On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 09:53:35PM -0600, R Hill wrote:
> Or USE=ca-cert even? cacert looks like one word to me.
It _is_ one word. Check http://www.cacert.org/
./Brix
--
Henrik Brix Andersen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Gentoo Metadistribution | Mobile computing herd
pgpLaBqlRi0Nb.pgp
Description: PGP
Henrik Brix Andersen wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 09, 2006 at 05:12:31PM +0100, Andrea Barisani wrote:
>> USE=cacerts sounds the proper course of action to me.
>
> If this is implemented, please make it USE=cacert, not USE=cacerts.
Or USE=ca-cert even? cacert looks like one word to me.
--de.
--
gent
On Monday 09 January 2006 11:56, Brian Harring wrote:
>Curl won't honor/use the cacerts package for example
it does actually, re-emerge it after ca-certificates
-mike
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
On Monday 09 January 2006 18:11, Andrea Barisani wrote:
> Yeah it could be treated as a bug, I'd rather fix that by patching wget
> (--dont-be-a-pain-with-self-signed-certs yes) or anyway at *that* layer and
> not by adding ca-certificates as a DEPEND since it has other implications
> that we alrea
On Mon, Jan 09, 2006 at 06:03:03PM +0100, Jakub Moc wrote:
>
> 9.1.2006, 17:28:04, Andrea Barisani wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Jan 09, 2006 at 05:21:42PM +0100, Jakub Moc wrote:
> >>
> >> 9.1.2006, 17:12:31, Andrea Barisani wrote:
> >>
> >> > On Mon, Jan 09, 2006 at 11:08:38AM -0500, solar wrote:
> >>
9.1.2006, 17:56:30, Luca Barbato wrote:
> Jakub Moc wrote:
>> 9.1.2006, 17:12:31, Andrea Barisani wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Mon, Jan 09, 2006 at 11:08:38AM -0500, solar wrote:
> Just add it as DEPEND and everybody would be fine, isn't it?
Not a realplayer issue (see the other mail).
--
jakub
pg
9.1.2006, 17:28:04, Andrea Barisani wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 09, 2006 at 05:21:42PM +0100, Jakub Moc wrote:
>>
>> 9.1.2006, 17:12:31, Andrea Barisani wrote:
>>
>> > On Mon, Jan 09, 2006 at 11:08:38AM -0500, solar wrote:
>>
>> >>
>> >> Do you think the PDEPEND of the ca-certs should be tied to a U
Jakub Moc wrote:
9.1.2006, 17:12:31, Andrea Barisani wrote:
On Mon, Jan 09, 2006 at 11:08:38AM -0500, solar wrote:
Do you think the PDEPEND of the ca-certs should be tied to a USE= flag?
If so should it be a 'no*certs' flag or a USE=cacerts ?
USE=cacerts sounds the proper course of act
On Mon, Jan 09, 2006 at 05:28:04PM +0100, Andrea Barisani wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 09, 2006 at 05:21:42PM +0100, Jakub Moc wrote:
> >
> > 9.1.2006, 17:12:31, Andrea Barisani wrote:
> >
> > > On Mon, Jan 09, 2006 at 11:08:38AM -0500, solar wrote:
> >
> > >>
> > >> Do you think the PDEPEND of the ca-
On Mon, Jan 09, 2006 at 05:21:42PM +0100, Jakub Moc wrote:
>
> 9.1.2006, 17:12:31, Andrea Barisani wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Jan 09, 2006 at 11:08:38AM -0500, solar wrote:
>
> >>
> >> Do you think the PDEPEND of the ca-certs should be tied to a USE= flag?
> >> If so should it be a 'no*certs' flag or
Andrea Barisani wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 09, 2006 at 11:08:38AM -0500, solar wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 2006-01-09 at 16:55 +0100, Andrea Barisani wrote:
>>
>>>Regarding the inclusion of ca-certificates as a PDEPEND (yeah a brief
>>>exchange of emails already happened on -dev but since it's not so easy to
>>>
9.1.2006, 17:12:31, Andrea Barisani wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 09, 2006 at 11:08:38AM -0500, solar wrote:
>>
>> Do you think the PDEPEND of the ca-certs should be tied to a USE= flag?
>> If so should it be a 'no*certs' flag or a USE=cacerts ?
> USE=cacerts sounds the proper course of action to me.
On Mon, Jan 09, 2006 at 05:12:31PM +0100, Andrea Barisani wrote:
> USE=cacerts sounds the proper course of action to me.
If this is implemented, please make it USE=cacert, not USE=cacerts.
./Brix
--
Henrik Brix Andersen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Gentoo Metadistribution | Mobile computing herd
pgpdOk
On Mon, Jan 09, 2006 at 11:08:38AM -0500, solar wrote:
> On Mon, 2006-01-09 at 16:55 +0100, Andrea Barisani wrote:
> > Regarding the inclusion of ca-certificates as a PDEPEND (yeah a brief
> > exchange of emails already happened on -dev but since it's not so easy to
> > track it I'm lagging behind
On Mon, 2006-01-09 at 16:55 +0100, Andrea Barisani wrote:
> Regarding the inclusion of ca-certificates as a PDEPEND (yeah a brief
> exchange of emails already happened on -dev but since it's not so easy to
> track it I'm lagging behind on this) I would like to express that I really
> don't like the
15 matches
Mail list logo
