On Sun, Feb 26, 2006 at 07:09:29PM -0500, Mark Loeser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > The problem with that is, it usually ends up with too many pointless
> > > comments from people saying how things could be fixed in the distant
> > > future, or whining that it isn't explicitly forbidden by polic
Hi Mark,
On 2/27/06, Mark Loeser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Your change seems to imply that the QA team must wait for the council's
> okay to go forth and fix the package, rather the QA team able to act on
> its own. If that is the case, I don't see how we would ever be able to
> get things don
On Sun, Feb 26, 2006 at 07:12:52PM -0500, Mark Loeser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Alec Warner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> > This is meant to prevent the case where the QA team ( or a subset; "the
> > established QA members" ) decides to make unilateral changes to the tree
> > ( or large subset the
NOTE: Please post all replies on gentoo-desktop rather than gentoo-dev.
It's about that time again, folks. We're going to have desktop project
lead elections within the next month or so.
Who's interested in running for lead? Feel free to post a bit on why
you'll be the best lead ever, as well, a
On Sunday 26 February 2006 22:40, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> The issue is whether you have the right to leave broken packages in the
> tree. I don't see any policy document granting you that right.
The general consensus over the years has been that if something cannot be
fixed due to portage proble
On Sunday 26 February 2006 22:29, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 24, 2006 at 02:19:40PM +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > Side note: if the packages in question are fetch restricted, you're
> > screwed, and will not be able to add them to the tree.
>
> Actually, there is a solution for this,
On Monday 27 February 2006 00:05, Mike Myers wrote:
> Duncan wrote
>
> [deleted]
>
> Thanks a lot for the detailed explanation.
>
> Do you know if there's a way or going to be a way to handle the split
> ebuilds so that reemerging or unemerging a split ebuild will reemerge
> or unemerge the corresp
Jeffrey Forman wrote:
> On Sun, 2006-02-26 at 22:54 -0500, Andrew Muraco wrote:
>> I second that there is a massive confusion of naming, and this needs to
>> get sorted out (or atleast explained) Because I'm sure the mirrors will
>> start getting slamed with people downloading 2006.0. Lets not wa
Tuan Van wrote:
> Kalin KOZHUHAROV wrote:
>> yes, I figured out that x86-installcd-2006.0 is the "Gentoo 2006.0
>> Minimal install CD" for x86 or is it... will any n00b figure it out?
>>
>>
> If a n00b can't figure it out, I would suggest him start from Read The
> Fine Handbook http://www.gent
Kalin KOZHUHAROV wrote:
> Jeffrey Forman wrote:
>> On Sun, 2006-02-26 at 22:54 -0500, Andrew Muraco wrote:
>>> I second that there is a massive confusion of naming, and this needs to
>>> get sorted out (or atleast explained) Because I'm sure the mirrors will
>>> start getting slamed with people d
On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 11:02:57 +0100 Paul de Vrieze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| On Sunday 26 February 2006 22:40, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
| > The issue is whether you have the right to leave broken packages in
| > the tree. I don't see any policy document granting you that right.
|
| The general con
On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 11:05:00 +0100 Paul de Vrieze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| Is there any valid reason that we can't have portage do this
| automatically. This particular way is very user-un-friendly.
There's exactly one set of packages affected, and they're closed source
and non-repackagable.
On Sun, 26 Feb 2006 17:53:20 -0800 Donnie Berkholz
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| The maintainer should be the absolute authority over his/her packages,
| and only the council should be able to overrule maintainer decisions
| in the case of disagreement between the maintainer and anybody else.
So if
On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 00:09:28 -0500 Ned Ludd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| I think I agree with the part that security@ having near final say.
Security have (admittedly not very often) screwed up in the past.
Fixing a security issue at the expense of utterly h0rking an arch, for
example, is not an a
On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 09:09:01 + John Mylchreest <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| In this specific instance, impossible is effectively a point of view.
| For me the question comes down to this.. If QA trump maintainer, then
| who picks the QA staff? If anyone can become QA staff, then this is
| quest
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 11:02:57 +0100 Paul de Vrieze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> | On Sunday 26 February 2006 22:40, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> | > The issue is whether you have the right to leave broken packages in
> | > the tree. I don't see any policy document granting you
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Sun, 26 Feb 2006 17:53:20 -0800 Donnie Berkholz
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> | The maintainer should be the absolute authority over his/her packages,
> | and only the council should be able to overrule maintainer decisions
> | in the case of disagreement between the ma
On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 09:00:15 + "Stuart Herbert"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| > Again, then we are going to get into the argument of the definition
| > of an emergency and never be able to get anything done. We really
| > hope problems never come down to this, which is why we left it
| > worded
On Mon, Feb 27, 2006 at 04:37:52PM +, Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 09:09:01 + John Mylchreest <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> | In this specific instance, impossible is effectively a point of view.
> | For me the question comes down to this.. If QA trump
On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 10:46:23 -0600 Lance Albertson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| Where is this general consensus documented (other than an email sent
| out a few days ago). I'd have to go with Paul on this assumption. I
| don't see the problem with keeping a package such as stu's in portage
| as lon
bbapm has been masked due to no one responding with anything useful to
last rites e-mail. It will be punted in 30 days.
-Alec Warner
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 10:47:58 -0600 Lance Albertson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| > So if the maintainer sticks SANDBOX_DISABLE="1" rm -fr / in global
| > scope and refuses to move it, QA will have to get council approval
| > to fix it?
|
| Use some common sense when showing an example please. We al
On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 17:09:42 + John Mylchreest <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| My point was the more along the lines that the existing QA team need
| to convince the rest of the development community that they know what
| they're doing first. Whats stopping the existing QA team disregarding
| al
On Monday 27 February 2006 12:08, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 09:00:15 + "Stuart Herbert"
>
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> | > Again, then we are going to get into the argument of the definition
> | > of an emergency and never be able to get anything done. We really
> | > hope
On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 12:15:13 -0500 Alec Warner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| bbapm has been masked due to no one responding with anything useful to
| last rites e-mail. It will be punted in 30 days.
No no no. Do this properly. Clean up *all* the broken blackbox applets,
not just the one that has s
On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 10:47:58 -0600
Lance Albertson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> We all know that
> something that stupid needs to be delt with quickly.
So you're agreeing that someone needs to be able to act should a
package maintainer screw up sufficiently badly, and the obvious
candidate for th
On Mon, Feb 27, 2006 at 05:08:34PM +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> Abuse from people like you whenever someone finally gets brave enough
> to document all the ways in which webapp-config is broken.
wrobel and I would be very interested to see such a document. In the
meantime, we shall continue to
27.2.2006, 18:23:09, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 12:15:13 -0500 Alec Warner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> | bbapm has been masked due to no one responding with anything useful to
> | last rites e-mail. It will be punted in 30 days.
> No no no. Do this properly. Clean up *all*
Mark Loeser wrote:
> * In case of emergency, or if package maintainers refuse to cooperate,
> the QA team may take action themselves to fix the problem.
My suspicion is that the more common problem is going to be inaccessible
developers, rather than uncooperative ones. Certainly, if a maintaine
On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 18:54:13 +0100
Jakub Moc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> yet as a member of maintainer herd haven't dealt with that
> properly for quite an extensive period of time
Sounds like someone still needs to read herds.xml.
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 12:21:29 -0500 Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| if something is going to lead to "considerable damage" and the
| maintainer is unwilling to resolve the issue, then i'm pretty sure
| there's more to be resolved here than fixing a package
Sure. There're other parts of
On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 18:54:13 +0100 Jakub Moc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| *Please*, be so kind and look at metadata.xml for those ebuild, then
| just either do it *yourself* or ask someone from your fellow-devs in
| commonbox herd to do it for the other ebuilds that you failed to
| mention above...
On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 12:05:58 -0600 Grant Goodyear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| Of course, that leaves the question of who decides on the severity of
| a QA violation?
All this talk of severity, and no talk of "ease of detection" or "ease
of fixing"...
Allow me to explain. There are certain not pa
Grant Goodyear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Mark Loeser wrote:
> > * In case of emergency, or if package maintainers refuse to cooperate,
> > the QA team may take action themselves to fix the problem.
>
> My suspicion is that the more common problem is going to be inaccessible
> developers, rathe
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Sun, 26 Feb 2006 17:53:20 -0800 Donnie Berkholz
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> | The maintainer should be the absolute authority over his/her packages,
> | and only the council should be able to overrule maintainer decisions
> | in the case of disagreement between the ma
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 12:15:13 -0500 Alec Warner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> | bbapm has been masked due to no one responding with anything useful to
> | last rites e-mail. It will be punted in 30 days.
>
> No no no. Do this properly. Clean up *all* the broken blackbox a
On Mon, Feb 27, 2006 at 04:34:00PM +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 11:05:00 +0100 Paul de Vrieze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> | Is there any valid reason that we can't have portage do this
> | automatically. This particular way is very user-un-friendly.
> There's exactly one
On Mon, 2006-02-27 at 17:08 +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> Abuse from people like you whenever someone finally gets brave enough
> to document all the ways in which webapp-config is broken.
This isn't the first time we've heard this tune from you, and alas I
fear it won't be the last.
You know w
On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 15:23:07 -0500 Alec Warner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
| > On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 12:15:13 -0500 Alec Warner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
| > wrote:
| > | bbapm has been masked due to no one responding with anything
| > | useful to last rites e-mail. It will be punt
On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 20:26:10 + Stuart Herbert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| On Mon, 2006-02-27 at 17:08 +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
| > Abuse from people like you whenever someone finally gets brave
| > enough to document all the ways in which webapp-config is broken.
|
| This isn't the first
On Mon, Feb 27, 2006 at 08:37:09PM +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 20:26:10 + Stuart Herbert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> | On Mon, 2006-02-27 at 17:08 +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> | > Abuse from people like you whenever someone finally gets brave
> | > enough to docume
27.2.2006, 21:37:09, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 20:26:10 + Stuart Herbert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> | On Mon, 2006-02-27 at 17:08 +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
| >> Abuse from people like you whenever someone finally gets brave
| >> enough to document all the ways in wh
On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 20:45:30 + Renat Lumpau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| > Then please start with bug 120088. Once that one's fixed we'll go
| > from there.
|
| #120088 (dev-lang/php breaks non-interactivity and does not work on
| default USE) has nothing to do with webapp-config. What's your
On Mon, 2006-02-27 at 20:37 +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> Then please start with bug 120088. Once that one's fixed we'll go from
> there.
That bug has nothing to do with webapp-config. That bug is for PHP.
Could you file one that is, please?
Many thanks,
Stu
--
Stuart Herbert
On Mon, Feb 27, 2006 at 08:54:45PM +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 20:45:30 + Renat Lumpau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> | > Then please start with bug 120088. Once that one's fixed we'll go
> | > from there.
> |
> | #120088 (dev-lang/php breaks non-interactivity and does no
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> My point is that that's a nasty QA bug that's relying upon input from
> Stuart to be fixed. Whilst that one's still alive, I'm not going to go
> around filing more similar "breaks non-interactively" bugs because the
> discussion will just get repeated over and over.
Huh?
On Mon, 2006-02-27 at 20:54 +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> My point is that that's a nasty QA bug that's relying upon input from
> Stuart to be fixed.
I'm afraid you've been mis-informed. The PHP herd has provided a set of
default USE flags to go into the profiles, and there's a comment at the
Grant Goodyear wrote:
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>> My point is that that's a nasty QA bug that's relying upon input from
>> Stuart to be fixed. Whilst that one's still alive, I'm not going to go
>> around filing more similar "breaks non-interactively" bugs because the
>> discussion will just get rep
48 matches
Mail list logo
