| Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Age | Files | Lines |
|
|
|
| |
Package-Manager: Portage-2.3.24, Repoman-2.3.6
|
|
|
|
| |
Package-Manager: Portage-2.3.24, Repoman-2.3.6
|
|
|
|
| |
Package-Manager: Portage-2.3.19, Repoman-2.3.6
|
|
|
|
| |
Package-Manager: Portage-2.3.24, Repoman-2.3.6
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Remove useless/redundant maintainer <description/>. It does not benefit
bug wrangling, and only wastes developer's time on reading it. Few tips:
- assignee/CC is implied by ordering, there is no reason to repeat it,
- we know that maintainer is maintainer (la la la la la),
- most of adjectives for maintainer are of no value and/or are obvious.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Remove useless/redundant maintainer <description/>. It does not benefit
bug wrangling, and only wastes developer's time on reading it. Few tips:
- assignee/CC is implied by ordering, there is no reason to repeat it,
- we know that maintainer is maintainer (la la la la la),
- most of adjectives for maintainer are of no value and/or are obvious.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Remove useless/redundant maintainer <description/>. It does not benefit
bug wrangling, and only wastes developer's time on reading it. Few tips:
- assignee/CC is implied by ordering, there is no reason to repeat it,
- we know that maintainer is maintainer (la la la la la),
- most of adjectives for maintainer are of no value and/or are obvious.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Remove useless/redundant maintainer <description/>. It does not benefit
bug wrangling, and only wastes developer's time on reading it. Few tips:
- assignee/CC is implied by ordering, there is no reason to repeat it,
- we know that maintainer is maintainer (la la la la la),
- most of adjectives for maintainer are of no value and/or are obvious.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Remove useless/redundant maintainer <description/>. It does not benefit
bug wrangling, and only wastes developer's time on reading it. Few tips:
- assignee/CC is implied by ordering, there is no reason to repeat it,
- we know that maintainer is maintainer (la la la la la),
- most of adjectives for maintainer are of no value and/or are obvious.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Remove useless/redundant maintainer <description/>. It does not benefit
bug wrangling, and only wastes developer's time on reading it. Few tips:
- assignee/CC is implied by ordering, there is no reason to repeat it,
- we know that maintainer is maintainer (la la la la la),
- most of adjectives for maintainer are of no value and/or are obvious.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Remove useless/redundant maintainer <description/>. It does not benefit
bug wrangling, and only wastes developer's time on reading it. Few tips:
- assignee/CC is implied by ordering, there is no reason to repeat it,
- we know that maintainer is maintainer (la la la la la),
- most of adjectives for maintainer are of no value and/or are obvious.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Remove useless/redundant maintainer <description/>. It does not benefit
bug wrangling, and only wastes developer's time on reading it. Few tips:
- assignee/CC is implied by ordering, there is no reason to repeat it,
- we know that maintainer is maintainer (la la la la la),
- most of adjectives for maintainer are of no value and/or are obvious.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Remove useless/redundant maintainer <description/>. It does not benefit
bug wrangling, and only wastes developer's time on reading it. Few tips:
- assignee/CC is implied by ordering, there is no reason to repeat it,
- we know that maintainer is maintainer (la la la la la),
- most of adjectives for maintainer are of no value and/or are obvious.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Remove useless/redundant maintainer <description/>. It does not benefit
bug wrangling, and only wastes developer's time on reading it. Few tips:
- assignee/CC is implied by ordering, there is no reason to repeat it,
- we know that maintainer is maintainer (la la la la la),
- most of adjectives for maintainer are of no value and/or are obvious.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Remove useless/redundant maintainer <description/>. It does not benefit
bug wrangling, and only wastes developer's time on reading it. Few tips:
- assignee/CC is implied by ordering, there is no reason to repeat it,
- we know that maintainer is maintainer (la la la la la),
- most of adjectives for maintainer are of no value and/or are obvious.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Remove useless/redundant maintainer <description/>. It does not benefit
bug wrangling, and only wastes developer's time on reading it. Few tips:
- assignee/CC is implied by ordering, there is no reason to repeat it,
- we know that maintainer is maintainer (la la la la la),
- most of adjectives for maintainer are of no value and/or are obvious.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Remove useless/redundant maintainer <description/>. It does not benefit
bug wrangling, and only wastes developer's time on reading it. Few tips:
- assignee/CC is implied by ordering, there is no reason to repeat it,
- we know that maintainer is maintainer (la la la la la),
- most of adjectives for maintainer are of no value and/or are obvious.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Remove useless/redundant maintainer <description/>. It does not benefit
bug wrangling, and only wastes developer's time on reading it. Few tips:
- assignee/CC is implied by ordering, there is no reason to repeat it,
- we know that maintainer is maintainer (la la la la la),
- most of adjectives for maintainer are of no value and/or are obvious.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Remove useless/redundant maintainer <description/>. It does not benefit
bug wrangling, and only wastes developer's time on reading it. Few tips:
- assignee/CC is implied by ordering, there is no reason to repeat it,
- we know that maintainer is maintainer (la la la la la),
- most of adjectives for maintainer are of no value and/or are obvious.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Remove useless/redundant maintainer <description/>. It does not benefit
bug wrangling, and only wastes developer's time on reading it. Few tips:
- assignee/CC is implied by ordering, there is no reason to repeat it,
- we know that maintainer is maintainer (la la la la la),
- most of adjectives for maintainer are of no value and/or are obvious.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Remove useless/redundant maintainer <description/>. It does not benefit
bug wrangling, and only wastes developer's time on reading it. Few tips:
- assignee/CC is implied by ordering, there is no reason to repeat it,
- we know that maintainer is maintainer (la la la la la),
- most of adjectives for maintainer are of no value and/or are obvious.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Remove useless/redundant maintainer <description/>. It does not benefit
bug wrangling, and only wastes developer's time on reading it. Few tips:
- assignee/CC is implied by ordering, there is no reason to repeat it,
- we know that maintainer is maintainer (la la la la la),
- most of adjectives for maintainer are of no value and/or are obvious.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Remove useless/redundant maintainer <description/>. It does not benefit
bug wrangling, and only wastes developer's time on reading it. Few tips:
- assignee/CC is implied by ordering, there is no reason to repeat it,
- we know that maintainer is maintainer (la la la la la),
- most of adjectives for maintainer are of no value and/or are obvious.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Remove useless/redundant maintainer <description/>. It does not benefit
bug wrangling, and only wastes developer's time on reading it. Few tips:
- assignee/CC is implied by ordering, there is no reason to repeat it,
- we know that maintainer is maintainer (la la la la la),
- most of adjectives for maintainer are of no value and/or are obvious.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Remove useless/redundant maintainer <description/>. It does not benefit
bug wrangling, and only wastes developer's time on reading it. Few tips:
- assignee/CC is implied by ordering, there is no reason to repeat it,
- we know that maintainer is maintainer (la la la la la),
- most of adjectives for maintainer are of no value and/or are obvious.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Remove useless/redundant maintainer <description/>. It does not benefit
bug wrangling, and only wastes developer's time on reading it. Few tips:
- assignee/CC is implied by ordering, there is no reason to repeat it,
- we know that maintainer is maintainer (la la la la la),
- most of adjectives for maintainer are of no value and/or are obvious.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Remove useless/redundant maintainer <description/>. It does not benefit
bug wrangling, and only wastes developer's time on reading it. Few tips:
- assignee/CC is implied by ordering, there is no reason to repeat it,
- we know that maintainer is maintainer (la la la la la),
- most of adjectives for maintainer are of no value and/or are obvious.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Remove useless/redundant maintainer <description/>. It does not benefit
bug wrangling, and only wastes developer's time on reading it. Few tips:
- assignee/CC is implied by ordering, there is no reason to repeat it,
- we know that maintainer is maintainer (la la la la la),
- most of adjectives for maintainer are of no value and/or are obvious.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Remove useless/redundant maintainer <description/>. It does not benefit
bug wrangling, and only wastes developer's time on reading it. Few tips:
- assignee/CC is implied by ordering, there is no reason to repeat it,
- we know that maintainer is maintainer (la la la la la),
- most of adjectives for maintainer are of no value and/or are obvious.
|
|
|
|
| |
Package-Manager: Portage-2.3.24, Repoman-2.3.6
|
|
|
|
| |
Package-Manager: Portage-2.3.24, Repoman-2.3.6
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Previous patch was incomplete and missed a header include.
Closes: https://bugs.gentoo.org/646262
Package-Manager: Portage-2.3.24, Repoman-2.3.6
RepoMan-Options: --force
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Closes: https://bugs.gentoo.org/646262
Package-Manager: Portage-2.3.24, Repoman-2.3.6
RepoMan-Options: --force
|
|
|
|
| |
Package-Manager: Portage-2.3.19, Repoman-2.3.6
|
|
|
|
| |
Package-Manager: Portage-2.3.19, Repoman-2.3.6
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Fixing the source URI since original one became obsolete.
Closes: https://bugs.gentoo.org/647068
Package-Manager: Portage-2.3.23, Repoman-2.3.6
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Closes: https://github.com/gentoo/gentoo/pull/7105
Package-Manager: Portage-2.3.13, Repoman-2.3.3
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Package-Manager: Portage-2.3.19, Repoman-2.3.6
RepoMan-Options: --include-arches="sparc"
|
|
|
|
| |
Package-Manager: Portage-2.3.24, Repoman-2.3.6
|
|
|
|
| |
Package-Manager: Portage-2.3.24, Repoman-2.3.6
|
|
|
|
| |
Package-Manager: Portage-2.3.24, Repoman-2.3.6
|
|
|
|
| |
Package-Manager: Portage-2.3.24, Repoman-2.3.6
|
|
|
|
| |
Package-Manager: Portage-2.3.19, Repoman-2.3.6
|
|
|
|
| |
Package-Manager: Portage-2.3.24, Repoman-2.3.6
|
|
|
|
| |
Package-Manager: Portage-2.3.24, Repoman-2.3.6
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Updating the homepage. Copyright message got included because repomain
suggested it too.
Closes: https://bugs.gentoo.org/646954
Closes: https://github.com/gentoo/gentoo/pull/7121
Package-Manager: Portage-2.3.23, Repoman-2.3.6
|
|
|
|
| |
Package-Manager: Portage-2.3.19, Repoman-2.3.6
|
|
|
|
| |
Package-Manager: Portage-2.3.19, Repoman-2.3.6
|
|
|
|
| |
Package-Manager: Portage-2.3.19, Repoman-2.3.6
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Also fixes bug #646342. Thanks to Leonid Kopylov for the report and
onun23 for the initial patch.
Package-Manager: Portage-2.3.19, Repoman-2.3.6
|