On Mon, 06 Oct 2008 08:49:04 +0200
Hans de Graaff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think the suggestion is to have one generic homepage for all
> packages without one, not a Gentoo-specific homepage for each project.
+1
http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/abandoned/
Put that in all ebuilds for packages
Thomas Sachau yazmış:
> Ali Polatel (hawking) schrieb:
> > use threads \
> > && myconf="${myconf} --with-threads" \
> > || myconf="${myconf} --without-threads"
>
> What about an econf option $(use_with threads)?
>
> > econf \
> > --with-fpectl \
> >
On Sun, Oct 5, 2008 at 9:07 PM, Ryan Hill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, 05 Oct 2008 20:44:51 -0500
> Jeremy Olexa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> I would suggest moving all the "slacking" arches to "experimental"
>> until there is desire from the dev community (read: manpower) to
>> support
On Sunday 05 October 2008, Thilo Bangert wrote:
> Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> > On Sun, 5 Oct 2008 03:44:20 -0700
> >
> > "Robin H. Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Either we need special cases to declare that it no longer has a
> > > homepage, or we need to allow the empty
Jeroen Roovers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/abandoned/
What about www.unmaintained-free-software.org? Possibly opening a page?
--
Diego "Flameeyes" Pettenò
http://blog.flameeyes.eu/
On Mon, 06 Oct 2008 19:22:14 +0200
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò) wrote:
> Jeroen Roovers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/abandoned/
>
> What about www.unmaintained-free-software.org? Possibly opening a
> page?
There are two reasons against that I
As some people may have already noticed, I have recently added OpenRC
0.3.0 to the tree. This will be the stabilization candidate in
approximately 30 days.
I encourage everyone to kick the tires on this one.
Current Bugs: *http://tinyurl.com/4housz*
Doug Goldstein kirjoitti:
> As some people may have already noticed, I have recently added OpenRC
> 0.3.0 to the tree. This will be the stabilization candidate in
> approximately 30 days.
>
> I encourage everyone to kick the tires on this one.
>
> Current Bugs: *http://tinyurl.com/4housz*
>
Tha
Steev Klimaszewski wrote:
On Sun, Oct 5, 2008 at 9:07 PM, Ryan Hill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Sun, 05 Oct 2008 20:44:51 -0500
Jeremy Olexa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I would suggest moving all the "slacking" arches to "experimental"
until there is desire from the dev community (read: manpo
Doug Goldstein wrote:
> As some people may have already noticed, I have recently added OpenRC
> 0.3.0 to the tree. This will be the stabilization candidate in
> approximately 30 days.
>
> I encourage everyone to kick the tires on this one.
>
> Current Bugs: *http://tinyurl.com/4housz*
>
>
I've c
Jeremy Olexa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted [EMAIL PROTECTED],
excerpted below, on Mon, 06 Oct 2008 15:07:14 -0500:
> AFAIK, it is incorrect right now to exclude s390, arm, sh, etc on
> stablereqs right now..But, I ask this question to the dev community:
> "Why?" There are ~190 open bugs with s390 as
Doug Goldstein wrote:
> As some people may have already noticed, I have recently added OpenRC
> 0.3.0 to the tree. This will be the stabilization candidate in
> approximately 30 days.
>
> I encourage everyone to kick the tires on this one.
>
> Current Bugs: *http://tinyurl.com/4housz*
>
I need
12 matches
Mail list logo
