I have sent a msg to gentoo-user describing how to solve this problem.
Perhaps it needs to be mentioned in the news item or wiki entry.
--
,,
SUPPORT ___//___, Philip Webb
ELECTRIC /] [] [] [] [] []| Cities Cent
The attached list notes all of the packages that were added or removed
from the tree, for the week ending 2013-03-31 23h59 UTC.
Removals:
dev-php/pecl-zendoptimizerplus 2013-03-26 18:55:44 olemarkus
media-gfx/picasa2013-03-27 13:15:55 moult
dev-util/ciabot-
On 31/03/2013 07:59, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> it'd be simpler if we just dropped it altogether from @system. if people
> want
> `info`, they can `emerge` it themselves. if packages want `makeinfo`, they
> can DEPEND on it -- few fall into this category (<100 by a rough survey of
> random Gento
On 03/31/2013 06:19 AM, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>> On Sun, 31 Mar 2013, Duncan wrote:
>
>> Or maybe your intent was to either kill these deps or put them
>> behind USE=doc as well?
>
> USE=doc doesn't look right for this, as it's normally used for large
> sized documentation. Something like US
On Sun, Mar 31, 2013 at 12:59 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> the new texinfo-5.x series has rewritten makeinfo in perl. the main `info`
> program is still in pure C.
>
> when it comes to packages installing .info pages, it's largely limited to the
> GNU projects as the format has never really caught
On 03/31/2013 01:59 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
personally, i've never found info pages usable.
ditto.
it'd be simpler if we just dropped it altogether from @system. if people want
`info`, they can `emerge` it themselves. if packages want `makeinfo`, they
can DEPEND on it -- few fall into th
On Sun, 31 Mar 2013 22:50:29 +0200
Diego Elio Pettenò wrote:
> Don't 30 days-delay a package you added because you haven't checked
> it. Just kill it.
>
> And next time be less commit-happy about adding packages, please.
Okay, thank you for letting me know; I'll see today as a lesson and
slow a
On 31 March 2013 21:50, Diego Elio Pettenò wrote:
> On 31/03/2013 22:46, Tom Wijsman wrote:
>> # Tom Wijsman (31 Mar 2013)
>> # Package only applies to versions of Ruby which are no
>
> Don't 30 days-delay a package you added because you haven't checked it.
> Just kill it.
>
> And next time be le
On 31/03/2013 22:46, Tom Wijsman wrote:
> # Tom Wijsman (31 Mar 2013)
> # Package only applies to versions of Ruby which are no
Don't 30 days-delay a package you added because you haven't checked it.
Just kill it.
And next time be less commit-happy about adding packages, please.
--
Diego Elio
# Tom Wijsman (31 Mar 2013)
# Package only applies to versions of Ruby which are no
# longer in the Portage tree; it was introduced because
# net-proxy/swiftiply needed it, but I will instead fix
# that package to no longer need this package.
# Removal in 30 days.
dev-ruby/cgi_multipart_eof_fi
Hello,
(I was redirected from gentoo-doc@ to ask this here.)
I think it's a good idea to expand the categories' descriptions (found
in the corresponding metadata.xml files) with more accurate descriptions
of which packages are welcome to fit in which categories.
The current descriptions are very
On 31 March 2013 15:32, Samuli Suominen wrote:
> On 31/03/13 17:14, Pacho Ramos wrote:
>>
>> Hello
>>
>> Looks like this herd has some unattended bug for a long time (some for
>> some years), and looks not quite active. Is it still active? Should it
>> be dropped in favor of dedicated maintainers
On 31/03/13 17:14, Pacho Ramos wrote:
Hello
Looks like this herd has some unattended bug for a long time (some for
some years), and looks not quite active. Is it still active? Should it
be dropped in favor of dedicated maintainers for its packages?
Thanks
I've just added myself back to net-p
130331 Samuli Suominen offered prompt + polite help re Udev 200 :
Thanks. In fact, it's a bit more complex than I thought yesterday.
After moving the '70 80' files into a subdirectory & restarting, I get :
root:501 ~> dhcpcd
dhcpcd[830]: version 5.6.4 starting
... [nothing happens for
Hello
Looks like this herd has some unattended bug for a long time (some for
some years), and looks not quite active. Is it still active? Should it
be dropped in favor of dedicated maintainers for its packages?
Thanks
I will help out with this package as well if needed.
On 31 Mar 2013 13:10, "Markos Chandras" wrote:
> On 31 March 2013 12:23, Rich Freeman wrote:
> > On Sun, Mar 31, 2013 at 7:01 AM, Markos Chandras
> wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> net-p2p/deluge has open bugs for years[1] and I don't see anybody fr
On 31 March 2013 12:23, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 31, 2013 at 7:01 AM, Markos Chandras wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> net-p2p/deluge has open bugs for years[1] and I don't see anybody from
>> the net-p2p herd
>> to actually maintain it. It would be nice to find a new dedicated
>> maintainer for it.
Am Sonntag, 31. März 2013, 03:17:52 schrieb Samuli Suominen:
> Nothing is stopping you from leaving out the symlink either and
> migrating to the new name despite using only 1 network card either,
> it's still more reliable than the kernel names
Why should I?
Kernel behaviour is traditionally way
On Sun, Mar 31, 2013 at 7:01 AM, Markos Chandras wrote:
> Hi,
>
> net-p2p/deluge has open bugs for years[1] and I don't see anybody from
> the net-p2p herd
> to actually maintain it. It would be nice to find a new dedicated
> maintainer for it. If a user is interested in helping us maintain it,
>
Hi,
net-p2p/deluge has open bugs for years[1] and I don't see anybody from
the net-p2p herd
to actually maintain it. It would be nice to find a new dedicated
maintainer for it. If a user is interested in helping us maintain it,
please contact proxy-maint_at_gentoo_dot_org[2].
[1] https://bugs.gen
On 2013-03-31, Walter Dnes wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 04:45:50PM +0200, Samuli Suominen wrote
>
>> Those 70-* and 80-* are in udev pkg_postinst, this news item,
>> everywhere... can all 3 be deleted if you haven't modified them yourself.
>>
>> So that leaves one... local.rules... dunno ab
> On Sun, 31 Mar 2013, Duncan wrote:
> Or maybe your intent was to either kill these deps or put them
> behind USE=doc as well?
USE=doc doesn't look right for this, as it's normally used for large
sized documentation. Something like USE=info might be better.
Ulrich
On 2013-03-31, Samuli Suominen wrote:
> On 31/03/13 04:06, Philip Webb wrote:
>> 130329 Samuli Suominen wrote:
>>> Attached new version again, more generic than before.
>>
>> I find this difficult to decipher. Who is it aimed at ?
>>
>> I've just updated to Udev 200 . Following the news item,
>>
Mike Frysinger posted on Sun, 31 Mar 2013 01:59:52 -0400 as excerpted:
> it'd be simpler if we just dropped [texinfo] altogether from @system.
> if people want `info`, they can `emerge` it themselves. if packages
> want `makeinfo`, they can DEPEND on it -- few fall into this category
> (<100 by
On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 04:45:50PM +0200, Samuli Suominen wrote
> Those 70-* and 80-* are in udev pkg_postinst, this news item,
> everywhere... can all 3 be deleted if you haven't modified them yourself.
>
> So that leaves one... local.rules... dunno about that. I'm curious.
One paragraph yo
25 matches
Mail list logo
