14.11.2013 01:22, Kent Fredric пишет:
> +1 to that, I was going to suggest something similar to help explain
> what "~(foo)" means at least till people get used to it
>
> e.g.
> ---
> The Following Use Flags were user set, but ignored due to stability masks:
>dev-baz/quux: +foo -bar +baz
>
>
On Sat, 16 Nov 2013 12:16:01 +0100
Tom Wijsman wrote:
> Hello
>
> This is a request for comments on a new project:
>
> http://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:Bug_Cleaners
Sounds like a good idea to me.
> * When is a bug considered still useful?
>
>There are clear cases like a bug that's no
El lun, 11-11-2013 a las 22:13 +0100, Pacho Ramos escribió:
> Reading:
> https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=489044
> https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=489040
>
> I don't know what should be preferred, personally I use net-misc/ntp
> simply because I have always being using it, also look
On 12/11/2013 08:13, Pacho Ramos wrote:
Reading:
https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=489044
https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=489040
I don't know what should be preferred, personally I use net-misc/ntp
simply because I have always being using it, also looks like we don't
have any virtu
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 11/16/2013 11:57 AM, Thomas Sachau wrote:
> Pacho Ramos schrieb:
>> El vie, 15-11-2013 a las 23:39 +0100, Michał Górny escribió:
>>> Dnia 2013-11-15, o godz. 14:53:00 Ben de Groot
>>> napisał(a):
>>>
As I see it now, with respect to multilib,
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sun, 17 Nov 2013 17:09:10 +0100
hasufell wrote:
> multilib eclasses as a whole were a big failure, both for users
> (enough examples given here)
You mean those failures where they mix branches and thus cause blockers
between the old and new appro
On Sat, 16 Nov 2013 11:57:23 +0100
Thomas Sachau wrote:
> >>> 2: multilib-portage
> >
> > I think this has been discussed multiple times, if I don't
> > misremember, PMS team is not willing to accept it until the
> > specification is done... and we are waiting for that for years
> > probably beca
Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
> Am Freitag, 15. November 2013, 21:18:03 schrieb Martin Vaeth:
>
>> If this is not very hard to implement in portage, I would
>> strongly vote to remove this implicit connection:
>
> Not really doable since this is explicitly defined as such in EAPI=5 PMS.
>
> Retroactiv
Dnia 2013-11-17, o godz. 17:04:17
Martin Vaeth napisał(a):
> Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
> > Am Freitag, 15. November 2013, 21:18:03 schrieb Martin Vaeth:
> >
> >> If this is not very hard to implement in portage, I would
> >> strongly vote to remove this implicit connection:
> >
> > Not really do
On Sun, 17 Nov 2013 17:04:17 + (UTC)
Martin Vaeth wrote:
> Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
> > Am Freitag, 15. November 2013, 21:18:03 schrieb Martin Vaeth:
> >
> >> If this is not very hard to implement in portage, I would
> >> strongly vote to remove this implicit connection:
> >
> > Not really
Am Samstag, 16. November 2013, 13:58:48 schrieb Michał Górny:
> Dnia 2013-11-16, o godz. 13:50:11
>
> "Andreas K. Huettel" napisał(a):
> > Am Freitag, 15. November 2013, 21:18:03 schrieb Martin Vaeth:
> > > Probably a lot of the confusion could be avoided if
> > > /etc/portage/package.accept_keyw
Dnia 2013-11-17, o godz. 19:13:59
"Andreas K. Huettel" napisał(a):
> Am Samstag, 16. November 2013, 13:58:48 schrieb Michał Górny:
> > Dnia 2013-11-16, o godz. 13:50:11
> >
> > "Andreas K. Huettel" napisał(a):
> > > Am Freitag, 15. November 2013, 21:18:03 schrieb Martin Vaeth:
> > > > Probably
Michał Górny wrote:
> Martin Vaeth napisa=C5=82(a):
>
> And what does quickly removing used feature gain us in terms of
> usability?
We are talking about changing a detail of a feature which just has
proven that it is causes dependency chaos due to a side effect of
that detail which probably nob
On 2013-11-17, at 12:04 PM, Martin Vaeth
wrote:
> Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
>> Am Freitag, 15. November 2013, 21:18:03 schrieb Martin Vaeth:
>>
>>> If this is not very hard to implement in portage, I would
>>> strongly vote to remove this implicit connection:
>>
>> Not really doable since t
Tom Wijsman wrote:
> Martin Vaeth wrote:
>>
>> So keeping PMS is more important than usability?
>
> Being supported is more important than running into breakage.
What has a line in PMS which has practically no influence
on anybody except for breaking user experience have to do
with "being suppor
Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
>>> Am Freitag, 15. November 2013, 21:18:03 schrieb Martin Vaeth:
>>>
If this is not very hard to implement in portage, I would
strongly vote to remove this implicit connection:
>
> I assume this is about the *.use.stable.mask files ...
Even less: The discussion
Dnia 2013-11-17, o godz. 19:18:35
Martin Vaeth napisał(a):
> Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
> >>> Am Freitag, 15. November 2013, 21:18:03 schrieb Martin Vaeth:
> >>>
> If this is not very hard to implement in portage, I would
> strongly vote to remove this implicit connection:
> >
> > I assu
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 11/17/2013 07:46 PM, Martin Vaeth wrote:
> Michał Górny wrote:
>> we may as well remove support for mixing stable and unstable
>> packages. In fact, this will more likely fix a few more bugs!
>
It was never "officially" supported. That doesn't m
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 11/16/2013 10:28 AM, Anthony G. Basile wrote:
> On 11/16/2013 04:11 AM, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>>> On Fri, 15 Nov 2013, Robin H Johnson wrote:
>>> Add this line to the dev-lang/python-exec ebuilds:
>>> PDEPEND=">=dev-python/python-exec-1:$SLO
Michał Górny wrote:
> Martin Vaeth napisa=C5=82(a):
>> Even less: The discussion in this part of the thread was
>> only about the implicit connection of package.accept_keywords
>> with *use.stable.mask, i.e. about removing the
>> side effect of unmasking USE-flags by these files.
>
> Oh, then it
On Sun, 17 Nov 2013 19:10:21 + (UTC)
Martin Vaeth wrote:
> Tom Wijsman wrote:
> > Martin Vaeth wrote:
> >>
> >> So keeping PMS is more important than usability?
> >
> > Being supported is more important than running into breakage.
>
> What has a line in PMS
You can suggest such line chang
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sun, 17 Nov 2013 20:32:39 +0100
hasufell wrote:
> >> we may as well remove support for mixing stable and unstable
> >> packages. In fact, this will more likely fix a few more bugs!
>
> It was never "officially" supported. That doesn't mean we hav
Pacho Ramos wrote:
> El lun, 11-11-2013 a las 22:13 +0100, Pacho Ramos escribió:
> > Reading:
> > https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=489044
> > https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=489040
> >
> > I don't know what should be preferred
>
> Any thoughts? :/
I like OpenNTPD.
//Peter
On Sun, Nov 17, 2013 at 10:10 PM, Peter Stuge wrote:
> I like OpenNTPD.
Me too, but mostly because of the server. I don't really care/know
about client differences.
Cheers,
Dirkjan
Dnia 2013-11-11, o godz. 22:13:26
Pacho Ramos napisał(a):
> I don't know what should be preferred, personally I use net-misc/ntp
> simply because I have always being using it, also looks like we don't
> have any virtual that could point me about the "preferred" provider on
> Gentoo. Do you know t
Am Sonntag, 17. November 2013, 20:51:36 schrieb Martin Vaeth:
> Michał Górny wrote:
> > Martin Vaeth napisa=C5=82(a):
> >> Even less: The discussion in this part of the thread was
> >> only about the implicit connection of package.accept_keywords
> >> with *use.stable.mask, i.e. about removing th
The attached list notes all of the packages that were added or removed
from the tree, for the week ending 2013-11-17 23h59 UTC.
Removals:
www-plugins/mozplugger 2013-11-11 16:21:03 axs
Additions:
media-video/openshot2013-11-11 00:52:14 tomwij
app-crypt
On Sun, Nov 17, 2013 at 7:38 AM, Pacho Ramos wrote:
> El lun, 11-11-2013 a las 22:13 +0100, Pacho Ramos escribió:
>> Reading:
>> https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=489044
>> https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=489040
>>
>> I don't know what should be preferred, personally I use net-misc/n
28 matches
Mail list logo
