Due pva lack of time the following packages are now up for grabs:
app-dicts/stardict-freedict-eng-rus
app-doc/gimp-help
app-emulation/e-uae
app-emulation/uae
app-text/cuneiform (proxy maintained)
app-text/mathtex
app-text/yagf
dev-db/gigabase
dev-libs/guiloader-c++
dev-libs/guiloader
dev-libs/judy
As it's now empty
Thanks for joining, I am unsure about releasing its packages for up for
grabs and removing the herd if nobody joins :/
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
On Sat, 16 Feb 2013 14:08:06 +0100
Pacho Ramos wrote:
> dev-util/oprofile
Took this one, bumped the version and did some small fixes.
With kind regards,
Tom Wijsman (TomWij)
Gentoo Developer
E-mail address : tom...@gentoo.org
GPG Public Key : 6D34E57D
signature.asc
Description: PGP signatu
On Saturday 16 February 2013 14:08:06 Pacho Ramos wrote:
> Due pva lack of time the following packages are now up for grabs:
> app-dicts/stardict-freedict-eng-rus
> app-doc/gimp-help
> app-emulation/e-uae
> app-emulation/uae
> app-text/cuneiform (proxy maintained)
> app-text/mathtex
> app-text/yagf
On 16/02/2013 14:08, Pacho Ramos wrote:
> sys-firmware/iwl3945-ucode
> sys-firmware/iwl4965-ucode
Are these included in linux-firmware (i.e. could we just remove them) or
not?
--
Diego Elio Pettenò — Flameeyes
flamee...@flameeyes.eu — http://blog.flameeyes.eu/
signature.asc
Description: OpenP
On 16/02/2013 07:08, Rick "Zero_Chaos" Farina wrote:
> What happens why a user runs --depclean and has a masked package
> installed? Oh that's right, it uninstalls. My systems do that
> automatically, but you are welcome to assume "stupid user didn't read
> messages" if that is easier.
That's not
Diego Elio Pettenò wrote:
> > sys-firmware/iwl3945-ucode
I want this installed on my system.
> > sys-firmware/iwl4965-ucode
But not this.
> could we just remove them
Please don't. I think it would suck to lose the higher resolution.
On the plus side it seems that these particular packages w
On 16/02/13 15:59, Peter Stuge wrote:
Diego Elio Pettenò wrote:
sys-firmware/iwl3945-ucode
I want this installed on my system.
sys-firmware/iwl4965-ucode
But not this.
could we just remove them
Please don't. I think it would suck to lose the higher resolution.
Having separate ebuil
On 16/02/2013 14:59, Peter Stuge wrote:
> Please don't. I think it would suck to lose the higher resolution.
Use savedconfig and stop wasting our collective time for your personal
lazyness.
--
Diego Elio Pettenò — Flameeyes
flamee...@flameeyes.eu — http://blog.flameeyes.eu/
signature.asc
Desc
El mié, 06-02-2013 a las 18:17 +0800, Dennis Lan (dlan) escribió:
> Hi ALL:
> I'd like to help with following packages (will proxy via tomka)
>
> dev-libs/libev
>which I see one open bug, but trivial to fix #429526
>
> net-misc/ofono
>need version bump (current 1.10, upstream release 1.1
El dom, 20-01-2013 a las 14:55 +, Markos Chandras escribió:
> On 20 January 2013 09:10, Pacho Ramos wrote:
> > Only one package is inside it:
> > net-misc/capi4hylafax
> >
> > It should probably be moved to kingtaco (if he is still interested...
> > are you?) or maintainer-needed until any oth
El dom, 03-02-2013 a las 13:42 -0800, Tim Harder escribió:
> On 2013-02-03 Sun 13:21, Cyprien Nicolas wrote:
> >> Who is behind lisp overlay? Only you or more people that could also be
> >> contacted to try to get them maintaining guile? Thanks for the info
> >
> >We are 2 or 3 non-dev volonteers.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 02/16/2013 08:44 AM, Diego Elio Pettenò wrote:
> On 16/02/2013 14:08, Pacho Ramos wrote:
>> sys-firmware/iwl3945-ucode
>> sys-firmware/iwl4965-ucode
>
> Are these included in linux-firmware (i.e. could we just remove them) or
> not?
>
ozzie firmw
On 16/02/2013 15:41, Rick "Zero_Chaos" Farina wrote:
>
> Yup, we sure can remove them, and if no one beat me to it I will do that
> now.
Go for it.
--
Diego Elio Pettenò — Flameeyes
flamee...@flameeyes.eu — http://blog.flameeyes.eu/
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
> On Sat, 16 Feb 2013, Diego Elio Pettenò wrote:
>> Please don't. I think it would suck to lose the higher resolution.
> Use savedconfig and stop wasting our collective time for your
> personal lazyness.
Huh? Savedconfig isn't a solution for the license issue.
Ulrich
> On Sat, 16 Feb 2013, Diego Elio Pettenò wrote:
> On 16/02/2013 15:41, Rick "Zero_Chaos" Farina wrote:
>>
>> Yup, we sure can remove them, and if no one beat me to it I will do
>> that now.
> Go for it.
Please don't.
Can we please stop removing individual firmware packages until
sys-kerne
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 02/16/2013 10:08 AM, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>> On Sat, 16 Feb 2013, Diego Elio Petten wrote:
>
>>> Please don't. I think it would suck to lose the higher resolution.
>
>> Use savedconfig and stop wasting our collective time for your
>> persona
On 16/02/2013 16:08, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> Huh? Savedconfig isn't a solution for the license issue.
Which Peter's remark is not about.
I do feel we need to fix the license issue, but I don't think this is
compounding anything to clear up the tree first.
--
Diego Elio Pettenò — Flameeyes
flame
On Sat, Feb 16, 2013 at 8:14 AM, Rick "Zero_Chaos" Farina
wrote:
>>> Kernel sources providing /lib/firmware itself shouldn't be a problem
>>> either, as that's just a dir, which many packages may own. The
>>> individual firmware files would be a problem, but the USE=firmware
>>> RDEPEND solution
Diego Elio Pettenò wrote:
> > Please don't. I think it would suck to lose the higher resolution.
>
> Use savedconfig
linux-firmware is okey but not great. The high resolution is there,
which was my main concern, but it's not so easy to know how to create
a savedconfig without installing the packa
> On Sat, 16 Feb 2013, Rick \"Zero Chaos\" Farina wrote:
>> Huh? Savedconfig isn't a solution for the license issue.
> If he doesn't agree to the license he can use savedconfig to not
> install those firmware packages.
Yes, but ACCEPT_LICENSE wouldn't work. It would still be necessary to
inc
On Sat, Feb 16, 2013 at 11:13 AM, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>> On Sat, 16 Feb 2013, Rick \"Zero Chaos\" Farina wrote:
>
>>> Huh? Savedconfig isn't a solution for the license issue.
>
>> If he doesn't agree to the license he can use savedconfig to not
>> install those firmware packages.
>
> Yes, bu
2013/2/16 Pacho Ramos :
> As it's now empty
>
> Thanks for joining, I am unsure about releasing its packages for up for
> grabs and removing the herd if nobody joins :/
I did some work there wrt myspell dictionaries that are to be ported
to new official layout so if anyone wants to finish that it
> On Sat, 16 Feb 2013, Mike Gilbert wrote:
> I'm sure I'm not the only one who really doesn't care about having
> ACCEPT_LICENSE work properly for a package full of binary blobs. It
> seems like a rather insignificant reason to split the package up.
Nobody has suggested to split it up. But un
On Sat, Feb 16, 2013 at 12:35 PM, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> Look into the WHENCE file and be horrified. Taking just the first ten
> items (of a total 114):
>
>Unknown license (3 times)
>GPL, but without source (3 times)
>"All rights reserved"
>BSD, without source
>Right for redis
On Sat, Feb 16, 2013 at 5:52 AM, Diego Elio Pettenò
wrote:
> On 16/02/2013 07:08, Rick "Zero_Chaos" Farina wrote:
>> What happens why a user runs --depclean and has a masked package
>> installed? Oh that's right, it uninstalls. My systems do that
>> automatically, but you are welcome to assume "s
On 16/02/2013 20:18, Alec Warner wrote:
> So because we did things badly in the past, that is an excuse to do
> things badly in the future? :)
No. I still argue that this is NOT doing things badly.
Masking a package will NOT cause it to get unmerged by default.
The whole line of thought that Rick
Diego Elio Pettenò wrote:
> > So because we did things badly in the past, that is an excuse to
> > do things badly in the future? :)
>
> No. I still argue that this is NOT doing things badly.
> Masking a package will NOT cause it to get unmerged by default.
Hm, can you expand on "by default" ?
W
On 16 February 2013 19:31, Peter Stuge wrote:
> Diego Elio Pettenò wrote:
>> > So because we did things badly in the past, that is an excuse to
>> > do things badly in the future? :)
>>
>> No. I still argue that this is NOT doing things badly.
>> Masking a package will NOT cause it to get unmerged
On 2013-02-16 Sat 05:08, Pacho Ramos wrote:
Due pva lack of time the following packages are now up for grabs:
net-libs/libmnl
Added to netmon herd.
Tim
pgpHn4U3M2RcW.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 02/16/2013 10:11 AM, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>> On Sat, 16 Feb 2013, Diego Elio Petten wrote:
>
>> On 16/02/2013 15:41, Rick "Zero_Chaos" Farina wrote:
>>>
>>> Yup, we sure can remove them, and if no one beat me to it I will do
>>> that now.
>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 02/16/2013 10:29 AM, Maxim Kammerer wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 16, 2013 at 8:14 AM, Rick "Zero_Chaos" Farina
> wrote:
Kernel sources providing /lib/firmware itself shouldn't be a problem
either, as that's just a dir, which many packages may own
32 matches
Mail list logo
