So "dopython" is old and sucky, so we want to remove it. A cursory grep
of both the main and alt trees shows no one using it, but I figured I'd
send mail anyway. If you are using dopython, you should probably be
using python -c 'foo' instead, unless for some reason that isn't
possible ( PATH issu
On Wednesday 15 February 2006 10:35, solar wrote:
> On Tue, 2006-02-14 at 18:09 -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On Tuesday 14 February 2006 17:02, Tristan Hill wrote:
> > > I'm updating the rpm ebuild[1]. Without any modifications the
> > > executables are statically compiled and I get the QA mes
On Tue, 2006-02-14 at 18:09 -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Tuesday 14 February 2006 17:02, Tristan Hill wrote:
> > I'm updating the rpm ebuild[1]. Without any modifications the
> > executables are statically compiled and I get the QA message about
> > executable stacks. However, removal of "-s
On Tuesday 14 February 2006 23:02, Tristan Hill wrote:
> I'm updating the rpm ebuild[1]. Without any modifications the
> executables are statically compiled and I get the QA message about
> executable stacks. However, removal of "-static" from the compilation
> flags in ./configure also stops gen
On Sat, 2006-02-11 at 22:42 +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> For those of you who don't know, check-reqs is an eclass that is
> occasionally used by a few packages that have ludicrously high build
> requirements. Typical examples have included anything using Haskell (the
> programming language with
