Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Ryan Hill <dirtyepic@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in eclass: flag-o-matic.eclass
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2008 22:27:40
Message-Id: fpd0m3$kul$1@ger.gmane.org
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in eclass: flag-o-matic.eclass by Ciaran McCreesh
1 Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
2 > On Mon, 18 Feb 2008 13:54:34 -0800
3 > Donnie Berkholz <dberkholz@g.o> wrote:
4 >>> http://sources.gentoo.org/viewcvs.py/portage/main/trunk/bin/isolated-functions.sh?r1=9118&r2=9140
5 >> Alright, so portage has put this stuff to stderr since January 4.
6 >> Then why are we also adding workarounds to individual eclasses?
7 >
8 > How many people are running a Portage version released after January 4?
9
10 Eventually, all of them.
11
12
13 --
14 fonts, by design, by neglect
15 gcc-porting, for a fact or just for effect
16 wxwindows @ gentoo EFFD 380E 047A 4B51 D2BD C64F 8AA8 8346 F9A4 0662
17
18 --
19 gentoo-dev@l.g.o mailing list

Replies

Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in eclass: flag-o-matic.eclass Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@×××××××××××××.uk>