Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>On Fri, 10 Feb 2006 10:14:26 -0500 Chris Gianelloni
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>| Interesting, yes... but ebuilds are read by humans and it is necessary
>| to be comprehensible a lot more than the Manifest files are.
>
>Sure. But the comparison would show whether or not it
(I think it would be better if you could post the text on the list, so people
can easier cite the paragraphs they are referring to.)
> I cite one situation which has actually led to system destruction:
>
> I was in need of a certain version of a library. A the moment I installed it
> initially, th
Grobian posted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, excerpted below, on
Fri, 10 Feb 2006 19:39:38 +0100:
> I assume you meant to replace 'tuple' with 'segment'. First of all, I
> might be biased, as for me everything is a binary association table.
> However, I don't think a segment is the same in this case. 'p
Klaus-J. Wolf wrote:
Hi,
I am new to this list, but I am not new to Gentoo.
Would you please discuss a GLEP draft, which I believe it might improve
the usability of Gentoo?
Text at:
http://www.seismic.de/gentoo/gentoo_mask_proposal.html
Technical details still missing...
Ignoring the hug
Alin Nastac posted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, excerpted below, on
Sat, 11 Feb 2006 11:38:05 +0200:
> When you have thousands of small files (1-4 blocks), the space saved by
> removing all unnecessary whitespaces is minimal at best.
Of course, that depends on the filesystemm used... .
--
Duncan - Lis
On Sat, Feb 11, 2006 at 11:38:05AM +0200, Alin Nastac <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> When you have thousands of small files (1-4 blocks), the space saved by
> removing all unnecessary whitespaces is minimal at best.
> Minimizing the number of files is another story. Unifying manifests with
> digest f
On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 10:41:04PM -0700, Duncan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Klaus-J. Wolf posted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, excerpted
> below, on Sat, 11 Feb 2006 03:37:25 +0100:
>
> > Would you please discuss a GLEP draft, which I believe it might improve
> > the usability of Gentoo?
> >
> > Text
John Mylchreest posted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
excerpted below, on Sat, 11 Feb 2006 17:02:58 +:
> Duncan, you make some valid points but for the sake of ease for the rest
> of us, could you please try condense the mails down from several pages? :)
I've been proud of myself, even managing a coup
On Sat, Feb 11, 2006 at 11:09:07AM -0700, Duncan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Duncan, you make some valid points but for the sake of ease for the rest
> > of us, could you please try condense the mails down from several pages? :)
>
> I've been proud of myself, even managing a couple one-liners,
On Sat, 11 Feb 2006 08:28:34 +0100 Grobian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| > kfreebsd-gnu is, in effect, one example you're using already. You'd
| > have x86 as the arch, FreeBSD as the kernel and GNU as the userland.
|
| Yes, but you're actually mixing two things here now. The right hand
| side of
Reading the last two comments (Bug 106560) from devs who removed them from
CC again makes my cry out loud in desperation.
People, *please* read the two attachments I've posted there, and think again
before stating something about "fixed months ago" etc. etc.
:-(
http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.
On 11-02-2006 20:05:58 +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Sat, 11 Feb 2006 08:28:34 +0100 Grobian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> | > kfreebsd-gnu is, in effect, one example you're using already. You'd
> | > have x86 as the arch, FreeBSD as the kernel and GNU as the userland.
> |
> | Yes, but you're
On Sat, 11 Feb 2006 22:28:43 +0100 Grobian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| Ok. If we're on the same wave length here, then I think the real
| question is here whether we do allow hyphens to be in the os part or
| not. If yes, the part till the first hyphen is the arch, and
| everything from the hyph
For those of you who don't know, check-reqs is an eclass that is
occasionally used by a few packages that have ludicrously high build
requirements. Typical examples have included anything using Haskell (the
programming language with built-in memory leaks!) and certain C++
template metaprogamming vo
Klaus-J. Wolf wrote:
> http://www.seismic.de/gentoo/gentoo_mask_proposal.html
>
> * Manually keyword unmasking an ebuild, automatically means
> unmasking the last one in the line of masked versions.
No. Use the "=" to unmask a specific version only. For example:
=sys-apps/findutils-4.2
On Sun, 12 Feb 2006 00:11:07 +0100 Benno Schulenberg
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| Klaus-J. Wolf wrote:
| > http://www.seismic.de/gentoo/gentoo_mask_proposal.html
| >
| > * Manually keyword unmasking an ebuild, automatically means
| > unmasking the last one in the line of masked versions.
|
On Friday 10 February 2006 01:01, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> Version 1.0 of eselect, the modular configuration framework, is now
> out. All changes since 1.0_rc2 have been bugfixes.
>
> We haven't split out some of the "shipped with eselect but not core
> functionality" modules in this release, since
On Sun, 12 Feb 2006 01:38:53 +0200 Eldad Zack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| Is this a quirk or intentional:
|
| # eselect kernel show
| Current kernel symlink:
| linux-2.6.14.3/
|
| (notice the trailing slash there)
Mmm. What's your readlink?
--
Ciaran McCreesh : Gentoo Developer (Wearer of t
On Sunday 12 February 2006 02:09, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Sun, 12 Feb 2006 01:38:53 +0200 Eldad Zack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> | Is this a quirk or intentional:
> |
> | # eselect kernel show
> | Current kernel symlink:
> | linux-2.6.14.3/
> |
> | (notice the trailing slash there)
>
> Mmm.
On Sun, 12 Feb 2006 02:27:33 +0200 Eldad Zack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| > Mmm. What's your readlink?
|
| sys-apps/coreutils 5.2.1-r7
Looks like it depends upon how ln -s was invoked as to what readlink
gives. Guess we'll have to work around that in a couple of places...
--
Ciaran McCreesh :
If there aren't any objections, we (netmon herd) will hardmask this
package in a week and delete it one week later.
Removing is due to lack of required features for some popular apps and
bug #117898.
With this removal we also want to wipe out the virtual/libpcap. So if
any of your ebuilds us
If there aren't any objections, we (netmon herd) will hardmask this
package in a week and delete it one week later.
Removing is due to lack of required features for some popular apps and
bug #117898.
With this removal we also want to wipe out the virtual/libpcap. So if
any of your ebuilds uses i
Markus Ullmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> If there aren't any objections, we (netmon herd) will hardmask this
> package in a week and delete it one week later.
Is it really necessary to remove it this quickly instead of waiting the
standard month so users have time to handle switching to somethi
23 matches
Mail list logo
