> On Wed, 19 Nov 2014, Diego Elio Pettenò wrote:
> More! https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=529788
> Again, is somebody going to stand up and do something or can I shut
> down my tinderbox and spend my free time playing Baldur's Gate?
http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/council/meeting-logs/2
On 11/20/2014 04:03 AM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 7:36 PM, hasufell wrote:
>>
>> But keep in mind that the core is supposed to shrink with this idea of a
>> distributed model! So it would be less work to actually roll/tag
>> releases than it would be right now (or even do that
On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 7:36 PM, hasufell wrote:
>
> But keep in mind that the core is supposed to shrink with this idea of a
> distributed model! So it would be less work to actually roll/tag
> releases than it would be right now (or even do that stuff in branches).
This doesn't really make the
On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 8:41 PM, Diego Elio Pettenò
wrote:
> On 31 October 2014 09:28, Diego Elio Pettenò wrote:
>> So who wants to pick up the pieces now? Because I'm almost pissed off
>> enough to turn down the tinderbox and give a big FU to Gentoo already.
>> https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.c
Hi,
On Wed, 19 Nov 2014 22:59:05 +0300 Andrew Savchenko wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Nov 2014 21:55:48 -0800 Zac Medico wrote:
[...]
> > > When I'll manage to run emerge -DNupv @world without errors, I'll
> > > send you stats for both runs with and without dynamic deps.
> >
> > Great, hopefully that will
On 31 October 2014 09:28, Diego Elio Pettenò wrote:
> So who wants to pick up the pieces now? Because I'm almost pissed off
> enough to turn down the tinderbox and give a big FU to Gentoo already.
> https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=527608
More! https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=52978
On Thu, 20 Nov 2014 01:36:11 +0100
"viv...@gmail.com" wrote:
> >> At that point it is forked. I don't see what's wrong with forking.
> > Forking wouldn't be the problem. Duplication of effort would be the
> > problem.
> worse, mutually incompatibility would be much worse
I was talking about wha
On 11/20/2014 12:58 AM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 12:54 PM, hasufell wrote:
>> On 11/19/2014 06:27 PM, Jauhien Piatlicki wrote:
>>> On 11/19/2014 03:36 PM, hasufell wrote:
In the end, I'm not sure if this is actually such a big problem. You can
still use random e
Il 20/11/2014 01:00, Jeroen Roovers ha scritto:
> On Wed, 19 Nov 2014 18:54:05 +0100
> hasufell wrote:
>
>> At that point it is forked. I don't see what's wrong with forking.
> Forking wouldn't be the problem. Duplication of effort would be the
> problem.
>
>
> jer
>
worse, mutually incompati
Il 20/11/2014 00:58, Rich Freeman ha scritto:
> On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 12:54 PM, hasufell wrote:
>> On 11/19/2014 06:27 PM, Jauhien Piatlicki wrote:
>>> On 11/19/2014 03:36 PM, hasufell wrote:
In the end, I'm not sure if this is actually such a big problem. You can
still use random ebui
On Wed, 19 Nov 2014 18:54:05 +0100
hasufell wrote:
> At that point it is forked. I don't see what's wrong with forking.
Forking wouldn't be the problem. Duplication of effort would be the
problem.
jer
On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 12:54 PM, hasufell wrote:
> On 11/19/2014 06:27 PM, Jauhien Piatlicki wrote:
>> On 11/19/2014 03:36 PM, hasufell wrote:
>>>
>>> In the end, I'm not sure if this is actually such a big problem. You can
>>> still use random ebuilds from random overlays and commit them straigh
Hello,
On Mon, 17 Nov 2014 21:55:48 -0800 Zac Medico wrote:
> On 11/17/2014 09:47 PM, Andrew Savchenko wrote:
> > I use 2.2.14 on both hosts (and usually latest ~x86 portage is
> > there). I thought that running fixpackages should be enough to run
> > emerge with --dynamic-deps=n.
>
> It depends
> # Ulrich Müller (5 Nov 2014)
> # Does not build with Emacs 24.4.
> # Last visible upstream activity in 2011.
> # Masked for removal in 30 days, bug #528374.
> app-emacs/csharp-mode
Package has been fixed, so it won't be removed.
pgp3ETXZh_meX.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On 11/19/2014 06:27 PM, Jauhien Piatlicki wrote:
> On 11/19/2014 03:36 PM, hasufell wrote:
>>
>> In the end, I'm not sure if this is actually such a big problem. You can
>> still use random ebuilds from random overlays and commit them straight
>> to your own overlay.
>>
>
> A bad idea. Bad because
On 11/19/2014 03:36 PM, hasufell wrote:
> On 11/18/2014 02:12 PM, Jauhien Piatlicki wrote:
>>
>> On 11/18/2014 04:19 AM, hero...@gentoo.org wrote:
>>> Jauhien Piatlicki writes:
>>>
It would be probably good to have in the tree only the core components and
move other stuff to the themati
On 11/18/2014 02:12 PM, Jauhien Piatlicki wrote:
>
> On 11/18/2014 04:19 AM, hero...@gentoo.org wrote:
>> Jauhien Piatlicki writes:
>>
>>> It would be probably good to have in the tree only the core components and
>>> move other stuff to the thematic overlays.
>>>
>>> Then we can have a clear un
On 11/19/14 10:17, Alec Ten Harmsel wrote:
> Hey devs,
>
> This is my first mail to this list. If this is out of line, let me know.
>
> I've been playing around with Jenkins (continuous integration server)
> recently for a couple of personal projects, including my own overlay. I
> thought it woul
On Tue, 18 Nov 2014 21:17:19 -0500
Alec Ten Harmsel wrote:
> * It took over 4 hours
Fun!
> * So many (~3MB output) warnings, especially "upstream parallel
> compilation bug"... thought autoconf handled this, but I guess not
autoconf doesn't fix build systems like that. Also, repoman misses a
Hi,
On Tue, 18 Nov 2014 14:38:12 -0500
Wayne Chang wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> I got the latest ROS version running on Gentoo and packaged it into an
> overlay. The closest overlay was ezod
> (http://www.mavrinac.com/index.cgi?page=gentoo), but it wasn't getting
> much love.
I've been working on this
20 matches
Mail list logo
