On 05/09/05, Petteri Räty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I have a couple of old machines I maintain and emerging and unmerging
> kernel sources take a while because there are so many files. Also one
> set of gentoo sources takes about 230MB of disk space. By removing stuff
> not belonging to x86 I wa
ebuild(5) provides an example of the DEPEND string for a package which
can handle exactly one of several different video interfaces:
|| (
sdl? ( media-libs/libsdl )
svga? ( media-libs/svgalib )
opengl? ( virtual/opengl )
ggi? ( media-libs/libggi )
virtua
On 07/07/05, Ned Ludd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I would be in favor of EAPI= or an even shorter variable name.
>
> strlen(EBUILD_FORMAT) * 19546 = 249K
> strlen(EAPI) * 19546 = 77K
> strlen(EV) * 19546 = 39K
>
> Where 19546 is the number if ebuilds in the tree as.
If you're that interested i
On 07/07/05, Sven Wegener <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm writing this mail to bring you a thought we had over on freenode in
> the #gentoo-portage channel. We would like to split up src_compile. The
> new src_configure should just do the econf part and src_compile should
> do the emake part. This
On 07/07/05, Daniel Drake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> src_configure() {
> econf || die
> }
>
> Since econf already checks for a configure script and does nothing if it can't
> find one...
Yours might do. The one I have in /usr/sbin/ebuild.sh from portage
2.0.51.22-r1 says this:
econf()
On 05/07/05, Patrick Lauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 2005-07-05 at 06:13 +0100, twofourtysix wrote:
> > Mostly, I was hoping that all those people who seem more than happy to
> > advocate something with *words* would be prepared to back them up with
> > *act
On 05/07/05, Jon Portnoy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 05, 2005 at 06:59:24AM +0100, twofourtysix wrote:
> > uncensored, I'll accept that Gentoo as an organisation has no
> > influence over the content. Otherwise, by moderating the contents,
> >
On 05/07/05, Alec Warner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> not being privvy to -core ( where I hear this was started and
> subsequently moved to -dev ) I can only assume you didn't find what you
> wanted on -core and are trolling for a decent response here.
Not being privy to -core either, I am wonderi
On 05/07/05, Robert Paskowitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You have encouraged gentoo to remove patent-encoumbered software from
> portage. I'd like to see you personally work with only software that
> does not contain any patented work.
No, I have encouraged Gentoo to remove software written by c
On 05/07/05, Robert Paskowitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Are you personally prepared to practice what you preach? You had better
> start by uninstalling the linux kernel...
I personally am not going around encouraging people to take a stance
upon an issue whilst simultaneously helping out the ve
On 05/07/05, Anthony Gorecki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Monday, July 04, 2005 9:15 pm, Brian Jackson wrote:
> > If someone removes something that belongs to me, software patents or not,
> > I'll be asking for removal of (at the very least) their cvs access.
>
> I believe that the original pos
I applaud all those people on the Planet who are posting
anti-software-patent banners in their blogs. It's good to see yet
another major software project taking a stance.
Are these people prepared to back up their views by removing from the
tree all those ebuilds for software made by companies who
On 28/06/05, Ricardo Loureiro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Also, I truly doubt that any moderator would refuse to be considered
> a Gentoo staff or anything gentoo related, otherwise why choose to
> give their free time to the forums?
Would the likes of [1] be considered acceptable from a Gentoo s
13 matches
Mail list logo
