On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 10:16 PM, Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote:
> Thus, the point I'd make and that I believe you were making is not that
> Gentoo can't be different, or we'd obviously be doing a binary distro
> like everyone else, but that we pick the differences which we value
> enough to
Rich Freeman posted on Wed, 12 Oct 2011 09:26:12 -0400 as excerpted:
> My concern with something like dropping udev is that it would make us
> different from every other desktop distro out there. I'm not aware of
> any distro packaging Gnome/KDE without udev. Not having Redhat's
> billions to me
On 02/02/2011 11:42 PM, Theo Chatzimichos wrote:
>
> For the record, Kacper told me today that every developer is allowed to touch
> ppc/ppc64 profiles. Archies that don't want others to touch their profiles
> should mention it in the devmanual. I was not aware of that, I thought that
> !arch
On Wednesday 02 February 2011 23:34:07 Nikos Chantziaras wrote:
> On 02/02/2011 11:01 PM, Christian Faulhammer wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Nikos Chantziaras:
> >> On 02/02/2011 10:30 AM, Kacper Kowalik wrote:
> >>> W dniu 02.02.2011 08:59, Nikos Chantziaras pisze:
> It seems that KDE 4.6 is still
On 02/02/2011 11:01 PM, Christian Faulhammer wrote:
Hi,
Nikos Chantziaras:
On 02/02/2011 10:30 AM, Kacper Kowalik wrote:
W dniu 02.02.2011 08:59, Nikos Chantziaras pisze:
It seems that KDE 4.6 is still hard-masked for x86 and amd64
because it's waiting for ppc and ppc64 keywords. I believe i
Hi,
Nikos Chantziaras :
> On 02/02/2011 10:30 AM, Kacper Kowalik wrote:
> > W dniu 02.02.2011 08:59, Nikos Chantziaras pisze:
> >> It seems that KDE 4.6 is still hard-masked for x86 and amd64
> >> because it's waiting for ppc and ppc64 keywords. I believe it
> >> would be beneficial for people if
On 02/02/2011 10:30 AM, Kacper Kowalik wrote:
W dniu 02.02.2011 08:59, Nikos Chantziaras pisze:
It seems that KDE 4.6 is still hard-masked for x86 and amd64 because
it's waiting for ppc and ppc64 keywords. I believe it would be
beneficial for people if they wouldn't have to wait for arches that
Arun Raghavan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted
[EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Sun, 17 Aug 2008
00:11:41 +0530:
> And then there's the sunrise overlay [1].
Yes, but sunrise doesn't (didn't?) take any packages already in the
tree. If it's not getting updated in-tree, however, and the only bloc
On Sunday 25 March 2007, »Q« wrote:
> "Kevin F. Quinn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Closing INVALID is like saying they never had an issue - when clearly
> > they did have an issue, even if it was just an issue of understanding.
>
> If bugs.gentoo.org users think that it's like saying there's no
Duncan wrote:
> As one who was offended when one of my first bugs got INVALIDated...
>
I know the feeling, mate :)
> NOTABUG would have been better. It may suffer some of the same issues,
> but is better, and at least here, wouldn't have the discouraging
> connotations due to the minor variation
On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 15:27:11 + (UTC)
Duncan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What do others think of NULL or VOID vs. NOTABUG vs. INVALID?
I'd object against NULL or VOID, they don't make much sense to me.
NOTABUG seems to be the best fit as it's very specific and doesn't
leave much room for in
On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 15:27:11 + (UTC)
Duncan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Invalid (to me) implies a judgement of the work of the submitter,
> while NOTABUG (to me) implies more a simple variance of opinion,
> recognizing the other viewpoint as possibly valid (not invalid), but
> simply choosing
Ryan Hill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted [EMAIL PROTECTED],
excerpted below, on Sat, 24 Mar 2007 12:40:28 -0600:
> Marius Mauch wrote:
>> "Kevin F. Quinn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>> Arguably no bug is invalid in the normal sense - if someone raises an
>>> issue, they have an issue, regardless
On Sunday 25 March 2007, Jakub Moc wrote:
> Hmmm, I'm not sure how much of an regression this is. AFAICT bugzilla
> always required to prefix the search with ALL if you want to search for
> resolved bugs as well. There's even a note about this directly on the
> homepage, below the search box. :)
y
Mike Frysinger napsal(a):
> On Saturday 24 March 2007, Caleb Cushing wrote:
>> could bugzilla be changed so that the default search includes bugs in all
>> status. instead of just open bugs. I know sometimes I'll miss closed bugs
>> because I'll forget to do an advanced search.
>
> there is an ope
On Saturday 24 March 2007, Caleb Cushing wrote:
> could bugzilla be changed so that the default search includes bugs in all
> status. instead of just open bugs. I know sometimes I'll miss closed bugs
> because I'll forget to do an advanced search.
there is an open regression bug about this
-mike
a semi on topic thought.
could bugzilla be changed so that the default search includes bugs in all
status. instead of just open bugs. I know sometimes I'll miss closed bugs
because I'll forget to do an advanced search.
--
Caleb Cushing
"Kevin F. Quinn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Closing INVALID is like saying they never had an issue - when clearly
> they did have an issue, even if it was just an issue of understanding.
If bugs.gentoo.org users think that it's like saying there's no issue,
ISTM the problem is with their unders
Marius Mauch wrote:
> "Kevin F. Quinn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Arguably no bug is invalid in the normal sense - if someone raises an
>> issue, they have an issue, regardless what we think of it. To that
>> end I'd like to propose bugzilla be reconfigured to use the phrase
>> "NOCHANGE" in
> On 2/8/07, Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Thu, 8 Feb 2007 10:38:08 +0100 Jose San Leandro
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> | A friend of mine and myself are willing to develop some tools to help
>> | ebuild development.
>>
>> All the common cases should be handled by default fun
20 matches
Mail list logo
