> If you have something you'd wish for us to chat about, maybe even vote
> on, let us know! Simply reply to this e-mail for the whole Gentoo dev
> list to see.
I would like to put forward the following suggestion for the Council's
consideration:
"While the current state of PMS is not perfect, it
I'm adding Developer Relations to this email and will be filing a formal
complaint against you. Have a good day.
lol.
--
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
On Fri, 5 Oct 2007 11:46:29 -0700
Donnie Berkholz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> How many packages depend on virtual/editor? Should it be a virtual at
> all?
The system set depends on it, and last I knew didn't allow for any-of
deps.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 11:10:34 +0200
Robert Buchholz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I already wondered a while back:
> sed only fails if the file does not exist, but not if there was no
> replacement. Is there any way to force it to?
Off the top of my head...
sed -e '1{x;s/^/0/;x;ta;:a}'
-e 's/$STR
On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 08:10:28 -0700
Mike Doty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Piotr Jaroszyński wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > 1. QAcanfix keyword
> > Just wanted to remind you of the QAcanfix keyword, don't hesitate
> > to use it more often as currently there are no open bugs marked
> > with it, but also
On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 16:06:32 +0200
_JusSx_ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Let's remove it from portage. why should we use it? I run it for a
> bit I can say it's awful... it is closed-source, is not it? so I
> think it's better not to install it...
Not everyone sees that as a reason not to use a po
On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 23:10:32 +0200
Benjamin Judas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ...which means that he has a documented history of trolling not only
> on mailinglists but also in irc-channels; not only against developers
> but also against volunteering users.
So do most people on this list.
--
[E
On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 21:00:55 +0200
Wernfried Haas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 11, 2007 at 02:35:42PM +0200, Alexander Gabert wrote:
> > You left the project and it's your choice to continue working with
> > it and on it.
>
> Nonono, you got it all wrong.
> He didn't leave, he was fi
On Sun, 10 Jun 2007 20:13:11 +0100
Steve Long <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> thanks for increasing the SNR.
Pot, meet kettle.
And yes, I know I'm doing the same. However, I'm not complaining about
it, and I don't particularly care.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
On Sat, 09 Jun 2007 15:05:56 +
"Jose Luis Rivero (YosWinK)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> P.D: for those of you worried out there: *NO*. Gentoo/Alpha is *not*
> going to have a different default package manager than the rest of
> Gentoo ;)
...yet.
*flees*
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
On Thu, 7 Jun 2007 22:38:49 +0100
Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If Portage currently happens to, say, disable sandbox if an ebuild
> sets GIVE_ME_A_COOKIE="yes" globally, it does not mean that ebuilds
> may rely upon this behaviour, nor does it mean that Portage cannot
> change in s
On Thu, 7 Jun 2007 22:33:21 +0200
Harald van Dijk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> An ebuild's PROVIDE list.
According to PMS at least, PROVIDE only allows category/package, with
no versioning.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
On Thu, 7 Jun 2007 19:42:45 +0200
Marius Mauch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Thing is: if you see sys-fs/ntfs-3g, is that an atom or a CPV? You
> don't know unless you actually check the tree.
Is there any place in the tree where a dep atom and a CPV are both
accepted? Should there be?
--
[EMAIL
On Tue, 05 Jun 2007 22:08:38 +0100
George Prowse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Was your behaviour wrong? Not particularly. Was it in bad taste?
> Definitely. Could his email to the list stop others from making the
> same mistakes? Hopefully.
Bad taste depends entirely upon context and upon the pe
On Tue, 5 Jun 2007 23:22:04 +0200
"Fernando J. Pereda" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Common sense? Where the hell are you?
Common sense abandoned Gentoo months ago. Maybe years.
Unless it was the other way around, which seems more likely.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
On Tue, 05 Jun 2007 22:29:02 +0200
Benjamin Judas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I am sick of hearing such jokes.
Then ignore them, and don't blow them out of proportion so that
everyone else who didn't see them in its original context, and probably
doesn't particularly want to, has to see them in
> 21:36 <@spb> next step is making paludis the officially supported
> package manager on alpha
This is what is known as a joke. Most people can recognise it as such.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
On Thu, 31 May 2007 14:58:00 +0200
Wernfried Haas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I take this as a compliment to Bryan, but then still you are implying
> that most of the people here are not sane.
Remember people, you can't compliment anyone now, because doing so
implies that everyone else is less v
On Sat, 05 May 2007 18:40:13 -0700
Zac Medico <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Let's sure we talking about the same thing when we say "implicit
> _p0". The patch attached to bug 171259 will make ntp-4.2.4_p0
> greater than ntp-4.2.4, but ntp-4.2.4_p will still be considered
> equal to ntp-4.2.4_p0.
On Sat, 05 May 2007 18:02:30 -0700
Zac Medico <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Should we ban the _p0 suffix from the tree
Possibly, though I don't see a real reason for it.
> or should be change the version comparison behavior so that
> implicit _p0 is less than explicit _p0?
No.
--
[EMAIL PROTECT
On Sat, 5 May 2007 17:12:03 +0200
Marius Mauch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> a g42 news item shouldn't be issued for minor syntax
> changes in config files that could just as well handled completely
> automatically in postinst/CONFIG_PROTECT.
And these changes can't be handled that way, since pal
Anyone have a reason why we can't start to put them in the tree?
Portage support is, I'm told, coming in a month or so, and other
package managers have supported glep42 for a while now. The format is
well specified by the GLEP, so compatibility shouldn't be an issue.
The one thing I can see needin
On Tue, 01 May 2007 19:46:56 -0400
Daniel Gryniewicz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> There is one serious problem with this: Who's going to do the work to
> figure all this out for the 11,000 odd packages in the tree? This
> seems like a *huge* amount of work, work that I have no plan on doing
> fo
On Tue, 01 May 2007 14:52:30 -0700
Josh Saddler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> anyway, on the subject of tests...as others have covered the *first*
> time this was discussed on the lists, mandatory tests being run every
> time the user installs a package? no. oh hell no. we don't seem to do
> that m
On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 09:56:02 -0700
Brian Harring <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Best I can figure, the offered reason is "it needs to be blocked
> before it becomes widespread thus cannot be blocked any further"-
> which isn't much of a reason since the support is long term there
> already, and d
On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 23:42:43 +0200
Jurek Bartuszek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> And there you have another flaw of this system - how am I supposed to
> predict if I'll ever need the "extended" _rc versioning in case of
> that one particular package? I think that massive ebuild renaming is
> defini
On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 15:16:38 -0400
Doug Goldstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So apparently as little as 1 council member can make a decision and it
> be binding unless appealed to the entire council at the next meeting.
There were three council members who happened to be around at the time,
and
On Sat, 14 Apr 2007 22:46:10 +
"Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> We have different
> types of developers amongst us, so how do we count the 6 months
> period? Let me explain more fully. At this point, I could mentor
> someone into becoming a new moderator in the forums,
The open bug list is down to two, on which I want more input before
resolving them. We could also use more eyes again to bring up any other
issues before it's reckoned final.
The PDF is still at http://dev.gentoo.org/~spb/pms.pdf; anon SVN is
still available at http://svn.attenuate.org/pms.
--
ge
On Tue, 10 Apr 2007 23:34:25 +0300
Petteri Räty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> As the recent thread showed there is a lot going on in Gentoo land
> although it doesn't always seem so. I propose we extend project xml to
> describe current stuff going on in the project in question and their
> estimate
On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 15:24:03 -0400
Seemant Kulleen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> To make it more clear. If the gcc developers decided to stick some
> malicious code into gcc, it affects the entire linux community, the
> entire BSD community and would take out a few other communities as
> well. The
On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 13:33:31 -0700
Ned Ludd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The correct reply should of been.
> "I'm sorry I did not mean to offend anybody. I'll make an effort to
> not make any cheap shots"
That would have been a possible response. Another reasonable response
would have been the o
On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 15:27:11 + (UTC)
Duncan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Invalid (to me) implies a judgement of the work of the submitter,
> while NOTABUG (to me) implies more a simple variance of opinion,
> recognizing the other viewpoint as possibly valid (not invalid), but
> simply choosing
On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 17:35:21 +0200
Luca Barbato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Gentoo should use whichever basket could fit...
Just because there is a basket that can fit all our eggs should not
prevent us from looking, where possible, for other baskets that would
let us distribute them more evenly
The first public draft of PMS is open for comment. The PDF is at
http://dev.gentoo.org/~spb/pms.pdf, and will be updated periodically
as changes are made. Anonymous SVN access to the LaTeX source is
available; I won't give the URL here since most won't need it and I'd
rather not run the risk of ove
On Sun, 18 Mar 2007 21:46:40 +
"Jeff Rollin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Which is why I was saying there was no point in a ~/.config
> directory...
Generally speaking one lists the contents of one's home directory more
often than one lists ~/.config. It moves the clutter to a place where
it'
On Fri, 16 Mar 2007 20:00:51 -0400
"William L. Thomson Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Understandable for sure. Thus not really putting any sort of time
> frame on implementation. Maybe EAPI=1 or beyond. Up to others that
> would implement it. Just was tossing it out there, providing some
> feed
On Sat, 17 Mar 2007 00:11:43 +0100
Carsten Lohrke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> There's absolutely no reason to absorb every single version naming
> scheme on earth. Gentoo's does work nicely and more than we have
> would only be irritating to the user. Simply use _pre or
> whatever fits, but exte
On Thu, 15 Mar 2007 17:42:17 +
Steve Long <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> My understanding was that the portage team can't move forward with a
> new version until EAPI0 is done?
They can't move forward with changes that break ebuild compatibility
until EAPI-0 is documented and EAPI-1 can start t
On Thu, 15 Mar 2007 18:40:05 +0100
Jakob Buchgraber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So why don't you start rewriting, refactoring and improving the
> portage source? It definitely doesn't make sense to create a
> competing package management system.
I think you underestimate just how much rewriting
On Thu, 15 Mar 2007 14:44:37 +
George Prowse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Joe was leaving anyway. Ask Joe to leave soon which saves every
> single problem. Joe just does what he was going to do, you get what
> you want and the company keeps on running smoothly. The company then
> has the choic
On Thu, 15 Mar 2007 00:35:14 +
George Prowse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So you'd rather let one of the best employees go rather than chastise
> a worker who is leaving soon? Thats just cutting off your nose to
> spite your face.
I'd rather make it known that that sort of backhanded tactics
On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 22:56:31 +0100
Paul de Vrieze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Could you explain how this is implausible. Removing contributions by
> a certain person may be silly or impossible. Refusing to accept new
> contributions is, while a very harsh measure, a possibility.
Perhaps not impl
On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 13:31:57 -0300
Mauricio Lima Pilla <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Or maybe he wanted to make it sound like the idea was implausible,
> which it isn't IMO.
And if refusing to use code credited to that individual means that we
can't use the linux kernel or bash?
--
gentoo-dev@ge
On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 16:38:20 +0100
"Ioannis Aslanidis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ciaran, honestly and without any offense intention, what would be your
> answers to the questions you formulated? If you ask all that, assuming
> it's all rethoric, what is your opinion?
I think his intention was
On Tue, 13 Mar 2007 19:01:33 +
"Jeff Rollin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> UTC and GMT being the same, right? so 2100UTC is exactly nine hours
> after 1200GMT?
For all relevant purposes, yes.
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
On Mon, 12 Mar 2007 19:35:03 +
Steve Long <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Guess what sunshine? It's not just about you:
> http://distrowatch.com/weekly.php?issue=20070312#future
The only possible conclusion I can see to draw from this post is that
because distrowatch posts an uninformed article
On Mon, 12 Mar 2007 17:57:09 +
Steve Long <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> And if you think the way you have carried on is anything approaching
> decent, you clearly haven't read the guidelines... Can we stop now
> please?
Based on a cursory view of my gentoo-dev folder, we had stopped for a
good
On Mon, 12 Mar 2007 17:46:41 +
Steve Long <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Except it's one that needs Paludis ready before it can be considered
> complete. /me thinks are they really that clever? /me remembers
> ciaranm's incredibly smart posts from ~2 years ago when he couldn't
> stand being trea
On Mon, 12 Mar 2007 18:00:09 +
Steve Long <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yes so in a /technical/ sense he's the lead. You defer to his greater
> knowledge. Or are you more political than technical?
Nowhere did I say anything of the sort. Stop jumping to conclusions
based on incorrect assumption
On Mon, 12 Mar 2007 17:53:10 +
Steve Long <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Um I'm guessing that since you're at Uni, you knew you'd be in this
> situation at this stage of your course. I wonder at how someone
> clearly so gifted could have overlooked that matter when undertaking
> such a vital pro
On Sun, 11 Mar 2007 19:24:49 +0100
Jakub Moc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> __ __ _ _ ___ _
> |__ / _ \| \/ |/ ___| | / ___|_ _/ _ \| _ \| |
> / / | | | |\/| | | _| | \___ \ | || | | | |_) | |
> / /| |_| | | | | |_| |_| ___) || || |_| | __/|_|
> /
On Sun, 11 Mar 2007 15:34:41 +
"Jeff Rollin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Huh? Excuse me, but as I tried to indicate in another message, I'm as
> much on YOUR side as anyone else's.
Then stop continuing the thread. Everyone stop continuing the thread.
It's over. Dead. Gone. Etc.
--
gentoo-de
On Sun, 11 Mar 2007 13:15:56 +
Steve Long <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> FWIW it
> wasn't the nature of the insult, it was just that there was an insult
> at all
I didn't see one.
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
On Sat, 10 Mar 2007 22:06:21 +0100
Andrej Kacian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> BTW, I never understood why are certain people so touchy about
> homosexuality, while others joke about it with their peers daily (and
> very personally).
The whole exchange made me think of http://xkcd.com/c65.html
--
On Fri, 9 Mar 2007 10:41:57 -0500
Philip Webb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Always be parliamentary;
> never be personal; have a point to make; know when to stop".
> 'Parliamentary' means 'follow the rules for MPs in Ottawa or
> Westminster'.
If you've seen what goes on in the House of Commons on
On Thu, 8 Mar 2007 19:04:20 +0100
"Ioannis Aslanidis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> How is it that it should not be done? Is it because the file is
> usually a symlink? Or because there is simply no need to do it?
Because it's the package's licence. Guess where we already store
licence information
On Tue, 6 Mar 2007 21:27:00 +0100
Paul de Vrieze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> That remainst to be debateable. It is however also true that he is a
> party with a vested interest in the process. As such we must be warry
> of what we allow.
Everyone involved has a vested interest. If they weren't i
On Mon, 5 Mar 2007 23:07:58 +0100
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> 1. Anyone who is impolite get's kicked off.
Who defines 'impolite'? It's a cultural thing, and given that we have
developers and users from all over the world, we span a lot of vastly
different cultures.
> 2. Anyone who repeatedly and
On Mon, 05 Mar 2007 12:49:10 -0500
Chris Gianelloni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What we want to discuss is a possible timeline for completion, and
> what resources you may need to get it done within the agreed timeline.
> Notice that I used timeline, instead of deadline. It was done on
> purpose
On Sat, 03 Mar 2007 02:20:48 -0500
Chris Gianelloni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The EAPI=0 document was supposed to be a QA project. What it is now,
> I have no idea.
A QA subproject which has not yet released a public draft.
> What the Council is interested
> in is a specification of expecte
On Mon, 05 Mar 2007 16:00:01 +
Steve Long <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Thing I don't understand is why spb took it on when he knew he was
> going to be out of commission with his Uni.
I'm not out of commission. PMS is simply not at the top of my list of
priorities at the moment.
--
gentoo-de
No response means no objections means in it goes.
On Fri, 2 Mar 2007 01:07:47 +
Stephen Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Can't remember whether I already mailed about this, but better safe
> than sorry. Currently /etc/env.d is added to CONFIG_PROTECT_MASK in
> make.gl
On Sat, 3 Mar 2007 20:46:35 -0700
"Daniel Robbins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> To co-lead a Gentoo project? You need to be a dev to do that. I
> couldn't join any projects even as a member until I became a dev, and
> I created the distro. You are effectively co-leading (likely leading)
> PMS as a
On Sat, 3 Mar 2007 13:17:56 -0700
"Daniel Robbins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So, again, since you are participating as a key member in an official
> Gentoo project, which is a developer-only privilege
While this was no doubt true a while ago, a lot of people have been
trying hard over the last
On Sat, 03 Mar 2007 11:40:39 -0800
Josh Saddler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Keep your spewing
> on-topic: technical issues, not on your personal issues.
Please do.
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
On Sat, 3 Mar 2007 01:58:30 -0800 (PST)
"Alec Warner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So you are saying you cannot see Daniel's point of view at all? That
> Gentoo should perhaps have input on a specification whose goal is to
> essentially define what a Gentoo Package Manager should be?
Gentoo, and
On Fri, 2 Mar 2007 23:51:42 -0700
"Daniel Robbins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Gentoo projects are controlled by and generally run entirely by Gentoo
> developers. You are not a Gentoo developer, yet you define the
> direction of PMS and Paludis. Therefore, PMS and Paludis can't be
> considered o
On Fri, 2 Mar 2007 23:28:56 -0700
"Daniel Robbins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> OK, but it appears that PMS is not hosted on Gentoo infrastructure,
> and its development is not controlled by Gentoo. Therefore it is not a
> Gentoo project, and therefore the Council, QA, etc. should not be
> treatin
Can't remember whether I already mailed about this, but better safe
than sorry. Currently /etc/env.d is added to CONFIG_PROTECT_MASK in
make.globals, and as far as i can tell nowhere in profiles. Anyone
object if I add it to base/make.defaults?
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
On Sun, 25 Feb 2007 18:51:51 +
Steve Long <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Um I put it badly, sorry (i've had the flu) - I meant Chris in his
> capacity of releng, catalyst etc. You only want to review, np. ++ to
> moving ahead.
And if he'd like to do so, I'll be happy to give him access to it.
On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 17:10:38 +0100
Marien Zwart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I am a bit unsure about what the goal for PMS is here. It does not
> seem to be to document what a certain (the current?) version of
> portage does, as the defacto standard. Instead you want to document
> what portages *i
On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 10:20:47 -0500
Chris Gianelloni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This I understand. However, your previous comments (and spb's saying
> he's busy with some other things) has made some people, myself
> included, wonder if you could possibly use some more help. We aren't
> talking
On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 13:18:13 +0100
"Ioannis Aslanidis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > As for Ciaran bashing Jakub, I can't help but nod (and gasp at
> > some of Jakub's comments) - for quite some time now.
>
> Bashing on someone is always wrong.
> Bashing on someone gets you banned.
Tell that to
Everybody say hi, or alternative greetings of your choice, to our new
recruit, Richard Brown, who will be helping with various QA-related
projects and possibly attempting to kick some life into the Ruby herd.
He, in his own words, works and lives in Hampshire in the UK, doing a
mix of website deve
On Wed, 21 Feb 2007 08:28:51 +0100
"Denis Dupeyron" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You forgot to mention that the "small group" is either a subset of the
> interested parties or is commissioned by them. Which doesn't appear to
> be the case here.
Given that people wouldn't be working on it if they
On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 17:22:07 -0700
"Daniel Robbins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Is there any way that the public can view the PMS spec that you have
> created so far?
>
> I am not totally familiar with how you are going about developing PMS,
> but based on some of your comments in this thread I'
On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 07:24:54 -0800
Brian Harring <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Possible they've gone and shifted the name (or disabled
> notification); either way, think it's probably worth getting a status
> update on it in council this coming month.
Right now I'm placing a higher priority on get
On Mon, 19 Feb 2007 01:37:55 +0200
"Mohammed Hagag" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> emerging imagemagick-6.3.0.5 without truetype USE flag "which depends
> on propritary corefonts" fails with compilation error.
bugs.gentoo.org is your friend.
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
On Sun, 11 Feb 2007 22:23:44 +0100
Jakub Moc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Oh sure... Next time, blame me for Sept 11, keep amusing us by your
> bullshit.
If you like, I can say that you killed Jesus and were single-handedly
responsible for the extinction of the dinosaurs. Would that make you
happ
On Sun, 11 Feb 2007 07:56:29 -0500
Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> wonder if there'd be a way of levaraging the glsa tags ...
>
> if ("remote" in ) screw over $ARCH in KEYWORDS
> -mike
If it's a security-unsupported arch we probably don't even care about
that enough to lose keywords
If any of you were thinking of removing the latest stable version of a
package, don't. Even if you're the package maintainer, even if there
are open security bugs against it, even if someone has filed you a bug
requesting that it be removed. If it's the latest stable version on any
architecture, yo
On Thu, 01 Feb 2007 10:26:49 -0500
"William L. Thomson Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I inquired about it several months back on irc, but can't recall the
> details at this time. Pretty sure it's not implemented yet, but there
> might be some efforts in that direction.
http://svn.pioto.org/vie
On Wed, 31 Jan 2007 23:36:33 +0100
Rémi Cardona <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Newbie idea : g++ and boost both provide virtual/tr1
>
> Newbie question : besides the fact that you would have to rebuild
> packages if you changed the virtual, is there anything painfully
> obvious why that would be a
On Fri, 12 Jan 2007 15:08:15 -0800
"Robin H. Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Putting the portage user into the special group would mean that
> somebody could steal the MySQL password - so do you
> RESTRICT=userpriv, or fail the build?
If someone can subvert Portage's build process they can
On Fri, 12 Jan 2007 19:36:06 +
Tristan Heaven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, 2007-01-13 at 00:53 +0900, Georgi Georgiev wrote:
> They have to be able to read /usr/games/lib.
In which case adding the portage user to the games group seems overall
to be a better solution than requiring roo
On Tue, 2 Jan 2007 21:14:19 +0100
Marius Mauch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The main problem I see is that if it's becoming a real incremental
> (across all config layers) it would change behavior for users as
> they'd need to prefix their use-expanded vars with -* to retain their
> current config
On Mon, 01 Jan 2007 17:24:03 -0800
Donnie Berkholz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Stephen Bennett wrote:
> > The proposal means that all variables listed in USE_EXPAND get
> > handled exactly as USE does where profile inheritance is concerned.
> > Subprofiles can add to a
On Mon, 01 Jan 2007 15:27:43 -0800
Donnie Berkholz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'd rather not make USE_EXPAND incremental if we can't subtract flags.
> At present, we accomplish that by simply resetting the whole thing in
> subprofiles. But the proposal seems to make impossible any subprofile
> o
On Mon, 01 Jan 2007 13:24:49 -0800
Donnie Berkholz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> That means that the base profiles must have a minimal setting that is
> added to in lower profiles, rather than a reasonable default that's
> entirely reset in lower profiles (perhaps to a smaller setting),
> correct?
Following a discussion in #gentoo-portage earlier this evening, it was
suggested that I send out an RFC email for this. So, does anyone object
to requiring that any variable listed in USE_EXPAND be treated as
incremental, at least as far as profile inheritance is concerned?
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.or
On Mon, 01 Jan 2007 09:46:55 -0800
Mike Doty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> does syslog-ng and metalog have similar functionality?
SYNOPSIS
syslog-ng [ -dFsvVy ] [ -f ] [ -p
] [ -C ] [ -u ] [ -g ]
...
-u , --group=
Switch to user.
I'd have to guess so.
--
gento
On Sun, 24 Dec 2006 18:51:24 +0100
Vlastimil Babka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> How bout using RESTRICT? RESTRIC="bindist" or something, for the
> unconditional violations?
RESTRICT does not at present affect visibility of packages. I'd like to
keep it that way.
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing
On Fri, 22 Dec 2006 21:56:54 +0100
"Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> GPL-2:
> Note: this license states that the software is licensed under GNU
> General Public License version 2, and you might not be able to
> consider it licensed under any later version.
>
> GPL-2+:
> Not
On Fri, 22 Dec 2006 21:22:54 +0100
"Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I wonder if with ACCEPT_LICENSES it would be possible to get a way to
> represent this issue, like a "unredistributable" fake license,
> disabled during GRP building for instance, so that the packages
> ne
On Sun, 10 Dec 2006 09:39:41 +0100 (MET)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christian Faulhammer) wrote:
> I maintain the three ELOG viewers app-portage/
> {elogviewer,kelogviewer,elgov} which need the ELOG feature found in
> Portage 2.1. So I think a dependency on that version is ok, as long
> as it isn't i
On Mon, 11 Dec 2006 11:35:34 +
Stephen Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Dec 2006 11:03:18 +
> Steve Long <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Could you spell out that exception clause, please?
>
> It doesn't translate well into w
On Mon, 11 Dec 2006 11:03:18 +
Steve Long <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Could you spell out that exception clause, please?
It doesn't translate well into words, but we'll go with something like
"Unless you know exactly why the rule is there, understand fully the imp
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org m
On Sun, 10 Dec 2006 03:22:52 +0100
Piotr Jaroszyński <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It's seems to be needed sometimes b/c it does change the order of
> generated deplist(emerge -e world). AFAIK some packages dep on zlib
> b/c of that.
If you don't know about the unwritten yet near universal excepti
And, on a more general note, don't bother depending on a package listed
in base/packages. It's pointless and just create more noise.
On Sun, 10 Dec 2006 01:11:17 +0000
Stephen Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> There are a lot of packages in the tree which DEPEND on some ve
1 - 100 of 255 matches
Mail list logo
