-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Michael Cummings wrote:
> It's a nice idea (I know I recently opened "negotiations" up with the mips
> team for access so I could close some of my open bugs against them), but the
> two problems I can see with this are: remote access tends to mean yo
On Fri, 2005-05-20 at 22:22 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> Not gonna happen. Emulators don't cut it and won't find all the problems
> (but they will find a load of other bogus non-issues). Plus, from
> experience I'd say that at least half our devs wouldn't have a clue
> where to start when doing
On Fri, 20 May 2005 15:51:51 -0500 Brian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| Wouldn't it be better from a QA perspective to go back to the (really)
| old policy of dropping anything you can't test on. I know that puts
| more work on you guys, but this is only going to get worse as we get
| more de
On Friday 20 May 2005 16:51, Brian Jackson wrote:
>
> Get every dev access to all the supported arches (some of this could
> probably be done with emulators of some sort, qemu or somesuch). Make them
> test on every arch before they change any keywords.
It's a nice idea (I know I recently opened "
Jason Wever wrote:
>
> From my perspective, if a package maintainer asks for testing and the
> ability to keyword (i.e. Spanky asking me if it was OK to bump binutils
> to 2.16, to which I said yes) then that is fine. However adding or
> changing keywords in an ebuild for which you cannot test (
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Fri, 20 May 2005, Duncan Coutts wrote:
Sorry folks this was my fault. I've sent my grovelling apology to the
sparc team. Hopefully they'll accept my apologies and put my digressions
down to me being a new dev. :-)
You can only take some of the credit
On Friday 20 May 2005 02:53 pm, Duncan Coutts wrote:
> Sorry folks this was my fault.
ah, good to know ... thought it might have been my binutils-2.16 ~sparc
marking, but i guess that's somewhat sane since Weeve gave it a quick run and
it seems to be OK thus far ...
-mike
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.o
On Fri, 2005-05-20 at 10:42 -0600, Jason Wever wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> OK, let's review this again.
>
> If you cannot test a given ebuild on a given arch, then don't touch that
> arch's keyword (unless you need to remove it for broken dependencies).
>
> If y
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
OK, let's review this again.
If you cannot test a given ebuild on a given arch, then don't touch that
arch's keyword (unless you need to remove it for broken dependencies).
If you can test for a given arch and are not part of that arch team,
please p
