On Sun, 13 Mar 2011 17:38:29 -0400
"Anthony G. Basile" wrote:
> On 03/13/2011 04:19 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On Saturday, March 12, 2011 07:36:35 Paweł Hajdan, Jr. wrote:
> >> I wonder why pax-utils.eclass uses elog instead of just einfo. An
> >> example message looks like this:
> >>
> >> *
Hi all,
I was nosing through bugzilla, and noticed:
* Number of open bugs is greater than 14,000
* Number of open bugs untouched for more than 2 years - well over 2000.
* Number of open bugs untouched between 1 and 2 years - well over 2000.
* Number of open bugs untouched between 6 months and 1 y
Hi all
I'm finally giving in to reality and retiring as a Gentoo Dev. I've
been effectively inactive since March last year and lack of time
means that isn't going to change any time soon. I'll still be using
Gentoo of course, so I'll still stick my nose in on bugzilla now and
again :)
There's
ave packages that IUSE pch add
a call in pkg_setup (which would either die, or disable distcc).
On a related note, we had a discussion on bug #128810 a while back about
whether the package manager should be doing distcc and ccache at all,
anyway. Personally I think the package manager sho
t at emerge time (well, to be honest, I've
ended up patching portage locally to make the "bad code" thing
non-fatal).
In a broader scope, we could do with a "QA check control" file or
something to provide finer-grained control of these QA checks. However
the QA checks themselves seem to be a bit ad-hoc at the moment.
--
Kevin F. Quinn
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
ould include (concatenate) all the exception
clauses that lead to the same thing into that license file and have the
relevant packages use that license name.
--
Kevin F. Quinn
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
However, with INSTALL_MASK, the user makes the decision never to have
static binaries, and thus gets a system free of static libraries.
--
Kevin F. Quinn
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Sun, 22 Apr 2007 17:46:18 +0200
Danny van Dyk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Am Sonntag, 22. April 2007 schrieb Michael Cummings:
> > On Sat, Apr 21, 2007 at 08:47:54AM +0100, Kevin F. Quinn wrote:
> > > I do the same. The '$Header: $' tells me which version
e revision
identification is _always_ recorded in the file - I've never yet seen
an SCM used in practice that didn't have that information. The reason
people put that information in, is so that when the file is taken out
of the context of the SCM repository, it's still clear wh
of a file in the
CVS tree I last synced to in my overlay, then I can just do a cvs diff
on the tree to get a patch of differences since then. Very useful.
--
Kevin F. Quinn
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
would be more efficient on SVN than CVS, in
terms of the amount of data transferred between the client and server
(svn client sends diffs, cvs client sends whole files, and the diff
operation in the repoman cycle would be local in svn).
--
Kevin F. Quinn
--
Kevin F. Quinn
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
#x27;ve used it
for.
I wouldn't want to write anything sizable in XML, as the markup just
gets in the way, much like many other markup languages (LaTeX, GROFF
etc). Docutils' RST (reStructuredText) is much better in this regard;
its markup is much less intrusive than anything else I've used.
--
Kevin F. Quinn
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
;be
conservative in what you send, liberal in what you receive".
--
Kevin F. Quinn
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Sat, 24 Mar 2007 22:46:07 +0100
Marius Mauch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, 24 Mar 2007 22:07:08 +0100
> "Kevin F. Quinn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Certainly good explanations as to why a bug is being closed are to
> > be encouraged. M
On Sat, 24 Mar 2007 23:17:52 +0200
Alin Năstac <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Kevin F. Quinn wrote:
> > The problem I have with NOTABUG is pretty much the same problem I
> > have with INVALID - it's not as severe, but it still does the same
> > thing to the user
lso harsh for the developers to have to handle bugs that are
> not related to them.
>
> Still, changing the name from INVALID to NOTABUG + NOTOURBUG does
> make sense, as the meaning doesn't get lost.
I don't think we need NOTOURBUG. Anything that's a real bug, but not a
bu
On Sat, 24 Mar 2007 14:48:25 -0400
Michael Cummings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 24, 2007 at 06:34:21PM +0100, Kevin F. Quinn wrote:
> > People reporting bugs often get annoyed when their bug is marked
> > INVALID; especially when they're relatively new to
On Sat, 24 Mar 2007 19:14:38 +0100
Marius Mauch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, 24 Mar 2007 18:34:21 +0100
> "Kevin F. Quinn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > People reporting bugs often get annoyed when their bug is marked
> > INVALID; especiall
ardless what we think of it. To that end
I'd like to propose bugzilla be reconfigured to use the phrase
"NOCHANGE" instead of "INVALID". NOCHANGE would indicate that whatever
the original issue, no change is needed on our part to resolve the
issue.
Any reasons why this
the removals then). Noting the expected downgrade in the
changelog when the higher-numbers are removed is important (this is
what users will see if they do emerge -l).
--
Kevin F. Quinn
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
I'd just like to say good job and thanks, to all involved in the CoC.
--
Kevin F. Quinn
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
him. Be part of the
solution, not the part of the problem.
--
Kevin F. Quinn
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
e", I think is the appropriate response :)
Seriously, if you want portage to be re-factored, just go ahead and do
it; there's nothing to stop you.
--
Kevin F. Quinn
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
e debate, to
join that list, which may help limit the number of people who get
involved. Perhaps gentoo-discuss.
--
Kevin F. Quinn
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
should and should not be in the CoC.
The scope can be decided in broad discussion - after which the CoC can
be drafted off-line and then presented for review against the scope
before final sign-off.
--
Kevin F. Quinn
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 18:18:58 +0100
Christian Faulhammer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Kevin F. Quinn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> > So please, friends, just ignore it, nothing positive will come of
> > it.
>
> Unfortunately it made its way onto big
ens every few months
or so, and IMO it's more about steam venting than the specific
issues at hand at the time. Responding to the sort of pathetic
blogging seen on Distrowatch is a bad thing, its sends the signal that
rantings on the blog-o-sphere are due some respect, which the article
of the 1
ate action should
problems arise.
(could equally be 'proctors appointed by the elected council')
Well, that's about all I can manage for now - don't expect a full
critique in such a short timescale...
--
Kevin F. Quinn
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
you realise now, if you didn't before, your mail program threads
correctly by references ;)
--
Kevin F. Quinn
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
x27;s agreement in PDF here:
http://www.fsf-europe.org/projects/fla/FLA.en.pdf
This may be more appropriate than a straight copyright assingment as
used by FSF (US).
I guess this is an issue for the trustees, rather than the council, but
(b)cc'ed both for comment.
--
Kevin F. Quinn
signa
le who are not Gentoo devs, but are _critically_ important
to the work that I do for Gentoo. After all, although we call
ourselves developers, really we're integrators.
Today, being a dev (which essentially means having commit access
to Gentoo repositories) is mostly about taking responsibility for
only advantage it has is that it looks a little bit
prettier - but I'd argue the logic is clearer in the re-written version.
I guess the question remains, though - should that syntax be in EAPI=0
or not...
--
Kevin F. Quinn
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
would (happily) expect. Queries about whether some current
portage behaviours should be classed as quirks or EAPI=0 behaviour,
presumably because the answer has a large impact on the design of a
package manager. A good example is the recent one about whether EAPI=0
should require that th
On Sun, 11 Feb 2007 12:33:52 +
Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Feb 2007 13:22:48 +0100 "Kevin F. Quinn"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> | Do you object to such packages (specifically with security issues)
> | being p.masked?
>
packages (specifically with security issues) being
p.masked?
I'm not sure we should be encouraging people to continue using packages
when we know there are known security issues.
--
Kevin F. Quinn
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
gt; > -mike
>
> Mike how about... yabl.. or ya-baselayout..
How about baselayout-nb (No Bash) :)
More seriously baselayout-posix, if posix-compliance of all scripts is
a primary motivation.
--
Kevin F. Quinn
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
bash versions with runscript defaulting
to /bin/bash.
--
Kevin F. Quinn
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
ement? If Gentoo does a booth at an Expo is this
> > included?
> > What about a magazine article on Gentoo?
> >
> > The University of California, Berkeley revoked their clause 3 in
> > 1999 I
> > believe because of similar legal vagueness over advertising.
> > (ref: http://www.freebsd.org/copyright/license.html)
> >
> > Can you consider doing the same?
> >
> > Other references:
> > http://farragut.flameeyes.is-a-geek.org/articles/2007/01/08/a-
> > shadow-lies-upon-all-bsd-distributions
> > --
> > Daniel Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Gentoo Foundation
>
> ---
>
--
Kevin F. Quinn
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
es - the shebang is clearly all about how
the script is executed, and the shell used falls nicely into that.
> And voila, problem solved. Of course, that's just an idea I just had.
> However, I also think that baselayout provided services should not
> require bash for the above reasons, hence the need for a new config.
I think the argument for conf.d files is better than that for init.d
scripts; you could have multiple baselayout setups that share conf.d
file formats.
--
Kevin F. Quinn
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
e to
provide more than one baselayout; one for large systems, where
expecting to have bash available isn't such a big deal, and one for
limited systems, restricted to busybox-standard sh. Actually I kinda
assumed that's what baselayout-lite was all about...
--
Kevin F. Quinn
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
gt; proceed to implement it; if it will only be used by this ebuild; then
> i am already against it ;-)
--
Kevin F. Quinn
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Sat, 03 Feb 2007 14:04:49 -0600
Ryan Hill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Kevin F. Quinn wrote:
> >> It would but having some kind of deadline after which you are for
> >> example free to take over the package if you want to would be nice.
> >
> > That
On Fri, 2 Feb 2007 10:19:21 -0600
Grant Goodyear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [lots of good stuff]
I was going to respond to Timothy's proposal in much the same way - but
Grant has said everything much better than I would have done!
+lots Grant :)
--
Kevin F. Quinn
signature.a
arly asking the current maintainer if
they mind you putting a fix in.
If that approach doesn't succeed, it should then be put in the hands of
devrel to arbitrate. I don't see that anything more is needed.
--
Kevin F. Quinn
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
you say USE=boost-tr1,
you get it even if the active compiler provides tr1). The idea
being to avoid dependencies on the host build system, where
that's reasonable.
--
Kevin F. Quinn
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
est thing would be to make it identical to the template at
opensource.org: http://www.opensource.org/licenses/bsd-license.php
This means just removing the redundant '*'s from the continuation lines.
--
Kevin F. Quinn
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
t; > do.
> >
>
>
>
> > And packages that don't switch to the standard by the end of the
> > grace period I guess we'll see on a "last rites" bulletin ;)
>
> Or we/gentoo could just support it and stop breaking the end user.
A simple expedient would be to have the package manager re-create the
symlink according to the variable, whenever it is run.
--
Kevin F. Quinn
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
eport a violation). Waiting on azarah to roll a new sandbox version,
I think.
--
Kevin F. Quinn
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
ld should set these variables only if there is
> > some exception.
>
> that seems like a not-too-shabby idea actually
Not sure. Would we run the risk that working ebuilds would start to
fail when newer autotools versions arrive?
--
Kevin F. Quinn
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Thu, 4 Jan 2007 12:00:51 +0100
Paul de Vrieze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thursday 04 January 2007 11:42, Kevin F. Quinn wrote:
> > On Wed, 3 Jan 2007 10:18:51 +0100
> >
> > Paul de Vrieze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > I know that I'm
he only other sane alternative would be to use license groups
(assuming license groups can be specified in the LICENSE variable). I
don't recall the status of license groups in portage.
--
Kevin F. Quinn
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
nstall stuff with a license they don't accept. It won't really be
needed until someone wants to have GPL-3 stuff but no GPL-2-only stuff
- I think it's reasonable to avoid supporting that for a while, at
least. If we start now, with all new commits having GPL-2 changed to
GPL-2+ if approp
terfaces to deliberately break
compatibility is lunacy.
--
Kevin F. Quinn
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
ND THAT BY CONTINUING THE DOWNLOAD OR
> INSTALLATION OF THE SOFTWARE, BY LOADING OR RUNNING THE SOFTWARE,
> OR BY PLACING OR COPYING THE SOFTWARE ONTO YOUR COMPUTER HARD DRIVE
> OR RAM, YOU AGREE TO BE BOUND BY THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THIS
> AGREEMENT."
in particular the download & installation bits (loading, running being
user concerns, not sys-admin/portage concerns). IANAL so of course I
can't say whether the proposed rules are necessary and sufficient.
--
Kevin F. Quinn
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
ever it
might be a simple but effective method to help people maintain secure
but relatively stable systems, without having to upgrade umpteen
packages a week.
--
Kevin F. Quinn
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
ith whole thing,
now is the time say as it can be removed with impunity.
I did consider adding the functions to eutils.eclass, but I prefer to
have it separate.
--
Kevin F. Quinn
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Tue, 21 Nov 2006 14:03:08 -0500
Chris Gianelloni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 2006-11-21 at 17:59 +0100, Kevin F. Quinn wrote:
> > Am I correct in thinking that the ACCEPT_LICENSE behaviour will just
> > affect how portage calculates whether something can be insta
iest from the point of view of an embedded software engineer.
--
Kevin F. Quinn
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
s an implicit BDEPEND on the package manager
version).
--
Kevin F. Quinn
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
you; that involves
a trust relationship between the dev and the maintainer. The amount of
work the dev has to do depends on how well the maintainer follows the
Gentoo ebuild rules.
--
Kevin F. Quinn
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Wed, 4 Oct 2006 11:39:07 -0400
"Thomas Cort" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 10/4/06, Kevin F. Quinn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Wed, 4 Oct 2006 09:21:08 -0400
> > "Thomas Cort" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
On Wed, 4 Oct 2006 11:44:07 -0400
"Thomas Cort" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 10/4/06, Kevin F. Quinn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 09:41:45 -0400
> > Alec Warner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > My view is that while the
On Wed, 4 Oct 2006 11:44:07 -0400
"Thomas Cort" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 10/4/06, Kevin F. Quinn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 09:41:45 -0400
> > Alec Warner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > My view is that while the
that only stuff used by large groups should be in
the tree. I think the criteria should hinge primarily on whether stuff
has an active Gentoo maintainer.
--
Kevin F. Quinn
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
essary: again, be more specific. What are the "unnecessary"
> > projects, and why?
>
> Projects that aren't needed to further Gentoo and are not helpful to
> users or developers.
Again, by "specific" I meant which projects, by name, do you think meet
those criteria. Explain why you consider those projects to be a
hindrance to users or developers.
--
Kevin F. Quinn
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Wed, 4 Oct 2006 14:18:54 +0100
Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 4 Oct 2006 15:02:17 +0200 "Kevin F. Quinn"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> | Yuck. Devs should be free to add whatever packages they like,
> | provided they're willing
be more specific. What are the "unnecessary"
projects, and why?
> - Project status reports once a month for every project
We've discussed this before. Project status reports make sense if
they're going to be read. Personally I think each project should
organise its own status reporting schedule.
--
Kevin F. Quinn
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
LICENSES and
DENY_LICENSES (with wildcard support).
--
Kevin F. Quinn
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
pell again and end up with a
confused dep tree.
Also, to my understanding, having configure automagically build support
for hspell if it's available on the system is not the way we're
supposed to handle such dependencies.
--
Kevin F. Quinn
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
If something is in an overlay,
presumably the contributor has write access to that overlay, and should
be the assignee of the bug.
--
Kevin F. Quinn
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Sun, 03 Sep 2006 17:54:33 -0600
Ryan Hill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Kevin F. Quinn wrote:
> > If you don't care whether a package is stable or not, just let the
> > arch team go ahead and do what they need to do to stabilise when
> > they wish to. The role o
d before. You can't expect
sys-devel/gcc to take responsibility for every package in the tree in
all configurations.
--
Kevin F. Quinn
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
ke this.
What I'm conerned about is packages that have no Gentoo maintainer,
something that should obviously never happen for packages in the
official tree.
--
Kevin F. Quinn
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Sun, 03 Sep 2006 13:57:10 +0200
Stefan Schweizer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Kevin F. Quinn wrote:
> > I don't think it's a good idea for devs to be putting stuff into the
> > tree without taking responsibility for it.
> sure I can put myself in there
ss as mainainer, but do not
have either a proper herd, or a specific gentoo.org dev listed as
maintainer.
--
Kevin F. Quinn
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
If we were to hold up the
release of everything until all bugs are fixed, we'd never release
anything.
You have the power to sort out this problem on your own system. Just
build the relevant packages with gcc-3.4.6 instead of gcc-4.1.1 (see
gcc-config for switching your selected compiler).
--
Kevin F. Quinn
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
hat unmerging a set should only unmerge elements
of the set that are not part of any other installed set (including
world). So behaviour is less like 'emerge $(cat )' and more like
emerge sets/ where /set/set-V.ebuild is like a meta-ebuild.
--
Kevin F. Quinn
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
the team. The lack of formality means that if the
team doesn't explicitly object to something you propose (e.g. what you
propose doesn't affect what the rest of the team do, or if it does
they don't care), you can just go ahead. Your summary implies explicit
consent from the team would be needed, which I don't think would be a
good idea.
--
Kevin F. Quinn
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
lready get).
Perhaps the Foundation would be happier with a regular three- or
six-month update, with the occasional ad-hoc update as need arises.
Whatever, the point is that each project knows best how often it
ought to communicate stuff.
--
Kevin F. Quinn
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
g `emerge info` at
the time of the report makes sense even for successful tests.
--
Kevin F. Quinn
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
t; and set as a dependency of the stabilisation bug."
>
> I absolutely agree with this. I assume now that you agree with me that
> debugging info, including `emerge info`, should *never* be inlined in,
> or even attached to, stabilisation bugs.
Yes.
--
Kevin F. Quinn
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Fri, 11 Aug 2006 13:40:23 +0200
Jeroen Roovers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Aug 2006 12:52:30 +0200
> "Kevin F. Quinn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > In general it depends what you're doing. Personally I find inline
> > emerge --
On Fri, 11 Aug 2006 00:51:56 +0200
Jeroen Roovers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Aug 2006 23:58:46 +0200
> "Kevin F. Quinn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > The problem with attachments is that processing the report takes
> > longer
> > -
pointed to
> for older links. If variation off the norm was needed or used for an
> individual package, that could be noted in the comments along with
> the link to the standard info.
I think the info changes frequently enough that it's easier, and more
likely to be correct, if it&#x
about trust, it's about knowing what the CFLAGS/FEATURES
were. That way if someone else reports a failure, you can compare the
reports and see what differences might be triggering the fault.
--
Kevin F. Quinn
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
der /usr/ (which is also
where the compiler stuff for ends up). Conceptually at least
(although no doubt problematic in practice) on x86_64 one could use a
x86(_32) cross-compiler to build stuff to ROOT=/usr/${CTARGET}. Again
in concept a /${CTARGET}/{bin,include,lib...} would exists for
essential boot stuff, althought that's a bit academic.
Just a thought for the pot ;)
--
Kevin F. Quinn
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
ot;alpha +beta gamma"
meaning beta is default-on?
Could do the same thing in per-package use.mask (although "mask"
becomes a misnomer at that point).
--
Kevin F. Quinn
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Sat, 5 Aug 2006 14:35:49 -0400
Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Saturday 05 August 2006 06:57, Kevin F. Quinn wrote:
> > On Sat, 5 Aug 2006 11:49:53 +0200
> > Danny van Dyk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Please re-read the list of pack
ng run (perhaps the
test data is huge), this can only be done with USE flags.
Basically, if you set FEATURES="test", add "test" also to your USE
flags. USE="test" should never be used for anything other than
supporting FEATURES="test".
--
Kevin F. Quinn
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
libc versions where the
test failures are not understood. Clearly if something in glibc is not
behaving properly, the effects can be nasty.
--
Kevin F. Quinn
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
hope.
IMO devs should be working with "collision-protect sandbox strict
stricter test userpriv" but let's not get too excited ;)
--
Kevin F. Quinn
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Sat, 5 Aug 2006 02:39:16 +0200
Danny van Dyk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Am Samstag, 5. August 2006 02:11 schrieb Kevin F. Quinn:
> > At the very least, ebuild maintainers and ATs should be running with
> > tests switched on. If the tests are known to fail then the
uld know how many fail. It's not insignificant.
--
Kevin F. Quinn
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
tests switched on. If the tests are known to fail then the ebuild can
either RESTRICT=test, or just return successfully from src_test()
where the test report is useful even if some tests fail.
Thoughts?
--
Kevin F. Quinn
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Thu, 03 Aug 2006 19:48:01 -0400
Alec Warner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> To briefly go over requirements you need to be able to:
>
> Speak English;
Why? Surely read & write is enough.
--
Kevin F. Quinn
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
lead becomes a pita for everyone else on the
project, the rest of the project can oust the lead by majority
decision (hopefully a rare occurrence).
--
Kevin F. Quinn
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
e benefits. This may not happen often,
> but every single time is one time too much. This is can be really
> demotivating, which is probably the worst thing about it.
I think as long as Sunrise steers clear of core system packages,
essentially focusing on "leaf" packages, the sorts of problem you
encountered with BMG can be avoided. Certainly I would expect Sunrise
not to be providing alternate versions of stuff already in the tree,
and not to be modifying eclasses that exist in the tree - this sort of
change is for managed dev overlays.
--
Kevin F. Quinn
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Mon, 24 Jul 2006 06:23:59 -0700
Brian Harring <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 24, 2006 at 02:47:46PM +0200, Kevin F. Quinn wrote:
> > On Sun, 23 Jul 2006 12:19:28 +0100
> > Stuart Herbert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Just adding an alias
&g
On Sun, 23 Jul 2006 12:19:28 +0100
Stuart Herbert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Kevin F. Quinn wrote:
> > An advantage to this approach is that package moves just become
> > aliases
> > - existing stuff doesn't break yet you get the new categorisation as
On Sat, 22 Jul 2006 13:35:08 -0700
Brian Harring <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 22, 2006 at 06:04:10PM +0200, Kevin F. Quinn wrote:
> > On Fri, 21 Jul 2006 01:05:20 -0700
> > Brian Harring <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > > >Unfortu
1 - 100 of 218 matches
Mail list logo
