On Tuesday 20 December 2005 09:36, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> since we have baselayout-1.12.x in ~arch, the new stable candidate
> (1.11.14) isnt getting much air time ... can people try upgrading to
> it and post any feedback they have with it ? it should mostly be a
> bugfix release over 1.11.13 si
Philippe Trottier wrote:
> Lisa Seelye wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 2006-01-12 at 00:18 +, Ferris McCormick wrote:
>>
>>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>>> Hash: SHA1
>>>
>>> On Wed, 11 Jan 2006, Lisa Seelye wrote:
>>>
>>>
On Wed, 2006-01-11 at 14:51 -0800, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
>
On Fri, 2006-01-13 at 19:53 +0900, Kalin KOZHUHAROV wrote:
> > Make this distributed tool for tar zip bzip2 and gzip and I'm in, I
> > don't think it would be useful with anything else than Gigabit Ethernet.
One 2Ghz CPU can't even saturate a 100Mbit line with bzip2 as far as I
can tell.
Although t
as one of the new sane features of the next portage-2.1_pre release, we're
looking to cut out use.defaults support
existing stable users wont be affected as the 2.0.x versions will continue to
carry support for this, but some of you stable users may notice some USE
flags suddenly "disappearing"
Patrick Lauer posted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, excerpted
below, on Fri, 13 Jan 2006 12:06:28 +0100:
> Very difficult - usually gcc uses ~25M per process (small source files),
> but I've seen >100M (most larger C++ files) and heard of ~600M per
> process for MySQL
>
> Limiting that is beyond the scope
On Thursday 05 January 2006 07:49, Brian Harring wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 04, 2006 at 10:05:52PM -0800, Corey Shields wrote:
> > Where is the centralized vision that everyone is working together
> > here that people not directly related to each project will buy in to
> > and therefore do what they can
On Friday 06 January 2006 00:17, Carsten Lohrke wrote:
>
> To make it short: When you really have something important to say, post
> it to the appropriate mailing list - and post the whole text, not a
> ridiculous link to your blog, most people are not interested in and
> won't read! The same goes
On Thursday 05 January 2006 17:20, Patrick Lauer wrote:
>
> But it's already getting too bureaucratic ;-)
> It's getting more and more difficult to get things done, more and more
> people / groups / herds to wait on to decide "obvious" things.
>
They shouldn't. If there is anything I learned is tha
On Thursday 05 January 2006 18:03, Patrick Lauer wrote:
> Exactly :-) But I guess many among us have become a bit disillusioned
> and try to stay away from what is perceived as useless trolling and
> silly infights. So things either stall in discussion or get implemented
> with the "obvious" flawed
On Thursday 05 January 2006 21:09, Aron Griffis wrote:
> I think there is a Post Hoc fallacy happening here: A happened before
> B, therefore A must be causing B. In the case at hand: A = loss of
> leader, B = lack of progress. While A might be the cause of B, it is
> dangerous to jump to that co
On Tue, 10 Jan 2006 15:12:27 -0600 Lance Albertson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| Last I knew, its not a simple task for generating those nice looking
| html pages that ciaranm made a while back for the developer docs.
| When I asked him about (he can probably provide more detail), It took
| a lot of
Patrick Lauer wrote:
> On Fri, 2006-01-13 at 19:53 +0900, Kalin KOZHUHAROV wrote:
>
>>>Make this distributed tool for tar zip bzip2 and gzip and I'm in, I
>>>don't think it would be useful with anything else than Gigabit Ethernet.
>
> One 2Ghz CPU can't even saturate a 100Mbit line with bzip2 as
Mike Frysinger wrote:
> as one of the new sane features of the next portage-2.1_pre release, we're
> looking to cut out use.defaults support
>
> existing stable users wont be affected as the 2.0.x versions will continue to
> carry support for this, but some of you stable users may notice some US
On Fri, Jan 13, 2006 at 06:57:24AM -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> as one of the new sane features of the next portage-2.1_pre release, we're
> looking to cut out use.defaults support
>
> existing stable users wont be affected as the 2.0.x versions will continue to
> carry support for this, but s
On Friday 13 January 2006 11:15, Kalin KOZHUHAROV wrote:
> Or is it because I always had:
> USE="-* ${MY_USE}"
> in /etc/make.conf?
yes
-mike
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
On Friday 13 January 2006 11:15, Wernfried Haas wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 13, 2006 at 06:57:24AM -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > existing stable users wont be affected as the 2.0.x versions will
> > continue to carry support for this, but some of you stable users may
> > notice some USE
> > flags sudde
Mike Frysinger wrote:
> ignoring the two releng issues (since that's a bug with both 1.11.13 and
> 1.11.14), any last thoughts before i do this ? i'll wait until sunday
> nite ;)
> -mike
Looks good here (PPC64)!
markus
pgpqsx5c5iXVS.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: [Fri Jan 13 2006, 08:48:21AM CST]
> Very easy to screw up, especially since docutils goes to great lengths
> to create output even if the input is highly weird. My own parser moans
> on anything like that -- it disallows most nested structure markup --
> which means it's usel
>>> I would like to be able to limit the -jN when there is no distcc host
>>> available or when compiling c++ code, otherwise my poor laptop is dead with
>>> -j5 compiling pwlib when the network is down
>> As far as I can tell distcc isn't smart enough for dynamic load balancing.
>> One could
On Fri, Jan 13, 2006 at 06:57:24AM -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> as one of the new sane features of the next portage-2.1_pre release, we're
> looking to cut out use.defaults support
Could you add a USE_ORDER without "auto" to /etc/make.globals for that
release, please, or alternatively provide s
Can we get this on the website/announce? I agree that auto-use is the
suck and that it needs to die a long excrutiating death, but I think a
lot of users will be like wtf when 2.1 hits stable and --newuse turns up
a massive crapload of packages.
Whether this announced now, or when portage-2.1
On Fri, 2006-01-13 at 13:26 -0500, Alec Joseph Warner wrote:
> but I think a
> lot of users will be like wtf when 2.1 hits stable and --newuse turns
> up
> a massive crapload of packages.
Could we include a simple script to add these USE to the users make.conf
before they upgrade to 2.1. Witho
On Friday 13 January 2006 12:49, Harald van Dijk wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 13, 2006 at 06:57:24AM -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > as one of the new sane features of the next portage-2.1_pre release,
> > we're looking to cut out use.defaults support
>
> Could you add a USE_ORDER without "auto" to /etc/ma
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Kalin KOZHUHAROV wrote:
> Patrick Lauer wrote:
>> On Fri, 2006-01-13 at 19:53 +0900, Kalin KOZHUHAROV wrote:
>>
Make this distributed tool for tar zip bzip2 and gzip and I'm in, I
don't think it would be useful with anything else than Gigabit
On Fri, 2006-01-13 at 06:57 -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> as one of the new sane features of the next portage-2.1_pre release, we're
> looking to cut out use.defaults support
I see this as a good and bad thing. Good in one hand that less autojunk
would be enabled like python/perl bindings not b
On Fri, 13 Jan 2006 15:13:02 -0500 solar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| The autouse itself is not a bad feature or idea if it were used properly.
| Problem is that it's not been used properly.
No, it's bad. It's another thing that makes correct dependency
resolution impossible.
--
Ciaran McCreesh
On Fri, 2006-01-13 at 20:23 +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Jan 2006 15:13:02 -0500 solar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> | The autouse itself is not a bad feature or idea if it were used properly.
> | Problem is that it's not been used properly.
>
> No, it's bad. It's another thing that m
On Fri, 13 Jan 2006 15:50:08 -0500 solar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| On Fri, 2006-01-13 at 20:23 +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
| > On Fri, 13 Jan 2006 15:13:02 -0500 solar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| > | The autouse itself is not a bad feature or idea if it were used
| > | properly. Problem is th
IMHO a lot of the auto-use stuff that is "mis-used" is moreso what IUSE
defaults is for. I have a crappy patch for IUSE defaults that I may try
to work on so that it can be merged in the 2.1/2.2 branch. I realize
that this is probably a bit far off, but will hopefully improve the
situation.
On Friday 13 January 2006 15:13, solar wrote:
> On Fri, 2006-01-13 at 06:57 -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > as one of the new sane features of the next portage-2.1_pre release,
> > we're looking to cut out use.defaults support
>
> I see this as a good and bad thing. Good in one hand that less auto
from time to time i see this crap:
src_test() { :; }
dont do this
use RESTRICT=test
-mike
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
On Fri, Jan 13, 2006 at 06:03:16PM -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> from time to time i see this crap:
> src_test() { :; }
>
> dont do this
>
> use RESTRICT=test
Can we have a RESTRICT=compile too, please? ;)
./Brix
--
Henrik Brix Andersen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Gentoo Metadistribution | Mobile com
Harald van Dijk posted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, excerpted
below, on Fri, 13 Jan 2006 18:49:42 +0100:
> On Fri, Jan 13, 2006 at 06:57:24AM -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>> as one of the new sane features of the next portage-2.1_pre release, we're
>> looking to cut out use.defaults support
>
> Could y
Henrik Brix Andersen wrote:
Can we have a RESTRICT=compile too, please? ;)
Right after RESTRICT=lamejokes is implemented :P
--
Simon Stelling
Gentoo/AMD64 Operational Co-Lead
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
On Fri, Jan 13, 2006 at 04:39:38PM -0700, Duncan wrote:
> Harald van Dijk posted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, excerpted
> below, on Fri, 13 Jan 2006 18:49:42 +0100:
>
> > On Fri, Jan 13, 2006 at 06:57:24AM -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> >> as one of the new sane features of the next portage-2.1_pre relea
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
>>According to previous posts, USE_ORDER will be going away with
>>use.defaults, because that was really the only reason it was there in the
>>first place as there's no other sane ordering possible, if it is removed.
>
>
> There are other sane order
Alec Warner posted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, excerpted below, on
Fri, 13 Jan 2006 22:47:40 -0500:
>
>>>According to previous posts, USE_ORDER will be going away with
>>>use.defaults, because that was really the only reason it was there in the
>>>first place as there's no other sane ordering possible,
37 matches
Mail list logo
