building (pre catalyst days).
--
solar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Gentoo Linux
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
On Tue, 2005-11-22 at 10:58 -0500, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> On Tue, 2005-11-22 at 10:29 -0500, solar wrote:
> > > Now, on the topic of the tarballs.
> > >
> > > Give me one example of something that you can do with a stage1 or stage2
> > > tarbal
lock. Clearly I forgot the last
step. As for hardened and 2.4.x it seems most of our users are wanting
2.6.x now and unless users/devs show interest I can't really see us
needing to produce a new set of 2.4.x based 2006.x stages.
--
solar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Gentoo Linux
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
arking it stable in the next day or two is completely
> stupid and I should wait to announce this via the GWN or something, or if its
> an alright move and people aren't going to stab me for marking it stable.
einfo "$stuff" and mark it stable later today wins my vote.
--
solar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Gentoo Linux
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
t information and are/will be parsed
> by portage, so I'm not that comfortable with dropping also the option
> of verifying them permanently.
>
> One thing solar has pointed out is that in countries with stupid laws
> pycrypto violates some patents so currently we cannot ship i
On Mon, 2005-12-19 at 20:29 +0100, Marius Mauch wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Dec 2005 13:45:04 -0500
> solar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > If you do that please set it as a blocker for the .54 release.
> > Reintroducing ChangeLog/metadata.xml to Manifests would be a undesi
eck the locations of libraries.
> > Openoffice-bin
> > does not satisfy the dependency for the db library. It namely is outside
> > the
> > library search path (and it should be). You might want to use ld.so.conf
> > with
> > the rpath attribute of
be applied to other packages?
> Are there reasons for not doing this (besides increasing build time)?
>
> Also - how does portage react to "multi-installing" packages?
This question seems better suited for the portage mailing list.
--
solar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Gentoo Linux
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
refox doesn't trust /etc/ssl/certs by default, dunno about
> konqueror. The point is still relevant though.
Do you think the PDEPEND of the ca-certs should be tied to a USE= flag?
If so should it be a 'no*certs' flag or a USE=cacerts ?
--
solar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Gentoo Linux
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Monthly Gentoo Council Meeting for Jan 2006.
Present:
Koon (Thierry Carrez)
Swift (Sven Vermeulen)
agriffis (Aron Griffis)
seemant (Seemant Kulleen)
solar (Ned Ludd)
vapier (Mike Frysinger)
Absent:
azarah (Martin Schlemmer)
Where abouts unknown for the last 30 days.
Attendance
t packages you
> have installed when you havent declared a preference. for example, if you
> have neither '-cups' or 'cups' in your USE (either in your make.conf,
> profile, env, whatever), but you do have the net-print/cups package
> installed, portage will
On Fri, 2006-01-13 at 20:23 +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Jan 2006 15:13:02 -0500 solar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> | The autouse itself is not a bad feature or idea if it were used properly.
> | Problem is that it's not been used properly.
>
> No, it'
ing almost works for hardened users too.
I'd say I could just run with the extra
flags in the hardened/* profiles but it seems a good portion of the
users these days seem to be vanilla users using 'gcc-config > 1'
--
solar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Gentoo Linux
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
newline+tabs.
>
> umm, i'm 99% sure you read it wrong ... the lines were wrapped in the GLEP to
> help you read it, the actual file format will not be like that
I hope that is is the case.
--
solar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Gentoo Linux
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
e has any
> > suggestions on this behaviour.
>
> re-emerge popt and see if that fixes it
It should be beecrypt that is the cause of it.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=132149#c9
> -mike
--
solar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Gentoo Linux
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
etc.
>
> Maybe creating a logging herd would be an idea to, to remove the load
> from the base-system herd.
>
> What do you think?
I think most pkgs are fine where they are at now.
The main logging pkgs do not suffer from not being maintained.
app-admin/ where most things are
x27;m unable to find it.
Any list readers know anything relating to that?
--
solar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Gentoo Linux
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
On Tue, 2006-02-28 at 20:18 +0100, Kevin F. Quinn (Gentoo) wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 12:47:33 -0500
> solar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I forget where I read it but I thought that unicode lead to overflows
> > and was considered a general security risk. I wish I
tch to gcc-4 to add back in
> -fno-stack-protector?
For the 4.0.x it should be just a dummy call.
For 4.1 it is included. What does change and is really uncool with 4.1
is that -fno-stack-protector-all is missing and wont be added
back without several somebodies making a case for it upstream.
--
solar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Gentoo Linux
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
need to call 'file' all together now in
prepstrip.
Heres a patch also which should help you track down offending programs
as they occur. should catch all cases of 'install -s' also.
http://tinderbox.x86.dev.gentoo.org/portage/local/patches/sys-devel/binutils/binutils-gentoo-str
d
> > I hereby request to add a paragraph at least, stating exactly this.
...
> This is absurd. The council shouldn't need to make every decision in
> Gentoo itself. It should be able to delegate power to any group it chooses.
Thanks for pointing this out Donnie.
--
solar
On Mon, 2005-09-05 at 22:08 +0300, Petteri Räty wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> I have a couple of old machines I maintain and emerging and unmerging
> kernel sources take a while because there are so many files. Also one
> set of gentoo sources takes about 230MB of di
-1.1's
> headers do, with what you're proposing you'd have to go through and
> update the dependencies of every single package using libfoo.
--
solar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Gentoo Linux
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
On Tue, 2005-10-25 at 20:16 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 13:55:36 -0400 solar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> | Please do not put words in my mouth. I've already asserted to you
> | several times that the definition of RDEPEND= is unclear and that we
>
us keep it this way and or add another stop gap profile
between default-linux and base such as profiles/linux-core as using
default-linux as a parent is going to add alot more cruft that we may
want.
--
solar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Gentoo Linux
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
w.x base-tmp/packages
mv base core
mv base-tmp base
echo ../core > base/parent
# And then bsd inherits from core vs base.
--
solar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Gentoo Linux
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
26 matches
Mail list logo
