On 6/1/14, 4:41 PM, Tom Wijsman wrote:
>> I can't speak for other people, but please consider reporting issues
>> to Gentoo first. Our bug queue is under 30 bugs, while upstream is
>> several thousand. Once we can confirm a bug clearly belongs to
>> upstream, we can tell the reporter to file bug up
Friendly reminder to maintainers of these new desktops that have been
'recently' added to Portage that
you should include your herd to freedesktop-b...@gentoo.org mail alias,
as it's meant to be a shared
among all the desktops. The old school desktops like gnome, kde and xfce
are there, so these ne
The attached list notes all of the packages that were added or removed
from the tree, for the week ending 2014-06-01 23h59 UTC.
Removals:
dev-lang/fpc-ide2014-05-26 06:14:10
radhermit
app-emulation/qemu-user 2014-05-30 04:38:08 vapie
On 06/01/14 08:07, Pacho Ramos wrote:
The problem arrives when even core components like udev takes so long to
be handled :/ (and situation would be much worse if Agostino doesn't
have time to make his mass stabilizations... well, each time I report a
stabilization bug that affects me I cross my
On 01/06/14 18:48, Mikle Kolyada wrote:
> 01.06.2014 15:18, Samuli Suominen пишет:
>> http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=505962#c6 is blocking stabilizing
>> the new virtuals,
>> and thus, converting the tree, and also blocking stabilization of the
>> already converted packages (gnome seems to
01.06.2014 15:18, Samuli Suominen пишет:
> http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=505962#c6 is blocking stabilizing
> the new virtuals,
> and thus, converting the tree, and also blocking stabilization of the
> already converted packages (gnome seems to have some)
> pending for 3 months already
>
>
On Sun, 01 Jun 2014 15:41:35 +0200
""Paweł Hajdan, Jr."" wrote:
> On 5/31/14, 8:30 PM, Tom Wijsman wrote:
> > On Sat, 31 May 2014 19:50:20 +0200
> > ""Paweł Hajdan, Jr."" wrote:
> >> This is one of my points: I don't remember a single chromium bug
> >> filed in Gentoo that would be caught by a t
On 5/31/14, 8:30 PM, Tom Wijsman wrote:
> On Sat, 31 May 2014 19:50:20 +0200
> ""Paweł Hajdan, Jr."" wrote:
>> This is one of my points: I don't remember a single chromium bug filed
>> in Gentoo that would be caught by a test or that a failing test
>> actually detected.
>
> Your point covers the
El dom, 01-06-2014 a las 13:59 +0100, Markos Chandras escribió:
> On 06/01/2014 01:07 PM, Pacho Ramos wrote:
> > El dom, 01-06-2014 a las 13:00 +0100, Markos Chandras escribió:
> >> On 06/01/2014 12:33 PM, Pacho Ramos wrote:
> >>> El dom, 01-06-2014 a las 14:18 +0300, Samuli Suominen escribió:
> >>
On 06/01/2014 01:07 PM, Pacho Ramos wrote:
> El dom, 01-06-2014 a las 13:00 +0100, Markos Chandras escribió:
>> On 06/01/2014 12:33 PM, Pacho Ramos wrote:
>>> El dom, 01-06-2014 a las 14:18 +0300, Samuli Suominen escribió:
http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=505962#c6 is blocking
stabi
El dom, 01-06-2014 a las 13:00 +0100, Markos Chandras escribió:
> On 06/01/2014 12:33 PM, Pacho Ramos wrote:
> > El dom, 01-06-2014 a las 14:18 +0300, Samuli Suominen escribió:
> >> http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=505962#c6 is blocking
> >> stabilizing the new virtuals, and thus, converting
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 06/01/2014 12:33 PM, Pacho Ramos wrote:
> El dom, 01-06-2014 a las 14:18 +0300, Samuli Suominen escribió:
>> http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=505962#c6 is blocking
>> stabilizing the new virtuals, and thus, converting the tree, and
>> also b
El dom, 01-06-2014 a las 14:18 +0300, Samuli Suominen escribió:
> http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=505962#c6 is blocking stabilizing
> the new virtuals,
> and thus, converting the tree, and also blocking stabilization of the
> already converted packages (gnome seems to have some)
> pending fo
http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=505962#c6 is blocking stabilizing
the new virtuals,
and thus, converting the tree, and also blocking stabilization of the
already converted packages (gnome seems to have some)
pending for 3 months already
thanks,
samuli
On 05/30/14 10:05, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
Nothing at all, but I don't see a generic global SSL USE_EXPAND adding
any particular benefit, either. What are the intended benefits to
this, besides aesthetics??
Take a look at bug #510974. Because USE=ssl means different things on
different packa
15 matches
Mail list logo