-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Martin Schlemmer wrote:
| Technically it does support it if said developer gets Infra to move it
| server side some nasty side effects, etc, but lots better than our
| current situation where some bright spark removed most if not all
| history o
On Tue, Sep 20, 2005 at 10:01:39AM +0300, Alin Nastac wrote:
> Georgi Georgiev wrote:
> >maillog: 20/09/2005-09:37:23(+0300): Alin Nastac types
> >>Georgi Georgiev wrote:
> >>>- that package in my overlay that has net-wireless/gnome-phone-manager
> >>> in its *DEPENDs to work for as long as needed
On Tue, 2005-09-20 at 08:54 +0200, Kevin F. Quinn wrote:
> On 20/9/2005 7:37:19, Georgi Georgiev ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > maillog: 20/09/2005-07:21:08(+0200): Christian Parpart types
> > > On Monday 19 September 2005 15:22, warnera6 wrote:
> > > > Mark Loeser wrote:
> > > > > Paul de Vrieze w
Georgi Georgiev wrote:
>maillog: 20/09/2005-09:37:23(+0300): Alin Nastac types
>
>
>>Georgi Georgiev wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>- that package in my overlay that has net-wireless/gnome-phone-manager
>>> in its *DEPENDs to work for as long as needed
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>gnome-phone-manager can be
On 20/9/2005 7:37:19, Georgi Georgiev ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> maillog: 20/09/2005-07:21:08(+0200): Christian Parpart types
> > On Monday 19 September 2005 15:22, warnera6 wrote:
> > > Mark Loeser wrote:
> > > > Paul de Vrieze wrote:
> > > >> I think that dev-util is a very specific category co
maillog: 20/09/2005-09:37:23(+0300): Alin Nastac types
> Georgi Georgiev wrote:
>
> >- that package in my overlay that has net-wireless/gnome-phone-manager
> > in its *DEPENDs to work for as long as needed
> >
> >
> gnome-phone-manager can be found in portage tree under app-mobilephone
> catego
Georgi Georgiev wrote:
>- that package in my overlay that has net-wireless/gnome-phone-manager
> in its *DEPENDs to work for as long as needed
>
>
gnome-phone-manager can be found in portage tree under app-mobilephone
category.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
maillog: 20/09/2005-07:21:08(+0200): Christian Parpart types
> On Monday 19 September 2005 15:22, warnera6 wrote:
> > Mark Loeser wrote:
> > > Paul de Vrieze wrote:
> > >> I think that dev-util is a very specific category containing
> > >> development utilities of some sort. There might be some
> >
On Monday 19 September 2005 15:22, warnera6 wrote:
> Mark Loeser wrote:
> > Paul de Vrieze wrote:
> >> I think that dev-util is a very specific category containing
> >> development utilities of some sort. There might be some
> >> misclassifications in them, but from a user perspective I don't reall
Mark Loeser wrote:
Paul de Vrieze wrote:
I think that dev-util is a very specific category containing
development utilities of some sort. There might be some
misclassifications in them, but from a user perspective I don't really
care about the language anything is written in. As C++ is so
wi
Paul de Vrieze wrote:
I think that dev-util is a very specific category containing development
utilities of some sort. There might be some misclassifications in them,
but from a user perspective I don't really care about the language
anything is written in. As C++ is so widespread I don't think
On Saturday 17 September 2005 22:24, Mark Loeser wrote:
> Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On Saturday 17 September 2005 02:22 pm, Mark Loeser wrote:
> >>The reason for me adding that bit is the metadata from dev-cpp:
> >>
> >>The dev-cpp category contains libraries and utilities relevant to the
> >>c++ p
On Saturday 17 September 2005 22:14, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Saturday 17 September 2005 02:22 pm, Mark Loeser wrote:
> > Kevin F. Quinn wrote:
> > >> I would also like to see many of them, if not all, moved to the
> > >> dev-cpp category:
> > >
> > > Is this bit really necessary?
> >
> > The rea
Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Saturday 17 September 2005 02:22 pm, Mark Loeser wrote:
>>The reason for me adding that bit is the metadata from dev-cpp:
>>
>>The dev-cpp category contains libraries and utilities relevant to the
>>c++ programming language.
>>
>>Now to me, that means I can find *all* rel
On Saturday 17 September 2005 02:22 pm, Mark Loeser wrote:
> Kevin F. Quinn wrote:
> >> I would also like to see many of them, if not all, moved to the dev-cpp
> >>category:
> >
> > Is this bit really necessary?
>
> The reason for me adding that bit is the metadata from dev-cpp:
>
> The dev-cpp cat
Kevin F. Quinn wrote:
>> I would also like to see many of them, if not all, moved to the dev-cpp
>>category:
>
>
> Is this bit really necessary?
The reason for me adding that bit is the metadata from dev-cpp:
The dev-cpp category contains libraries and utilities relevant to the
c++ programming
On Saturday 17 September 2005 14:01, Kevin F. Quinn wrote:
> On 17/9/2005 13:33:30, Christian Parpart ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > On Saturday 17 September 2005 11:36, Kevin F. Quinn wrote:
> > > On 17/9/2005 0:20:57, Mark Loeser ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > >
> > > C++ herd is a good idea, esp
On 17/9/2005 13:33:30, Christian Parpart ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Saturday 17 September 2005 11:36, Kevin F. Quinn wrote:
> > On 17/9/2005 0:20:57, Mark Loeser ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> >
> > C++ herd is a good idea, especially with that number of packages.
> >
> > > I would also like to
On Saturday 17 September 2005 11:36, Kevin F. Quinn wrote:
> On 17/9/2005 0:20:57, Mark Loeser ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>
> C++ herd is a good idea, especially with that number of packages.
>
> > I would also like to see many of them, if not all, moved to the dev-cpp
> > category:
>
> Is this bi
On Saturday 17 September 2005 01:20, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Friday 16 September 2005 06:20 pm, Mark Loeser wrote:
> > Since we currently have language herds for other languages such as Ada,
> > Perl, and Java, I don't think C++ should be any different.
>
> it is different, but i dont mind the i
On 17/9/2005 0:20:57, Mark Loeser ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
C++ herd is a good idea, especially with that number of packages.
> I would also like to see many of them, if not all, moved to the dev-cpp
> category:
Is this bit really necessary?
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
On Fri, Sep 16, 2005 at 06:20:57PM -0400, Mark Loeser wrote:
> dev-util/flawfinder (no-herd, aliz?)
> dev-util/rats (no-herd, robbat2)
I'm a large user of these, but for rats there really isn't any
maintaining to do, upstream hasn't changed the code in 18+ months, and
it works
On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 18:20:57 -0400 Mark Loeser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| Since we currently have language herds for other languages such as
| Ada, Perl, and Java, I don't think C++ should be any different.
| There are currently many packages in the tree that are C++ libraries
| or utilities that
Mark Loeser wrote:
Since we currently have language herds for other languages such as Ada,
Perl, and Java, I don't think C++ should be any different. There are
currently many packages in the tree that are C++ libraries or utilities
that are no-herd and are actively maintained, and there are prob
On Friday 16 September 2005 06:20 pm, Mark Loeser wrote:
> Since we currently have language herds for other languages such as Ada,
> Perl, and Java, I don't think C++ should be any different.
it is different, but i dont mind the idea of having a bunch of C++ experts
looking over a bunch of packag
Since we currently have language herds for other languages such as Ada,
Perl, and Java, I don't think C++ should be any different. There are
currently many packages in the tree that are C++ libraries or utilities
that are no-herd and are actively maintained, and there are probably
some that have j
26 matches
Mail list logo
