Due lack of time, betelgeuse's packages need a co-maintainer as talked
with him:
net-misc/goog-sitemapgen
Other packages maintained by him already have a backup herd but, sadly,
looks like that herds usually don't take over that packages (probably
because they think betelgeuse is their primary mai
As seen in:
https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=381263#c1
Current maintainer can no longer maintain this one actively and mobile
herd seems to not care about it. Feel free to pick it up :)
Thanks a lot
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
epatch_user() currently looks into / subdirectories
of /etc/portage/patches. If the package has no revision, then PF and P
are identical, so there's no way to specify that a patch should only
apply to -r0.
The patch below changes ${PF} to ${P}-${PR}. Behaviour should be
identical for all non-zero
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 29/01/12 05:19 AM, Pacho Ramos wrote:
> As seen in: https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=381263#c1
>
> Current maintainer can no longer maintain this one actively and
> mobile herd seems to not care about it. Feel free to pick it up :)
>
> Th
Am Sonntag 29 Januar 2012, 14:22:59 schrieb Ian Stakenvicius:
> On 29/01/12 05:19 AM, Pacho Ramos wrote:
> > As seen in: https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=381263#c1
> >
> > Current maintainer can no longer maintain this one actively and
> > mobile herd seems to not care about it. Feel free t
On Sunday 29 January 2012 00:01:50 Philip Webb wrote:
> 120128 Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On Saturday 28 January 2012 08:29:44 Pacho Ramos wrote:
> >> As talked with him, he won't be able to contribute a lot
> >> during the following months and then would be nice
> >> to find co-maintainers for his
On Saturday 28 January 2012 07:26:59 Anthony G. Basile wrote:
> I've run nbench on two amd64 systems both running the same kernel
> vanilla-3.2.2.
i don't think nbench is a good benchmark for this as it isn't really testing
what you think it's testing. it's very good at validating math support i
On Saturday 28 January 2012 00:07:01 Jason A. Donenfeld wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 28, 2012 at 01:01, Anthony G. Basile wrote:
> > Exactly. Jason, if you want PIE across the board (with a few
> > exceptions), switch to hardened.
>
> What? Are you kidding?
>
> Again, to reiterate, *I AM NOT SUGGESTING
On Sunday 29 January 2012 06:22:02 Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> epatch_user() currently looks into / subdirectories
> of /etc/portage/patches. If the package has no revision, then PF and P
> are identical, so there's no way to specify that a patch should only
> apply to -r0.
>
> The patch below changes
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 01/29/2012 06:58 PM, Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
> Am Sonntag 29 Januar 2012, 14:22:59 schrieb Ian Stakenvicius:
>> On 29/01/12 05:19 AM, Pacho Ramos wrote:
>>> As seen in: https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=381263#c1
>>>
>>> Current maintaine
Mike Frysinger posted on Sun, 29 Jan 2012 14:16:14 -0500 as excerpted:
> On Sunday 29 January 2012 06:22:02 Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>> epatch_user() currently looks into / subdirectories
>> of /etc/portage/patches. If the package has no revision, then PF and P
>> are identical, so there's no way to
The attached list notes all of the packages that were added or removed
from the tree, for the week ending 2012-01-29 23h59 UTC.
Removals:
net-libs/telepathy-qt4 2012-01-24 18:25:04 johu
dev-util/cdebootstrap 2012-01-27 14:42:03 darkside
dev-libs/libdebian
On 21:33 Sat 28 Jan , Ryan Hill wrote:
> I've run into this three times today, so I'm a little grumpy. When you bump
> to a new ~arch version, please consider keeping at least one previous ~arch
> version around, so if people run into major issues they can at lease try the
> previously install
On Sun, 29 Jan 2012 23:17:48 -0600
Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> On 21:33 Sat 28 Jan , Ryan Hill wrote:
> > I've run into this three times today, so I'm a little grumpy. When
> > you bump to a new ~arch version, please consider keeping at least
> > one previous ~arch version around, so if people
Donnie Berkholz writes:
> Agreed with a slight modification — once you've kept the old
> {stable,~arch} version around for a reasonable amount of time (say 30
> days), you should be safe pulling it.
As long as there are no open bugs on the later ~arch version breaking
other packages.
On 1/30/12 6:17 AM, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> Agreed with a slight modification — once you've kept the old
> {stable,~arch} version around for a reasonable amount of time (say 30
> days), you should be safe pulling it.
Agreed with a slight modification ;-)
Please make sure that at _any_ given mo
16 matches
Mail list logo
