050923 Albert Hopkins wrote:
> There are two packages in portage with the same category/name:
> dev-perl/Text-Reform
> dev-perl/text-reform
> I know, they're not exactly the same.
> They also have the same description, etc. Is this intentional?
'esearch' shows one is masked & the other not
& t
There are two packages in portage with the same category/name:
dev-perl/Text-Reform
dev-perl/text-reform
(I know, they're not exactly the same ). They also have the same
description, etc. Is this intentional?
-m
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
On Fri, 23 Sep 2005, Patrick Kursawe wrote:
On Fri, Sep 23, 2005 at 06:22:43PM +0200, Pawe? Madej wrote:
I've found a news that LSB Release3 [1] was announced. So there is my
question. Are Gentoo Foundation and Gentoo Developers developing Gentoo
Linux in coordinance with standards provided by
On Friday 23 September 2005 19:38, Deedra Waters wrote:
> Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2005 13:46:38 -0500
> From: Jason Huebel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Hurricane Rita Evacuation
>
> I just wanted to give you guys an update on our status with our
> evacuation f
On Friday 23 September 2005 18:41, Grobian wrote:
> Paul de Vrieze wrote:
> > One reason is that there still is no real agreement on what schema to
> > support. Also when I wrote those I was more at home with DTD's than with
> > WXS or Relaxng, and xmllint (part of libxml2) did not support WXS
> >
--
Deedra Waters - Gentoo developer relations, accessibility and infrastructure -
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Gentoo linux: http://www.gentoo.org
-- Forwarded message --
Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2005 13:46:38 -0500
From: Jason Huebel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Thank you All for answers, I have now clear look for that thing which
was new to me. I use linux for about 1,5 year so many of things are unknown.
Greets
Pawel
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Paweł Madej posted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, excerpted below, on
Fri, 23 Sep 2005 18:22:43 +0200:
> Hello,
>
> I've found a news that LSB Release3 [1] was announced. So there is my
> question. Are Gentoo Foundation and Gentoo Developers developing Gentoo
> Linux in coordinance with standards provid
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
| Nope. There's no interest in LSB compliance. LSB isn't a real standard,
| it's some nonsense dreamed up so that companies like Sun can claim that
| they are "Linux compliant" (meaning "behaves like RedHat").
Of course you'll
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Ervin Nemeth wrote:
| I see, but how about defining ForceNormalLib as NO in host.def?
Yes, that is the way to do it, and I actually have xorg doing this
already on USE=minimal. But at this point, monolithic xorg-x11 is in
security mode -- it's not ge
On Friday 23 September 2005 12:22 pm, Paweł Madej wrote:
> I've found a news that LSB Release3 [1] was announced. So there is my
> question. Are Gentoo Foundation and Gentoo Developers developing Gentoo
> Linux in coordinance with standards provided by this specification?
this has come up before o
On Fri, 23 Sep 2005 18:22:43 +0200 Paweł Madej <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| I've found a news that LSB Release3 [1] was announced. So there is my
| question. Are Gentoo Foundation and Gentoo Developers developing
| Gentoo Linux in coordinance with standards provided by this
| specification?
Nope.
On Fri, Sep 23, 2005 at 06:22:43PM +0200, Pawe? Madej wrote:
> I've found a news that LSB Release3 [1] was announced. So there is my
> question. Are Gentoo Foundation and Gentoo Developers developing Gentoo
> Linux in coordinance with standards provided by this specification?
>
> Could someone g
Brian Jackson wrote:
Solar had a nifty per package INSTALL_MASK in his bashrc at one point I
think.
Now I think the USE flag should be "install no static libraries for
which shared version is provided".
In Solaris 10 Sun engineers have eliminated static libraries. Linux is
not yet ready for
Paul de Vrieze wrote:
One reason is that there still is no real agreement on what schema to support.
Also when I wrote those I was more at home with DTD's than with WXS or
Relaxng, and xmllint (part of libxml2) did not support WXS validation.
I'll look into creating a WXS version.
Is WXS a
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> | > * Does anyone think we should make users build spell lists from
> | > source, even though it can require several GBytes of RAM?
> |
> | Only if requested by user (think about an useflag)
>
> USE flags control things that
On Fri, 23 Sep 2005 10:12:27 +0200 Luca Barbato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
| > Vim 7 includes a native spellchecker. It uses its own spell file
| > format which can be created using Myspell *.aff/*.dic files (the
| > same as for Mozilla and OpenOffice). The spell files are
Hello,
I've found a news that LSB Release3 [1] was announced. So there is my
question. Are Gentoo Foundation and Gentoo Developers developing Gentoo
Linux in coordinance with standards provided by this specification?
Could someone give me reasons why yes or no?
Greets
Pawel
--
gentoo-dev@gen
> * Does anyone think we should make users build spell lists from source,
> even though it can require several GBytes of RAM?
A Use flag and a warning message with a 5 second delay might be
adviseable. Some users add USE flags with out worrying about what
resources it may take.
-Lares
--
gen
On Friday 23 September 2005 23:42, Brian Harring wrote:
> GLEP23's accept_license is (for me) the preferred solution; you have
> everything locally, the choice of what you use is yours (rather then a
> default upstream with a secondary repo of commercial).
It doesn't fully cover what's being discu
Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Thursday 22 September 2005 05:23 am, Ervin Németh wrote:
>
you can put 'EXTRA_ECONF=--disable-static' into your /etc/make.conf ...
-mike
Is this safe to use on desktop machine or it is only developers
suggestion for testing? I want to know if it could broke my syste
On Fri, 2005-09-23 at 23:08 +0900, Jason Stubbs wrote:
> *Relax!* ;)
I'm quite calm, actually.
> I meant extending the fetch-restriction concept to include all cases where
> an ebuild is not fully self-contained; that is, cases where the ebuild is
> not capable of obtaining all necessary compon
On Thu, Sep 22, 2005 at 11:26:19AM +0300, Philippe Trottier wrote:
> Daniel Ostrow wrote:
> > On Wed, 2005-09-21 at 18:54 +0100, Jos?? Carlos Cruz Costa wrote:
> >
> >>Hi everybody,
> >>
> >>If it's commercial, the company in question should (and must) allow an
> >>ebuild for is product, like what
Ervin Nemeth wrote:
I've got no full solution.
The EXTRA_ECONF way works only for automake packages.
Using INSTALL_MASK='*.a' makes me really, really terrified if I think
about sys-devel/gcc.
/Ervin
Solar had a nifty per package INSTALL_MASK in his bashrc at one point I think.
--Iggy
-
Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Friday 23 September 2005 09:53 am, Ervin Nemeth wrote:
>>I see, but how about defining ForceNormalLib as NO in host.def?
>
> it produces a bunch of static-only libraries
And ForceNormalLib doesn't affect those libraries. INSTALL_MASK does,
however.
/Ervin
--
gentoo-d
Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Friday 23 September 2005 04:10 am, Ervin Nemeth wrote:
>
>>Mike Frysinger wrote:
>>
>>>On Thursday 22 September 2005 05:23 am, Ervin Németh wrote:
>>>
For automake packages it is as simple as giving a --disable-static to
configure.
>>>
>>>you can put 'EXTRA_ECONF
On Friday 23 September 2005 22:28, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> On Fri, 2005-09-23 at 10:38 +0900, Jason Stubbs wrote:
> > On Friday 23 September 2005 06:09, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> > > it would be a good idea to give the user some way of knowing that a
> > > package requires some additional purchas
On Friday 23 September 2005 09:53 am, Ervin Nemeth wrote:
> Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> > Ervin Nemeth wrote:
> > | Now let's do the same for xorg-x11,
> >
> > Ha, good luck trying to pass standard configure options into imake.
>
> I see, but how about defining ForceNormalLib as NO in host.def?
proba
Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> Ervin Nemeth wrote:
> | Now let's do the same for xorg-x11,
>
> Ha, good luck trying to pass standard configure options into imake.
I see, but how about defining ForceNormalLib as NO in host.def?
/Ervin
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
On Fri, 2005-09-23 at 10:52 +0200, Michael Kohl wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 18:36:18 -0400
> Mark Loeser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > and would like the people who can mark stable for x86 to contact us.
>
> I only have x86 hardware at home and I want to continue stabilising my
> packages mys
On Fri, 2005-09-23 at 10:38 +0900, Jason Stubbs wrote:
> On Friday 23 September 2005 06:09, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> > it would be a good idea to give the user some way of knowing that a
> > package requires some additional purchased (or otherwise obtained)
> > portion that is not a distfile/tarba
On Thu, 2005-09-22 at 19:04 -0400, Mark Loeser wrote:
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 18:36:18 -0400 Mark Loeser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> > | I'm sending this email because I have seen some packages marked stable
> > | on x86 without the permission of the x86 team, and woul
On Thu, 2005-09-22 at 23:01 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 17:57:16 -0400 warnera6 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> | Or just modify the DESCRIPTION field. "Doom3" ->
> | DESCRIPTION = " A popular first person shooter. This game requires a
> | license key to play." Simple no?
>
On Friday 23 September 2005 02:57 am, Rumen Yotov wrote:
> Still another issue, is there a way to use an "epatch" after which it's
> known you'll have an error, which later is fixed by another patch.
no, and that behavior will probably never be added to epatch
> IMHO it's easier just to fix the p
On Thursday 22 September 2005 08:47 pm, Georgi Georgiev wrote:
> enewuser & friends can be made to
> unmask those locations on demand, thus making the transition painless.
enew{user,group} already disable/reenable sandbox if required
-mike
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
On Fri, 2005-09-23 at 21:08 +0900, Jason Stubbs wrote:
> On Friday 23 September 2005 17:52, Michael Kohl wrote:
> > On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 18:36:18 -0400
> >
> > Mark Loeser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > and would like the people who can mark stable for x86 to contact us.
> >
> > I only have x86 ha
On Friday 23 September 2005 04:10 am, Ervin Nemeth wrote:
> Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On Thursday 22 September 2005 05:23 am, Ervin Németh wrote:
> >>For automake packages it is as simple as giving a --disable-static to
> >>configure.
> >
> > you can put 'EXTRA_ECONF=--disable-static' into your /et
On Friday 23 September 2005 05:02 am, Thomas de Grenier de Latour wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Sep 2005 10:10:11 +0200
>
> Ervin Nemeth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Do you feel the need for a new USE flag?
>
> There is already a "static" flag, and that's what it actually does
> for some packages (most gno
On Friday 23 September 2005 17:52, Michael Kohl wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 18:36:18 -0400
>
> Mark Loeser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > and would like the people who can mark stable for x86 to contact us.
>
> I only have x86 hardware at home and I want to continue stabilising my
> packages mysel
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Ervin Nemeth wrote:
> Mike Frysinger wrote:
>
>>On Thursday 22 September 2005 05:23 am, Ervin Németh wrote:
>>
>>>For automake packages it is as simple as giving a --disable-static to
>>>configure.
>>
>>
>>you can put 'EXTRA_ECONF=--disable-static' in
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Daniel Ostrow wrote:
> On Wed, 2005-09-21 at 18:54 +0100, José Carlos Cruz Costa wrote:
>
>>Hi everybody,
>>
>>If it's commercial, the company in question should (and must) allow an
>>ebuild for is product, like what happens with rpms and other packag
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> I don't intend to maintain these myself (I speak a couple of other
> languages well enough to verify that the package works, but I'd rather
> not get involved any further), but I'd like to make it easy for
> non-Vim-herd peop
Jason Stubbs posted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, excerpted
below, on Fri, 23 Sep 2005 16:44:44 +0900:
> There's absolutely no work required on portage to support USE flag
> "categories". There's nothing preventing a "/" character from appearing in
> a USE flag, hence the support is there already.
It's n
Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò posted
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, excerpted below,
on Fri, 23 Sep 2005 10:25:49 +0200:
> On Friday 23 September 2005 08:10, Georgi Georgiev wrote:
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homophone <-- one of the ones here?
> Yeah, thanks Georgi, it was "Homonym" :)
Aye... Makes sens
On Friday 23 September 2005 02:47, Georgi Georgiev wrote:
> Disclamer: Exercise great caution with the following link. Only read
> one line at a time or you may be overwhelmed. Take a break every 10
> lines or so. Have a sedative handy.
>
> [1]
> http://briandowney.net/?page=linux§ion=gentooebuilds
On Fri, 23 Sep 2005 10:10:11 +0200
Ervin Nemeth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Do you feel the need for a new USE flag?
There is already a "static" flag, and that's what it actually does
for some packages (most gnome-related libs for instance).
Side note: i'm not saying it's the perfect solution t
On Friday 23 September 2005 10:45, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> Ervin Nemeth wrote:
> | Now let's do the same for xorg-x11,
>
> Ha, good luck trying to pass standard configure options into imake.
I though the 7.0 release of xorg-x11 would be split AND autotooled ;-)
Paul
--
Paul de Vrieze
Gentoo De
On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 18:36:18 -0400
Mark Loeser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> and would like the people who can mark stable for x86 to contact us.
I only have x86 hardware at home and I want to continue stabilising my
packages myself. This would concern the following packages:
app-misc/alexandria
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Ervin Nemeth wrote:
| Now let's do the same for xorg-x11,
Ha, good luck trying to pass standard configure options into imake.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFDM8ChXVaO67S1rtsRAqtiAJ9HTNKxUKpEJq/O/BAjZ8WkBq510QC
Homer Parker posted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, excerpted
below, on Mon, 12 Sep 2005 19:20:15 -0500:
> On Tue, 2005-09-13 at 15:55 +0900, Chris White wrote:
>> So basically, Simon wants arch testers to become official devs (with
>> limited
>> restrictions). They've taken the staff quiz already, and he
On Thu, Sep 22, 2005 at 06:36:18PM -0400, Mark Loeser wrote:
> Since the acceptance of GLEP 40 and the creation of the x86 team, any
> package maintainers that are not on the x86 team must make arrangements
> with the team before marking their packages stable on x86. This is
> stated right in the
On Friday 23 September 2005 08:10, Georgi Georgiev wrote:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homophone <-- one of the ones here?
Yeah, thanks Georgi, it was "Homonym" :)
--
Diego "Flameeyes" Pettenò
Gentoo Developer - http://dev.gentoo.org/~flameeyes/
(Gentoo/FreeBSD, Video, Gentoo/AMD64, Sound, PAM
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> Vim 7 includes a native spellchecker. It uses its own spell file
> format which can be created using Myspell *.aff/*.dic files (the same
> as for Mozilla and OpenOffice). The spell files are rather large, so
> it's not feasible to bundle them with vim unconditionally.
are
Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Thursday 22 September 2005 05:23 am, Ervin Németh wrote:
>>For automake packages it is as simple as giving a --disable-static to
>>configure.
>
>
> you can put 'EXTRA_ECONF=--disable-static' into your /etc/make.conf ...
Thanks Mika, it works perfectly!
Now let's do th
On Friday 23 September 2005 15:36, Duncan wrote:
> OTOH, it's obviously yet /another/ thing for portage devs to work on, and
> portage is /supposed/ to be in feature request freeze ATM... I like the
> idea, but whether the benefits of putting it on the current feature list
> outweigh the costs of
On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 22:28:35 +0200
Tom Fredrik Blenning Klaussen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Now as for the USE flag system. It has actually become so big
> that it's difficult to use it effectively. I would actually
> suggest that a two level system of USE flags could be employed.
> Something li
56 matches
Mail list logo
