Robin H. Johnson wrote:
> Software, I picked up maintenance of autofs when the previous maintainer went
> AWOL several years ago, and ran with it because I needed AutoFS-LDAP. I don't
> have access to any AutoFS-LDAP setups anymore, and upstream has moved on.
> There
> is a 7Kb init.d script that
On Tuesday 10 July 2007, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
> For various reasons, I've got a couple of packages that I'm not really
> very well suited to maintain going on. I added them over the course of past
> jobs and university courses, but I have no further need of them, and they
> really could use peop
Hi Folks,
For various reasons, I've got a couple of packages that I'm not really
very well suited to maintain going on. I added them over the course of past
jobs and university courses, but I have no further need of them, and they
really could use people that actually use them.
This first batch d
On Tuesday 10 July 2007, Thomas de Grenier de Latour wrote:
> On 2007/07/10, Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > the no* flags were introduced more to address default behavior than
> > the -* case, so yes we can kick many of the no* USE flags
>
> To address only the default behavior, addi
On Tue, Jul 10, 2007 at 05:37:46PM -0300, Kevin Lacquement wrote:
> Greg KH wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 10, 2007 at 07:10:35PM +0200, Dominique Michel wrote:
> Can you explain more. If the kernel can be tivoized by someone
> >>> I'm sorry, but "tivoized" is not a verb. Please explain what you mean
On 2007/07/10, Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> the no* flags were introduced more to address default behavior than
> the -* case, so yes we can kick many of the no* USE flags
>
To address only the default behavior, adding "foo" to the profile USE
instead of using a "nofoo" flag wo
Greg KH wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 10, 2007 at 07:10:35PM +0200, Dominique Michel wrote:
Can you explain more. If the kernel can be tivoized by someone
>>> I'm sorry, but "tivoized" is not a verb. Please explain what you mean
>>> by this.
>> I mean if someone distribute a kernel with a licence that
On Tuesday 10 July 2007, Thomas de Grenier de Latour wrote:
> On 2007/07/10, Thilo Bangert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > - we could finally kick all the no* USE flags. USE flags are use
> > flags - they determine what should be used. not what should not be
> > used...
>
> Because of the way USE fl
On 2007/07/10, Thilo Bangert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> - we could finally kick all the no* USE flags. USE flags are use
> flags - they determine what should be used. not what should not be
> used...
Because of the way USE flags stack in Portage (the USE_ORDER variable),
IUSE defaults are not a
On Tue, Jul 10, 2007 at 07:10:35PM +0200, Dominique Michel wrote:
>
> > > Can you explain more. If the kernel can be tivoized by someone
> >
> > I'm sorry, but "tivoized" is not a verb. Please explain what you mean
> > by this.
>
> I mean if someone distribute a kernel with a licence that forbi
Ciaran McCreesh kirjoitti:
> On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 20:26:59 +0300
> Petteri Räty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Written maybe but it should be discussed on gentoo-dev too I would
>> give a week or two at least.
>
> Well, I believe the idea here was to get out the already-implemented,
> already-agreed
On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 20:26:59 +0300
Petteri Räty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Written maybe but it should be discussed on gentoo-dev too I would
> give a week or two at least.
Well, I believe the idea here was to get out the already-implemented,
already-agreed-upon, highly useful, low cost stuff as
Ciaran McCreesh kirjoitti:
> On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 19:50:47 +0300
> Petteri Räty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Well thinking that it will get some time to write the EAPI-1 spec and
>> getting it approved by the council it will be probably useful to put
>> it in initially and see where Portage is when
On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 19:50:47 +0300
Petteri Räty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Well thinking that it will get some time to write the EAPI-1 spec and
> getting it approved by the council it will be probably useful to put
> it in initially and see where Portage is when it comes time to vote.
If EAPI-1
> > Can you explain more. If the kernel can be tivoized by someone
>
> I'm sorry, but "tivoized" is not a verb. Please explain what you mean
> by this.
I mean if someone distribute a kernel with a licence that forbid to remove the
functions he added even if we don't want them (as example drm at
Zac Medico kirjoitti:
> Petteri Räty wrote:
>> Zac Medico kirjoitti:
>>> Hi everyone,
>>>
>>> Bug 174380 [1] has a growing list of features that may be included in
>>> EAPI-1.
>>> Some of the features are already implemented but can't be used in the
>>> portage
>>> tree until we do an EAPI bump.
Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Tuesday 10 July 2007, William Hubbs wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 09, 2007 at 11:26:19PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > > As for IUSE defaults... There were objections against that feature
> > > on the grounds that it's unnecessary and increased maintenance
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Petteri Räty wrote:
> Zac Medico kirjoitti:
>> Hi everyone,
>>
>> Bug 174380 [1] has a growing list of features that may be included in EAPI-1.
>> Some of the features are already implemented but can't be used in the portage
>> tree until we do an EAPI
Dominique Michel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted
[EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Mon, 09 Jul 2007
21:37:52 +0200:
> So in fact, it doesn't matter in regard of tivoization if the tre is
> under v2 or v3. I am not a layer, but I will be very surprised if I am
> wrong on that point.
Agreed. Tivo
On Tuesday 10 July 2007, Petteri Räty wrote:
> Mike Frysinger kirjoitti:
> > On Tuesday 10 July 2007, William Hubbs wrote:
> >> On Mon, Jul 09, 2007 at 11:26:19PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> >>> As for IUSE defaults... There were objections against that feature on
> >>> the grounds that it's un
Mike Frysinger kirjoitti:
> On Tuesday 10 July 2007, William Hubbs wrote:
>> On Mon, Jul 09, 2007 at 11:26:19PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>>> As for IUSE defaults... There were objections against that feature on
>>> the grounds that it's unnecessary and increased maintenance. Do they
>>> really
On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 08:14:57 +0200
Stefan Schweizer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Can you please also list #138792 as implemented? It has a patch
> attached.
An unreleased (an incomplete regarding EAPI) patch does not count as
being implemented.
Marius
--
Marius Mauch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--
[E
22 matches
Mail list logo
