Luca Barbato posted 4996d819.8080...@gentoo.org,
excerpted below, on Sat, 14 Feb 2009 15:41:29 +0100:
> Let try to clarify:
[picking this one to reply to, out of the two]
Thanks. That is much easier to follow. =:^)
--
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program h
Second step, shortcomings.
Luca Barbato wrote:
main problem:
- have the possibility to track upstream w/out having to take a manual
snapshot of their sources, but having portage automatically fetch them
from their tree.
This issue isn't and shouldn't something that touches directly our
norm
+# Peter Alfredsen (15 Feb 2009)
+# Masking for removal in 30 days.
+# Fails to build with gcc-4.3, bug 250712
+media-video/gephex
+
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Zac Medico wrote:
> Tiziano Müller wrote:
>> I'd recommend to prefix the digest with a "{TYPE}" (like for hashed
>> passwords) to be able to change the digest algorithm as needed
>> (especially in regards to the current SHA successor competition).
>> T
On Sun, 15 Feb 2009 14:51:10 -0800
Zac Medico wrote:
> Regardless of what the EAPI value happens to be, the package manager
> should be able to trust that the version identifier is a reliable
> indicator of the mechanism which should be used to validate the
> integrity of the cache entry.
Validat
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Sun, 15 Feb 2009 14:51:10 -0800
> Zac Medico wrote:
>> Regardless of what the EAPI value happens to be, the package manager
>> should be able to trust that the version identifier is a reliable
>> indicator of the mechanism
On Sun, 15 Feb 2009 15:26:44 -0800
Zac Medico wrote:
> >> Regardless of what the EAPI value happens to be, the package
> >> manager should be able to trust that the version identifier is a
> >> reliable indicator of the mechanism which should be used to
> >> validate the integrity of the cache ent
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Sun, 15 Feb 2009 15:26:44 -0800
> Zac Medico wrote:
Regardless of what the EAPI value happens to be, the package
manager should be able to trust that the version identifier is a
reliable indicator of the mech
On Sun, 15 Feb 2009 15:56:18 -0800
Zac Medico wrote:
> If the package manager is not able to validate a cache entry that
> has been generated for an unsupported EAPI, then it will be forced
> to regenerate the metadata in order to check whether or not the EAPI
> has changed (example given 2 emails
The attached list notes all of the packages that were added or removed
from the tree, for the week ending 2009-02-15 23h59 UTC.
Removals:
xfce-extra/verve2009-02-09 19:55:39 angelos
sys-kernel/rsbac-sources2009-02-11 23:24:31 gengor
sys-apps/rsbac-admin2
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Sun, 15 Feb 2009 15:56:18 -0800
> Zac Medico wrote:
>> If the package manager is not able to validate a cache entry that
>> has been generated for an unsupported EAPI, then it will be forced
>> to regenerate the metadata in
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Zac Medico wrote:
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>> On Sun, 15 Feb 2009 15:56:18 -0800
>> It only comes into its own if you expect there to be a long time
>> between an EAPI being used in the tree and an EAPI being supported by a
>> package manager. And even
On Sun, 15 Feb 2009 16:48:44 -0800
Zac Medico wrote:
> > It only comes into its own if you expect there to be a long time
> > between an EAPI being used in the tree and an EAPI being supported
> > by a package manager. And even then, it's probably easier to just
> > do a minor stable release strai
Peter Alfredsen posted
20090215212907.00a73...@gentoo.org, excerpted below, on Sun, 15 Feb 2009
21:29:07 +0100:
> +# Peter Alfredsen (15 Feb 2009)
> +# Masking for removal in 30 days.
> +# Fails to build with gcc-4.3, bug 250712
> +media-video/gephex
> +
Shouldn't there be a bit more to it th
Le 16/02/2009 07:17, Duncan a écrit :
That said, I don't have any particular interest in it, so I don't have a
problem with it disappearing. I just found the ONLY reason given an
uncommon enough reason for removal on its own that it warranted comment,
is all.
Hence the 30-day period when remo
On Mon, 16 Feb 2009 06:17:04 + (UTC)
Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote:
> Peter Alfredsen posted
> 20090215212907.00a73...@gentoo.org, excerpted below, on Sun, 15 Feb
> 2009 21:29:07 +0100:
>
> > +# Peter Alfredsen (15 Feb 2009)
> > +# Masking for removal in 30 days.
> > +# Fails to bui
16 matches
Mail list logo
