> On Tue, 30 Apr 2013, Ryan Hill wrote:
> Then the person implementing the code for Paludis is either a monkey
> or a robot*. Anyone capable of reasoning could puzzle out the
> implications of not allowing user-given options to override the
> defaults. Obviously you can write code that follows
On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 19:52:03 -0600
Ryan Hill wrote:
> Then the person implementing the code for Paludis is either a monkey
> or a robot*.
>
> *or both (?!)
I believe they prefer the term "mathematician".
--
Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 04/30/2013 11:49 PM, Ryan Hill wrote:
> On Wed, 01 May 2013 11:33:00 +0800
> Patrick Lauer wrote:
>
>> On 05/01/2013 11:25 AM, Ryan Hill wrote:
>>> Since people like to start whinging threads every time we have to change
>>> flags on gcc this is a
On Tue, 2013-04-30 at 23:26 -0400, Walter Dnes wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 11:17:35PM -0400, Alexandre Rostovtsev wrote
>
> > It impacts users who use stable keywords and are therefore stuck with
> > GNOME-2.32. The workaround is for affected users to switch to ~arch
> > keywords (note that G
>> It impacts users who use stable keywords and are therefore stuck with
>> GNOME-2.32. The workaround is for affected users to switch to ~arch
>> keywords (note that GNOME-3.x ebuilds in ~arch get vastly more care and
>> attention from us than the theoretically stable GNOME-2.32).
>>
>> And the re
On Wed, 01 May 2013 11:33:00 +0800
Patrick Lauer wrote:
> On 05/01/2013 11:25 AM, Ryan Hill wrote:
> > Since people like to start whinging threads every time we have to change
> > flags on gcc this is a friendly notice of some upcoming changes.
> >
> [snip lots of good ideas]
> >
> > Any though
On 05/01/2013 11:25 AM, Ryan Hill wrote:
> Since people like to start whinging threads every time we have to change flags
> on gcc this is a friendly notice of some upcoming changes.
>
[snip lots of good ideas]
>
> Any thoughts?
I'm in favour of unleashing 4.8 in ~arch soon - I've been building
On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 11:17:35PM -0400, Alexandre Rostovtsev wrote
> It impacts users who use stable keywords and are therefore stuck with
> GNOME-2.32. The workaround is for affected users to switch to ~arch
> keywords (note that GNOME-3.x ebuilds in ~arch get vastly more care and
> attention f
On Tue, 2013-04-30 at 22:29 -0400, Walter Dnes wrote:
> I was going to file a bug at bugzilla, but this looks like it's going
> to involve virtually every GNOME-related app, so playing whack-a-mole is
> going to be painfull. It'll have to be tackled higher up, which is why
> I'm posting here. I
Since people like to start whinging threads every time we have to change flags
on gcc this is a friendly notice of some upcoming changes.
I'm adding an "lto" flag to work around some issues we have with stabilization
of 4.6 on alpha (though the flag will be added to all versions).
I'm also going
I was going to file a bug at bugzilla, but this looks like it's going
to involve virtually every GNOME-related app, so playing whack-a-mole is
going to be painfull. It'll have to be tackled higher up, which is why
I'm posting here. I apologize if there is a more correct way of
reporting this.
On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 12:12:13 +0100
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 05:30:03 + (UTC)
> Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote:
> > There's value in someone being just contrarian enough to purposefully
> > look for the strangest or most illogical read of a spec and
> > (initially) im
On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 9:51 AM, Jörg Schaible wrote:
> The most annoying fact is, that none of this would have been necessary with
> portage 2.2, but maybe we have to wait for 2.1.11.500 before 2.2 gets
> stable...
Since portage-2.1.11.20 [1], you can do this:
echo 'FEATURES="${FEATURES} pre
On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 1:24 PM, Tom Wijsman wrote:
> I haven't ran revdep-rebuild for a year, you can set
> FEATURES="preserve-libs" which will preserve any libs, once libs are
> being preserved you can then get rid of them by doing an `emerge
> @preserved-rebuild` whenever you feel like as oppos
On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 18:51:06 +0200
Jörg Schaible wrote:
> Well, here we go again! Again an update of Gentoo stable where emerge
> tries to upgrade icu and KDE in one run (and this time additionally
> libreoffice).
If you don't want that to happen, use package sets and exclusion.
> Other essenti
On 04/30/2013 01:06 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 12:51 PM, Jörg Schaible wrote:
>> The most annoying fact is, that none of this would have been necessary with
>> portage 2.2, but maybe we have to wait for 2.1.11.500 before 2.2 gets
>> stable...
>
> Actually, @preserved-rebuil
On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 12:51 PM, Jörg Schaible wrote:
> The most annoying fact is, that none of this would have been necessary with
> portage 2.2, but maybe we have to wait for 2.1.11.500 before 2.2 gets
> stable...
Actually, @preserved-rebuild is supported in the current stable
portage. It jus
Well, here we go again! Again an update of Gentoo stable where emerge tries
to upgrade icu and KDE in one run (and this time additionally libreoffice).
Other essential libraries (e.g. libpng) can always be updated, because the
ebuild preserves the old shared libs and let me run revdep-rebuild ag
On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 15:25:08 +0200
Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> > On Tue, 30 Apr 2013, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>
> > Below is a patch that brings the spec in line with common sense.
>
> And in fact, I wonder why we're even discussing the issue.
> Paludis was fixed already more than a year ago:
> ht
On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 15:13:25 +0200
Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> \item[econf] Calls the program's \t{./configure} script. This is
> designed to work with GNU Autoconf-generated scripts. Any additional
> parameters passed to \t{econf} are passed directly
> -to \t{./configure}. \t{econf} will look in
> On Tue, 30 Apr 2013, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> Below is a patch that brings the spec in line with common sense.
And in fact, I wonder why we're even discussing the issue.
Paludis was fixed already more than a year ago:
http://git.exherbo.org/paludis/paludis.git/commit/?id=ad2ae2ba3b6fc8f11363
Below is a patch that brings the spec in line with common sense.
Ulrich
>From 34023bdee8fb9b60e6a91e1f340bef5c97f07e05 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: =?UTF-8?q?Ulrich=20M=C3=BCller?=
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2013 14:59:15 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] econf arguments override default options.
This matches l
Rich Freeman posted on Tue, 30 Apr 2013 08:40:50 -0400 as excerpted:
> I think PMS has been a great thing for Gentoo, but we shouldn't treat
> changing it like changing the TCP spec.
Thanks. +=
--
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
a
On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 8:30 AM, Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote:
> Another analogy would be that these people are human versions of the
> kernel's trinity fuzz tester...
Requirements generally are not intended to be defensible to fuzz
testing, or completely determinate. Rather, they're inten
Ciaran McCreesh posted on Tue, 30 Apr 2013 12:12:13 +0100 as excerpted:
> On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 05:30:03 + (UTC)
> Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote:
>> There's value in someone being just contrarian enough to purposefully
>> look for the strangest or most illogical read of a spec and (initial
On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 7:46 AM, Ciaran McCreesh
wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 13:42:22 +0200
> "viv...@gmail.com" wrote:
>> Now, is it possible to alter the behaviour of paludis to act, still
>> following the specs, in a way compatible with portage and which seem
>> more logical to the majority o
On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 13:42:22 +0200
"viv...@gmail.com" wrote:
> Now, is it possible to alter the behaviour of paludis to act, still
> following the specs, in a way compatible with portage and which seem
> more logical to the majority of people writing this thread?
Sure, and as an added bonus, we c
On 04/30/13 13:12, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 05:30:03 + (UTC)
> Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote:
>> There's value in someone being just contrarian enough to purposefully
>> look for the strangest or most illogical read of a spec and
>> (initially) implement it that way,
On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 05:30:03 + (UTC)
Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote:
> There's value in someone being just contrarian enough to purposefully
> look for the strangest or most illogical read of a spec and
> (initially) implement it that way, in ordered to root out and get the
> bugs in the
Hi everyone,
the new versions of uwsgi (1.9+) support even more languages/platforms
and plugins.
Currently we do everything with common USE flags and build-in many
plugins since we didn't want to expose them right from the start to the
user (the selection is based on upstreams base configuration)
30 matches
Mail list logo
