age.
Uhm, breaking the emerge chain in *not* an alternative to this GLEP, in no
way... Leaving the rest of the upcoming rant/flame for ciaranm's pleasure. :=)
--
Best regards,
Jakub Moc
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
GPG signature: http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xCE
7.11.2005, 20:11:23, Grobian wrote:
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>> On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 19:32:38 +0100 Grobian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> | So, what list should the user that wants to receive those
>> | **important** messages sign up to?
>>
>> That's your first misconception right there. Most use
op
adding stuff in there. It gains nothing, just confuses people and breaks
things.
Thanks.
--
Best regards,
Jakub Moc
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
GPG signature: http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xCEBA3D9E
Primary key fingerprint: D2D7 933C 9BA1 C95B 2C95 B30F 8717 D
18.11.2005, 16:33:08, Jakub Moc wrote:
> - rendering /etc/portage/package.keywords useless (install a dep for one
> particular ebuild and enjoy the USE flag enabled globally) - causing unwanted
> results (I did not really install app-text/recode for the purpose of enabling
Err, /et
18.11.2005, 16:43:12, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> i see no reason to keep use.defaults around anymore, i think the rest of our
> config/profile system covers for it adequately and in a manner that doesnt
> confused people
Also, IIRC, saner alternatives have been suggested, like IUSE="+bleh" to enabl
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
18.11.2005, 20:18:58, Drake Wyrm wrote:
> Jakub Moc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Well, I don't think so... If I want to enable a feature for one
>> specific ebuild and a USE flag in /etc/portage/package.use pulls in a
&g
something useful, then please check that
you have existing alias in metadata.xml for the ebuilds that you are
maintaining (to name a few: qt, secure-tunneling or comm-fax is NOT an existing
alias on bugzilla).
--
Best regards,
Jakub Moc
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
GPG signature: http:/
desire to dig out somewhere on the
web what's the correct email I should use to contact someone... there are about
200 more or less active Gentoo devs around and the last thing I need is to
ponder upon what project/role that particular person is on. What's the benefit?
:/
Please, don
19.11.2005, 1:07:40, Homer Parker wrote:
> On Fri, 2005-11-18 at 23:29 +, Kurt Lieber wrote:
>> There is no technical reason why any of this is necessary and it
>> doesn't
>> provide any tangible benefits that I can see. If a user really wants
>> to
>> know someone's role within the project,
19.11.2005, 1:38:03, Grant Goodyear wrote:
> Incidentally, the benefit is to make users who are actively helping Gentoo
> feel like they're part of the family. It was decided that a straight
> @gentoo.org address would be confusing, though, since most people associate
> those addresses with deve
19.11.2005, 3:07:41, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> Sure, recognise their contributions, by giving them credit in ChangeLogs.
How exactly does testing stuff fit into *changelogs*, have I missed something?
--
jakub
pgpd4At0gxKS4.pgp
Description: PGP signature
19.11.2005, 3:49:46, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 03:27:13 +0100 Jakub Moc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> | 19.11.2005, 3:07:41, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
| >> Sure, recognise their contributions, by giving them credit in
| >> ChangeLogs.
> |
> | How
19.11.2005, 5:30:35, Stephen P. Becker wrote:
>> Testing ebuilds when keywording/marking stable is supposed to be
>> mandatory and such stuff does not belong into changelogs.
> Sorry, but that's a big no. People that add/remove keywords without
> making note in the Changelog deserve a massive
19.11.2005, 10:31:23, Thierry Carrez wrote:
> Corey Shields wrote:
>>>Before deciding on such proposals, it might be also wise to consult infra
>>>people who'll have to implement and maintain such things, IMHO. And, how
>>>exactly will be people having multiple roles handled here - still missing
19.11.2005, 23:19:41, Brian Harring wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 19, 2005 at 03:20:57PM -0600, Lance Albertson wrote:
>> I would have preferred that the people involved with this could
>> have directly asked infra if this would work for us. That's a simple
>> request that I did not see from these folks.
rtant things instead of flexing muscles
and ego in endless debates on importance of subdomains creating pointless
administrative overhead, someone *please* with sugar on top drop that idea from
the GLEP.
This debate starts to be pretty much ridiculous.
--
Best regards,
Jakub Moc
mailto:[EMAIL PRO
Well, I would like to see them on the left (and really could live without those
illustrative pics accompanying them, but that's just me. ;)
--
Best regards,
Jakub Moc
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
GPG signature: http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xCEBA3D9E
Primary key
21.11.2005, 14:22:39, Herbert G. Fischer wrote:
> Hi,
> I'm looking forward to use Bacula 1.38.1 that was released last week but
> not even 1.38.0 that was released 31 october 2005 has an ebuild yet. There is
> some problem with it? It's abandoned?
> Please let me know if you need help on t
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
21.11.2005, 20:16:47, Renat Golubchyk wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 01:37:00 -0600 Lance Albertson
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Variable names and commands are bright blue in the old docs. The new
> color is darker and that does not improve readabi
22.11.2005, 17:30:50, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> On Tue, 2005-11-22 at 09:54 -0600, Lance Albertson wrote:
> Also, the problem is not so much needing manpower for testing as far as
> Release Engineering is concerned. It is instead having some method in
> place where devs actually perform QA on
22.11.2005, 18:51:12, Simon Stelling wrote:
> Harald van D?k wrote:
>> (Note that I'm not going to argue either way whether this is a good
>> thing; I'm merely pointing out that the docs do say we're about choice.)
> You still can choose between stage3 and stage3+GRP without having to do
> anyt
22.11.2005, 19:03:49, Grant Goodyear wrote:
> I keep hearing this, isn't there a real difference between a stage 1 and a
> stage 3 install inasmuch as somebody who needs (or wants) to dramatically
> tailor what's in the system profile can choose to do so from a stage 1 or 2,
> but would have to r
22.11.2005, 19:13:36, Danny van Dyk wrote:
> Thomas Kirchner schrieb: | I'm against this change, personally. Stage1 has
> *always* been for | advanced users. If someone screws up their own system
> (which is possible | in any number of other ways, as well) then it's their
> fault. Gentoo | isn
22.11.2005, 20:57:15, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> The idea was to move out the stage1/stage2 docs to somewhere else. Then
> create some sort of "Advanced Installation Topics" guide or something, to
> list out the replacement procedures for customizing a system from a stage3
> tarball, then, eventu
22.11.2005, 21:58:50, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
>> That FAQ section has nothing in common with the original stage1 docs. Sorry,
>> installing stage3 to remove all the use flags cruft subsequently, bootstrap
>> and re-emerge the system and then ponder which packages are not needed any
>> more (again
23.11.2005, 0:26:03, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
>> However, Gentoo still provides stage1 and stage2 tarballs. This is for
>> development purposes (the Release Engineering team starts from a stage1
>> tarball to obtain a stage3) but shouldn't be used by users: a stage3 tarball
>> can very well be use
23.11.2005, 11:25:58, Paul de Vrieze wrote:
> On Wednesday 23 November 2005 01:55, Jakub Moc wrote:
>> > emerge -e world && emerge -e world && emerge depclean
>>
>> You've missed revdep-rebuild to fix the borkage that emerge depclean
>> prod
23.11.2005, 20:07:15, Dan Meltzer wrote:
> Can we get all current developers renamed to nick.developer then? just
> to alleiviate any confusion someone may have...
> [snip a buttload or two]
NO (I sincerely hope at least), and please let's finally stop messing w/ email
addresses causing furthe
e, and have been for far
> longer than either you or I have been around.
I can't speak for others, but personally I'm not interested in receiving such
crap in my mailbox. There's enough traffic here as it is. Please, keep on topic
or go chat elsewhere.
--
Best regards,
Jakub Mo
t if you search bugzilla for USE=doc related
bugs, you might think twice before adding yet another inevitably broken thing
to portage. docbook-sgml-utils & co. is extremely fragile and buggy thing.
--
Best regards,
Jakub Moc
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
GPG signature: http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/l
that all the accessibility flaws are to
be considered an unchangeable part of the "design". Better stick w/ the current
one in that case. :-(
--
Best regards,
Jakub Moc
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
GPG signature: http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xCEBA3D9E
Primary key fingerpr
27.11.2005, 15:39:48, Jason Stubbs wrote:
> On Sunday 27 November 2005 22:09, Ned Ludd wrote:
>> On Sun, 2005-11-27 at 07:58 -0500, Ned Ludd wrote:
>> > On Fri, 2005-11-25 at 12:46 +0200, Marius Mauch wrote:
>> > > Except that no{man,info,doc} are on the to-die list anyway.
>> >
>> > They are ver
101471. This bug
> was opened 2005-08-05 and it's still not fixed.
> Whenever I try 3.4.4 I can't rebuild glibc because of this bug.
Sure. So remove USE=vanilla from your use flags and it will work. That bug
won't be fixed, because it's not a bug.
--
Best regar
1.12.2005, 0:29:48, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> On Wed, 2005-11-30 at 17:34 -0500, Philip Webb wrote:
>> Ordinarily, I upgrade packages individually when it seems appropriate
>> & never do 'emerge world' with or without '-e' or other flags;
>> I do 'esync' every weekend & look at what is marked as
1.12.2005, 1:30:41, Marien Zwart wrote:
> Not sure if everyone is aware of this, but most installed pythons link to
> libstdc++.so. This is not a problem if you run the above revdep-rebuild (it
> should catch it just fine). It is a problem if you get rid of gcc 3.3 before
> installing libstdc++-v
10.12.2005, 11:09:50, Bryan �stergaard wrote:
> Added to the > menagerie are 3 fish, 2 bird and a hamster.
Hey, so that was you who stole jforman's hamsters during bugzie upgrade and
broke the thing? :P
Welcome... ;)
--
jakub
pgp3AC7XoWZMa.pgp
Description: PGP signature
x27;s a GLEP amending a GLEP (amending a GLEP ...)
less confusing than just changing the text of the original GLEP... Huh, goes
beyond me...
--
Best regards,
Jakub Moc
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
GPG signature: http://subkeys.pgp.net:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xCEBA3D9E
Primary key fing
14.12.2005, 0:05:03, Olivier Crete wrote:
> And why not just adding a changelog to the glep explaining the changes?
> I really don't like to idea of having to read 8 gleps to find out how to
> write a glep ... and calling it glep 1.a is a good idea.. or 1.1
+1
--
jakub
pgpLbeynqVjnu.pgp
Des
14.12.2005, 18:12:05, Georgi Georgiev wrote:
> And for the network challenged, output in local time:
And for the bandwidth/time-challenged, who do not wish to waste their time
reading useless emails:
:0:
* ^From:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
/dev/null
--
Best regards,
Jakub Moc
mailto:[EM
20.12.2005, 15:36:02, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> since we have baselayout-1.12.x in ~arch, the new stable candidate
> (1.11.14) isnt getting much air time ... can people try upgrading to
> it and post any feedback they have with it ? it should mostly be a
> bugfix release over 1.11.13 since we aren
Hello here,
the virtual/ thingy broke the deptree again with virtual/libstdc++ (see Bug
116253), essentially the same issue like with virtual/x11. These virtuals
need to go straight stable if any of their RDEPEND atoms is stable for a
particular arch.
Betelgeuse is working on a repoman check for
crap?
--
Best regards,
Jakub Moc
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
GPG signature: http://subkeys.pgp.net:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xCEBA3D9E
Primary key fingerprint: D2D7 933C 9BA1 C95B 2C95 B30F 8717 D5FD CEBA 3D9E
... still no signature ;)
pgpLILkpRpuBF.pgp
Description: PGP signature
he code back to upstream as the
original license requires. Such code is a real "bargain" to commit :P
Rewrite from scratch, that's what left here. So much you get if you start
with a bullshit license originally and then go MIA. :/
--
Best regards,
Jakub Moc
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
t go ship
it" won't fare too well, leaving further debate pretty much pointless.
Copyright *does* matter, if you want to see an example how a ridiculous
license kills the job, go see qmail ebuilds.
--
Best regards,
Jakub Moc
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
GPG signature: http://sub
bugs because they will not
realize that it's the eclass causing the failure, not the ebuild. Again,
what's the point? How will it work with FEATURES="nodoc"? Why should an
ebuild ever fail just because some doc file is missing or got renamed or
whatever?
--
Best reg
26.12.2005, 14:28:12, Jason Stubbs wrote:
> On Monday 26 December 2005 20:01, Jakub Moc wrote:
>> >> Currently there are quite a few ebuilds in the tree that execute dodoc
>> >> or dohtml for files that do not exist. I think it would be nice to have
>> >>
portage wants to emerge gnome with USE="-gtk -gnome"
motif - no need to repeat Cardoe's description... and this has caused tons
of "cups depends on X" bugs.
--
Best regards,
Jakub Moc
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
GPG signature: http://subkeys.pgp.net:11371/pks/lookup?op=g
26.12.2005, 18:07:45, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Dec 2005 17:57:17 +0100 Jakub Moc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> | alsa - this does not make most sense definitely, this horrible thing
> | needs to die.
> Why? On x86, alsa is the least broken sound system, and on x86
26.12.2005, 19:36:23, Joe McCann wrote:
> On Mon, 2005-12-26 at 17:57 +0100, Jakub Moc wrote:
>> eds - please, fix the ebuilds properly instead of throwing the thing on
>> everyone. This has already caused numerous invalid bugs with people
>> wondering why the heck portage
26.12.2005, 22:21:14, Diego 'Flameeyes' Petteno wrote:
> On Monday 26 December 2005 20:24, Jakub Moc wrote:
>> exactly the same thing with motif - would
>> someone explain why the heck do do we need this thing in make.defaults?
> Because people emerges xpdf waiting fo
,
Jakub Moc
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
GPG signature: http://subkeys.pgp.net:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xCEBA3D9E
Primary key fingerprint: D2D7 933C 9BA1 C95B 2C95 B30F 8717 D5FD CEBA 3D9E
... still no signature ;)
pgpcIGWOQtg0m.pgp
Description: PGP signature
29.12.2005, 14:20:37, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Thursday 29 December 2005 08:06, Jakub Moc wrote:
>> Maybe you could rather have used those 5 minutes you had spent writing your
>> mail to fix horde ebuilds/eclass instead. They have been broken with
>> dev-lang/php ev
it's severely broken).
As for RSYNC_EXCLUDE by default, that's not something that should be
considered until GLEP 42 or an equivalent solution gets implemented.
--
Best regards,
Jakub Moc
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
GPG signature: http://subkeys.pgp.net:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xCEBA3
3.1.2006, 17:34:46, Bjarke Istrup Pedersen wrote:
> Is there a metabug where we can keep track of all the GCC 4 bugs?
> If so, what bug # ?
Sure - http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=117482
--
Best regards,
Jakub Moc
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
GPG signature: http://subkeys.pgp.net
n,
there's some overlay and ebuilds in Bug 83424, there's also some weird
commerical/mysql/amd64 profile but I don't have any clue who commited that
and why...
--
Best regards,
Jakub Moc
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
GPG signature: http://subkeys.pgp.net:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&s
Best regards,
Jakub Moc
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
GPG signature: http://subkeys.pgp.net:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xCEBA3D9E
Primary key fingerprint: D2D7 933C 9BA1 C95B 2C95 B30F 8717 D5FD CEBA 3D9E
... still no signature ;)
pgpIjwuRDEgJE.pgp
Description: PGP signature
the proper course of action to me.
NOT until use-based deps are in place, plzktnxbye!!! Don't break the damned
realplayer thing again.
--
Best regards,
Jakub Moc
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
GPG signature: http://subkeys.pgp.net:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xCEBA3D9E
Primary key finge
9.1.2006, 17:28:04, Andrea Barisani wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 09, 2006 at 05:21:42PM +0100, Jakub Moc wrote:
>>
>> 9.1.2006, 17:12:31, Andrea Barisani wrote:
>>
>> > On Mon, Jan 09, 2006 at 11:08:38AM -0500, solar wrote:
>>
>> >>
>> >>
9.1.2006, 17:56:30, Luca Barbato wrote:
> Jakub Moc wrote:
>> 9.1.2006, 17:12:31, Andrea Barisani wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Mon, Jan 09, 2006 at 11:08:38AM -0500, solar wrote:
> Just add it as DEPEND and everybody would be fine, isn't it?
Not a realplayer is
24.1.2006, 19:36:49, Wernfried Haas wrote:
> 2 (already implemented) things you may find useful (unless you know
> them already of course):
> - adding buildpkg to your FEATURES builds binary packages, which makes
> it faster to revert to older versions if the new one cause
> problems.
> - di
&field0-0-1=component&type0-0-1=substring&value0-0-1=revdep&field0-0-2=short_desc&type0-0-2=substring&value0-0-2=revdep&field0-0-3=status_whiteboard&type0-0-3=substring&value0-0-3=revdep
Eh???
--
Best regards,
Jakub Moc
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
GPG signatu
wise they wouldn't have to exist. Sticking this stuff
into IUSE just bloats it like hell, and as ciaranm pointed in another mail,
maintaining lists of honored LINGUAS in each ebuild it just huge maintenance
overhead with no gain...
--
Best regards,
Jakub Moc
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
urrent behaviour doen not take away the
possibility for other ebuilds to depend on a specific slotted mysql version,
e.g. if something doesn't work with 5.x but works just fine with 4.1. That
won't be possible once multislot use flag is required for slotted install.
--
Best regards,
Jakub M
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
GTK-based LDAP client. This thing has no maintainer, is broken and dead
upstream (unmaintained, last release 2+ ago).
If anyone still wants to keep it in portage, see
http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=122336 for the outstanding issues.
Otherwise
. The same
is true for python and ruby APIs.
Will be package.masked today and removed from portage in two weeks unless
someone has a very good reason to keep it and want to rewrite it from
scratch. See Bug 60472.
--
Best regards,
Jakub Moc
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
GPG signature:
10.2.2006, 14:56:58, Olivier Crete wrote:
> On Fri, 2006-10-02 at 10:33 +0100, Jakub Moc wrote:
>> Otherwise, I suggest to p.mask this in two weeks and then remove from
>> portage.
> Is there any other useful gtk ldap browser in the tree ?
Not that I would know... Anyway, n
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
10.2.2006, 20:03:45, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
>> Olivier Crete wrote:
>> Is there any other useful gtk ldap browser in the tree ?
> There's a bug for LAT -- http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=86854 --
> but the current assignee apparently doesn't
bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=106560
--
Best regards,
Jakub Moc
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
GPG signature: http://subkeys.pgp.net:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xCEBA3D9E
Primary key fingerprint: D2D7 933C 9BA1 C95B 2C95 B30F 8717 D5FD CEBA 3D9E
... still no signature ;)
pgpnufdngyRGw.p
o.org/show_bug.cgi?id=122993
--
Best regards,
Jakub Moc
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
GPG signature: http://subkeys.pgp.net:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xCEBA3D9E
Primary key fingerprint: D2D7 933C 9BA1 C95B 2C95 B30F 8717 D5FD CEBA 3D9E
... still no signature ;)
pgpCqeLfgkccp.pgp
De
16.2.2006, 22:05:54, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Feb 2006 21:51:40 +0100 Jakub Moc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> | Unless someone picks this up, it should be package.masked and
> | removed from portage. There are tons of better and working
> | alternatives.
> Uh,
16.2.2006, 22:47:49, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Feb 2006 22:32:13 +0100 Jakub Moc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> | BTW, x11-misc/bbapm is about one month
> | overdue (http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=20201)
> It's not overdue. It hasn't had a proper l
16.2.2006, 23:08:51, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Feb 2006 22:55:33 +0100 Jakub Moc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> | 16.2.2006, 22:47:49, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
| >> On Thu, 16 Feb 2006 22:32:13 +0100 Jakub Moc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
| >> wrote:
| >> | BT
16.2.2006, 23:58:41, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Feb 2006 23:45:45 +0100 Jakub Moc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> | OMG, stop this crap and don't waste our time. You specifically asked
> | me to do it - http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=20201#c11
> No, I aske
17.2.2006, 0:23:49, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Feb 2006 00:14:42 +0100 Jakub Moc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> | 16.2.2006, 23:58:41, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> |
> | What are you talking about? commonbox is listed as maintainer of that
> | stuff, it's been bro
17.2.2006, 0:42:13, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> (ommited)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9e/DoNotFeedTroll.jpg
Everyone else, sorry that you had to read this debate... :/
--
jakub
pgpDXBRuHXpDD.pgp
Description: PGP signature
rticular broken thing on portage. That way, nothing would
be punted from portage, ever.
TIA.
--
Best regards,
Jakub Moc
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
GPG signature: http://subkeys.pgp.net:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xCEBA3D9E
Primary key fingerprint: D2D7 933C 9BA1 C95B 2C95 B30F 8717 D5
thing you have to say in that respect, then just rather stick foot in your
mouth next time you are going to assault someone.
Thanks.
--
Best regards,
Jakub Moc
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
GPG signature: http://subkeys.pgp.net:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xCEBA3D9E
Primary key fingerpr
me, since
portage can't handle build_with_use this way, since portage can't handle use
flags conflict at emerge --pretend/--ask time, and last but not least since
there's no such policy that would mandate such changes.
However, I'm still one ear wrt the original topic, which wa
27.2.2006, 22:33:21, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 21:49:23 +0100 Jakub Moc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> |
> | May I ask how is that related to webapp-config?
> |
> It is related to Stuart, and hence utterly relevant to the conversation.
Ah, sure - so
27;t work. Once again - until portage can handle
USE-based dependencies and until portage can handle conflicting use flags,
there's nothing that could be done here.
--
Best regards,
Jakub Moc
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
GPG signature: http://subkeys.pgp.net:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&am
s
>> favoured:
And - one more note - when and where has been the following change discussed
and who approved that?!
http://www.gentoo.org/cgi-bin/viewcvs.cgi/xml/htdocs/proj/en/devrel/handbook/hb-guide-ebuild.xml?r1=1.25&r2=1.26&root=gentoo
--
Best regards,
Jakub Moc
mailto:[E
tion. If you want automated "configuration", then please use
Windows and stop moaning. If you don't want to read manpages or at least
--help, then please use Windows as well. If you want to use non-default
setup, then you need to change default values, that's what common sen
enough to figure out which webserver
> somebody is using.
Sure, you can make webapp-config depend on virtual/magic where
RDEPEND="|| ( app-admin/artificial-intelligence app-admin/mind-reader )
and then
emerge lighttpd apache
I think it's pretty much obvious that this just won't
28.2.2006, 15:39:40, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 10:49:13 +0100 Jakub Moc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> | No, that's not a policy document, ebuild policy is documented here:
> |
> http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/devrel/handbook/handbook.xml?style=printable&a
28.2.2006, 16:12:32, Patrick Lauer wrote:
>> This is a whitespace / coding style breakage. The correct format should
>> be:
>>
>> webapp_read_config() {
>>
>> Yes, it's an utterly trivial problem, but it is a QA violation. Getting
>> a complete list is something that takes a heck of a lot l
28.2.2006, 16:29:07, Stephen Bennett wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 16:08:05 +0100
> Jakub Moc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> When and where has been the following change discussed and who
>> approved that?
>>
>> http://www.gentoo.org/cgi-bin/viewcvs.cgi/x
28.2.2006, 16:42:46, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 16:26:37 +0100 Jakub Moc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> | If you can't do any better, then please apologize for your conduct
> | and false claims and shut up... TIA.
> Sure I can do better. But you didn'
ontents for
correctness, they are private activity of those devs.
> If you agree with the contents, please ask yourself if the current
> discussion is necessary.
See above.
--
Best regards,
Jakub Moc
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
GPG signature: http://subkeys.pgp.net:11371/pks/lookup?op
28.2.2006, 17:35:32, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 17:11:58 +0100 Patrick Lauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> | Ok, sorry for being dumb :-)
> | What exactly is the issue there? I don't see the issue in setting SLOT
> | depending on ... uhm ... some variable. Looks kinda logical a
28.2.2006, 18:09:54, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 18:00:03 +0100 Jakub Moc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| >> PVR includes the revision of an ebuild. This means that if a
| >> revbump is made on a webapp package to fix a critical flaw, users
| >> wil
28.2.2006, 18:11:57, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 17:02:11 + Renat Lumpau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> | On Tue, Feb 28, 2006 at 04:35:32PM +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
| >> Ebuilds can't override this either. Read on in the eclass and you'll
| >> notice that it checks that S
28.2.2006, 18:38:10, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> Sheesh, you'll probably claim that this isn't broken next too:
> if [ "${IS_UPGRADE}" = "1" ] ; then
> einfo "Removing old version ${REMOVE_PKG}"
> emerge -C "${REMOVE_PKG}"
> fi
No, I won't claim that... I'd rather love to
28.2.2006, 19:39:15, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>> ewarn "This ebuild overrides the default SLOT behaviour for
>> webapps" ewarn "If this package installs files into the htdocs dir, this
>> is" ewarn "probably a bug in the ebuild."
>>
>> Sigh... what kind of QA issue is that?
> which part dont you
28.2.2006, 20:59:42, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Tuesday 28 February 2006 12:51, Renat Lumpau wrote:
>> On Tue, Feb 28, 2006 at 05:11:57PM +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>> > And it sticks out a nasty ewarn and says that the ebuild is probably
>> > broken.
>>
>> Which it _probably_ is. See, this is
28.2.2006, 21:39:43, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> whats your point ? if an ebuild author wants to control the SLOT, then
> they should be able to without having an invalid warning issued on the
> subject
> considering the nature of the warning, it should be trivial to make it into a
> proper QA chec
1.3.2006, 1:40:53, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Tuesday 28 February 2006 19:28, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>> On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 18:13:57 -0600 Lance Albertson
>>
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> | I should note that if are a Gentoo Developer and have
>> | problems/concerns/issues with Ciaran's attitu
28.2.2006, 16:31:26, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 16:17:20 +0100 Paul de Vrieze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> | On Tuesday 28 February 2006 15:52, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
| >> Yes, it's an utterly trivial problem, but it is a QA violation.
| >> Getting a complete list is something
28.2.2006, 16:29:10, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 16:08:05 +0100 Jakub Moc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> | 28.2.2006, 15:39:40, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
| >> On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 10:49:13 +0100 Jakub Moc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
| >> wrote:
| >> | No,
1.3.2006, 11:29:47, Danny van Dyk wrote:
>> > | Where is a coding style problem related to quality of code in general
>> > | and assurance in particular? > > It's more relevant than you might
>> think. Screwing up layout like that > breaks various QA checking tools
>> that assume that things are
1.3.2006, 13:09:55, Paul de Vrieze wrote:
> On Tuesday 28 February 2006 21:20, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>> | > if [ "${IS_UPGRADE}" = "1" ] ; then
>> | > einfo "Removing old version ${REMOVE_PKG}"
>> | >
>> | > emerge -C "${REMOVE_PKG}"
>> | > fi
> This code (or an equival
1 - 100 of 431 matches
Mail list logo
