On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 11:01 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Thursday 13 October 2011 14:15:54 Sebastian Luther wrote:
>> WARNING: One or more updates have been skipped due to a dependency
>> conflict:
>>
>> dev-python/numpy:0
>> (dev-python/numpy-1.6.0::gentoo, ebuild scheduled for merge) confl
Original-Nachricht
> Datum: Fri, 14 Oct 2011 02:01:00 -0400
> Von: Mike Frysinger
> An: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
> Betreff: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in
> net-im/qutecom: metadata.xml ChangeLog qutecom-2.2_p20110210.ebuild
> On Thursday 13 Octo
On Thursday 13 October 2011 14:15:54 Sebastian Luther wrote:
> WARNING: One or more updates have been skipped due to a dependency
> conflict:
>
> dev-python/numpy:0
> (dev-python/numpy-1.6.0::gentoo, ebuild scheduled for merge) conflicts
> with ~dev-python/numpy-1.5.1 required by
> (sci-mathemat
On Fri, 14 Oct 2011 04:30:56 +0400
Peter Volkov wrote:
> 2. better find:
> find /usr -name "*.la" -o -name "*.pc" -o -name "*-config" -exec grep
> -H png14 {} \;
find /usr -name "*.la" -o -name "*.pc" -o -name "*-config" \
-exec grep -H png14 {} +
This is going to take less grep calls,
On Friday 30 September 2011 11:27:18 Diego Elio Pettenò wrote:
> Il giorno ven, 30/09/2011 alle 11.06 -0400, Mike Frysinger ha scritto:
> > and azarah ;)
>
> Right, by the way have you (or anyone else) got any news of him?
>
> > want to do a brain dump into the @DESCRIPTION part of libtool.eclass
Samuli Suominen wrote:
> On 10/12/2011 06:30 AM, Steven J Long wrote:
>> Michał Górny wrote:
>>> I don't think that passing multiple files to epatch actually improves
>>> readability. Simple example:
>>>
>>> # bug #123456, foo, bar
>>> epatch "${FILESDIR}"/${P}-foo.patch
>>> # bug #234567, baz baz
On Fri, 14 Oct 2011 01:01:50 +0300
Samuli Suominen wrote:
> Title: Upgrade to libpng15
> Author: Samuli Suominen
> Content-Type: text/plain
> Posted: 2011-10-14
> Revision: 1
> News-Item-Format: 1.0
> Display-If-Installed:
> After upgrading from libpng14 to libpng15 it's important that you reb
On Fri, 14 Oct 2011 01:01:50 +0300
Samuli Suominen wrote:
> Title: Upgrade to libpng15
> Author: Samuli Suominen
> Content-Type: text/plain
> Posted: 2011-10-14
> Revision: 1
> News-Item-Format: 1.0
> Display-If-Installed:
> After upgrading from libpng14 to libpng15 it's important that you reb
On Thursday 13 October 2011 21:41:02 Alec Warner wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 4:48 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > i've found myself a few times having to implement logic like so:
> >CFLAGS=${BUILD_CFLAGS:--O1 -pipe} \
> >CXXFLAGS=${BUILD_CXXFLAGS:--O1 -pipe} \
> >CPPFLAGS
On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 4:48 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> i've found myself a few times having to implement logic like so:
> CFLAGS=${BUILD_CFLAGS:--O1 -pipe} \
> CXXFLAGS=${BUILD_CXXFLAGS:--O1 -pipe} \
> CPPFLAGS=${BUILD_CPPFLAGS} \
> LDFLAGS=${BUILD_LDFLAGS} \
>
В Птн, 14/10/2011 в 01:01 +0300, Samuli Suominen пишет:
> small news item for stable users. lets keep it simple...
I think it's better to put all knowledge from forum post inside:
1. --keep-going option for revdep-rebuild.
2. better find:
find /usr -name "*.la" -o -name "*.pc" -o -name "*-config"
i've found myself a few times having to implement logic like so:
CFLAGS=${BUILD_CFLAGS:--O1 -pipe} \
CXXFLAGS=${BUILD_CXXFLAGS:--O1 -pipe} \
CPPFLAGS=${BUILD_CPPFLAGS} \
LDFLAGS=${BUILD_LDFLAGS} \
CC=$(tc-getBUILD_CC) \
LD=$(tc-getBUILD_LD) \
small news item for stable users. lets keep it simple...
Title: Upgrade to libpng15
Author: Samuli Suominen
Content-Type: text/plain
Posted: 2011-10-14
Revision: 1
News-Item-Format: 1.0
Display-If-Installed: http://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-t-894950.html
On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 12:12 AM, Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote:
> Mike Frysinger posted on Thu, 13 Oct 2011 00:39:52 -0400 as excerpted:
>
>> i thought there was talk of an automatic @security set at some point,
>> but not sure if that got anywhere.
Marius (genone) added @security support
Samuli Suominen schrieb:
>> This is something that I have been asking for all the time. If you think
>> that what qutecom did should be illegal in Gentoo, then disallow it in
>> policy or code.
>
> Drop that "should be" act, please. It looks as if you were still
> suggesting it was fine to do wh
On 10/12/2011 08:20 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Wednesday 12 October 2011 11:09:56 Zac Medico wrote:
>> How about if we add a `emerge --upgrade` target that is analogous to
>> `apt-get upgrade`?
>
> isn't that already done with @installed ? `emerge --upgrade @installed`
At this time, @install
On Thursday 13 October 2011 14:55:45 Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 10:02 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On Thursday 13 October 2011 12:30:06 Arun Raghavan wrote:
> >> While I've seen a lot of whining about this whole issue, I certainly
> >> haven't been seen any effort to actu
On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 11:55 AM, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 10:02 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>> On Thursday 13 October 2011 12:30:06 Arun Raghavan wrote:
>>> While I've seen a lot of whining about this whole issue, I certainly
>>> haven't been seen any effort to actually
On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 10:02 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Thursday 13 October 2011 12:30:06 Arun Raghavan wrote:
>> While I've seen a lot of whining about this whole issue, I certainly
>> haven't been seen any effort to actually solve the problem within the
>> existing framework. For example, i
On 10/13/2011 08:02 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Thursday 13 October 2011 12:30:06 Arun Raghavan wrote:
>> While I've seen a lot of whining about this whole issue, I certainly
>> haven't been seen any effort to actually solve the problem within the
>> existing framework. For example, if someone c
Am 13.10.2011 15:13, schrieb Ciaran McCreesh:
> On Thu, 13 Oct 2011 12:23:07 +0200
> Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote:
>> So qutecom is not broken and needs not be removed as long as
>>
> Dependencies using <, <=, =, ~ or =* are broken, except in certain
> special situations inside ||.
>
Why
On Thu, 13 Oct 2011 13:52:37 -0400
Rich Freeman wrote:
> While slotting libraries is often an option, that gets a lot messier
> when you're talking about things like header files.
You can make slots mutually blocking if you do it carefully. It does
get a bit horrible without := dependencies thoug
On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 1:45 PM, Samuli Suominen wrote:
> Merely saying if we had some documentation snippet, or an end-quiz
> question for this, QA could more easily/faster revoke access if someone
> were to do this intentionally in tree. This could be minor motivation
> for me to write such snip
On 10/13/2011 06:09 PM, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote:
> Samuli Suominen schrieb:
>> you're right. sorry. that came out too harsh. lets rephrase this as:
>
> No offense taken :)
>
>> "This /topic should be in the end-quiz, and mentioned in the mentoring
>> guide to cover basis as part of the
On Thu, 13 Oct 2011 11:14:31 -0400
Olivier Crête wrote:
> On Wed, 2011-10-12 at 18:49 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > On Wed, 12 Oct 2011 23:00:23 +0530
> > Nirbheek Chauhan wrote:
> > > Then please continue with udev in package.mask and kindly stop
> > > trying to impose your workflow on the
On Thursday 13 October 2011 12:30:06 Arun Raghavan wrote:
> While I've seen a lot of whining about this whole issue, I certainly
> haven't been seen any effort to actually solve the problem within the
> existing framework. For example, if someone cares enough, why not
> write a wrapper script to tr
On 13 October 2011 20:58, Rich Freeman wrote:
> 2011/10/13 Olivier Crête :
>> We're imposing our deep integration because it's the only way to make a
>> compelling platform that "just works", forcing users to tell the
>> computer something the computer already knows is just plain lazy and
>> stupi
On Thursday 13 October 2011 11:17:07 Olivier Crête wrote:
> That said, we, the GNOME upstream, think that having a separate /usr is
> a completely stupid idea.
considering GNOME's track record wrt what they think is a "good idea" in the
UI land, i'm not sure this statement is terribly compelling
2011/10/13 Olivier Crête :
> We're imposing our deep integration because it's the only way to make a
> compelling platform that "just works", forcing users to tell the
> computer something the computer already knows is just plain lazy and
> stupid.
I'd also look at it another way. It is a lot eas
On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 11:26 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
> So, in your opinion, if we have 'foo' and 'libfoo' which are strictly
> version-bound, we can't allow users to install older versions?
Obviously the real issue is when libfoo is libpng or openssl or whatever.
It almost makes you wonder if t
On Thu, 13 Oct 2011 14:13:11 +0100
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Oct 2011 12:23:07 +0200
> Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote:
> > So qutecom is not broken and needs not be removed as long as
> >
> Dependencies using <, <=, =, ~ or =* are broken, except in certain
> special situations in
On Wed, 2011-10-12 at 00:40 -0400, Walter Dnes wrote:
> Hi all
>
> Recently, there was a firestorm on the gentoo-user list over the idea
> that udev would eventually require /usr to be on the same physical
> parition as /, or else use initramfs, which is its own can of worms. I'm
> not a program
On Wed, 2011-10-12 at 18:49 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Oct 2011 23:00:23 +0530
> Nirbheek Chauhan wrote:
> > Then please continue with udev in package.mask and kindly stop trying
> > to impose your workflow on the rest of the world.
>
> Isn't the point here that the desktop / GNOM
Per previous discussion, Arfrever will be maintaining these packages
outside of the main tree.
This entry was committed just under a month ago, but it seems the
announcement was not sent at that time.
# Mike Gilbert (15 Sep 2011)
# Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis (15 Sep 2011)
# Zope Toolk
Samuli Suominen schrieb:
> you're right. sorry. that came out too harsh. lets rephrase this as:
No offense taken :)
> "This /topic should be in the end-quiz, and mentioned in the mentoring
> guide to cover basis as part of the KEYWORDS visibility handling."
This is something that I have been ask
Ciaran McCreesh schrieb:
> On Thu, 13 Oct 2011 12:23:07 +0200
> Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote:
>> So qutecom is not broken and needs not be removed as long as
>> Dependencies using <, <=, =, ~ or =* are broken, except in certain
> special situations inside ||.
I don't find that documented a
On 09:09 Wed 12 Oct 2011, Walter Dnes wrote:
> > Goodbye desktop users then.
> >
> > We recently dropped HAL. Now all the magic that was done by HAL (and
> > required udev anyway) is done through udev directly.
>
> My system worked just fine before HAL was introduced, thank you. I
> always had
On Thu, 13 Oct 2011 12:23:07 +0200
Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote:
> So qutecom is not broken and needs not be removed as long as
>
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
Mike Frysinger schrieb:
>>> by splitting my reply, you changed the meaning. having qutecom in the
>>> tree with a depend on versions that i'm now removing breaks the
>>> depgraph.
>> The depgraph is broken after the old versions are removed, not before.
> which is what i said
So qutecom is not br
Hi all,
Webnodes #3 and #4 have been launched for Bugzilla.
They'll ultimately replace nodes #1 and #2, but meanwhile all 4 nodes
are running. The new DB nodes aren't 100% ready yet.
If you to specifically reach a node instead of the load balancer:
https://bugs-web{1,2,3,4}.gentoo.org/
(and acce
Mike Frysinger posted on Thu, 13 Oct 2011 00:39:52 -0400 as excerpted:
> i thought there was talk of an automatic @security set at some point,
> but not sure if that got anywhere.
Sets (other than @system and @world) aren't available in stable portage
yet. Are they even in ~arch? I've been run
41 matches
Mail list logo
