es.
Wrt pidgin - seriously, what's the big issue here? Users can't use
emerge -pv output and determine what they want, or? Will we bloat the
profiles everytime someone forgets to enable a flag and goes complain
upstream about a 'missing' feature?
--
Best regards,
Jakub Moc
mail
his irrelevant junk finally, it's
totally off-topic here; if you want to complain that noone loves you,
then go to your nanny, I'm not interested.
--
Best regards,
Jakub Moc
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
GPG signature:
http://subkeys.pgp.net:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xCEBA3D9E
P
art
immediately to make it in time for 2008.0.
Have a nice day. :P
[1] http://compsoc.dur.ac.uk/whitespace/
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piet_(programming_language)
[3] http://www.rapapaing.com/piet/
--
Best regards,
Jakub Moc
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
GPG signature:
http://subkeys.pgp
From ubuntu-bugs-boun...@lists.ubuntu.com Sun Mar 07 02:25:46 2010
Return-path:
Envelope-to: arch...@mail-archive.com
Delivery-date: Sun, 07 Mar 2010 02:25:46 -0800
Received: from exprod5mx284.postini.com ([64.18.0.108] helo=psmtp.com)
by mail-archive.com with smtp (Exim 4.69)
(e
here:
What about FEATURES="nostrip" ? :)
--
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 D5FD CEBA 3D9E
... still no signature ;)
pgp
6.7.2005, 0:36:40, Sven Wegener wrote:
> sys-apps/module-init-tools: no-old-linux
ChangeLog:
12 Jan 2005; Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
module-init-tools-3.0-r2.ebuild, module-init-tools-3.1.ebuild:
Remove USE=no-old-linux until modules-update can be updated to use 2.6 depmod
fridge to open a bottle... :=)
--
Jakub Moc
pgphXSUGZTtB3.pgp
Description: PGP signature
s.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=88777#c9 has some explanation...
--
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 D5FD CEBA 3D9E
... still no signature ;)
pgpVunBjgQcyH.pgp
Description: PGP signature
one
> cares maybe the user base is not that large.
I don't know why this ebuild should be dropped, I have much better candidates
for removal - such as y-windows ;p
All the bugs are trivial and half of them is solved in 0.30.3 which could be
marked stable.
--
Best regards,
Jaku
s from the
> users in the future.
Check Bug 101457.
--
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 D5FD CEBA 3D9E
... still no signature
o") ;p
--
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 D5FD CEBA 3D9E
... still no signature ;)
pgplH8q61vsSD.pgp
Description: PGP signature
profile
though, basically w/ the set of USE flags that hardened profile provides, but
without hardened features.
--
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
likely that we'll get some new devs out of that too :)
Absolutely. The overlay made the whole thing get into portage *much* faster
then all those months in p.mask.
--
Best regards,
Jakub Moc
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
GPG signature: http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&
What is the next step after the last maintainer is removed from metadata.xml?
> Well i announced these packages on -dev. Now i can wait some time (how
> long?) and then?
Put maintainer-needed in herd seems a logical solution to me. Hmmm. Maybe I
missed something?
--
Best regards,
Jakub
ia
Bugzilla at all... not so much fun really, considering there are over 600 new
ebuild bugs there.
--
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 871
d the
bugs don't care any more. And, if someone picks those ebuilds up and decides to
maintain them, he can focus more on testing the actual app then fixing a broken
ebuild (or even committing a broken ebuild into the tree).
--
Best regards,
Jakub Moc
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
GPG signa
not even remotely sure into
which category would the particular ebuild fit).
*shrug*
--
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 D5FD CE
a full category though.
> Jakub -- this okay with you?
Sure, I've already managed to delete all the bugspam this caused... *g*
But yeah, it's good for some rough orientation, at least blah-?/ebuild if
unsure.
--
Best regards,
Jakub Moc
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
GPG sig
13.9.2005, 21:08:43, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Sep 2005 20:57:24 +0200 Jakub Moc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> | Sure, I've already managed to delete all the bugspam this caused...
> | *g*
> Yeah, maintainer-wanted bug emails are a pain in the ass. How about we
&
ew treads about branding - and the
> outcome was always that the majority of devs was against any sort of it.
> Probably something the council should decide about.
I don't care about branding, but the no-htdocs thing makes me grumble, really.
Those flags are evil. :(
--
Best regards
an example of a config that sorts logging out into seperate
> files like most distro's do.
What about this one?
http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/security/security-handbook.xml?part=1&chap=3#doc_chap4
--
Best regards,
Jakub Moc
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
GPG signature: http://pg
nothing.
> I can't remember if they failed or not, but if the test failed then the
> ebuild should just die, no?
> I just don't feel like recompiling it again :)
> Cheers, > Ferdy
No, the ebuild does not die, there are things known to be broken in those
tests. About 10-
ouce or whatever it
would be called? Many people gave up on reading -core due to the constant
flames...
--
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 C95
11.10.2005, 10:52:35, Jan Kundrát wrote:
> On Tuesday 11 of October 2005 10:47 Jakub Moc wrote:
>> Bleh, what's wrong w/ the idea to create gentoo-dev-annouce or whatever it
>> would be called? Many people gave up on reading -core due to the constant
>> flames...
>
ds,
> Petteri Räty (Betelgeuse)
That's what I've been getting for a couple of days:
svn: PROPFIND request failed on '/svn/java/gentoo-java-experimental'
svn: PROPFIND of '/svn/java/gentoo-java-experimental': SSL negotiation failed:
SSL error: unknown protocol (ht
SE flags in
> the base profile. Or don't make them USE flags at all...
These three no* flags should have been killed ages ago. They've never been
useful for anything else than causing tons of PEBKAC bugs. :-( This stuff is
not optional, period.
--
Best regards,
Jakub Moc
mailto
why *existing*
emerge --changelog code cannot be recycled for this feature to display upgrade
messages when running emerge -uDav world...
--
Best regards,
Jakub Moc
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
GPG signature: http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xCEBA3D9E
Primary key fingerp
about to upgrade an ebuild which has
an upgrade note associated with the new version. Sending mail via cron might be
a nice optional feature for those who want to use it.
--
Best regards,
Jakub Moc
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
GPG signature: http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x
v someebuild/world or when it goes stable.
And please, keep the thing simple so that I can be done in reasonable amount of
time and does not follow the destiny of einfo/ewarn logging (3 years and
counting).
--
Best regards,
Jakub Moc
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
GPG signature: http://pgp.mit.edu:1
1.11.2005, 18:04:08, Carsten Lohrke wrote:
> On Monday 31 October 2005 22:44, Petteri Räty wrote:
>> Checked the bugzilla and the two open bugs seem to be version bumps. I
>> think the policy is not to remove working ebuilds from the tree although
>> they are not maintained by anyone.
> It's not
1.11.2005, 18:40:35, Carsten Lohrke wrote:
> On Tuesday 01 November 2005 18:11, Jakub Moc wrote:
>> OK, lets remove perl.
> Such a reply is not an argument, but pointless. As you know as well, Perl is
> not exactly something other packages do not depend on.
As already stated b
401 - 431 of 431 matches
Mail list logo
