Am Sonntag, 1. September 2013, 03:02:47 schrieb Rick "Zero_Chaos" Farina:
> On 08/22/2013 07:24 AM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 6:19 AM, Markos Chandras
wrote:
> >> On 22 August 2013 11:01, Rich Freeman wrote:
> >>> I think the result of a policy like this would be that stabl
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 08/22/2013 07:24 AM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 6:19 AM, Markos Chandras wrote:
>> On 22 August 2013 11:01, Rich Freeman wrote:
>>> I think the result of a policy like this would be that stable keywords
>>> would get dropped on
On Sat, Aug 24, 2013 at 11:39 AM, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn
wrote:
> Jeroen Roovers schrieb:
>> Mixing stable and testing is precisely what package
>> maintainers (hopefully) do when committing new versions: building and
>> running new software on a known to be stable platform on the premise
>>
Jeroen Roovers schrieb:
> Mixing stable and testing is precisely what package
> maintainers (hopefully) do when committing new versions: building and
> running new software on a known to be stable platform on the premise
> that the new software is likely to be merged into the stable branch
> (befor
On Thu, 22 Aug 2013 12:28:24 +0100
Markos Chandras wrote:
> Wow! That is something we actively encourage people to avoid. Mixed
> systems are totally
> unsupported and I am sure quite a few bugs are closed as invalid when
> a mixed system is detected.
Mixing stable and testing is precisely what
On Thu, 22 Aug 2013 12:28:24 +0100
Markos Chandras wrote:
> Wow! That is something we actively encourage people to avoid. Mixed
> systems are totally
> unsupported and I am sure quite a few bugs are closed as invalid when
> a mixed system is detected.
>
> It may work on regular basis but encoura
On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 01:30:59PM +0200, Tom Wijsman wrote:
> 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
> > > - ia
On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 09:03:35AM +0200, Michael Weber wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA256
>
> On 08/22/2013 08:38 AM, Sergey Popov wrote:
> > 21.08.2013 22:28, Alexis Ballier пишет:
> >>
> >> Instead of dropping them entirely to ~arch, maybe something in
> >> between coul
Am Donnerstag, 22. August 2013, 13:28:24 schrieb Markos Chandras:
> >
> > Do we actually have examples of this happening? I've never had
> > problems with a mix of stable and ~arch keywords. Granted, I'm not
> > running ~arch on most libs.
>
> Wow! That is something we actively encourage people
On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 7:28 AM, Markos Chandras wrote:
> On 22 August 2013 12:24, Rich Freeman wrote:
>> Do we actually have examples of this happening? I've never had
>> problems with a mix of stable and ~arch keywords. Granted, I'm not
>> running ~arch on most libs.
>
> Wow! That is somethi
On Thu, 22 Aug 2013 14:47:18 +0200
Michael Weber wrote:
> On 08/22/2013 02:26 PM, Markos Chandras wrote:
> > I said that it is a combination not well tested so we do not
> > encourage this. Users are free to do whatever they want.
> Actually every other post is about keywording special versions o
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 22/08/13 06:19 AM, Markos Chandras wrote:
> What's the point of that? Most users need more than what @system
> provides so after they deploy the 'stable' stage3 they will start
> pulling ~arch packages that were never tested against the stable
>
On 08/22/2013 02:26 PM, Markos Chandras wrote:
> On 22 August 2013 13:17, Michael Weber wrote:
>>
>> Having a mixed setup isn't that absurd as you want it to be.
>> And forcing users to not use it renders all package.{accepted_,}keywords
>> granularity moot.
>>
>> It's like nailing them to debian
22.08.2013 16:26, Markos Chandras пишет:
> On 22 August 2013 13:17, Michael Weber wrote:
>>
>> Having a mixed setup isn't that absurd as you want it to be.
>> And forcing users to not use it renders all package.{accepted_,}keywords
>> granularity moot.
>>
>> It's like nailing them to debian stable
On 22 August 2013 13:17, Michael Weber wrote:
>
> Having a mixed setup isn't that absurd as you want it to be.
> And forcing users to not use it renders all package.{accepted_,}keywords
> granularity moot.
>
> It's like nailing them to debian stable or debian testing w/o backports
> or anything.
>
On 08/22/2013 01:28 PM, Markos Chandras wrote:
> On 22 August 2013 12:24, Rich Freeman wrote:
>> On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 6:19 AM, Markos Chandras wrote:
>>> On 22 August 2013 11:01, Rich Freeman wrote:
I think the result of a policy like this would be that stable keywords
would get dro
On 22 August 2013 12:24, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 6:19 AM, Markos Chandras wrote:
>> On 22 August 2013 11:01, Rich Freeman wrote:
>>> I think the result of a policy like this would be that stable keywords
>>> would get dropped on most peripheral packages, but system packages
On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 6:19 AM, Markos Chandras wrote:
> On 22 August 2013 11:01, Rich Freeman wrote:
>> I think the result of a policy like this would be that stable keywords
>> would get dropped on most peripheral packages, but system packages
>> might still keep them.
>
> What's the point of
On 22 August 2013 18:01, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 1:39 AM, Ben de Groot wrote:
>> 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.
On 22 August 2013 11:01, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 1:39 AM, Ben de Groot wrote:
>> 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.
On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 1:39 AM, Ben de Groot wrote:
> 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
>>> s
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 08/22/2013 08:38 AM, Sergey Popov wrote:
> 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 importa
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 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, 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
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 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
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 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
>
> 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
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
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 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
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
46 matches
Mail list logo
