Jose Luis Rivero wrote:
I would prefer to analyze the causes of the slacker arch (manpower,
hardware, etc) and if we are not able to solve the problem by any way
(asking for new devs, buying hardware, etc) go for mark it as
experimental and drop all stable keywords.
How is that better? Inste
Jose Luis Rivero <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Mark Loeser wrote:
>> Removing Stable Ebuilds
>> If an ebuild meets the time criteria above, and there are no technical
>> issues
>> preventing stabilization, then the maintainer MAY choose to delete an
>> older
>> version even if it is the most recent
Mark Loeser wrote:
Removing Stable Ebuilds
If an ebuild meets the time criteria above, and there are no technical issues
preventing stabilization, then the maintainer MAY choose to delete an older
version even if it is the most recent stable version for a particular arch.
Mark, I think you are
El lun, 10-11-2008 a las 13:13 -0500, Mark Loeser escribió:
>
> Ebuild Stabilization Time
>
> Arch teams will normally have 30 days from the day a bug was filed, keyworded
> STABLEREQ, the arch was CCed, and the maintainer either filed the bug or
> commented that it was OK to stabilize (clock sta
On 05:30 Sat 01 Nov , Mike Frysinger wrote:
> If you have something you'd wish for us to chat about, maybe even
> vote on, let us know ! Simply reply to this e-mail for the whole
> Gentoo dev list to see.
If anyone has topics they want a council decision on, you really need to
reply to this
Mark Loeser wrote:
I really don't understand why it is better to break the stable trees of
$ARCH instead of just making them all ~ARCH. (ie. ~mips, ~x86-fbsd,
etc). If the $ARCH doesn't have the manpower to do stable reqs then they
don't have the manpower to fix broken stable trees either or
On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 12:23 PM, Mart Raudsepp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On E, 2008-11-10 at 13:13 -0500, Mark Loeser wrote:
>> Removing Stable Ebuilds
>>
>> If an ebuild meets the time criteria above, and there are no technical issues
>> preventing stabilization, then the maintainer MAY choose
On E, 2008-11-10 at 13:13 -0500, Mark Loeser wrote:
> Removing Stable Ebuilds
>
> If an ebuild meets the time criteria above, and there are no technical issues
> preventing stabilization, then the maintainer MAY choose to delete an older
> version even if it is the most recent stable version for a
On Mon, 10 Nov 2008 13:13:34 -0500
Mark Loeser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Arch teams will normally have 30 days from the day a bug was filed,
> keyworded STABLEREQ, the arch was CCed, and the maintainer either
> filed the bug or commented that it was OK to stabilize (clock starts
> when all of th
Instead of addressing archs as being slackers or not, this addresses it
as a more granular layer of looking at ebuilds. Thanks to Richard
Freeman for the initial proposal that I based this off of. Please give me
feedback on this proposal, if you think it sucks (preferably with an
explanation why)
Please, when you need to touch a profile, remember to do it on both
2007.0 and 2008.0 profiles.
The files you need to touch are in:
arch/$ARCH
default-linux/$ARCH
Stop using default/linux/$ARCH unless you need to touch an specific
version of the profile, in that case it would be
default/linux/$AR
2008/11/10 Mateusz Mierzwinski (me.matheos.org) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I just want to install latest media-tv/Elisa (0.5.17 i think) (This is
> Linux MC) but guess what? There is no Elisa in portage (there was,
> because I was checking the forums and even found some Wiki about that -
> that was del
Mateusz Mierzwinski (me.matheos.org) wrote:
> (stuff)
http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=159086
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi,
I just want to install latest media-tv/Elisa (0.5.17 i think) (This is
Linux MC) but guess what? There is no Elisa in portage (there was,
because I was checking the forums and even found some Wiki about that -
that was deleted because of administr
14 matches
Mail list logo
