On Thursday 03 August 2006 15:42, Daniel Black wrote:
> I've added new versions of these libs to gentoo. They are currently in
> package.mask because I've missed a few bumps versions in between and there
> is an ABI change. Some old deprecated functions have been removed.
>
> So far these have been
>> Have you ever looked into Makefile.PL in the past? Or have you even
>> taken a look at the Makefile.PL.in is it existed? It shows that many of
>> the "-l"-options are generated by configure. (Makefile.PL.in is template
>> for configure - you surely know that)
>>
>> Or are we talking about some s
On Fri, 2006-09-15 at 17:44 +0200, Sven Köhler wrote:
> I'm sorry, but how sure are you about this?
>
> Have you ever looked into Makefile.PL in the past? Or have you even
> taken a look at the Makefile.PL.in is it existed? It shows that many of
> the "-l"-options are generated by configure. (Make
Thomas de Grenier de Latour wrote:
> I think that protection against harmfull new config files should
> be selective to be useful. It should only affect directories
> from which files are blindly sourced by some services you are
> already running. There, and only there¹, new config files are
> une
On Thu, 14 Sep 2006 08:51:09 +0200 Harald van Dijk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| On Mon, Sep 11, 2006 at 11:22:11PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
| > Comments both on the nature and the specifics of the specification
| > would be welcomed. In particular, I'd like to know if people think
| > we're man
>> So before PerlMagick becomes independant of ImageMagick's configure,
>> upstream must change a few things.
>>
> Has it changed that much recently? Because it *was* seperate for aeons
> and aeons before this. Installing perlmagick via use flag is a recent
> edition in the scheme of things.
I'm s
On 9/14/06, Doug Goldstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Caleb,
>
>
> question... gem is the "official" package manager for Ruby. Why do we
> put Ruby stuff, other than the bare minimums to get Ruby running, in the
> portage tree? Why not just let gem handle it?
>
I favor this the same way I fa
Bryan Østergaard wrote:
> As there's been very little, if any, interest from anybody besides
> Stefan and Recruiters / Developer Relations I'm going to deny the
> contributor access idea. Recruiters and Developer Relations feels that
> this is a bad idea, especially seeing how hard it has been to r
