From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([140.105.134.102] helo=robin.gentoo.org) by nuthatch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1EAxek-0000u8-Bs for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Thu, 01 Sep 2005 22:35:38 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with SMTP id j81MWSKD019300; Thu, 1 Sep 2005 22:32:28 GMT Received: from mail.rwisp.com (webmail.rwisp.com [208.191.32.9]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id j81MUOcm026843 for ; Thu, 1 Sep 2005 22:30:24 GMT Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.rwisp.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0371AEA3E1 for ; Thu, 1 Sep 2005 17:36:29 -0500 (CDT) Received: from mail.rwisp.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 22569-01 for ; Thu, 1 Sep 2005 17:36:25 -0500 (CDT) Received: from 129-kids.homershut.net (linux.homershut.net [64.216.105.3]) (using SSLv3 with cipher RC4-MD5 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.rwisp.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 949C5EA2A4 for ; Thu, 1 Sep 2005 17:36:25 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: [gentoo-core] crap use flags in the profiles From: Homer Parker To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org In-Reply-To: <4315AE3D.30700@gentoo.org> References: <20050825000442.GC1701@nightcrawler> <431036EA.8050401@gentoo.org> <20050827100130.GX1701@nightcrawler> <1125334595.1964.107.camel@cgianelloni.nuvox.net> <20050829203259.GA13987@nightcrawler> <1125351816.1964.148.camel@cgianelloni.nuvox.net> <20050829231247.104e9ff8@snowdrop.home> <1125404657.1964.167.camel@cgianelloni.nuvox.net> <4314715E.5000809@gentoo.org> <4314BA18.8040009@egr.msu.edu> <1125436518.15621.54.camel@darksystem> <20050830214002.1ce72cc2@localhost> <4315AE3D.30700@gentoo.org> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Thu, 01 Sep 2005 17:32:51 -0500 Message-Id: <1125613971.8674.2.camel@localhost> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.2.3 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at rwisp.com X-Archives-Salt: 170ff099-e88a-4065-9328-3a7df8626369 X-Archives-Hash: 3e8afb515a5aeb806e0e10fe9607c78f On Wed, 2005-08-31 at 09:18 -0400, Stephen P. Becker wrote: > Notice that for almost > everything, amd64 is barely behind x86...just a minor version > number/revision or two at most. That's the ATs hard at work keeping us current ;) -- Homer Parker Gentoo/AMD64 Arch Tester Strategic Lead hparker@gentoo.org -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list