can reopen it (or someone with
appropriate bugzilla priviledges).
--
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
> it does say make it an attachment if it's too long, but how long
> is too long?
8K characters (and bugzilla will actually send you to places where the
sun doesn't shine if you try to post something that exceeds this limit).
--
Best regards,
Jakub Moc
mailto:[EMAIL
e)
http://bugs.gentoo.org/enter_bug.cgi?format=guided
http://bugs.gentoo.org/enter_bug.cgi?product=Gentoo%20Linux&format=guided
@jforman: Can you bring it back, people are filing bad bugs w/ missing
info over and over again. (It's been mentioned a couple of times in
Bug 115796 already)
y decent niche among the
> available player choices;
It's broken like hell (see above) and it's a huge PITA to maintain a
thing that's completely dead upstream.
--
Best regards,
Jakub Moc
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
GPG signature:
http://subkeys.pgp.net:11371/pks/lookup?op
, make the folk respect GPL like everyone else, I
don't want any debburn. Besides, we don't distribute any binaries (if we
do on release media, we'll have to stop until JS regains a bit of mental
sanity).
--
Best regards,
Jakub Moc
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
GPG signature:
http://su
Chris White wrote:
> On Friday 01 September 2006 12:46, Jakub Moc wrote:
>> WTH is debburn??? Geeez, make the folk respect GPL like everyone else, I
>> don't want any debburn. Besides, we don't distribute any binaries (if we
>> do on release media, we'll ha
server error now, we sure can expect a
rapid development there). So, we apparently need even more forks now,
like debburn. When will people learn... :/
--
Best regards,
Jakub Moc
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
GPG signature:
http://subkeys.pgp.net:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xCEBA3D9E
Primar
amp; co. bug,
and read the ebuild, you'll see that the whole thing and code is one
huge mess, that doesn't compile even w/ gcc-3.3 without patching. You'd
probably prefer to never put out a new release, I guess? How many people
are using this one, and how does it justify delaying the
, and definitely not all their
combinations (simple maths, see previous mail). Not to mention that some
of the flags require commercial software installed that's not in
portage, so they are actually unsupported.
--
Best regards,
Jakub Moc
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
GPG signature:
http://subk
erd should pick this up
and commit it (yes, it works for me as well).
Thanks.
--
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 3
s is solely up to the discretion of Gentoo devs
responsible for this.
Thanks.
--
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 D5F
Doug Goldstein wrote:
> The following global USE flags have been deleted from the tree because
> no ebuild uses them.
While you are cleaning up, could you take care of
http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=144534 please (ming/flash use flags).
Thanks!
--
Best regards,
Jakub Moc
ept for one called automagic
dependencies since the blocker for incompatible versions was there).
[1]
http://sources.gentoo.org/viewcvs.py/gentoo-x86/kde-base/kdelibs/kdelibs-3.5.0.ebuild?hideattic=0&r1=1.4&r2=1.5
[2]
http://sources.gentoo.org/viewcvs.py/gentoo-x86/kde-base/kdelibs/kdelibs-3.5.4-r1.
/sources.gentoo.org/viewcvs.py/gentoo-x86/kde-base/kdelibs/kdelibs-3.5.4-r1.ebuild?r1=1.4&r2=1.5
carlo, you might want to revert it properly, instead of reverting only
half of the previous commit you've been complaining about here.
--
Best regards,
Jakub Moc
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
I'd find it more foolproof and consistent,
> if repoman would catch this and Portage would warn.
Warn about what exactly? About blocker that $arch doesn't have even
keyworded? I fail too see why this would be useful.
--
Best regards,
Jakub Moc
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
GPG signatu
he US?
Well, see below...
Chris Gianelloni wrote:
>> Gentoo has nothing to do with it. All liabilities are on the individual
>> and the company
Again, this has nothing to do w/ Gentoo foundation, they don't hire you
for anything.
--
Best regards,
Jakub Moc
mailto:[EMAIL PRO
le all those Java bugs! :P
*plop*
--
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 ;)
signature
is it really worth maintaining it in the tree?
I don't think so.
Upstream completely sucks and keeps changing the tarballs silently over
and over again, so the only solution to the above bug is to remove all
of the modules/themes/etc. from the ebuild.
--
Best regards,
Jakub Moc
mailto:[EMAIL P
Alec Warner wrote:
> Jakub Moc wrote:
>> Upstream completely sucks and keeps changing the tarballs silently over
>> and over again, so the only solution to the above bug is to remove all
>> of the modules/themes/etc. from the ebuild.
>
> So which sucks, upstream or our
of how to do so.
Uhm, web-apps has been CCed on the bug since the beginning. Last time I
asked, noone wanted to touch the FUBARed ebuild, IIRC. :)
--
Best regards,
Jakub Moc
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
GPG signature:
http://subkeys.pgp.net:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xCEBA3D9E
Prima
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> I was under the impression that you were supposed to GLEP anything of
> this scope and get council approval... The "anyone can make a project"
> rule doesn't replace the requirement to GLEP large changes.
>
http://dev.gentoo.org/~chriswhite/xml_source/flame.xml - Code Lis
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 22:41:11 +0200 Jakub Moc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> | Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> | > I was under the impression that you were supposed to GLEP anything
> | > of this scope and get council approval... The "anyone can make
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 23:42:02 +0200 Jakub Moc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> | Not that bugging people w/ pointless paperwork would contribute
> | anything useful to this new project or get any work done... What
> | exactly is there to GLEP at this point?
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 18:42:13 -0400 Alec Warner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> | As Donnie said; if this is the thanks one gets for trying out a new
> | idea; then why try at all.
>
> The complaints are not that Stuart tried a new idea. Stop trying to
> spin things that way
Mark Stier wrote:
> How about entering the removed ebuilds into bugzilla under an adequate
> section?
Uhm...
http://sources.gentoo.org/viewcvs.py/gentoo-x86/
--
jakub
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
s mentioned
by Flameeyes in his email, it would be really useful. Additionally, it
would be nice if these discussions involved concerned arches and were
not done ex post in future cases.
Thanks.
--
Best regards,
Jakub Moc
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
GPG signature:
http://subkeys.pgp.net:11371/pks
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 14:37:59 +0200 Jakub Moc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> | Additionally, it would be nice if these discussions involved
> | concerned arches and were not done ex post in future cases.
>
> Uh, Jakub, part of the design of the devmanual
uff in
package.mask won't make the inconsistent behaviour vanish in any way, it
will just hide it.
So, I'd kinda appreciate if concerned folks (including portage and
relevant affected arches) were involved in this discussion, instead of
sneaking the changes in under QA disguise.
Thanks.
--
Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Saturday 30 September 2006 13:02, Jakub Moc wrote:
>> Eh, the whole technical point here is that paludis behaviour differs
>> from portage (and differs from pkgcore, FWIW).
>
> the technical point is what is the expected behavior of the packages fi
Michael Cummings wrote:
> Geo-IP
Can you please leave this one, it's rather useful :)
--
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 B3
Michael Cummings wrote:
> On Sun, 2006-10-01 at 15:48 +0200, Jakub Moc wrote:
>> Michael Cummings wrote:
>>
>>> Geo-IP
>> Can you please leave this one, it's rather useful :)
>>
>>
> Just let me know what in the tree is using it :)
>
>
&g
d you that I don't have time to ponder thru all the profiles in there.
[1] http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=149508#c26
Sigh...
--
Best regards,
Jakub Moc
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
GPG signature:
http://subkeys.pgp.net:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xCEBA3D9E
Primary key fingerpr
have a whole special handbook version [1] for
networkless installs, but you didn't bother to check even, right?
[1] http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/handbook/2006.1/index.xml
Sigh. :(
--
Best regards,
Jakub Moc
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
GPG signature:
http://subkeys.pgp.net:11371/pks/lookup?op
2
--
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 ;)
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
we don't wish/can't support any more with the limited manpower
available.
--
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
IUSE defaults will be used for
> | default flags that should be enabled regardless of profile.
>
> Isn't that why we have base profiles? It's kinda icky moving that
> metadata partially into ebuilds IMO...
Eh no... Enough of profiles bloat with flags specifically needed for
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 16:32:33 +0200 Jakub Moc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> | Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> | > On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 02:40:59 -0700 Zac Medico <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> | > wrote:
> | > | At the profile level, I've added supp
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 17:29:57 +0200 Jakub Moc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> | > Hardly bloat... And far less so that having the same data across
> | > zillions of different ebuilds. Or rather, confusingly slightly
> | > different data
talking about per-package
(or per-ebuild even) stuff here, which is a feature that has been
missing for ages. Just search for all the bugzilla bugs where it would
make sense but it can't be done without bloating the profiles'
make.defaults with ebuild-specific mess, inventing redund
Ciaran McCreesh napsal(a):
> On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 22:35:10 +0200 Jakub Moc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> | > Which is why I suggested changing Portage's behaviour earlier in the
> | > thread. Like it or not, overlays are already getting complex enough
> | > that they&
Ciaran McCreesh napsal(a):
> On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 23:19:03 +0200 Jakub Moc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> | > You mean, than sticking a + before foo in IUSE in every ebuild, and
> | > ensuring that changes are kept in sync and consistent with the
> | > behaviour of ev
re tree.
Uh, what kind of conflicting behaviour and what sanity checks are you
talking about here? Did you _really_ miss the whole point of this feature?
--
Best regards,
Jakub Moc
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
GPG signature:
http://subkeys.pgp.net:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xCEBA3
riginal state at least? :P
--
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 ;)
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
ot my fault, the behaviour is retarded, period, fix it or live
with people replying off-list because they've lost track of which list
did the mail come from.
--
Best regards,
Jakub Moc
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
GPG signature:
http://subkeys.pgp.net:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&searc
ver been fixed... I don't care
any more, if the reply does wrong way, complain to infra/mailing lists
admin.
--
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 C95
ktnxbye, don't have time for such nonsense.
--
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
Donnie Berkholz napsal(a):
> Jakub Moc wrote:
>> I don't see what's there to fix, already told that the behaviour is
>> damned inconsistent with all other mailing lists. Fix the mailing list,
>> ktnxbye, don't have time for such nonsense.
>
> Why don&
y chance, I guarantee you that you'll have these weird
"giraffe" threads here couple of times every month).
--
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
Ciaran McCreesh napsal(a):
> What's so hard about paying attention when replying?
What's so hard about making the behaviour consistent?
--
Best regards,
Jakub Moc
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
GPG signature:
http://subkeys.pgp.net:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xCEBA
use "reply to all" instead because their client
doesn't have such feature.
[1] https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=45715
--
Best regards,
Jakub Moc
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
GPG signature:
http://subkeys.pgp.net:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xCEBA3D
to
have it installed as they did before?
--
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 ;)
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
David Shakaryan napsal(a):
> Alec Warner wrote:
>> Jakub Moc wrote:
>>> Ciaran McCreesh napsal(a):
>>>> So what happens when users have an old, masked package installed that's
>>>> no longer masked thanks to this change?
>>> Err, exactly
our widespread organization.
+1 ... SPF is broken by design.
--
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
... stil
it tells you where their priorities lie...
Sure. So they don't need the keywords nor the package.
--
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
no. They might need the package, just not necessarily a particular
> version.
As you have might have noticed, they already have a newer version
stable. But apparently asking them to respond on a bug within 5 months
is way too much. :P
--
Best regards,
Jakub Moc
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
GPG
about MySQL 4.0.x any more, go drop it"?
--
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 ;)
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
y, you can't work productively with other people
if they can't be bothered to write one sentence for months.
--
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
Stephen Bennett napsal(a):
> On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 18:18:26 +0100
> Jakub Moc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Sure I did... Could you tell me why should we accumulate broken and
>> vulnerable junk in the tree for years? (Outdated ebuild A depends on
>> junky o
sole sake of arches that noone cares about enough to keyword something
newer for months harms everyone who uses rsync, wastes disk space for
users, wastes disk space on mirrors, makes CVS and portage slower,
wastes maintainers time... No harm? Nonsense.
--
Best regards,
Jakub Moc
mailto:[EMA
Stephen Bennett napsal(a):
> On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 17:57:06 +0100
> Jakub Moc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Of course it does... Lots of people can't remove outdated broken cruft
>> because $ebuild still depends on something since $arch has been
>> slacking
ng newer for months
>
> If you're taking that argument, one could just as easily claim that the
> packages should be removed entirely since the arch teams don't care
> enough to keyword them.
See above, perhaps? And, we have some ebuilds without any keywords in
the tree? If
Fernando J. Pereda napsal(a):
> On Tue, Oct 31, 2006 at 07:12:58PM +0100, Jakub Moc wrote:
>> Oh well, this apparently doesn't go anywhere, slacking is just
>> wonderful, maintainers should just STFU and obey the almighty slacking
>> arches, security is the least of a co
record. I wanna see a +all in this
> record for 2 reasons:
> a) SPF is really worthless
> b) spamassassin have a SPF_NEUTRAL test, with a score bigger than 1
>
> See http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/43707/focus=43707 .
I second this request... Thanks.
--
Best r
gt; It could be considered as organization policy, so I assumed council had
>>> to be involved in this decision.
>>>
>> it isnt ... so file a bug for infra
>>
> done in bug 154120 .
>
And WONTFIXed in 15 minutes. In that case, I'd like to r
to bring this up to the
> council, so we can override their decisions? Not bloody likely.
No. Not because I didn't like the answer - because I haven't seen a
*single* argument *in favour* of using the IMHO completely broken SPF
thing.
--
Best regards,
Jakub Moc
mailto:[EMAIL PR
people are asking you to discuss/decide on, then please drop the above
from your email. I'll reconsider if it's worth wasting the bandwidth to
vote for anyone next time.
--
Best regards,
Jakub Moc
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
GPG signature:
http://subkeys.pgp.net:11371/pks/lookup?op=ge
'm not talking about legacy stuff maintained in an ad-hoc manner
for ages, but about fairly recent additions to the tree (~1 year or even
less). However, even for legacy stuff, nothing is preventing the people
from claiming their ebuilds the right way and adding themselves to
metadata.xml - will
Andrej Kacian napsal(a):
> Dňa Thu, 23 Nov 2006 11:20:16 +0100
> Jakub Moc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> napísal:
>
>> Actually, I don't mind much. There's a developers or two who keep on
>> adding packages without metadata.xml all the time (won't name anyone,
Sven Köhler napsal(a):
> The files were never removed, since they are protected - aren't they?
> Anyway, this really asks for a sollution.
Feel free to solve Bug 8423 then... ;)
http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8423
--
Best regards,
Jakub Moc
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
GP
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 ;)
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
taking over this
package, please see the following bugs:
https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=130336
https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=142293
https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=144644
https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=150569
Thanks.
--
Best regards,
Jakub Moc
mailto:
://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=147276
If you are interested in fixing this package, please see the above bugs.
Thanks.
--
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
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 ;)
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Caleb Tennis napsal(a):
> I was working through a bug report when I noticed someone recommended using
> the syntax:
>
> DEPEND="category/app-ver:SLOT"
>
This will cause stable portage to bomb out so please don't use it
anywhere in the tree.
--
Best regar
ner as well... :)
http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=123833
http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=153797
http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=156408
Thanks in advance.
--
Best regards,
Jakub Moc
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
GPG signature:
http://subkeys.pgp.net:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&am
net-fs/samba has been missing a maintainer since August, and there's
quite a lot of open bugs. Anyone interested in taking over this (at
least temporarily), please see the following list:
http://tinyurl.com/wycqt
Thanks.
--
Best regards,
Jakub Moc
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
GPG sign
EV rule, such as:
BUS=="usb", SYSFS{serial}=="123456789ABCDEF", KERNEL=="sd?1", NAME="%k",
SYMLINK+="usbstick"
and you'll have /dev/usbstick symlink there.
--
Best regards,
Jakub Moc
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
GPG signature:
http://subke
hacked... :P
http://www.mail-archive.com/users@tomcat.apache.org/msg20585.html
--
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 3D9
+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 ;)
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
ested it @ x86.
Don't want to be rude, but would you damn read the bug finally? It's
already *fixed* in ~arch and waiting for stabilization (in fact, it's
already stabilized almost everywhere due to security Bug 152783). What
are you fixing here?
Merry Xmas.
--
Best regards,
Jaku
Enrico Weigelt napsal(a):
> * Jakub Moc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb:
>
>> Don't want to be rude, but would you damn read the bug finally?
>> It's already *fixed* in ~arch and waiting for stabilization
>> (in fact, it's already stabilized alm
Petteri Räty napsal(a):
> He hails from Beroun, Czech Republic. He owns his own IT company. On the
> personal side he is married and has a little daughter. He likes soccer,
> taking trips on bikes and hiking.
Yay, the Czech beer conspiracy is growing! Welcome!
*plop*
--
Best regards
s on IRC. It's wasting
everyone's time.
--
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 ;)
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
e http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=55708 for info about this
# and http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/qa/backtraces.xml to learn how to get
# a debug build.
--
Best regards,
Jakub Moc
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
GPG signature:
http://subkeys.pgp.net:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xCEBA3D9E
nd disable sandbox temporarily if they think it's a good idea.
If you'd like to commit this to the official tree, then either fix it
properly or don't commit such stuff at all.
--
Best regards,
Jakub Moc
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
GPG signature:
http://subkeys.pgp.net:11371/pks/l
Mike Frysinger napsal(a):
> On Wednesday 10 January 2007 03:40, Jakub Moc wrote:
> if you're categorizing those as "commercial broken stuff" you might want to
> look up the word "commercial"
Huh? I was referring to this link [1] on Bug 161045 (which presuma
t SANDBOX_ON=0` hack (which basically shouldn't be
used anywhere in the tree anyway, ideally)...
--
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 B30
Mike Frysinger napsal(a):
> On Wednesday 10 January 2007 09:34, Jakub Moc wrote:
>> Huh? I was referring to this link [1] on Bug 161045 (which presumably
>> started this whole debate)
>
> so you're replying to a non-gentoo-dev thread on a gentoo-dev thread when the
&g
hatever else) into
portage, instead of inventing new variables to handle this, AFAICR.
--
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
ish workaround, so I guess we can save
portage folks the trouble... That was the whole point, thanks. :)
BTW, usersandbox is not a valid RESTRICT either (see Bug 136445)
--
Best regards,
Jakub Moc
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
GPG signature:
http://subkeys.pgp.net:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search
Mike Frysinger napsal(a):
> On Wednesday 10 January 2007 13:45, Jakub Moc wrote:
>> Real solution, sure... RESTRICT=sandbox is not a solution, it's
>> identical to the current hackish workaround, so I guess we can save
>> portage folks the trouble...
>
> except
Chris Gianelloni napsal(a):
> On Wed, 2007-01-10 at 19:06 +0100, Jakub Moc wrote:
>> Don't see how's userpriv related here; also the original idea was to
>> stick FEATURES=unattended (or non-interactive or whatever else) into
>> portage, instead of inventing new v
Chris Gianelloni napsal(a):
> On Wed, 2007-01-10 at 23:02 +0100, Jakub Moc wrote:
>>> The name of the GLEP is even RESTRICT=unattended... not
>>> FEATURES=unattended...
>> And how's that in contradiction? Why can't a user stick 'unattended'
>&
Mike Frysinger napsal(a):
> On Wednesday 10 January 2007 18:36, Jakub Moc wrote:
>> OK, dunno which of us is being dense; the whole point is that the damned
>> ACCEPT_RESTRICT is completely redundant; hard to grok or what exactly?
>> You already *don't* accept the restri
Now that agriffis retired, this package is orphaned and has quite a
couple of stale bugs... Anyone interested, please see this link:
http://tinyurl.com/26gczq
Thanks!
--
Best regards,
Jakub Moc
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
GPG signature:
http://subkeys.pgp.net:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&se
Rob C napsal(a):
> I'm sorry I dont have a test box for this but is it not needed for
> people maintaining 2.4 systems?
No, it's not... Been in kernel since 2.4.20.
--
Best regards,
Jakub Moc
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
GPG signature:
http://subkeys.pgp.net:11371/pks/look
sense, making it dummy or even removing it
(plus the unusable single ebuild which inherits it) does.
[1] http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=162960
--
Best regards,
Jakub Moc
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
GPG signature:
http://subkeys.pgp.net:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xCEBA3D9E
Pr
Alec Warner napsal(a):
> Jakub Moc wrote:
>> Danny van Dyk napsal(a):
>>> which breaks the metadata cache. Any objections to change it
>>> to
>>>
>>> SLOT=0
>> As noted on the relevant bug [1], the eclass is a complete no-op and
>> no
gt;
> Thats what we are trying to fix.
There's absolutely no package that could be installed via this crappy
eclass, already tried to explain about 4 times but you don't listen. Oh
well, I give up; go fix the slot, never mind that it's utterly useless.
--
Best regards,
J
Bryan Østergaard napsal(a):
> On Sun, Jan 28, 2007 at 12:02:39PM +0100, Jakub Moc wrote:
> Jakub, please stop making a fool of yourself with your endless rants.
> Quite a few experienced ebuild developers have already told you why it's
> not being removed. As such your rants are
201 - 300 of 431 matches
Mail list logo
