Christian Faulhammer posted
20090404000139.2ea5a...@terra.solaris, excerpted below, on Sat, 04 Apr
2009 00:01:39 +0200:
> [0]
> http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/desktop/x/x11/xorg-server-1.5-upgrade-
guide.xml
BTW, as I'm on ~arch I had upgraded some time ago, but had been using the
legacy keyboa
Ulrich Mueller writes:
> Well, I'd thought that last rites plus the message in package.mask
> were enough (it also mentions the URL of the migration guide).
> But of course it cannot harm to have a news item in addition.
Users don't follow gentoo-dev to see last-rites.
For whatever reason, I did
> On Fri, 3 Apr 2009, Heath N Caldwell wrote:
> On 2009-04-04 00:57, Christian Faulhammer wrote:
>> please review attached news item.
Well, I'd thought that last rites plus the message in package.mask
were enough (it also mentions the URL of the migration guide).
But of course it cannot harm
Hi,
Josh Sled :
> Christian Faulhammer writes:
> > please review attached news item.
> > Title: Migration to X.org Server 1.5
>
> Clearly wrong.
Fixed.
Gokdeniz Karadag :
> First there is a typo;
> obseleted->obsoleted
Fixed.
> Also, upgrade process is a bit more than simple unmerging;
> "
On 2009-04-04 00:57, Christian Faulhammer wrote:
> Hi,
>
> please review attached news item.
>
> V-Li
>
> --
> Christian Faulhammer, Gentoo Lisp project
> http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/lisp/>, #gentoo-lisp on FreeNode
>
> http://gentoo.faulhammer.org/>
> Title: Migration to X.org Server 1.5
Hi
First there is a typo;
obseleted->obsoleted
Also, upgrade process is a bit more than simple unmerging;
"All users who still have teTeX installed should upgrade to TeXLive
following the upgrade guide on..."
--
Gokdeniz Karadag
Christian Faulhammer writes:
> please review attached news item.
> Title: Migration to X.org Server 1.5
Clearly wrong.
> Posted: 2009-04-06
Given that I'm currently dealing with the repercussions of not having
seen the migration guide until it failed mid-way through the emerge, and
portage seem
Hi,
Gokdeniz Karadag :
> Ulrich Mueller demis ki::
> > # Ulrich Mueller (2 Apr 2009)
> > # De-supported by upstream since three years, see
> > http://tug.org/teTeX/ # Please use app-text/texlive as a
> > replacement. A migration guide is at #
> > http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/tex/texlive-migrati
Hi,
please review attached news item.
V-Li
--
Christian Faulhammer, Gentoo Lisp project
http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/lisp/>, #gentoo-lisp on FreeNode
http://gentoo.faulhammer.org/>
Title: Migration to X.org Server 1.5
Author: Christian Faulhammer
Author: Ulrich Müller
Author: Alexis Ballie
Hi,
Ferris McCormick :
> On Tue, 2009-03-31 at 19:21 +0200, Christian Faulhammer wrote:
> > Hi everyone,
> >
> > with EAPI 3 confusion about what is in which EAPI may increase,
> > although appendix E of the PMS is quite helpful here. Anyway,
> > something handy to put on your desk is my little
Ulrich Mueller demis ki::
> # Ulrich Mueller (2 Apr 2009)
> # De-supported by upstream since three years, see http://tug.org/teTeX/
> # Please use app-text/texlive as a replacement. A migration guide is at
> # http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/tex/texlive-migration-guide.xml
> # Package has open secur
Le 04/04/2009 00:01, Christian Faulhammer a écrit :
please see attached news item for review.
The wording is fine.
Signed-off-by: Rémi Cardona
Thanks
Hi,
please see attached news item for review.
V-Li
--
Christian Faulhammer, Gentoo Lisp project
http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/lisp/>, #gentoo-lisp on FreeNode
http://gentoo.faulhammer.org/>
Title: Migration to X.org Server 1.5
Author: Remi Cardona
Author: Christian Faulhammer
Content-Type: t
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Jeremy Olexa wrote:
> So, my recommendation is to:
> 1) mask the prefix USE flag in base/use.mask because no one except the
> prefix profiles should use this flag.
> 2) unmask and force the USE flag in prefix profile.
> 3) add entry to use.desc.
> adde
> On Fri, 3 Apr 2009, Jim Ramsay wrote:
>> Another question is if the existing ones should still be moved to
>> some www-* category?
> Should? I have no idea. Where exactly would we move these packages?
> The quasi-more-usefully-named www-misc?
Yes, if none of the other www-* categories fi
Hello all,
In the Gentoo Prefix project we have a special USE flag: 'prefix',
kind of like $ARCH USE flags. I am writing here to ask of the best way
to introduce a global implicit USE flag to gentoo-x86. There has been
some interest from other devs to kill diffs in ebuilds between
gentoo-x86 and pr
Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> Another question is if the existing ones should still be moved to
> some www-* category?
Should? I have no idea. Where exactly would we move these packages?
The quasi-more-usefully-named www-misc?
Though I seriously have no objection to either keeping things where
they
Long time ago [1] it was decided that category net-www should be
retired, since the www-* categories exist for these packages.
However, if I look at the category, then most packages in it were
created in 2006 or later. In my understanding, at least no new
packages should be created in net-www.
An
18 matches
Mail list logo
