Re: [gentoo-dev] new herd: theology
On 4/28/07, Rémi Cardona <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Josh Sled wrote: > If that's the case, might not "humanities" be a better name? s/theology/humanities/ sounds good. +1 from me. Rémi -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list Indeed. Even if we wanted a herd specific to religion, "theology" is not the best choice since I've yet to conceive of how a program can do theology. Certain types of programs can inform one's theology (textual studies programs based on SWORD are a good example of this), but the same programs have various other uses. Humanities is a good enough description. -- Nathan Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] New developer: Joe Peterson (lavajoe)
On 5/31/07, Petteri Räty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: It's my usual pleasure to announce some new blood coming in to replace some of the old going away. Joe is joining us from Lafayette, CO, USA to help with the Gentoo/FreeBSD work. Here is how he describes it himself: Congrats Joe! -- Nathan Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
[gentoo-dev] Global USE flag change: wxwindows to wxwidgets?
I noticed that use.desc includes an entry for "wxwindows." The wxWindows project changed its name to "wxWidgets" around three years ago. [1] Perhaps the USE flag should be changed to "wxwidgets" or simply "wx" to reflect the change. Beside use.desc and affected ebuilds, there is also a wxwindows herd. [1] http://wxwidgets.org/about/name.htm -- Nathan Smith Gentoo/PowerPC AT [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] New lists and their usage
On 7/20/07, Chris Gianelloni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: gentoo-projects: This list is for... what exactly? I've not really figured that one out just yet. I know it is supposed to be pretty much anything that doesn't fit into gentoo-dev or another project-specific list. Am I correct here? Is this what everyone thinks this list is supposed to be used for? From what I can tell by reading the logs of the council meeting [1], the purpose of -project is to keep "all the flamewars and bitching" off the -dev list. However, it seems that moderating -dev should accomplish that purpose, so I question the need for its existence. If it is not required reading for developers, how is it substantively different from -user? [1] http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/council/meeting-logs/20070614.txt -- Nathan Smith Gentoo/PowerPC AT [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] emerge feature suggestions
On 8/12/07, Alec Warner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 8/11/07, Rumi Szabolcs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hello! > > > > I've got a couple of suggestions for emerge: > > > > 1.) I apparently cannot exclude one or two packages from a large > > emerge action. For example if I say 'emerge -upv world' or > > 'emerge -Dupv xorg-x11' it may pull in some large updates I do > > not want to do, like gcc or glibc but there is no such thing as > > an exclusion list like 'emerge -Dupv xorg-x11 --except gcc glibc' > > to stop it from emerging these but let it do everything else. > > add them to /etc/portage/package.mask That and that package.provided hack would work, but they are not nearly as nice as the feature Rumi suggested would be. I have run into the same frustration in the past and I would find that feature quite useful. I suppose this comes down to weighing the utility of such a feature against the amount of effort which would go into adding it to Portage. I do not know enough to make an informed decision on that point. Still, I think it is worth discussing rather than dismissing it with a hack. -- Nathan Smith Gentoo/PowerPC AT [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] OpenRC available for testing.
On Tue, 01 Jan 2008 12:41:00 + Roy Marples <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi List > > 2008 is here and it's time for some change! > > OpenRC is now ready for testing. There are no ebuilds in the tree, but > some are available here [1] that offers a baselayout-2 shell that > pulls in openrc-. I'll just offer a git ebuild for the time > being, so bugs can be fixed fast without having to bump all the time. > But it should be fairly smooth going. I am wondering about the blocker on baselayout < 2.0 in your git overlay ebuild for baselayout-2. Is there some reason that the upgrade path from baselayout-1 to -2 will not work for openrc? -- Nathan Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
