Mint Shows wrote:
This feature should only be used for things that are directly related
to the tree, and will cause mass breakage if ignored.
I fully agree with this statement. I am behind the adoption of the
GLEP only if it does what (I originally believed) was its purpose...to
g
Kurt Lieber wrote:
We have received *numerous* complaints from users about the decision to
remove stage 1 and 2 from the installation documentation. I realize it's
still available if users are willing to dig for it, but not all users do.
In my years of monitoring [EMAIL PROTECTED], we've recei
r those of us that are already running gcc34. But
I'm sure many ~x86 users would welcome that, after all what fun is ~x86
without some breakage every now and then ;-)
Greetings,
Tuxp3
Andrew Muraco
www.leetworks.com
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Wernfried Haas wrote:
On Wed, Nov 30, 2005 at 01:56:40PM -0500, Mark Loeser wrote:
Seems people read this to mean that I was going to write a doc, which I have
no intentions on doing.
I don't think a whole doc is necessary, but instructions for a safe
upgrade would be fine. A think a o
Mark Loeser wrote:
Andrew Muraco <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
is a minimum. A full out doc with all the FAQ and important notes about
what needs to be recompiled (in my opinion) would be a much more through
upgrade path, ofcourse still include the einfo quick instructions. But I
thi
Georgi Georgiev wrote:
maillog: 30/11/2005-15:16:35(-0500): Andrew Muraco types
Mark Loeser wrote:
Andrew Muraco <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
is a minimum. A full out doc with all the FAQ and important notes about
what needs to be recompiled (in my opinion) would be
George Prowse wrote:
After some talk in the forums a point came up that we need a way to
reduce the long used gentoo system to a bare point before X but after
any baselayout upgrade had been applied.
Isn't that what the stages are, Barebone systems?
This script would enable two things: a per
Jason Stubbs wrote:
On Tuesday 13 December 2005 11:22, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Tue, 13 Dec 2005 11:17:30 +0900 Jason Stubbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| So what are you going to do? I asked already but you didn't answer.
| How are you going to find $PORTDIR/metadata/news?
At present, b
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
Ok, new draft. Changes are as follows:
I Think That You've tweaked this GLEP to death ;-)
Anyways, I can't wait until everybody is happy with it and it gets
moving, because I know that gcc 4 and qt4 and glibc 2.3.6 are right
around the corner, and those would be great
py, a FEATURES="nonews" for making
portage ignore news. Just an idea to add some more redunancy in the way
news is delivered.
comment on multi-repo support:
-Perhaps someone should write a formal GLEP for multiple repo support
before we get flustered over that here.
Greetings,
Andrew M
'gentoo' or 'portage'
that REPONAME would be used for the tree's folder name
/usr/repositories/REPONAME/
and 'emerge sync REPONAME' would sync only that repo, or 'emerge sync
[all]' would sync all
Anyways, thats just a quick thought I had on th
Curtis Napier wrote:
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Thu, 15 Dec 2005 22:34:05 -0500 Andrew Muraco <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| 2. What choices/options are on the table for this feature?
The big controversy seems to be over whether repositories carry a
unique identifier string (for examp
lease let me know how
to properly do this)
Comments, objections, anything consructive is welcome.
Thanks,
Andrew Muraco
GLEP: XX
Title: Multiple Repository Support in Portage
Version: $Revision: 1.0 $
Author: Andrew Muraco <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Last-Modified: $Date: 2005/12/17 03:13:10 $
St
I apologize for the caps in the subject.
Andrew Muraco
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Petteri Räty wrote:
Bastiaan Visser wrote:
On Monday 26 December 2005 09:33, Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Monday 26 December 2005 02:24, Doug Goldstein wrote:
well there is always USE enabling... (i.e. When I emerge x11-libs/qt,
it'll turn on the "qt" USE flag)
which we
Lares Moreau wrote:
On Mon, 2005-12-26 at 12:36 -0600, Joe McCann wrote:
For the record, the eds flag was
added as a default flag because every 3rd gnome user would file bugs or
complain via forums because they installed gnome, found no
evolution-data-server integration, and then be bummed w
Curtis Napier wrote:
051230 John Mylchreest wrote:
as of tonight I pack up my most valued of possessions -- my
computer kit --
and get ready to board a one-way ticket to York.
I guess that means I won't be the only American in ##uk anymore. ;-)
Have fun in New York John!
I live in Bu
Benjamin Judas wrote:
Am Samstag 31 Dezember 2005 16:10 schrieb Lares Moreau:
Uhh.. in this case. I don't think York == NewYork
maps.google.com | search 'York UK'
just FYI
-Lares
Some americans have a limited horizon, you know ;)
... just a flat new-years joke, folks ;) ...
Chandler Carruth wrote:
Lance Albertson wrote:
Yeah, maybe so :-)
Reflecting on this more, I see that most of the council members are a
very important part of the active Gentoo development model (toolchain,
etc). They need to keep those roles active as much as possible, then
help on the counc
Lares Moreau wrote:
On Tue, 2006-01-03 at 18:19 +0100, Simon Stelling wrote:
My point is, either you have to generalize each project's goal to a real
triviality or you have to define a goal which doesn't match some
project's goals. Conclusion: Let it be.
Maybe we are looking at this
good I may consider revising the existing GLEP and prepare it
for submittal to the council in feburary, or march, depending on how
much revision the GLEP needs, and if my idea is better or worse then the
current solution proposed.
Thanks for taking the time to look at this, Please respond with p
noticed something that doesn't make any sense:
Andrew Muraco wrote:
- the existing portage code would consider +arch as a subset of arch,
the reason both keywords will exist is to maintain compatibility with
older versions of portage which will not recognize this.
would make more sen
Chris Gianelloni wrote:
First off, let me just say that this was just an idea I'd cooked up a
while back, so I am sure there's lots of holes in it for you guys to rip
apart. Anyway, without further ado...
The proposal is quite simple insofar as it requires no changes to
portage, whatsoever (th
Chris Gianelloni wrote:
To facilitate "enterprise" usage, we break up the releases into a
"desktop" and "server" set. This means the current
"default-linux/$arch/2006.0" profile would be
"default-linux/$arch/2006.0/desktop" with a
"default-linux/$arch/2006.0/server" profile, also. The stages w
Donnie Berkholz wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Andrew Muraco wrote:
| Another thing that I don't like, is the feel of this method does seem
| "offical" enough.. mostly because portage is not 'stable'-aware, Its
| just using a stripped down tree.
Kalin KOZHUHAROV wrote:
Contgrats to the release team :-)
But let me whine a bit, even a few KB:
I just saw the GWN and the news about 2006.0 ...
So reading at the release notes:
This is also the first release with the Gentoo Linux Installer
officially debuting on the x86 LiveCD, which wi
Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Wednesday 01 March 2006 19:19, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
Unless there are any huge flaws found, I'd like this to be voted on by
the council -- looks like it'll have to wait until April's meeting to
fit in with the two weeks rule.
may push council meeting back to
Daniel Goller wrote:
On Tue, 2006-04-11 at 09:36 -0400, Stephen P. Becker wrote:
Eldad Zack wrote:
Hello,
Sometimes it becomes a problem whenever a new release or a tricky bugfix comes
up for a certain package.
To improve QA we can let our userbase help, especially people who use cer
Daniel Drake wrote:
Hi,
Is anyone interested in taking over maintenance of easytag? I still
use it, but am looking to free up some time for other things.
It doesn't require much commitment: there aren't many bugs filed for
it (none open at the moment either). Easytag 2.0 is just around the
Carsten Lohrke wrote:
On Monday 05 June 2006 20:08, Harald van Dijk wrote:
No, the decision with the gtk/gtk2 USE flag mess was to have package
maintainers decide for each ebuild whether to support only gtk1 or only
gtk2, but not have support for both in a single ebuild.
I know about t
Steev Klimaszewski wrote:
Noack, Sebastian wrote:
Hi,
I have a Palm Zire 71 device, with Palm OS on it and a 400 MHz
ARM-Processor in it. Actually I don't use this device anymore, so if
somebody wants try to get Gentoo Linux run on it, I would give it to him.
There is an SD/MMC-Slot which c
too. This is a way i hope to contribute
back to the Gentoo community.
Thanks,
Andrew Muraco
([EMAIL PROTECTED])
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFCkmA+w+RlvG4WXdIRAvK6AJ9nnQAr4/7
ian douglas wrote:
>I've been using Gentoo since one of the 2003 releases, and never
understood this
>behavior and was wondering if someone could enlighten me:
>
>Currently on a 2005.0 install:
>
># emerge --sync;emerge -puvN world
>( spits out the usual sync output, and ends with this: )
>These a
Chris Gianelloni wrote:
>On Wed, 2005-06-15 at 12:34 -0700, ian douglas wrote:
>
>>I've been using Gentoo since one of the 2003 releases, and never
understood this
>>behavior and was wondering if someone could enlighten me:
>>
>>Currently on a 2005.0 install:
>>
>># emerge --sync;emerge -puvN wo
Just an FYI for you all, and the vanilla-sources maintainers :)
post back any links to any articles you see about this release (not -rc)
Thanks,
Andrew Muraco
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Mike Frysinger wrote:
>On Saturday 18 June 2005 12:22 am, Andrew Muraco wrote:
>
>
>>Linux-2.6.12 is officially out according to kernel.org
>>Just an FYI for you all, and the vanilla-sources maintainers :)
>>
>>
>
>/me looks around ... nope, this
Jason Stubbs wrote:
>On Saturday 18 June 2005 13:52, Andrew Muraco wrote:
>
>
>>Mike Frysinger wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Saturday 18 June 2005 12:22 am, Andrew Muraco wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Linux-2.6.12 is officially out ac
ong time.. reiserfs4 will merely be an option for
those of us that like post-proscessed organic material..
Andrew Muraco
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Mike Frysinger wrote:
>On Saturday 18 June 2005 01:53 am, Andrew Muraco wrote:
>
>
>>reiser4, pie/ssp hardened, etc
>>
>>
>
>what would the mainline kernel care about ssp ?
>-mike
>
>
actually i dont know if they were talking about ssp/pie
Mike Frysinger wrote:
>On Saturday 18 June 2005 02:21 am, Andrew Muraco wrote:
>
>
>>Mike Frysinger wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Saturday 18 June 2005 01:53 am, Andrew Muraco wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>reiser4, pie/ssp hardened, etc
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Daniel Drake wrote:
>Omkhar Arasaratnam wrote:
>
>>That said, we're not RedHat. We ship as MANY features as we can and let
>>the user decide. I agree that it is valuable to get reiser4 testing done
>>up front. Eventually - some people will use it. L
?
Sincerely,
Brix
Don't you think its a bit trival, but on the other hand, yes i agree
that unifying them wouldnt be a bad thing, its just a matter of getting
it done, and updating the documentation to reflect the changes (minor
changes :-P)
I say 'Do it.'
----
In response to all replies Thus far,
I as a User,
I expect that arch works (no matter what) - no arguments there
I assume that ~arch will work 95% of the time.
I never ever touch anything in p.mask.
Now, where do we put packages that could work for most users, but they
might not work for the oth
43 matches
Mail list logo
