On 4/16/16 6:46 PM, Mike Gilbert wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 16, 2016 at 6:36 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
>> On Sat, Apr 16, 2016 at 6:24 PM, Mike Gilbert wrote:
>>>
>>> And I don't really see the point in the libressl USE flag in this
>>> case; I think that was only needed so the slot-operator would resolv
On 4/16/16 6:36 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 16, 2016 at 6:24 PM, Mike Gilbert wrote:
>>
>> And I don't really see the point in the libressl USE flag in this
>> case; I think that was only needed so the slot-operator would resolve
>> correctly.
>>
>
> Somebody else may be better informed
On Sat, Apr 16, 2016 at 6:36 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 16, 2016 at 6:24 PM, Mike Gilbert wrote:
>>
>> And I don't really see the point in the libressl USE flag in this
>> case; I think that was only needed so the slot-operator would resolve
>> correctly.
>>
>
> Somebody else may be be
On Sat, Apr 16, 2016 at 6:24 PM, Mike Gilbert wrote:
>
> And I don't really see the point in the libressl USE flag in this
> case; I think that was only needed so the slot-operator would resolve
> correctly.
>
Somebody else may be better informed, but I thought that there was a
concern with havin
On Sat, Apr 16, 2016 at 3:31 PM, Anthony G. Basile wrote:
> On 4/16/16 3:27 PM, Anthony G. Basile wrote:
>> On 4/16/16 3:05 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
>>> On Sat, 16 Apr 2016 19:01:02 + (UTC)
>>> "Anthony G. Basile" wrote:
>>
>> Okay for review. Sorry for the wrap.
>>
>> diff --git a/eclass/ssl
On 4/16/16 3:18 PM, Anthony G. Basile wrote:
> On 4/16/16 3:16 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
>> On Sat, Apr 16, 2016 at 3:05 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
>>>
>>> Congratulations! ... But why would anyone...
>>
>> Not really picking on you in particular, but this is not the first
>> snarky comment on a commit
On 4/16/16 3:27 PM, Anthony G. Basile wrote:
> On 4/16/16 3:05 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
>> On Sat, 16 Apr 2016 19:01:02 + (UTC)
>> "Anthony G. Basile" wrote:
>
> Okay for review. Sorry for the wrap.
>
> diff --git a/eclass/ssl-cert.eclass b/eclass/ssl-cert.eclass
> index 002de76..fc2debd 100
On 4/16/16 3:05 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
> On Sat, 16 Apr 2016 19:01:02 + (UTC)
> "Anthony G. Basile" wrote:
Okay for review. Sorry for the wrap.
diff --git a/eclass/ssl-cert.eclass b/eclass/ssl-cert.eclass
index 002de76..fc2debd 100644
--- a/eclass/ssl-cert.eclass
+++ b/eclass/ssl-cert.ecla
On 4/16/16 3:16 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 16, 2016 at 3:05 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
>>
>> Congratulations! ... But why would anyone...
>
> Not really picking on you in particular, but this is not the first
> snarky comment on a commit we've seen today.
>
> If somebody makes a mistake,
On Sat, Apr 16, 2016 at 3:05 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
>
> Congratulations! ... But why would anyone...
Not really picking on you in particular, but this is not the first
snarky comment on a commit we've seen today.
If somebody makes a mistake, just point it out. I think we can all
appreciate tha
On 4/16/16 3:05 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
> On Sat, 16 Apr 2016 19:01:02 + (UTC)
> "Anthony G. Basile" wrote:
>
>> commit: ad0c2ab2bdbd34f4550e49c56cfd5974d6a2c07a
>> Author: Anthony G. Basile gentoo org>
>> AuthorDate: Sat Apr 16 19:08:23 2016 +
>> Commit: Anthony G. Basile
On Sat, 16 Apr 2016 19:01:02 + (UTC)
"Anthony G. Basile" wrote:
> commit: ad0c2ab2bdbd34f4550e49c56cfd5974d6a2c07a
> Author: Anthony G. Basile gentoo org>
> AuthorDate: Sat Apr 16 19:08:23 2016 +
> Commit: Anthony G. Basile gentoo org>
> CommitDate: Sat Apr 16 19:08:23 201
On 04/16/2016 09:23 AM, Patrick Lauer wrote:
> I very strongly suggest bumping the glibc ebuild, removing the patch in
> the bump, and masking the broken version. Then asking people to test the
> patched version to smoke out failures, and in a few months we can
> consider re-enabling this tomfooler
On 04/16/2016 09:23 AM, Patrick Lauer wrote:
>I very strongly suggest bumping the glibc ebuild, removing the patch in
the bump, and masking the broken version. Then asking people to test the
patched version to smoke out failures, and in a few months we can
consider re-enabling this tomfoolery.
And
As of commit ed047cf2c607277629c20bf1a88d727a7f9bb79e we have
sys-libs/glibc-2.23 in ~arch.
This breaks *lots* of stuff. For example coreutils was broken [1].
According to the tracker bug [2] most of the breakage was introduced in
a gentoo-specific patch.
On the upstream mailinglist [3] people
15 matches
Mail list logo
