On Sun, 05 Jun 2011 13:57:18 +0200
Sebastian Pipping wrote:
> PS: I noticed the typo in
>
> gentoo-users@lists.g.o
> ^
> and sent a new mail to now.
>
>
>
> Sebastian
>
From an grossly incomplete, very quick and rather dirty count of my
own darling packages, it looks like I
On 06/05/2011 04:44 PM, Matt Turner wrote:
> Have you looked at Tommy[D]'s work? What do you think needs to happen
> for it to be merged?
I haven't looked at the code in detail, but the idea behind it seems
reasonable. Given the complexity of the issue, I think that it needs to
be approved as a GL
The attached list notes all of the packages that were added or removed
from the tree, for the week ending 2011-06-05 23h59 UTC.
Removals:
www-client/chromium-bin 2011-06-04 08:02:07 phajdan.jr
Additions:
dev-python/psutil 2011-05-30 10:00:03 radhermit
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 9:00 PM, Zac Medico wrote:
> On 06/02/2011 03:04 PM, Matt Turner wrote:
>> For this problem, I think some kind of per-ebuild ABI_DEPENDENT flag
>> should be used to recognize which packages ABI dependencies should
>> apply to. Without thinking about it too hard, it seems lik
Hi,
>> Would be great to have a few people test open-iscsi 2.0.872 before
>> moving it from overlay betagarden to the main tree. [...]
> In the good old days, stuff like this would just be added to the tree
> either hard masked or not keyworded, or both.
>
> Why not still do that?
+1
I had t
On 2011.06.05 12:54, Sebastian Pipping wrote:
> Hello!
>
>
> Would be great to have a few people test open-iscsi 2.0.872 before
> moving it from overlay betagarden to the main tree. To get it
> installed
> please run:
>
> # layman -a betagarden
> # emerge -av =sys-block/open-iscsi-2.0.872
>
PS: I noticed the typo in
gentoo-users@lists.g.o
^
and sent a new mail to now.
Sebastian
Hello!
Would be great to have a few people test open-iscsi 2.0.872 before
moving it from overlay betagarden to the main tree. To get it installed
please run:
# layman -a betagarden
# emerge -av =sys-block/open-iscsi-2.0.872
Important: Please include a description of what you did while test
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 1:30 PM, Fabian Groffen wrote:
> On 02-06-2011 17:15:11 +0530, Nirbheek Chauhan wrote:
>> All these problems are fixed if we don't re-generate the *existing*
>> ChangeLogs. We should simply archive the existing ChangeLog, and
>> append to it after the move to git.
>
> About
On 02-06-2011 17:15:11 +0530, Nirbheek Chauhan wrote:
> All these problems are fixed if we don't re-generate the *existing*
> ChangeLogs. We should simply archive the existing ChangeLog, and
> append to it after the move to git.
About this slightly hybrid approach:
- the ChangeLog file is retaine
10 matches
Mail list logo
