On Tuesday, September 01, 2015 4:02:52 AM Walter Dnes wrote:
> How many heads will explode? I have /etc/portage/package.use/package.use
> file (YES!) The only reason I made a package.use directory was because I
> set up a cross-build environment, so that my ancient 32-bit Atom netbook
>
On Tuesday, September 01, 2015 11:29:42 PM Neil Bothwick wrote:
> On Tue, 1 Sep 2015 15:26:10 -0400, Fernando Rodriguez wrote:
>
> > Also one exception to the directory naming convention is the keywords
> > file. The file was package.accept_keywords but the directory is
> > package.keywords.
>
>
On Tue, 1 Sep 2015 15:26:10 -0400, Fernando Rodriguez wrote:
> Also one exception to the directory naming convention is the keywords
> file. The file was package.accept_keywords but the directory is
> package.keywords.
The name was changed from package.keywords to package.accept_keywords to
On 01/09/2015 12:21, Bill Kenworthy wrote:
> On 01/09/15 16:10, Emanuele Rusconi wrote:
>> On 1 September 2015 at 10:02, Walter Dnes wrote:
>>> How many heads will explode? I have /etc/portage/package.use/package.use
>>> file (YES!) The only reason I made a package.use
On 01/09/15 16:10, Emanuele Rusconi wrote:
> On 1 September 2015 at 10:02, Walter Dnes wrote:
>> How many heads will explode? I have /etc/portage/package.use/package.use
>> file (YES!) The only reason I made a package.use directory was because I
>> set up a cross-build
On 1 September 2015 at 10:02, Walter Dnes wrote:
> How many heads will explode? I have /etc/portage/package.use/package.use
> file (YES!) The only reason I made a package.use directory was because I
> set up a cross-build environment, so that my ancient 32-bit Atom
How many heads will explode? I have /etc/portage/package.use/package.use
file (YES!) The only reason I made a package.use directory was because I
set up a cross-build environment, so that my ancient 32-bit Atom netbook
wouldn't have to spend 14 hours building Seamonkey. The cross-compiler
Le 2015-09-01 06:21, Bill Kenworthy a écrit :
Hey! - I am not the only one doing this then :)
And it was also because of a cross-compiler. When I looked at how much
extra work this type fragmentation causes, and how little (or any!)
advantage it gives makes one wonder about the designers
On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 11:06 PM, Neil Bothwick wrote:
> On Mon, 31 Aug 2015 22:33:58 +0300, Alexander Kapshuk wrote:
>
>> cat rubygems
>> >=dev-ruby/rubygems-2.2.5-r1 ruby_targets_ruby21
>> >=virtual/rubygems-10 ruby_targets_ruby21
>>
>> Is this format acceptable? Or should I
* Alexander Kapshuk [150831 15:35]:
> Having read the email exchange on the possibility of using
> 'package.use' as a directory, I thought I would give that a try.
>
> Here is what I have attempted so far.
>
> cd /etc/portage
> mv package.use package.use.COPY
>
On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 11:00 PM, Todd Goodman wrote:
> * Alexander Kapshuk [150831 15:35]:
>> Having read the email exchange on the possibility of using
>> 'package.use' as a directory, I thought I would give that a try.
>>
>> Here is what I have
On Mon, 31 Aug 2015 22:33:58 +0300, Alexander Kapshuk wrote:
> cat rubygems
> >=dev-ruby/rubygems-2.2.5-r1 ruby_targets_ruby21
> >=virtual/rubygems-10 ruby_targets_ruby21
>
> Is this format acceptable? Or should I have used two separate files,
> one for 'dev-lang/rubygems', and another for
12 matches
Mail list logo