From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 648 invoked from network); 28 Dec 2003 13:18:09 +0000 Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (128.193.0.39) by eagle.gentoo.oregonstate.edu with DES-CBC3-SHA encrypted SMTP; 28 Dec 2003 13:18:09 +0000 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([128.193.0.34] helo=eagle.gentoo.org) by smtp.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.24) id 1Aaao5-0002gW-2L for arch-gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org; Sun, 28 Dec 2003 13:18:09 +0000 Received: (qmail 6040 invoked by uid 50004); 28 Dec 2003 13:01:04 +0000 Mailing-List: contact gentoo-dev-help@gentoo.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Received: (qmail 20234 invoked from network); 28 Dec 2003 13:01:03 +0000 From: Mike Frysinger Organization: wh0rd.org To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Date: Sun, 28 Dec 2003 08:01:05 -0500 User-Agent: KMail/1.5.4 References: <200312281026.19457.mike@gaima.co.uk> <20031228103335.1c100d56@snowdrop.home> In-Reply-To: <20031228103335.1c100d56@snowdrop.home> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1; boundary="Boundary-02=_SQt7/SQffOu3IpL"; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <200312280801.06564.vapier@gentoo.org> Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] suggestion: virtual/telnet X-Archives-Salt: 2006471b-d6a3-441a-ad76-25d14f535cb0 X-Archives-Hash: c710590cf78732a82f42e277e6be5f4d --Boundary-02=_SQt7/SQffOu3IpL Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Description: signed data Content-Disposition: inline On Sunday 28 December 2003 05:33, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 10:26:18 +0000 Mike Williams > > wrote: > | The block-telnet with a virtual/telnet is a good idea. A simple 1 line > | reason for the block printed when portage shows the block would make > | things even better. > | Yes, it's work for a dev, but if it saves a multitude of questions > | later isn't it worth the effort now? > > Not really. That's some pretty heavy abuse of virtuals and ebuilds. agreed make a FAQ entry and call it a day i say -mike --Boundary-02=_SQt7/SQffOu3IpL Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Description: signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux) iQIVAwUAP+7UEUFjO5/oN/WBAQKd/BAA1htoaDOcr2N0MVXzMzjftPCYIZABL+Ov zK5g62GNXWGGF+BeK2a++Imm70zCUEei1QTmEWLBACahIQxvgPlAsNv8bCF/pwXa K+4cA2rloZVawdY/mthx13sxdz2yHqAFFv4rGlm+PG2NNSgt8kN/4M+7MOU7KuQi ZbAmFNGA9vcy4l+klk+spVrBoxmn8N6bU1eGnJFLnvZQkJhttoTJoOrg9jypR+RX 5uL0K6YWMG/ETo1cA6UHrNiT3XojmQFQI+tn9L6mRRL5ScVqUc3DDCPzgCNXH6XB I2lQtCwdF4qgfq2ChulUNW2HdW7BGlaJo09Fjx/pVodfyg/LUMqkAIcNbYkKD3pq Qhsm2hinMFcPygEUnLvYqpL1NnKH4ZjoInVVv8R+lMimmJdxM73411Biae0w41BZ DI7bT1+tUv0BL64Ls+8mXpVA5VEhexit/U3LjFIpFWFsaIyklURjWepeU/BO6ED7 ttwGMXNFeHqlOdSAeGNebtrlAr9IKbbxUoFyUaTg9N6z8ty3qV59W+IOB7FtA7T5 xMFoLamTaPGP160E4zlh2D1H9tl6dFJQlcUU3EdEVqJov5g27j8OWZaqpWGlsmkD TC3KlTlHpeUXYw4B3+t6u7RqJsd2vPb53vp8mIF9Mck8WP1cAtp5VPcmgfvjfN6j UWxfjBwg/eA= =UH4D -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Boundary-02=_SQt7/SQffOu3IpL--