Very good job.
2007/4/13, Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
here is a summary of this month's meeting. people seem to think that the CoC
is set in stone now when in reality it is not ... feel free to hilite
anything you feel wasnt addressed in the previous discussion or anything new
you've th
beu has retired, and this is a widely used package.
If any dev is using this and want to maintain it, please feel free to
take it.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Hi fellow devs
start-stop-daemon binary in baselayout-2 will require the use of the
--name or --pidfile argument in --start if the binary in question
changes it's process name.
This also applies to any interpreted daemon, such as ddclient or
amavisd which are perl programs. This is because accord
On Friday 13 April 2007 11:22, Raúl Porcel wrote:
> beu has retired, and this is a widely used package.
>
> If any dev is using this and want to maintain it, please feel free to
> take it.
And take care of the security issue on bug #168878
https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=168878
--
Sune K
Hi List
bsaelayout-2.0.0_alpha2 will ship without any volume support for things
like LVM, RAID, etc. We only ship the hooks right now, but we won't
ship those any more as we can't seem it get it right.
If you care about such things, then you need to pester the maintainer
of said package to write
On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 15:41:01 +0100
Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 5 Apr 2007 15:11:47 -0700
> Brian Harring <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Either way, EAPI=1 *should* have a bit more then just slot deps in my
> > opinion; very least it needs discussion to discern what folks
On Friday 13 April 2007, Marius Mauch wrote:
> Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > * src_test always called except if RESTRICT=test
>
> I don't think this would fit into EAPI, to me it's an implementation
> detail of the package manager, or why should the ebuild care about it?
hmm, i'd
i plan on adding old-linux to use.force in the linux-2.4 profiles and
converting the "no-old-linux" USE flag to that ... that way things like
module-init-tools from now on will only support linux-2.6+
any comments ?
-mike
pgpreBOGaB1uH.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Friday 13 April 2007 12:41:43 Roy Marples wrote:
> If you care about such things, then you need to pester the maintainer
> of said package to write an init script for it that has the following
> dependency
I'll look into it, any idea when you are g
On Friday 13 April 2007, Benjamin Smee (strerror) wrote:
> On Friday 13 April 2007 12:41:43 Roy Marples wrote:
> > If you care about such things, then you need to pester the maintainer
> > of said package to write an init script for it that has the following
> > dependency
>
> I'll look into it, an
On Tue, 2007-04-10 at 21:32 +0200, Alexandre Buisse wrote:
> as everyone probably noticed, there is a current atmosphere of sinking ship,
> with quite a lot of people leaving and many agreeing that gentoo is no fun
> working on anymore. Before it's too late, I'd like to propose a big
> reformation
On Fri, 13 Apr 2007 14:21:16 +0200
Marius Mauch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 15:41:01 +0100
> Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > * Remove automatic directory making for do*
>
> No
It masks all kinds of programming screwups. doblah should make a blah,
not make a bla
On Fri, 13 Apr 2007 15:24:25 +0100
Steve Long <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > Brian Harring <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Either way, EAPI=1 *should* have a bit more then just slot deps in
> >> my opinion; very least it needs discussion to discern what folks
> >> want.
> >
On Friday 13 April 2007, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> Marius Mauch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > * Remove automatic directory making for do*
> >
> > No
>
> It masks all kinds of programming screwups. doblah should make a blah,
> not make a blah and poss
On Fri, 2007-04-13 at 19:26 +0530, Andrew Cowie wrote:
> On Tue, 2007-04-10 at 21:32 +0200, Alexandre Buisse wrote:
> > as everyone probably noticed, there is a current atmosphere of sinking ship,
> > with quite a lot of people leaving and many agreeing that gentoo is no fun
> > working on anymore.
On Friday 13 April 2007, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> Steve Long <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > > Brian Harring <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >> Either way, EAPI=1 *should* have a bit more then just slot deps in
> > >> my opinion; very least it needs discussion to discern wh
On Fri, 13 Apr 2007 11:11:07 -0400
Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Except there are. Hence why we want EAPI 1 in the short term, not
> > several years from now. The stuff that will take longer can go into
> > a later EAPI.
>
> this is really up to the portage team to drive
If they i
On Fri, 13 Apr 2007 10:53:38 -0400
Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > It masks all kinds of programming screwups. doblah should make a
> > blah, not make a blah and possibly make a directory.
>
> name one
dosym's old behaviour prevented a broken Vim release (upstream screwed
up a Makef
On Thu, 12 Apr 2007 18:45:13 -0400
Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> PMS:
> - should be up and running on Gentoo infra by next meeting
What is the justification for making this change? It's already
inconvenient enough having to have someone else make bugzilla changes
for me on PMS
Mike Frysinger napsal(a):
* Remove automatic directory making for do*
>>> No
>> It masks all kinds of programming screwups. doblah should make a blah,
>> not make a blah and possibly make a directory.
>
> name one
>
> you're proposing we suddenly bloat all of our src_install functions for no
On Fri, 13 Apr 2007 17:36:33 +0200
Jakub Moc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Mike Frysinger napsal(a):
> * Remove automatic directory making for do*
> >>> No
> >> It masks all kinds of programming screwups. doblah should make a
> >> blah, not make a blah and possibly make a directory.
> >
> > na
On Friday 13 April 2007, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Except there are. Hence why we want EAPI 1 in the short term, not
> > > several years from now. The stuff that will take longer can go into
> > > a later EAPI.
> >
> > this is really up to the portage
On Friday 13 April 2007, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > It masks all kinds of programming screwups. doblah should make a
> > > blah, not make a blah and possibly make a directory.
> >
> > name one
>
> dosym's old behaviour prevented a broken Vim release (up
On 4/13/07, Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
ha, it wont even be leaving package.mask soonish, so i doubt you have any
stable worries
i wonder how hard we want to ride this though ... target 2007.1 ?
It's mid-April and 2007.0 is still nowhere in sight, so the idea that
there will be a
Ciaran McCreesh napsal(a):
> What? No it wouldn't. It would ensure that bugs were caught during the
> src_install phase rather than after a package has been installed.
What kind of bugs exactly? The ones *created* by this behavior change?
I'd rather not create such bugs for starters, because it's
On Friday 13 April 2007, Alex Tarkovsky wrote:
> On 4/13/07, Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > ha, it wont even be leaving package.mask soonish, so i doubt you have any
> > stable worries
> >
> > i wonder how hard we want to ride this though ... target 2007.1 ?
>
> It's mid-April and 20
On Fri, 13 Apr 2007 18:22:24 +0200
Jakub Moc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ciaran McCreesh napsal(a):
> > What? No it wouldn't. It would ensure that bugs were caught during
> > the src_install phase rather than after a package has been
> > installed.
>
> What kind of bugs exactly? The ones *created
On Fri, 13 Apr 2007 11:52:16 -0400
Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > you're proposing we suddenly bloat all of our src_install
> > > functions for no gain at all ... sounds like a no brainer to me
> >
> > No, I'm proposing that functions not have strange side effects.
>
> the behavio
On 4/13/07, Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Friday 13 April 2007, Alex Tarkovsky wrote:
> It's mid-April and 2007.0 is still nowhere in sight
you're clearly not part of the release process
Can you tell us the release date then?
I didn't think so. :)
--Alex
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] m
On Fri, 2007-04-13 at 11:23 -0500, Alex Tarkovsky wrote:
> It's mid-April and 2007.0 is still nowhere in sight, so the idea that
> there will be a 2007.1 is looking increasingly unrealistic. Please
> don't make baselayout-2's unmasking contingent on that.
I guess I should just delete all this 2007
On Friday 13 April 2007, Alex Tarkovsky wrote:
> On 4/13/07, Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Friday 13 April 2007, Alex Tarkovsky wrote:
> > > It's mid-April and 2007.0 is still nowhere in sight
> >
> > you're clearly not part of the release process
>
> Can you tell us the release
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Apr 2007 18:45:13 -0400
> Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> PMS:
>> - should be up and running on Gentoo infra by next meeting
>>
>
> What is the justification for making this change? It's already
> inconvenient enough having to have som
Ciaran McCreesh napsal(a):
> You're missing the point.
>
> As of a year or so ago, dosym will succeed even if the dosym target
> directory doesn't exist, and even if it means creating arbitrary
> directories. Some other utilities, such as dohard for example, will
> fail under otherwise identical c
On Fri, 13 Apr 2007 17:58:52 +0100
Steve Long <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> PMS:
> >> - should be up and running on Gentoo infra by next meeting
> >
> > What is the justification for making this change? It's already
> > incon
Jakub Moc kirjoitti:
>
> Well of course it's the users who will see it, see above. It's not like
> that we would have 100 volunteers around to drop everything they have in
> their hands a go spend days on changing ebuilds that are not broken just
> because of this idea.
>
>
We are talking about
On Fri, 13 Apr 2007 19:06:42 +0200
Jakub Moc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Err, your suggestion was:
>
> * Remove automatic directory making for do*
Because I was giving a one line summary, rather than a description of
the full change. The full description has been discussed elsewhere
several time
Ciaran McCreesh napsal(a):
> If someone can provide a good reason for changing to a system that's
> more work, I'll change. If there isn't a good reason, I won't.
Maybe if you actually read the council log, you'd see the reason? yeah,
it's indeed there, believe me.
--
Best regards,
Jakub Moc
On Fri, 13 Apr 2007 13:02:00 -0400
Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Friday 13 April 2007, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > These fail:
> >
> > cp somefile dirdoesnotexist/
> > mv somefile dirdoesnotexist/
> > ln -s somefile dirdoesnotexist/
> > dohard somefile dirdoesnotexist/
> > mkdir dir
On Fri, 13 Apr 2007 19:20:46 +0200
Jakub Moc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ciaran McCreesh napsal(a):
> > If someone can provide a good reason for changing to a system that's
> > more work, I'll change. If there isn't a good reason, I won't.
>
> Maybe if you actually read the council log, you'd see
On Friday 13 April 2007, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> On Fri, 2007-04-13 at 11:23 -0500, Alex Tarkovsky wrote:
> > It's mid-April and 2007.0 is still nowhere in sight, so the idea that
> > there will be a 2007.1 is looking increasingly unrealistic. Please
> > don't make baselayout-2's unmasking contin
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > > you're proposing we suddenly bloat all of our src_install
>> > > functions for no gain at all
How big a bloat is it? Surely it's a coupla lines in the eclasses? Cos the
behaviour is inconsistent, as Ciaran pointed out.
>> >
Ciaran McCreesh napsal(a):
> On Fri, 13 Apr 2007 19:20:46 +0200
> Jakub Moc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Ciaran McCreesh napsal(a):
>>> If someone can provide a good reason for changing to a system that's
>>> more work, I'll change. If there isn't a good reason, I won't.
>> Maybe if you actually r
Alex Tarkovsky kirjoitti:
>
> So I promise to get myself a clue just as soon as you've changed your
> policies to be more inclusive and less hostile towards users. Deal? :)
>
The thing is that your comment was probably perceived as a negative
comment about our releases being late or something like
On Fri, Apr 13, 2007 at 07:20:46PM +0200, Jakub Moc wrote:
> Ciaran McCreesh napsal(a):
> > If someone can provide a good reason for changing to a system that's
> > more work, I'll change. If there isn't a good reason, I won't.
>
> Maybe if you actually read the council log, you'd see the reason?
On Friday 13 April 2007, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Friday 13 April 2007, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > > These fail:
> > >
> > > cp somefile dirdoesnotexist/
> > > mv somefile dirdoesnotexist/
> > > ln -s somefile dirdoesnotexist/
> > > dohard somefile d
On Friday 13 April 2007 14:42:41 Mike Frysinger wrote:
> i plan on adding old-linux to use.force in the linux-2.4 profiles and
> converting the "no-old-linux" USE flag to that ... that way things like
> module-init-tools from now on will only support linux-2.6+
>
> any comments ?
> -mike
Go ahead,
> > > The arch teams have been pushing for this for a long time. They're
> > > trying to get this enforced, but are having limited success because
> > > there's no way for FEATURES=test to become widely used that won't
> > > lead to broken user systems. Moving src_test to be always on in
> > > fut
>
> The arch teams have been pushing for this for a long time. They're
> trying to get this enforced, but are having limited success because
> there's no way for FEATURES=test to become widely used that won't lead
> to broken user systems. Moving src_test to be always on in future EAPIs
> is an e
On Fri, 13 Apr 2007 19:43:51 +0200
Jakub Moc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [16:49] infra won't give any access to non-devs that needs
> SSH keys.
>
> Isn't that hard to find I'd say?
That's not a reason for moving. That's a reason for not using infra.
--
Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Descrip
Chris Gianelloni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> I'm simply amazed at the level of complete and total bullshit that some
> people spout off on this list without bothering to check facts or take
> 3 seconds to talk to the people in the know. If you don't know what
> you're talking about, rather than op
On Fri, 13 Apr 2007 11:16:14 -0700
Joshua Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Erm, no I have not at all (speaking as a project lead for x86). Test
> is not viable for a lot of reason as being on by default. One that I
> can come up with off the top of my head is php. The test suite for it
> makes
Thilo Bangert wrote:
Chris Gianelloni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
I'm simply amazed at the level of complete and total bullshit that some
people spout off on this list without bothering to check facts or take
3 seconds to talk to the people in the know. If you don't know what
you're talking about
Thilo Bangert napsal(a):
> this seems to come up more often than you like. is this the release
> tracker bug?
> http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=156814
>
> kind regards
> Thilo
Yeah. It's restricted to developers only, though, so not much useful for
users. :)
--
Best regards,
Jakub M
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>> Why exactly does EAPI=1 need to be rushed?
>
> Because the tree needed the functionality in question several years ago.
>
>> I thought the whole point of 0 was allowing a base, so that new stuff
>> could be developed while guaranteeing certain behaviour. What's the
>> hu
[EMAIL PROTECTED] /usr/portage/virtual $ grep 'DEPEND=""' -r . | wc -l
97
[EMAIL PROTECTED] /usr/portage/virtual $ find -name "*.ebuild" | wc -l
102
[EMAIL PROTECTED] /usr/portage/virtual $ find -name "*.ebuild" | xargs
grep -L 'DEPEND=""' | xargs grep DEPEND
./pmake/pmake-0.ebuild:RDEPEND="!user
On Fri, 2007-04-13 at 20:23 +0200, Thilo Bangert wrote:
> Chris Gianelloni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> > I'm simply amazed at the level of complete and total bullshit that some
> > people spout off on this list without bothering to check facts or take
> > 3 seconds to talk to the people in the know
On Fri, 13 Apr 2007 18:17:32 +0100
Steve Long <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Except there are. Hence why we want EAPI 1 in the short term, not
> > several years from now. The stuff that will take longer can go into
> > a later EAPI.
> >
> Man here we go again: I spend a lot of time helping and bei
On Fri, 2007-04-13 at 20:40 +0200, Jakub Moc wrote:
> Thilo Bangert napsal(a):
> > this seems to come up more often than you like. is this the release
> > tracker bug?
> > http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=156814
> >
> > kind regards
> > Thilo
>
>
> Yeah. It's restricted to developers only
On Friday 13 April 2007, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> Joshua Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Erm, no I have not at all (speaking as a project lead for x86). Test
> > is not viable for a lot of reason as being on by default. One that I
> > can come up with off the top of my head is php. The test
Alex Tarkovsky wrote:
> Can you tell us the release date then?
>
> I didn't think so. :)
>
> --Alex
Dickish messages like this one might possibly earn you some "cold
shoulder" or "hostility" from people who work very hard for you...
--
Jeffrey Gardner
Gentoo Developer
Public PGP Key ID: 4A5D8F
Chris Gianelloni napsal(a):
> On Fri, 2007-04-13 at 20:40 +0200, Jakub Moc wrote:
>> Thilo Bangert napsal(a):
>>> http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=156814
>> Yeah. It's restricted to developers only, though, so not much useful for
>> users. :)
>
> Yeah, I did that because we had users adding
On 4/13/07, Jeffrey Gardner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Alex Tarkovsky wrote:
> Can you tell us the release date then?
>
> I didn't think so. :)
>
> --Alex
Dickish messages like this one might possibly earn you some "cold
shoulder" or "hostility" from people who work very hard for you...
1) It'
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>
> If a test suite isn't viable, the ebuild should be RESTRICTing test
> anyway.
>
That means ALL the media applications, almost all the toolchain
applications, most languages and a couple of other items I don't touch.
I don't think it shoud be part of the spec even if y
On Fri, 13 Apr 2007 15:06:44 -0400
Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > If a test suite isn't viable, the ebuild should be RESTRICTing test
> > anyway.
>
> which doesnt apply here ... some packages have ridiculous awesome
> coverage for their source code and take much longer to run than e
Alex Tarkovsky wrote:
> 2) Why must some Gentoo devs like yourself and Mr. Gianelloni reply
> with expletives to things you disagree with? It's no wonder you need
> proctors; unwarranted escalation and invective seems to come so
> naturally here.
Oh come on. Your mail wasn't based on actual facts,
On Fri, 13 Apr 2007 21:29:29 +0200
Luca Barbato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > If a test suite isn't viable, the ebuild should be RESTRICTing test
> > anyway.
>
> That means ALL the media applications, almost all the toolchain
> applications, most languages and a couple of
> > > Er, no, I'm explaining why enforcing src_test for EAPI 1 will be
> > > helpful for an awful lot of Gentoo developers.
> >
> > except that you back the tree into a corner that it cannot come out of
>
> Huh? Not at all. If a package can't use its test suite, the ebuild can
> set RESTRICT=te
> The *only* downside that I can see here is that by default the package
> installation process gets a little longer. To get around this some
> method of globally opting out of src_test should be provided to the end
> user, however since it is an on by default feature someone at least has
> *tried
On Fri, 13 Apr 2007 21:40:53 +0200
Jan Kundrát <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So just get a beer and be cool, okay? It's friday, after all...
No! No beer until my work shift ends! Then I'll join you.
--
Andrej
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
On Friday 13 April 2007 21:55, Andrej Kacian wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Apr 2007 21:40:53 +0200
>
> Jan Kundrát <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > So just get a beer and be cool, okay? It's friday, after all...
>
> No! No beer until my work shift ends! Then I'll join you.
Your work shift ending? Hah you're a
dev-lang/ruby-cvs builds the latest Ruby 1.9.x version from CVS.
Except... upstream has moved to SVN, so this ebuild no longer works. It's
now masked and will be removed in 30 days.
An initial ruby-svn ebuild can be found in https://bugs.gentoo.org/
show_bug.cgi?id=173817 and will hopefully be
On Fri, 2007-04-13 at 12:17 -0700, Daniel Ostrow wrote:
>
>
> > > > Er, no, I'm explaining why enforcing src_test for EAPI 1 will be
> > > > helpful for an awful lot of Gentoo developers.
> > >
> > > except that you back the tree into a corner that it cannot come out of
> >
> > Huh? Not at all.
Hans de Graaff wrote:
dev-lang/ruby-cvs builds the latest Ruby 1.9.x version from CVS.
Except... upstream has moved to SVN, so this ebuild no longer works. It's
now masked and will be removed in 30 days.
Not sure there's any point to waiting the usual 30 days when the ebuild
just can't work
On Fri, 2007-04-13 at 21:16 +0200, Jakub Moc wrote:
> I'm not implying there's anything wrong w/ restricting the bug; just
> that pointing users here to it won't get them very far. ;)
*I* didn't point anyone to that bug, as I knew it was locked and
wouldn't provide our users with much of anything
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Petteri Räty wrote:
> so only three virtual ebuilds have a DEPEND
According to GLEP 37 [1], they should only define RDEPEND. The
reason that only RDEPEND is needed is that a package that has a
virtual dependency has freedom to include the virtual ato
Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Friday 13 April 2007, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 2007-04-13 at 11:23 -0500, Alex Tarkovsky wrote:
>>
>>> It's mid-April and 2007.0 is still nowhere in sight, so the idea that
>>> there will be a 2007.1 is looking increasingly unrealistic. Please
>>> don'
Zac Medico kirjoitti:
>
> [1] http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/glep/glep-0037.html
We should link this info to the devmanual. Opened a bug about this:
https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=174530
Regards,
Petteri
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
On Fri, 13 Apr 2007 21:50:50 +0300
Petteri Räty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] /usr/portage/virtual $ grep 'DEPEND=""' -r . | wc -l
> 97
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] /usr/portage/virtual $ find -name "*.ebuild" | wc -l
> 102
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] /usr/portage/virtual $ find -name "*.ebuild
On Fri, 13 Apr 2007 18:18:27 +0100
Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Apr 2007 19:06:42 +0200
> Jakub Moc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Err, your suggestion was:
> >
> > * Remove automatic directory making for do*
>
> Because I was giving a one line summary, rather than a d
On 4/13/07, Chris Gianelloni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Fri, 2007-04-13 at 21:16 +0200, Jakub Moc wrote:
> I'm not implying there's anything wrong w/ restricting the bug; just
> that pointing users here to it won't get them very far. ;)
*I* didn't point anyone to that bug, as I knew it was lo
On Sat, 14 Apr 2007 00:02:29 +0200
Marius Mauch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Because I was giving a one line summary, rather than a description
> > of the full change. The full description has been discussed
> > elsewhere several times.
>
> I don't remember any discussion about this, so a more s
Hans de Graaff wrote:
> dev-lang/ruby-cvs builds the latest Ruby 1.9.x version from CVS.
> Except... upstream has moved to SVN, so this ebuild no longer works. It's
> now masked and will be removed in 30 days.
>
Is there any point in waiting 30 days? Since the ebuild just doesn't
work because
Alex Tarkovsky wrote:
On 4/13/07, Chris Gianelloni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Fri, 2007-04-13 at 21:16 +0200, Jakub Moc wrote:
> I'm not implying there's anything wrong w/ restricting the bug; just
> that pointing users here to it won't get them very far. ;)
*I* didn't point anyone to that b
Doug Goldstein wrote:
Hans de Graaff wrote:
dev-lang/ruby-cvs builds the latest Ruby 1.9.x version from CVS.
Except... upstream has moved to SVN, so this ebuild no longer works. It's
now masked and will be removed in 30 days.
Is there any point in waiting 30 days? Since the ebuild j
Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted
[EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Fri, 13 Apr 2007
20:33:09 +0100:
> On Fri, 13 Apr 2007 15:06:44 -0400
> Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > If a test suite isn't viable, the ebuild should be RESTRICTing test
>> > anyway.
>>
>> which do
On Friday 13 April 2007, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Sat, 14 Apr 2007 00:02:29 +0200
>
> Marius Mauch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Because I was giving a one line summary, rather than a description
> > > of the full change. The full description has been discussed
> > > elsewhere several times.
On Friday 13 April 2007, Daniel Ostrow wrote:
> 1). Even though src_test is not mandatory in the here and now any
> package that provides a test suite that fails said tests has a bug. It
> may not be a critical bug but it is in fact a bug.
>
> 2). The proper fix, again in the here and now, for said
On Fri, Apr 13, 2007 at 03:06:44PM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> which doesnt apply here ... some packages have ridiculous awesome coverage
> for
> their source code and take much longer to run than even compile the package
Furthermore, there are packages with testcases where if you want them,
y
On Fri, 13 Apr 2007 18:49:05 -0400, Doug Goldstein wrote:
> Hans de Graaff wrote:
>> dev-lang/ruby-cvs builds the latest Ruby 1.9.x version from CVS.
>> Except... upstream has moved to SVN, so this ebuild no longer works.
>> It's now masked and will be removed in 30 days.
>>
>>
> Is there any po
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> What, you're saying they all ship with test suites that exist but don't
> work?
anything that takes more than 10m to test is broken from an user point
of view: you want the application, not having it tested.
I'd rather keep it in features since tests are _optional_, not n
Fabian Groffen wrote:
> This GLEP has been laying around for some long time now in my gleps dir.
> I nearly forgot about it. Anyway, feedback is appreciated.
>
Since it is "a keywording scheme that is compatible with the scheme that is
currently in use" and fulfils all the requirements, it sounds
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>> It's not such a big deal in practise is it?
>
> Yes, it is. It's a change in workflow, and it at least doubles the
> amount of work for each commit.
>
do what? if it's so tricky write a script..
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
On Saturday 14 April 2007 18:14:48 Luca Barbato wrote:
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > What, you're saying they all ship with test suites that exist but don't
> > work?
>
> anything that takes more than 10m to test is broken from an user point
> of view: you want the application,
Indeed, but speaking
Ilya A. Volynets-Evenbakh wrote:
> I'd say Ciaran has to have write access to any such repository,
> as one of the main contributors.
>
Face it, he's never going to get write access to gentoo infra. The best
gentoo can give him is access via spb, who has made it clear he'll simply
be pulling in wh
Hi,
Tempted by this recent thread, wanna just voice my thoughts.
Can't there be some way (GWN, Bug, some general-purpose IRC channel
etc.) on which users could at least be informed that work is under way
to release 2007.0, with some kind of feedback.
Releng could just choose to ignore it at all, bu
Petteri Räty wrote:
> We should link this info to the devmanual.
Yeah that was v. instructive. Since there's only 3 ebuilds left with the old
syntax, the obvious question is: is there anything else holding up impl of
the GLEP?
Also, would the preferred syntax be open to usage in eg recommended de
96 matches
Mail list logo
