On 1/15/06, Olivier Crête <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Why not use the splitdebug instead of nostrip? And make building with -g
> the default, then tell small HD users how to disable it in the docs. And
> it needs to disable -fomit-frame-pointer at least on x86. I've been
> building my whole system
On 1/17/06, Paweł Madej <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~ $ ls -al /sbin/
Please don't bother the devs with this anymore. We will be happy to
explain the intricacies of unix permissions on gentoo-user.
-Richard
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
On 2/13/06, Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But... If INVALID is renamed, could we get a new GOAWAY resolution for
> people who really deserve it?
I would tend to agree with this. I myself was the 'victim' of an
aggressively worded INVALID resolution to a bug report I filed due to
my
On 2/21/06, Christian Bricart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
> So I have /dev/hda through /dev/hdl which are ok. But the mappings to
> /dev/discs/discX with X > 7 are missing.
>
> I wanted to file a bug report, but I'm not certain if it's actually
> udev's fault.
Yes, it is udev's fault, but
On 2/21/06, Christian Bricart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> And hdparm iterates through /dev/ide/* if found...
I assume you are talking about the init script? Because my hdparm
binary requires one to specify a device node, there is no iteration...
If so, AFAIK that exists only for those still run
On 2/26/06, Mike Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Do you know if there's a way or going to be a way to handle the split
> ebuilds so that reemerging or unemerging a split ebuild will reemerge or
> unemerge the corresponding packages?
Can I suggest you move this discussion to -user? This has not
On 4/26/06, Kevin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'd like to have the capability of being able to list some packages that
> should
> never be upgraded automatically (I realize I can do this to some degree
> already
> with portage), some others that are very unlikely to break from an automated
> upg
On 4/27/06, Duncan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In any case, once you get your list and weed out the stuff you /don't/
> want on it, rather than doing that copy trickery, try this:
Yeah, much smarter than my cp tricks. Although using emerge to
generate the package list will have a problem in that
On 5/4/06, Bart Braem <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
What makes us think we can not trust the KDE devs?
1. bugs.gentoo.org
2. bugs.kde.org
I personally have been running KDE 3.5 since the RC days...when you
actually had to add it to package.unmask. And *yes*, it has had more
than it's share of pr
On 5/5/06, Philip Webb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
060504 Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> If we followed others blindly, as so many users suggest,
> then we would have stabilized KDE 3.5 ages ago,
> and every single one of you KDE users would be complaining
> about how our QA sucks because KDE doesn't c
On 5/5/06, Carsten Lohrke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
All the whining leaves me with the feeling that I'm less interested to work
for you. The question "What can I do?" I do never hear. Stop whining, but
decide to help or give another distro a try. These are your choices.
Just to try to counter
On 6/9/06, Peter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Firstly, I think it is very clear that anything in sunrise is experimental
or not supported in the main gentoo tree. That's fine! I don't think any
user who goes through the trouble to set up an overlay would miss that
point. You can't go to o.g.o and
On 6/13/06, Peter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
As an example, there is a kernel source build I've been playing with. I
know, from the kernel team, it will never, repeat NEVER, get onto the
portage tree. they want no part of it.
My guess is that alternative kernels are probably the strongest
argum
On 7/5/06, Enrico Weigelt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Okay, if this short question cannot be anwered with an short help
or an direct pointer to some help, it seems my contribution obviously
isn't wanted. So I won't waste anymore of your and my time on this
topic and don't file a bug. Just forget a
On 7/6/06, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Right now we have mmx, 3dnow, 3dnowex, sse, sse2 and so on useflags present in
the tree, almost never used to get new dependencies, but usually used to
supply econf switches.
Hoping the S/N ratio here hasn't gotten too high...
IMO
On 7/6/06, Molle Bestefich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Evolution depends on Mozilla and Mono depends on SeaMonkey.
I don't think this is right, at least not for what is currently in
portage. When I do a
USE="mono" emerge -Devp evolution
No mozilla comes in. So evolution does not depend on mo
On 7/7/06, Simon Stelling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
That's because CFLAGS="-msse" currently doesn't do what the user would think it
does. Which is the real problem, which we're solving with the change Diego
suggested.
Well I certainly do *not* expect it to run configure with "--enable-sse".
-
On 7/7/06, Molle Bestefich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Are you using an portage overlay? If so, what is in it?
No. No idea what that is. Sounds interesting, though.
It is a local portage tree with ebuilds that you have either written
yourself or downloaded from others. Since the overlay w
On 7/9/06, Molle Bestefich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Try reading the bug - users are basically being shoved off with an
arrogant silence and a stamp on their forehead saying INVALID.
*Sigh*. You really should post to -user first.
The expectation here is that when a new version of gcc is sta
On 7/9/06, Molle Bestefich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'd like to take a stab at maintainership (or at least fixing) an
unmaintained ebuild.
What versioning system do you guys use (CVS?), and what's the URL for
checking out ebuilds?
bugs.gentoo.org is where this kind of work is done.
-Richard
On 7/9/06, Molle Bestefich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
As far as I can tell, the complaints are about Portage being unable to
handle GCC upgrades gracefully for end users.
The thing is, that portage doesn't technically "handle" gcc upgrades.
The user really needs to do that, and they (should) kn
On 7/9/06, Denis Dupeyron <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
2) If yes, are there any other flags that ebuilds should die on ?
My (user) opinion is that ebuilds should not die on CFLAGS, at least
not until per-package CFLAGS are implemented.
Now if someone is crazy enough to enable -ffast-math globall
On 7/10/06, Ned Ludd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
per pkg cflags are here already it would fall under the per
pkg env variables.
Please forgive my stupidity, but the only place I could see to set a
env var per package was /etc/portage/bashrc. Is that what you are
referring to?
-Richard
--
gento
On 7/10/06, Molle Bestefich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Richard Fish wrote:
> of gcc doesn't seem very effecient.
I can't see why it would not be efficient?
I think it is an inefficient use of developer time. Do we really want
gentoo devs spending their time figuring out w
On 7/10/06, Molle Bestefich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
It shouldn't even be _necessary_ to create bugs and receive advice
from a living, breathing human being just to perform a system update.
It isn't necessary. -user, the forums, IRC, all are monitored by
"living, breathing human beings".
-R
On 7/10/06, Zac Medico <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Richard Fish wrote:
> On 7/10/06, Ned Ludd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> per pkg cflags are here already it would fall under the per
>> pkg env variables.
>
> Please forgive my stupidity, but the only place I
On 7/10/06, Simon Stelling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Sounds like your after bug 95741:
http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=95741
Yeah, that would be nice! :-)
-Richard
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
On 7/2/06, Daniel Ahlberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi,
This is an automatically created email message.
http://gentoo.tamperd.net/stable has just been updated with 15968 ebuilds.
A question [1] has come up on -user about why some ebuilds take so
long to become stable for an arch. This isn't
On 7/27/06, Chris Gianelloni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Honestly, they shouldn't be stable. In fact, likely, many shouldn't be
in the tree. We have way too many packages that are used solely by a
small group of people sitting around the tree. These would be better
served in official overlays,
On 8/1/06, Carsten Lohrke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
And that's why it has been announced as the best since sliced bred - urging
all users to give it a try, but with the option to point with the finger on
them, laughing "Ha, ha, you should have known dumb nuts.", later. Brett is
absolutely right
On 8/7/06, Enrico Weigelt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
To be fair, do *you* actually look through *all* the emerge
output if there's any "D" flag, without the risk of overlooking
it someday ?
Um, sorry, but users *should* be looking at the output of --pretend to
get an idea of what portage wants
On 8/7/06, Enrico Weigelt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The assumption is wrong, gtk1 and gtk2 are incompatible versions
of one library. They are completely different libraries, where
one originally had been forked off the other one. Now they look
similar, but are in no ways equal.
Have you actual
On 8/8/06, Jason Wever <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
This could allow for us to get rid of the nofoo use flag nomenclature that
folks have been doing for functionality that is highly suggested to be on
by default.
Which would be fantastic IMO.
-Richard
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
On 8/7/06, Simon Stelling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
What sort of problems? An example backing up your claims would be very nice.
While I don't agree with Enrico that splitting up slotted packages is
the right thing to do, there are some corner cases involving slots
that portage (more specific
On 8/8/06, Enrico Weigelt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I think, modularized Xorg, as we have today, is far much better
than the old monolithic thing.
I think you are failing to realize that this isn't something that
Gentoo did on it's own. Upstream went to separate packages, and
Gentoo followed.
On 8/9/06, Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
i asked some others and they didnt get the e-mail either ... looks like our
gentoo mail server is really starting to crash here ...
http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=141904
-Richard
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
On 8/9/06, Brian Harring <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
General problem with use deps; *could* still implement it via
seperating out use specific restrictions and generating the second
logic statement above, but that's bit magic imo.
Is it really "magic"? Admittedly I know exactly nothing about po
http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=67179 is marked
RESOLVED/WORKSFORME, which according to the descriptions means that I
should be able to re-open the bug. But there is no option to do so.
Why?
-Richard
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
On 8/23/06, Josh Saddler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
So, don't dump a product that's not even near alpha status on users. If we want
to keep using software that's old, but works just fine, why force a really
stupid switch?
Saying xmms works "just fine" is a bit of stretch IMO. My most hated
xmm
On 9/2/06, Wiktor Wandachowicz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I suppose that there is a way that Gentoo can follow, only that its leaders,
developers and users need to see it clearly. Is there a publicly visible
page that contains current goals for new releases? Where all sub-project
leaders could ad
On 9/3/06, Luis Francisco Araujo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Richard Fish wrote:
> The problem I see is that for Gentoo the releases are not really
> useful milestones for most projects. A release is really significant
That is not a problem. That is a feature.
A small clarific
On 9/3/06, Chris Gianelloni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I really wish people would take the time to either ask the Release
Engineering team, or learn how we work before they go off making
accusations against us.
There was no accusation there. I picked on X only for its popularity
and relative e
With the stabilization of the nptl-only glibc-2.4, many users are
finding out that they installed their systems with
CHOST=i386-pc-linux-gnu, and now need to either mask the new glibc, or
figure out how to change their CHOST.
I am not able to find any official guide on changing CHOST, and the
inf
On 9/12/06, Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Tuesday 12 September 2006 22:23, Richard Fish wrote:
> What I've basically been telling people is to:
please god stop telling people that
ive given Wernfried Haas proper instructions, he just needs to write them up
Is th
On 10/21/06, Roy Marples <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
RC_STRICT_NET_CHECKING is used in the init script depdency process, and quite
frankly I'd like to punt it and replace it with ... rc-update! Yes,
just put the init scripts that "net" should provide in your runlevel. boot
contains net.lo
On 10/28/06, Marius Mauch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Well, I'd go further and question the whole herd concept.
It also gives users the impression that there is an entire "team" of
people maintaining a package,when in fact it might be just one or two
people.
-Richard
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org ma
On 11/8/06, Roy Marples <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Monday 06 November 2006 16:53, Roy Marples wrote:
> However, one issue is a concern. All baselayouts defined svcdir
> in /etc/conf.d/rc which defines where we hold the state information of the
> running services. This defaulted to /var/lib/ini
On 11/13/06, Thomas de Grenier de Latour <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Mon, 13 Nov 2006 10:02:25 +0100, Alexander Skwar
Though, an other reason for not accepting this patch is that some
websites may expect URL like this one, which relies on both encoded
and raw commas: http://foo.bar/param-1,para
On 11/29/06, Stuart Herbert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi,
On 11/29/06, Bo Ørsted Andresen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Maybe you should read the replies you got the first time you made this claim
> on this list [1].
Many thanks for these links. I didn't see your original email.
Wanna add a
On 12/1/06, Sven Köhler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Will udev rename the card eth1 to eth0 and the card eth0 to eth1?
Yes.
For this, I'd recommend running "/lib/udev/write_net_rules
all_interfaces" and then edit
/etc/udev/rules.d/70-persistent-net.rules to set the names like you
want.
I'd also
On 1/11/07, Chris Gianelloni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The Gentoo Council is looking for some ideas for some small projects
that we could initiate that would help Gentoo.
My idea would be to extend emaint to check package.keywords and
package.use for obsolete flags, unnecessary atoms (like foo
On 1/11/07, Bo Ørsted Andresen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Friday 12 January 2007 05:43, Richard Fish wrote:
> My idea would be to extend emaint to check package.keywords and
> package.use for obsolete flags, unnecessary atoms (like foo-1.2 in
> keywords when foo-1.3 is stab
Andrew Muraco wrote:
>first of all (some people will disagree with me on this)
>
>
I will ;->
># emerge -avuDN world
>does a much more through job, because it not only checks the packages
>you have installed,
>
...but only to correct this statement. It is more accurate to say that
it checks
>>>I.o.w. is it still necessary to have RC_DEVICE_TARBALL="yes" as a
>>>default or can we move to a pure udev system and change the default to
>>>"no".
>>>
>>>
>>I've been running my boxes successfully with "no" since the option
>>showed up just fine :)
>>
>>
>>
>
>I think people is unde
Mike Frysinger wrote:
>On Monday 11 July 2005 03:47 am, Martin Schlemmer wrote:
>
>
>>On Sat, 2005-07-09 at 20:34 +0200, Richard Fish wrote:
>>
>>
>>>for d in 0 1 2 3; do
>>>/sbin/mdadm --assemble --config=partitions --auto=md
Frank Schafer wrote:
I'm still on the kernel from the life-cd. The self compiled kernel has
the highmem option set to off (I have only 1GB). I'm on x86 Intel
Celeron M and have CHOST set to i686-pc-linux-gnu and CFLAGS="-O2
-march=pentium2"
Um, why pentium2? The Celeron-M is the same core
56 matches
Mail list logo
