dropped the support tho? That was my point. It
wasn't Redhat, Gentoo, SuSe or some other distro or even me that
dropped it, it was KDE that dropped it.
62% of KDE's developers are unpaid volunteers. [1]
We program for the sheer joy
On 8 Jan 2010, at 08:23, Alan McKinnon wrote:
...
The kde-sunset maintainer could even be you.
I had my first patch accepted to an upstream project this week. It was
only about 70 lines of Perl (and some of those were basically just
refactoring what the author had already written into a
On Friday 08 January 2010 12:34:39 Stroller wrote:
On 8 Jan 2010, at 08:23, Alan McKinnon wrote:
...
The kde-sunset maintainer could even be you.
I had my first patch accepted to an upstream project this week. It was
only about 70 lines of Perl (and some of those were basically just
Stroller wrote:
On 8 Jan 2010, at 08:06, Dale wrote:
...
But KDE still dropped the support tho? That was my point. It wasn't
Redhat, Gentoo, SuSe or some other distro or even me that dropped it,
it was KDE that dropped it.
62% of KDE's developers are unpaid volunteers. [1]
We program
On Saturday 09 January 2010 00:04:28 Dale wrote:
Honestly, I don't care if it is 100% volunteers. They dropped the
support and a LOT of people, including me, are at the very least not
happy about it.
Dale, FFS, please stop whinging about KDE-3
This is getting like an old record stuck in
On Fri, 08 Jan 2010 16:04:28 -0600, Dale wrote:
So, as I have been saying all along, repeatedly, Gentoo did not drop
the ball here, KDE did.
It's their ball, they can do whatever they like with it. It doesn't
matter how much you complain, if unpaid, volunteer developers want to
work on the
Alan McKinnon wrote:
On Saturday 09 January 2010 00:04:28 Dale wrote:
Honestly, I don't care if it is 100% volunteers. They dropped the
support and a LOT of people, including me, are at the very least not
happy about it.
Dale, FFS, please stop whinging about KDE-3
This is getting
Neil Bothwick wrote:
On Fri, 08 Jan 2010 16:04:28 -0600, Dale wrote:
So, as I have been saying all along, repeatedly, Gentoo did not drop
the ball here, KDE did.
It's their ball, they can do whatever they like with it. It doesn't
matter how much you complain, if unpaid, volunteer
On 6 Jan 2010, at 18:57, Dale wrote:
Stroller wrote:
On 5 Jan 2010, at 23:33, Dale wrote:
...
Gentoo wasn't at fault here. KDE was the one that dropped the
ball. Gentoo had to follow the knuckle heads at KDE tho.
Between KDE Gentoo, aren't most contributors volunteers? In
volunteer
On Thursday 07 January 2010 21:19:27 Stroller wrote:
I hope my above statements don't sound nasty, but you want 3.5, Alan
[1] wants KDE 4. The various developers upstream of you and Alan -
i.e. both KDE and Gentoo - don't have time to work on both. So they
have each chosen where to spend
Alan McKinnon wrote:
On Thursday 07 January 2010 21:19:27 Stroller wrote:
I hope my above statements don't sound nasty, but you want 3.5, Alan
[1] wants KDE 4. The various developers upstream of you and Alan -
i.e. both KDE and Gentoo - don't have time to work on both. So they
have each
Stroller wrote:
On 6 Jan 2010, at 18:57, Dale wrote:
Stroller wrote:
On 5 Jan 2010, at 23:33, Dale wrote:
...
Gentoo wasn't at fault here. KDE was the one that dropped the
ball. Gentoo had to follow the knuckle heads at KDE tho.
Between KDE Gentoo, aren't most contributors volunteers?
On Friday 08 January 2010 00:25:03 Dale wrote:
Alan McKinnon wrote:
On Thursday 07 January 2010 21:19:27 Stroller wrote:
I hope my above statements don't sound nasty, but you want 3.5, Alan
[1] wants KDE 4. The various developers upstream of you and Alan -
i.e. both KDE and Gentoo - don't
On 5 Jan 2010, at 23:33, Dale wrote:
...
Gentoo wasn't at fault here. KDE was the one that dropped the
ball. Gentoo had to follow the knuckle heads at KDE tho.
Dale
Between KDE Gentoo, aren't most contributors volunteers? In
volunteer development it's normal necessary to focus on the
Stroller wrote:
On 5 Jan 2010, at 23:33, Dale wrote:
...
Gentoo wasn't at fault here. KDE was the one that dropped the ball.
Gentoo had to follow the knuckle heads at KDE tho.
Dale
Between KDE Gentoo, aren't most contributors volunteers? In
volunteer development it's normal necessary
I'm also pretty sure that Gentoo doesn't do development work on Gnome,
Fluxbox, Apache, MySql and other packages. They just make ebuilds and put
them in the tree so people can use them.
if there is something unconvenient with used on the software ,gentoo will
talk to the authors still , right ?
Hi,
emerge @preserved-rebuild fails to do any updating since a single
(needed) package has been masked.
But I do need to keep kdelibs:3.5 which pulls in kde-misc/kdnssd-avahi:3.5
which has been masked.
Is it possible to tell emerge to do the other updates which don't need
this?
Dropping kde:3.5
Helmut Jarausch writes:
emerge @preserved-rebuild fails to do any updating since a single
(needed) package has been masked.
But I do need to keep kdelibs:3.5 which pulls in
kde-misc/kdnssd-avahi:3.5 which has been masked.
Is it possible to tell emerge to do the other updates which don't
On Tue, 05 Jan 2010 16:35:46 +0100 (CET), Helmut Jarausch wrote:
But I do need to keep kdelibs:3.5 which pulls in
kde-misc/kdnssd-avahi:3.5 which has been masked.
Unmask it.
Dropping kde:3.5 too early is one of the biggest disappointsment of
GenToo! For someone who needs some package
Helmut Jarausch wrote:
Hi,
emerge @preserved-rebuild fails to do any updating since a single
(needed) package has been masked.
But I do need to keep kdelibs:3.5 which pulls in kde-misc/kdnssd-avahi:3.5
which has been masked.
Is it possible to tell emerge to do the other updates which don't
Robin Atwood wrote:
On Thursday 29 October 2009, Alex Schuster wrote:
[...]
emerge -a @preserved-rebuild suggests to rebuild two packages, but
continues to do so after emerging them.
[...]
r...@tanja src -- emerge -a @preserved-rebuild
These are the packages that would be merged, in
Hi there!
Any idea why this happens? It's no problem, I'm just curious.
r...@tanja src -- emerge -a @preserved-rebuild
These are the packages that would be merged, in order:
Calculating dependencies ... done!
[ebuild R ] app-emulation/emul-linux-x86-gtklibs-20071214
[ebuild R ]
On Thursday 29 October 2009, Alex Schuster wrote:
Hi there!
Any idea why this happens? It's no problem, I'm just curious.
r...@tanja src -- emerge -a @preserved-rebuild
These are the packages that would be merged, in order:
Calculating dependencies ... done!
[ebuild R ]
on 06/27/2008 12:36 PM Zhang Le said the following:
On 13:18 Thu 26 Jun , Alan McKinnon wrote:
That info is still a bit skimpy though. Is there anything more
somewhere? And what about FEATURES=preserve-libs, is that documented
somewhere?
All you need to do is to run 'emerge
On 13:18 Thu 26 Jun , Alan McKinnon wrote:
That info is still a bit skimpy though. Is there anything more
somewhere? And what about FEATURES=preserve-libs, is that documented
somewhere?
All you need to do is to run 'emerge @preserved-rebuild' when you are reminded
to.
If you want to know
Lately emerge-2.2 has been issuing output like this:
!!! existing preserved libs:
package: dev-libs/eet-
* - /usr/lib/libeet.so.0
* - /usr/lib/libeet.so.0.9.99900
Use emerge @preserved-rebuild to rebuild packages using these libraries
There's no reference to this @preserved-rebuild
On 11:12 Thu 26 Jun , Alan McKinnon wrote:
Lately emerge-2.2 has been issuing output like this:
!!! existing preserved libs:
package: dev-libs/eet-
* - /usr/lib/libeet.so.0
* - /usr/lib/libeet.so.0.9.99900
Use emerge @preserved-rebuild to rebuild packages using these libraries
On Thursday 26 June 2008, Zhang Le wrote:
On 11:12 Thu 26 Jun , Alan McKinnon wrote:
Lately emerge-2.2 has been issuing output like this:
!!! existing preserved libs:
package: dev-libs/eet-
* - /usr/lib/libeet.so.0
* - /usr/lib/libeet.so.0.9.99900
Use emerge
59 matches
Mail list logo
