21.08.2013 22:28, Alexis Ballier пишет:
>
> Instead of dropping them entirely to ~arch, maybe something in between
> could be done: Said arches could start moving to ~arch the leaf and
> less important packages. E.g. we have (had?) a lot of sparc keywords on
> sound packages or ppc keywords on oca
On 22 August 2013 01:19, Matt Turner wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 8:50 AM, Markos Chandras wrote:
>> Is there an alternative? afaik a profile can be either stable,dev or
>> exp. I can't see how we can implement something between
>> stable and dev. And what would that represent? It may or may
On 21 August 2013 23:03, Sergey Popov wrote:
> 15.08.2013 12:12, Pacho Ramos пишет:
>> El mié, 14-08-2013 a las 15:17 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh escribió:
>>
>> Ah, looks like I was too optimistic and we are (again) with the usual
>> blocking (and blocker) issues -_- (PMS refusing to include something
On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 10:05 PM, Albert Hopkins wrote:
> This sounds like cool stuff... I wonder if this could be a step towards
> unprivileged users being able to use portage for user-installed apps.
Sounds like Prefix, lite?
Rich
This sounds like cool stuff... I wonder if this could be a step towards
unprivileged users being able to use portage for user-installed apps.
On 21 August 2013 20:10, Alexis Ballier wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Aug 2013 20:03:30 +0100
> Markos Chandras wrote:
>
>> On 21 August 2013 19:28, Alexis Ballier wrote:
>> >
>> > Instead of dropping them entirely to ~arch, maybe something in
>> > between could be done: Said arches could start moving to
On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 10:56 AM, Tom Wijsman wrote:
>
> That doesn't make it a special case here, imo; especially not, since
> we are designing and implementing ebuilds that _build_ the kernel.
> Whether it provides the sources, or build it; what does that matter?
Yes and no. I don't think the
On Wed, 21 Aug 2013 20:03:30 +0100
Markos Chandras wrote:
> On 21 August 2013 19:28, Alexis Ballier wrote:
> >
> > Instead of dropping them entirely to ~arch, maybe something in
> > between could be done: Said arches could start moving to ~arch the
> > leaf and less important packages. E.g. we h
On 21 August 2013 19:28, Alexis Ballier wrote:
>
> Instead of dropping them entirely to ~arch, maybe something in between
> could be done: Said arches could start moving to ~arch the leaf and
> less important packages. E.g. we have (had?) a lot of sparc keywords on
> sound packages or ppc keywords
> On Wed, 21 Aug 2013, I wrote:
> Maybe we could change the test for an array to the following?
> elif ! declare +a DOCS &>/dev/null; then
I retract this suggestion. It doesn't work because of issues with
local and global scope.
Sorry for the noise.
Ulrich
Instead of dropping them entirely to ~arch, maybe something in between
could be done: Said arches could start moving to ~arch the leaf and
less important packages. E.g. we have (had?) a lot of sparc keywords on
sound packages or ppc keywords on ocaml ones because at some point
(~10 years ago) some
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 08/21/2013 05:56 PM, Michael Weber wrote:
> On 08/21/2013 01:04 PM, Markos Chandras wrote:
>> The manpower on these arches is below acceptable levels and they
>> often block stabilizations for many months. This also causes
>> troubles to developer
On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 8:50 AM, Markos Chandras wrote:
> Is there an alternative? afaik a profile can be either stable,dev or
> exp. I can't see how we can implement something between
> stable and dev. And what would that represent? It may or may not be
> stable? If this is the case, then I belie
On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 8:40 AM, Mike Gilbert wrote:
> The proposal is to drop stable keywords on arches that cannot keep up.
> Do you feel this is not the case on alpha?
I'm not sure if that's my claim. I'm worried because I think it might
be a disaster for alpha (and perhaps other architectures
On 21/08/13 12:23 PM, Michael Palimaka wrote:
>> Imho the situation is that agos intensive work displaced all the other
>> ones, or they at least rely on ago doing the work and loose focus.
>>
> At one point before Ago came along, stabilisation of Qt was taking so
> long we had to start masking rev
On 22/08/2013 01:32, Matt Turner wrote:
I want some level between "stable and completely supported" and "loses
all its stable keywords.", at least for alpha.
Is switching their profiles to dev the way to do that?
What would you feel about instead of dropping stable completely,
re-evaluating whi
On 22/08/2013 01:56, Michael Weber wrote:
On 08/21/2013 01:04 PM, Markos Chandras wrote:
The manpower on these arches is below acceptable levels and they often
block stabilizations
for many months. This also causes troubles to developers trying to get
rid of old versions of
packages.
I am CC'in
21.08.2013 17:38, Wyatt Epp пишет:
> Fundamentally, I see this as a problem of tooling.
I think that no tool can cover all cases of checking that software
WORKS. I mean - in generic, for all kinds of software. You can guarantee
if it builds, if it follow some QA rules about CFLAGS/LDFLAGS/whateve
On 08/21/2013 01:04 PM, Markos Chandras wrote:
> The manpower on these arches is below acceptable levels and they often
> block stabilizations
> for many months. This also causes troubles to developers trying to get
> rid of old versions of
> packages.
>
> I am CC'ing Mike and on this to draw his
On 21 August 2013 16:32, Matt Turner wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 4:04 AM, Markos Chandras wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> It's time of year again to consider moving a few arches to dev-only status.
>>
>> I propose the following arches to lose their stable keywords
>>
>> - s390
>> - sh
>> - ia64
>> - alp
On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 11:32 AM, Matt Turner wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 4:04 AM, Markos Chandras wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> It's time of year again to consider moving a few arches to dev-only status.
>>
>> I propose the following arches to lose their stable keywords
>>
>> - s390
>> - sh
>> - ia64
On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 4:04 AM, Markos Chandras wrote:
> Hi,
>
> It's time of year again to consider moving a few arches to dev-only status.
>
> I propose the following arches to lose their stable keywords
>
> - s390
> - sh
> - ia64
> - alpha
> - m68k
> - sparc
I want some level between "stable
20.08.2013 17:22, Sergey Popov пишет:
> 20.08.2013 17:02, Michał Górny пишет:
>> Is there a future-eapi bug open for it? If not, please open one.
>
> I will, thanks
Here it is: https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=481980
--
Best regards, Sergey Popov
Gentoo developer
Gentoo Desktop-effects
21.08.2013 15:04, Markos Chandras пишет:
> Hi,
>
> It's time of year again to consider moving a few arches to dev-only status.
>
> I propose the following arches to lose their stable keywords
>
> - s390
> - sh
> - ia64
> - alpha
> - m68k
> - sparc
>
> The manpower on these arches is below accep
On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 10:27 AM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
> That's not to say that gentoo-sources shouldn't follow the regular
> overall stabilization policies, but focusing on the kernel as the
> impetus for adjusting the stabilization policy or pointing out what's
> wrong with the policy as a wh
15.08.2013 12:12, Pacho Ramos пишет:
> El mié, 14-08-2013 a las 15:17 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh escribió:
>
> Ah, looks like I was too optimistic and we are (again) with the usual
> blocking (and blocker) issues -_- (PMS refusing to include something
> because of "lack of documentation" :S)
>
>
An
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, 21 Aug 2013 10:27:51 -0400
Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA256
>
> On 21/08/13 08:36 AM, Tom Wijsman wrote:
> >
> > Given the kernel volume, I think even CVE's don't cover
> > everything...
> >
>
>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 21/08/13 08:36 AM, Tom Wijsman wrote:
>
> Given the kernel volume, I think even CVE's don't cover
> everything...
>
Kernel is really a special case here, imo -- emerge doesn't install
kernels, it just provides their sources. End-users still ne
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 21/08/13 07:45 AM, hasufell wrote:
> On 08/20/2013 01:01 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
>> Hello,
>
>> Due to the widespread breakage in the tree noted in bug #480892
>> [1], and mis-design of multilib-minimal.eclass, we'd like to put
>> some more wor
> On Wed, 21 Aug 2013, Michał Górny wrote:
> elif [[ $(declare -p DOCS) == "declare -a "* ]] ; then
Thinking about it again, the pattern matching (already present in
default_src_install of EAPI 4) is brittle and relies on the output
of declare -p whose exact format is undocumented.
Maybe
On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 5:50 AM, Sergey Popov wrote:
>
> As i said earlier, we should recruit more people -> then problem will go
> away.
This is a point most of the people in this thread seem to be dancing
around that's sort of problematic. You can talk about recruiting
until you're blue in the
El mié, 21-08-2013 a las 14:35 +0200, Ulrich Mueller escribió:
> > On Wed, 21 Aug 2013, Pacho Ramos wrote:
>
> > Could appending to DOCS be allowed? I have seen a lot of time of me
> > needing to install all docs "manually" only to add a doc file over
> > default DOCS. Would be interesting to
El mié, 21-08-2013 a las 14:25 +0200, Tom Wijsman escribió:
[...]
> > 2) recruit more arch testers/arch team members;
>
> Same point as before, let's see if that will be enough.
>
Well, ago has being doing a great work getting more Arch Testers (at
least for amd64), maybe some of them could give
On Wed, 21 Aug 2013 16:22:28 +0400
Sergey Popov wrote:
> 21.08.2013 14:29, Tom Wijsman пишет:
> > On Wed, 21 Aug 2013 13:42:56 +0400
> > You do draw assumptions, because you don't take a look; please do:
> >
> > https://bugs.gentoo.org/buglist.cgi?quicksearch=assignee%3Asecurity%40gentoo.org%20C
> On Wed, 21 Aug 2013, Pacho Ramos wrote:
> Could appending to DOCS be allowed? I have seen a lot of time of me
> needing to install all docs "manually" only to add a doc file over
> default DOCS. Would be interesting to simply do: DOCS+=( otherfile )
> instead of needing to specify all files
On Wed, 21 Aug 2013 16:16:53 +0400
Sergey Popov wrote:
> >> And if you want to move stabilization checks to unqualified users,
> >> then it is way to nowhere.
> >
> > No, because there would be much more users giving feedback.
>
> Feedback is good. But if it simple "works for me" without tests
21.08.2013 14:29, Tom Wijsman пишет:
> On Wed, 21 Aug 2013 13:42:56 +0400
> You do draw assumptions, because you don't take a look; please do:
>
> https://bugs.gentoo.org/buglist.cgi?quicksearch=assignee%3Asecurity%40gentoo.org%20CC%3Akernel%40gentoo.org
>
> Sort by "Changed" such that the newest
21.08.2013 14:36, Tom Wijsman пишет:
> On Wed, 21 Aug 2013 13:54:51 +0400
> Sergey Popov wrote:
>
>> 21.08.2013 13:13, Tom Wijsman пишет:
>>> On Wed, 21 Aug 2013 12:32:35 +0400
>>> Sergey Popov wrote:
>>>
21.08.2013 12:13, Tom Wijsman пишет:
> Recruiting shows to be a hard task; so, the
On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 4:39 AM, Tom Wijsman wrote:
>
> "The latest distros seemed to be just a bunch of same old stuff.
> Nothing new -- nothing innovative." ~ Larry's frustration. :(
>
> "Then Larry tried Gentoo Linux. He was just impressed. ... He
> discovered lots of up-to-date packages ..." ~
On 21 August 2013 19:04, Markos Chandras wrote:
> Hi,
>
> It's time of year again to consider moving a few arches to dev-only status.
>
> I propose the following arches to lose their stable keywords
>
> - s390
> - sh
> - ia64
> - alpha
> - m68k
> - sparc
>
++
And consider adding ppc and ppc64 to
El mié, 21-08-2013 a las 13:45 +0200, hasufell escribió:
> On 08/20/2013 01:01 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > Due to the widespread breakage in the tree noted in bug #480892
> > [1], and mis-design of multilib-minimal.eclass, we'd like to put
> > some more work into getting einstalldoc
>
> Mips, as you know, has been ~arch for a while and we've been doing just fine
> with it.
>
> We can't pretend, however, that this doesn't shift some burden to the user.
> One example is perl where some modules need 5.12.4 (the current stable) and
> cannot use 5.16.x (~arch). On mips you might e
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 08/20/2013 01:01 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Due to the widespread breakage in the tree noted in bug #480892
> [1], and mis-design of multilib-minimal.eclass, we'd like to put
> some more work into getting einstalldocs() ready for EAPI 6.
On 08/21/2013 07:04 AM, Markos Chandras wrote:
Hi,
It's time of year again to consider moving a few arches to dev-only status.
I propose the following arches to lose their stable keywords
- s390
- sh
- ia64
- alpha
- m68k
- sparc
Mips, as you know, has been ~arch for a while and we've been
Markos Chandras writes:
> I propose the following arches to lose their stable keywords
>
> - s390
> - sh
> - ia64
> - alpha
> - m68k
> - sparc
I support this proposal.
I only have an old sparc box at hand. They are no longer major as time
goes, IMHO.
21.08.2013 15:04, Markos Chandras пишет:
> Hi,
>
> It's time of year again to consider moving a few arches to dev-only status.
>
> I propose the following arches to lose their stable keywords
>
> - s390
> - sh
> - ia64
> - alpha
> - m68k
> - sparc
+1 for that. Perl herd has *really* many work with
On 21/08/2013 21:04, Markos Chandras wrote:
I propose the following arches to lose their stable keywords
- s390
- sh
- ia64
- alpha
- m68k
- sparc
+1
El mié, 21-08-2013 a las 12:04 +0100, Markos Chandras escribió:
[...]
> If I get enough positive feedback on this, I will propose this in the
> next Council's agenda.
>
+ :)
On 08/21/2013 12:35 AM, Ben de Groot wrote:
> On 21 August 2013 04:12, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
>> [snip]
>> Ok, this one is ridiculous. The stable version of Rails is 2.3.18, and
>> 3.0 was released almost exactly three years ago. Every time rails-3.x
>> gets bumped, I have to manually update the
On Wed, 21 Aug 2013 13:09:55 +0200
Dirkjan Ochtman wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 1:04 PM, Markos Chandras
> wrote:
> > I propose the following arches to lose their stable keywords
> >
> > - s390
> > - sh
> > - ia64
> > - alpha
> > - m68k
> > - sparc
>
> +many.
++many.
If any of these arche
On 08/21/2013 01:04 PM, Markos Chandras wrote:
Hi,
It's time of year again to consider moving a few arches to dev-only status.
I propose the following arches to lose their stable keywords
- s390
- sh
- ia64
- alpha
- m68k
- sparc
The manpower on these arches is below acceptable levels and the
El mié, 21-08-2013 a las 10:57 +0200, Tom Wijsman escribió:
> On Wed, 21 Aug 2013 10:22:39 +0200
> Pacho Ramos wrote:
>
> > Regarding the kernel... well, I don't think having a 3.8.x kernel as
> > stable one is so old, what are current kernel versions in stable
> > Fedora, OpenSuSE, Mageia... las
El mié, 21-08-2013 a las 11:16 +0200, Tom Wijsman escribió:
[...]
> That's not what I am suggesting.
>
> It is not about bringing in new versions, but about getting rid of
> OLD versions which LIKELY contain MORE security problems than you
> imagine. Keeping them around for too long time isn't rea
El mié, 21-08-2013 a las 11:52 +0200, Michał Górny escribió:
> Dnia 2013-08-20, o godz. 13:01:34
> Michał Górny napisał(a):
>
> > Hello,
> >
> > Due to the widespread breakage in the tree noted in bug #480892 [1],
> > and mis-design of multilib-minimal.eclass, we'd like to put some more
> > work
On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 1:04 PM, Markos Chandras wrote:
> I propose the following arches to lose their stable keywords
>
> - s390
> - sh
> - ia64
> - alpha
> - m68k
> - sparc
+many.
Cheers,
Dirkjan
Hi,
It's time of year again to consider moving a few arches to dev-only status.
I propose the following arches to lose their stable keywords
- s390
- sh
- ia64
- alpha
- m68k
- sparc
The manpower on these arches is below acceptable levels and they often
block stabilizations
for many months. Thi
> On Wed, 21 Aug 2013, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Aug 2013, Michał Górny wrote:
>> Proposed implementation follows:
>> elif [[ $(declare -p DOCS) == "declare -a "* ]] ; then
I forgot about another issue pointed out by Arfrever some time ago.
We may want to change the above to
On Wed, 21 Aug 2013 13:50:22 +0400
Sergey Popov wrote:
> Easing stabilization procedure makes stable more, well, unstable.
It doesn't have to be easier; it just has to be done differently, in
which way we can benefit from the users whom are actively testing it.
Currently we use "no bugs were fil
On 21/08/2013 20:31, Tom Wijsman wrote:
On Wed, 21 Aug 2013 20:13:00 +1000
Michael Palimaka wrote:
For those not familiar with imlate, please note that these numbers
include packages that have never been stabilised.
True, this brings up two questions:
1. How do we filter out those that we
On 08/20/2013 01:01 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Due to the widespread breakage in the tree noted in bug #480892 [1],
> and mis-design of multilib-minimal.eclass, we'd like to put some more
> work into getting einstalldocs() ready for EAPI 6.
What mis-design?
On Wed, 21 Aug 2013 13:54:51 +0400
Sergey Popov wrote:
> 21.08.2013 13:13, Tom Wijsman пишет:
> > On Wed, 21 Aug 2013 12:32:35 +0400
> > Sergey Popov wrote:
> >
> >> 21.08.2013 12:13, Tom Wijsman пишет:
> >>> Recruiting shows to be a hard task; so, the suggestions I am doing
> >>> are assuming
> On Wed, 21 Aug 2013, Michał Górny wrote:
> Proposed implementation follows:
> einstalldocs() {
> if ! declare -p DOCS &>/dev/null ; then
> local d
> for d in README* ChangeLog AUTHORS NEWS TODO CHANGES \
> THANKS BUGS FAQ CREDITS CHANGELOG ; do
>
On Wed, 21 Aug 2013 20:13:00 +1000
Michael Palimaka wrote:
> For those not familiar with imlate, please note that these numbers
> include packages that have never been stabilised.
True, this brings up two questions:
1. How do we filter out those that were never stabilized?
2. How much of th
On Wed, 21 Aug 2013 13:42:56 +0400
Sergey Popov wrote:
> So it is definitely NOT 7 weeks
Let me clarify this again, our last stable kernel is from 7 weeks ago.
> 21.08.2013 13:28, Tom Wijsman пишет:
> > That is 3.10.7, not 3.10; please look into how kernel releases work,
> > minor releases are
On 21/08/2013 07:05, Tom Wijsman wrote:
See `imlate --mtime=180 -s | less`. (From app-portage/gentoolkit-dev)
I quote:
==
4392 Stable candidates for 'gentoo' on 'amd64'
==
Let's double the number to a yea
21.08.2013 13:13, Tom Wijsman пишет:
> On Wed, 21 Aug 2013 12:32:35 +0400
> Sergey Popov wrote:
>
>> 21.08.2013 12:13, Tom Wijsman пишет:
>>> Recruiting shows to be a hard task; so, the suggestions I am doing
>>> are assuming that that doesn't work out. In which case, I wonder
>>> what "by some o
Dnia 2013-08-20, o godz. 13:01:34
Michał Górny napisał(a):
> Hello,
>
> Due to the widespread breakage in the tree noted in bug #480892 [1],
> and mis-design of multilib-minimal.eclass, we'd like to put some more
> work into getting einstalldocs() ready for EAPI 6.
>
> When it's mostly defined,
21.08.2013 13:17, Manuel Rüger пишет:
>
> Security team could maintain its own p.accept_keywords in profiles/ and
> add testing keyworded ebuilds that fix security issues there.
> Users who are interested skipping the stabilization process could link
> it into their /etc/portage/p.accept_keywords
21.08.2013 13:28, Tom Wijsman пишет:
> That is 3.10.7, not 3.10; please look into how kernel releases work,
> minor releases are merely a small number of "backported" "known" fixes.
>
> What you propose, waiting 30 days for a minor; simply doesn't work
> when there are one to two minors a week, it
On Wed, 21 Aug 2013 12:49:03 +0400
Sergey Popov wrote:
> 21.08.2013 12:39, Tom Wijsman пишет:
> > "The latest distros seemed to be just a bunch of same old stuff.
> > Nothing new -- nothing innovative." ~ Larry's frustration. :(
> >
> > "Then Larry tried Gentoo Linux. He was just impressed. ...
On Wed, 21 Aug 2013 12:46:17 +0400
Sergey Popov wrote:
> 21.08.2013 12:25, Tom Wijsman пишет:
> >
> > 3.10 is not a shiny new version, it has been in the Portage tree
> > for 7 weeks now (upstream release at 2013-06-30 22:13:42 (GMT));
> > so, that's almost double the time you are suggesting.
>
On 08/21/2013 09:57 AM, Sergey Popov wrote:
> 20.08.2013 23:42, Tom Wijsman пишет:
>> On Tue, 20 Aug 2013 14:29:09 -0400
>> Wyatt Epp wrote:
>>> What manner of bitrot?
>>
>> They might ...
>>
>> 2. ... contain security bugs that later versions have fixed.
>
> There should be security bug on our
Am Mittwoch, 21. August 2013, 10:39:23 schrieb Tom Wijsman:
>
> "The latest distros seemed to be just a bunch of same old stuff.
> Nothing new -- nothing innovative." ~ Larry's frustration. :(
>
> "Then Larry tried Gentoo Linux. He was just impressed. ... He
> discovered lots of up-to-date package
On Wed, 21 Aug 2013 12:21:41 +0400
Sergey Popov wrote:
> 21.08.2013 12:17, Tom Wijsman пишет:
> > On Wed, 21 Aug 2013 11:57:22 +0400
> > Sergey Popov wrote:
> >
> >> 20.08.2013 23:42, Tom Wijsman пишет:
> >>> On Tue, 20 Aug 2013 14:29:09 -0400
> >>> Wyatt Epp wrote:
> What manner of bitro
On Wed, 21 Aug 2013 12:32:35 +0400
Sergey Popov wrote:
> 21.08.2013 12:13, Tom Wijsman пишет:
> > Recruiting shows to be a hard task; so, the suggestions I am doing
> > are assuming that that doesn't work out. In which case, I wonder
> > what "by some other ways" you would think of...
>
> Droppi
On 21/08/2013 18:30, Tom Wijsman wrote:
On Wed, 21 Aug 2013 17:04:45 +1000
Michael Palimaka wrote:
We would probably benefit from formalising a clearer definition of
arch/~arch - it seems to mean a lot of different things to different
people.
http://devmanual.gentoo.org/keywording lists a de
On Wed, 21 Aug 2013 10:22:39 +0200
Pacho Ramos wrote:
> Regarding the kernel... well, I don't think having a 3.8.x kernel as
> stable one is so old, what are current kernel versions in stable
> Fedora, OpenSuSE, Mageia... last time I checked we weren't so ahead
> on this (thanks to kernel team ;)
21.08.2013 12:39, Tom Wijsman пишет:
> "The latest distros seemed to be just a bunch of same old stuff.
> Nothing new -- nothing innovative." ~ Larry's frustration. :(
>
> "Then Larry tried Gentoo Linux. He was just impressed. ... He
> discovered lots of up-to-date packages ..." ~ Larry's happines
On Wed, 21 Aug 2013 18:23:33 +1000
Michael Palimaka wrote:
> On 21/08/2013 18:10, Tom Wijsman wrote:
> > On Wed, 21 Aug 2013 16:51:37 +1000
> > Michael Palimaka wrote:
> >
> >> On 21/08/2013 05:31, Tom Wijsman wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Tue, 20 Aug 2013 14:28:15 -0400
> >>> Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
>
21.08.2013 12:25, Tom Wijsman пишет:
>
> 3.10 is not a shiny new version, it has been in the Portage tree for 7
> weeks now (upstream release at 2013-06-30 22:13:42 (GMT)); so, that's
> almost double the time you are suggesting.
>
Current stabilization target(3.10.7) was added to tree:
*gentoo-
On Tue, 20 Aug 2013 20:42:57 -0400
Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 5:03 PM, Andreas K. Huettel
> wrote:
> >
> > Stable implies "not so often changing". If you really need newer
> > packages on a system that has to be rock-solid, then keyword what
> > you need and nothing else.
>
>
21.08.2013 12:13, Tom Wijsman пишет:
> Recruiting shows to be a hard task; so, the suggestions I am doing are
> assuming that that doesn't work out. In which case, I wonder what "by
> some other ways" you would think of...
Dropping some keywords to unstable on minor arches. And about
recruiting, i
On Wed, 21 Aug 2013 17:04:45 +1000
Michael Palimaka wrote:
> We would probably benefit from formalising a clearer definition of
> arch/~arch - it seems to mean a lot of different things to different
> people.
http://devmanual.gentoo.org/keywording lists a definition; so, now I
wonder what it co
On Wed, 21 Aug 2013 12:07:16 +0400
Sergey Popov wrote:
> 21.08.2013 00:06, Tom Wijsman пишет:
> > On Tue, 20 Aug 2013 15:41:42 -0400
> > Rich Freeman wrote:
> >
> >>> Let me dig up an example...
> >>>
> >>> Our last sys-kernel/gentoo-sources stabilization was 3 months ago:
> >>
> >> I don't rea
On 21/08/2013 18:10, Tom Wijsman wrote:
On Wed, 21 Aug 2013 16:51:37 +1000
Michael Palimaka wrote:
On 21/08/2013 05:31, Tom Wijsman wrote:
On Tue, 20 Aug 2013 14:28:15 -0400
Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
That script has been running for long enough now. It doesn't work
out...
What do you mean
21.08.2013 12:17, Tom Wijsman пишет:
> On Wed, 21 Aug 2013 11:57:22 +0400
> Sergey Popov wrote:
>
>> 20.08.2013 23:42, Tom Wijsman пишет:
>>> On Tue, 20 Aug 2013 14:29:09 -0400
>>> Wyatt Epp wrote:
What manner of bitrot?
>>>
>>> They might ...
>>>
>>> 2. ... contain security bugs that later
El mié, 21-08-2013 a las 18:08 +1000, Michael Palimaka escribió:
> On 21/08/2013 17:54, Sergey Popov wrote:
> > Why we should bring new half-stable, half-testing keyword for this? I
> > think that this is no way to go. We should improve current situation
> > with arches by some other ways(e.g., rec
On Wed, 21 Aug 2013 11:57:22 +0400
Sergey Popov wrote:
> 20.08.2013 23:42, Tom Wijsman пишет:
> > On Tue, 20 Aug 2013 14:29:09 -0400
> > Wyatt Epp wrote:
> >> What manner of bitrot?
> >
> > They might ...
> >
> > 2. ... contain security bugs that later versions have fixed.
>
> There should b
On Wed, 21 Aug 2013 11:54:48 +0400
Sergey Popov wrote:
> by some other ways(e.g., recruiting people).
Recruiting shows to be a hard task; so, the suggestions I am doing are
assuming that that doesn't work out. In which case, I wonder what "by
some other ways" you would think of...
--
With kind
On Wed, 21 Aug 2013 16:51:37 +1000
Michael Palimaka wrote:
> On 21/08/2013 05:31, Tom Wijsman wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 20 Aug 2013 14:28:15 -0400
> > Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
> >
> > That script has been running for long enough now. It doesn't work
> > out...
>
> What do you mean when you say it doe
21.08.2013 00:00, Alan McKinnon пишет:
> Hey, maybe you guys are doing your job in ~arch *too well*, to your own
> detriment :-) Something to consider?
~arch should not break every day, yeah(we have hardmasked for that :-P),
but it means that breakages are ALLOWED and it is NORMAL if they are not
21.08.2013 00:06, Tom Wijsman пишет:
> On Tue, 20 Aug 2013 15:41:42 -0400
> Rich Freeman wrote:
>
>>> Let me dig up an example...
>>>
>>> Our last sys-kernel/gentoo-sources stabilization was 3 months ago:
>>
>> I don't really see a problem with stable package being all of 3 months
>> old. Contra
On 21/08/2013 17:54, Sergey Popov wrote:
Why we should bring new half-stable, half-testing keyword for this? I
think that this is no way to go. We should improve current situation
with arches by some other ways(e.g., recruiting people). Maybe drop some
damn-bad understaffed arches to unstable onl
20.08.2013 23:42, Tom Wijsman пишет:
> On Tue, 20 Aug 2013 14:29:09 -0400
> Wyatt Epp wrote:
>> What manner of bitrot?
>
> They might ...
>
> 2. ... contain security bugs that later versions have fixed.
There should be security bug on our bugzilla with quick stabilization on
it and(probably) G
20.08.2013 23:48, Tom Wijsman пишет:
> Yes, +1; last time this came up on chat, I asked whether it would be a
> nice idea to have something between stable and ~, what you propose
> sounds similar and might make sense. Though, on the other hand, doing
> it this way we don't get the advantages that f
20.08.2013 22:28, Ian Stakenvicius пишет:
> I see a few issues with ~arch -> table migrations:
>
> #1 - things just sit in ~arch. The auto-stablereq script should help
> with this one I think; we should give it some time to see if it works out.
My personal opinion on this - there is some package
Le mercredi 21 août 2013 à 12:15 +0800, Ben de Groot a écrit :
> On 21 August 2013 07:36, Gilles Dartiguelongue wrote:
> > Le mardi 20 août 2013 à 17:31 +0400, Sergey Popov a écrit :
> >> 16.08.2013 21:15, hasufell пишет:
> >> > https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=420493
> >> >
> >> > gtk2 and
On 21/08/2013 05:24, Tom Wijsman wrote:
On Tue, 20 Aug 2013 13:19:10 -0500
William Hubbs wrote:
All,
I'm not really sure what the answer to this problem is, so I want to
know what the group thinks about how we can handle it.
During the last release of OpenRC, I learned that people *do* run
p
98 matches
Mail list logo
