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 1ECcdK-0003q5-B7 for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Tue, 06 Sep 2005 12:33:02 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with SMTP id j86CT1bK000671; Tue, 6 Sep 2005 12:29:01 GMT Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [134.68.220.30]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id j86CRIJn002677 for ; Tue, 6 Sep 2005 12:27:19 GMT Received: from zh034160.ppp.dion.ne.jp ([222.3.34.160] helo=opteron246.suzuki-stubbs.home) by smtp.gentoo.org with esmtpa (Exim 4.43) id 1ECcaz-0001aR-9V for gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org; Tue, 06 Sep 2005 12:30:37 +0000 Received: by opteron246.suzuki-stubbs.home (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 24133102DC1; Tue, 6 Sep 2005 21:30:38 +0900 (JST) From: Jason Stubbs To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] 2005.1 profile gives devfs as virtual Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2005 21:30:35 +0900 User-Agent: KMail/1.8.90 References: <20050904141154.GA7622@sympatico.ca> <200509060839.34718.jstubbs@gentoo.org> <20050906083356.GA7710@sympatico.ca> In-Reply-To: <20050906083356.GA7710@sympatico.ca> 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 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="nextPart1624028.rxN9XqldGO"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <200509062130.37989.jstubbs@gentoo.org> X-Archives-Salt: b32c8378-c8c8-4f46-b064-583111dd2065 X-Archives-Hash: b70ecc5740570b468f8e3a841808f83f --nextPart1624028.rxN9XqldGO Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline On Tuesday 06 September 2005 17:33, Philip Webb wrote: > Sorry, but that's neither adequate nor polite as a response You've rattled me enough that I only responded to this part. > to the genuine problem which I raised as the original poster. It wasn't a response to the original poster. It was only a reponse to your= =20 email. > The answer to your question should be clear from the rest of my message It wasn't clear. That's why I asked "why?" > -- the present warning is misleading, as everyone has agreed -- > & your other response needs some explanation on your part. Why do my other responses need more explanation? I didn't even use the=20 standard contractions that portage devs use when talking to each other, but= =20 instead used terminology to ensure that any ebuild dev would understand. > Someone else has suggested that Portage can't handle a N/Y of this kind, That suggestion is incorrect as my working tested patch shows. > but in that case please offer some confirmation at least. I already had via the patch. =2D- Jason Stubbs --nextPart1624028.rxN9XqldGO Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQBDHYvtxvWNPsk/ZP4RAmp+AJoDgVSL36qa2veCvi3dHuYopK3HLgCfQgxg fo9NQ5Frng9wg93+2A3mLek= =IgOy -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --nextPart1624028.rxN9XqldGO-- -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list