On Mon, 2006-10-02 at 14:50 +0200, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
> just wanted to be sure if this was the case (and having something to quote if
> something breaks when the behaviour is switched ;) happens too often not to
> consider this, too).
Yeah. It would be nice if we had some good way
Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> I tried to
> kindly ask you the other day on IRC to add items to the bug that needed
> to be done, rather than continue with your current course of action of
> trying to lay blame to everyone when they make a mistake. At this
> point, I'll have to agree with Mike by sayi
On Monday 02 October 2006 14:34, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> Diego, a few people from the portage team have said that they dislike
> using version masks in the packages file. I agree with them completely.
I've already seen I'm in a minority, by liking the current behaviour.
> Unfortunately, as with
On Sat, 2006-09-30 at 19:02 +0200, Jakub Moc wrote:
> So, I'd kinda appreciate if concerned folks (including portage and
> relevant affected arches) were involved in this discussion, instead of
> sneaking the changes in under QA disguise.
Umm... I already took care of x86/alpha, both of which I am
Danny van Dyk wrote:
> Am Samstag, 30. September 2006 19:02 schrieb Jakub Moc:
>
>> Mike Frysinger wrote:
>>
>>> seriously jakub, stop responding ... you have nothing technical to
>>> offer to the issue at hand
>>>
>>> let the people who work on portage handle it
>>> -mike
>>>
>> Eh,
Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Saturday 30 September 2006 13:02, Jakub Moc wrote:
>> Eh, the whole technical point here is that paludis behaviour differs
>> from portage (and differs from pkgcore, FWIW).
>
> the technical point is what is the expected behavior of the packages file ...
> seems silly t
Am Samstag, 30. September 2006 19:02 schrieb Jakub Moc:
> Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > seriously jakub, stop responding ... you have nothing technical to
> > offer to the issue at hand
> >
> > let the people who work on portage handle it
> > -mike
>
> Eh, the whole technical point here is that paludis
On Saturday 30 September 2006 13:02, Jakub Moc wrote:
> Eh, the whole technical point here is that paludis behaviour differs
> from portage (and differs from pkgcore, FWIW).
the technical point is what is the expected behavior of the packages file ...
seems silly to duplicate masking across two d
Mike Frysinger wrote:
> seriously jakub, stop responding ... you have nothing technical to offer to
> the issue at hand
>
> let the people who work on portage handle it
> -mike
Eh, the whole technical point here is that paludis behaviour differs
from portage (and differs from pkgcore, FWIW).
So
seriously jakub, stop responding ... you have nothing technical to offer to
the issue at hand
let the people who work on portage handle it
-mike
pgpiPg7pzkzw4.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 14:37:59 +0200 Jakub Moc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> | Additionally, it would be nice if these discussions involved
> | concerned arches and were not done ex post in future cases.
>
> Uh, Jakub, part of the design of the devmanual was that it would be
11 matches
Mail list logo
