On 01/04/2017 08:09 AM, Michael Palimaka wrote:
> On 04/01/17 12:57, Andrew Savchenko wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> On Sun, 25 Dec 2016 22:55:27 +0300 Andrew Savchenko wrote:
>> [...]
>>> Another question: do we steel need to set STABLEREQ keyword for
>>> stabilization bugs? Since we now have a dedicated
On 04/01/17 07:09, Michael Palimaka wrote:
> On 04/01/17 12:57, Andrew Savchenko wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> On Sun, 25 Dec 2016 22:55:27 +0300 Andrew Savchenko wrote:
>> [...]
>>> Another question: do we steel need to set STABLEREQ keyword for
>>> stabilization bugs? Since we now have a dedicated Stab
On 04/01/17 12:57, Andrew Savchenko wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> On Sun, 25 Dec 2016 22:55:27 +0300 Andrew Savchenko wrote:
> [...]
>> Another question: do we steel need to set STABLEREQ keyword for
>> stabilization bugs? Since we now have a dedicated Stabilization
>> component, STABLEREQ looks redundant.
On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 6:28 PM, Kent Fredric wrote:
>
> In that, by making the submitter resolve it all, its either "good" or "bad"
>
> Instead of leaving the person doing the testing in a confused state about
> which packages
> are expected to be used.
>
Well, assuming that a human is actually
On Mon, 2 Jan 2017 12:49:59 -0500
Rich Freeman wrote:
> However, in this case why would we want to rule out sets, "and all the
> other shenanigans?" We've already established that a single stable
> request bug can apply to multiple package-versions, so why not allow
> full dependency specificati
Ühel kenal päeval, E, 02.01.2017 kell 14:01, kirjutas Rich Freeman:
> On Mon, Jan 2, 2017 at 12:59 PM, M. J. Everitt
> wrote:
> >
> > On 02/01/17 17:49, Rich Freeman wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, Jan 2, 2017 at 11:56 AM, Kent Fredric
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, 29 Dec 2016 17:23:58 +
On Mon, Jan 2, 2017 at 12:59 PM, M. J. Everitt wrote:
> On 02/01/17 17:49, Rich Freeman wrote:
>> On Mon, Jan 2, 2017 at 11:56 AM, Kent Fredric wrote:
>>> On Thu, 29 Dec 2016 17:23:58 +
>>> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>>>
Because it isn't... Are set names atoms? Are package names without an
On Tue, 3 Jan 2017 05:56:56 +1300
Kent Fredric wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Dec 2016 17:23:58 +
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>
> > Because it isn't... Are set names atoms? Are package names without
> > an associated category atoms?
>
> If I use the content of man 5 ebuild as a guide, I'd say no, sets
On 02/01/17 17:49, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 2, 2017 at 11:56 AM, Kent Fredric wrote:
>> On Thu, 29 Dec 2016 17:23:58 +
>> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>>
>>> Because it isn't... Are set names atoms? Are package names without an
>>> associated category atoms?
>> Sets /are/ still dependency
On Mon, Jan 2, 2017 at 11:56 AM, Kent Fredric wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Dec 2016 17:23:58 +
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>
>> Because it isn't... Are set names atoms? Are package names without an
>> associated category atoms?
>
> Sets /are/ still dependency specifications, in that reading, just like
>
On 02/01/17 16:51, Kent Fredric wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Dec 2016 21:11:43 +0100
> Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>
>> PMS uses "package dependency specification", but that may be too long
>> for the name of the field. How about "ebuilds to stabilise"?
>>
>> Ulrich
> Reading "man 5 ebuild"
>
> Atom Bases
>
On Thu, 29 Dec 2016 17:23:58 +
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> Because it isn't... Are set names atoms? Are package names without an
> associated category atoms?
If I use the content of man 5 ebuild as a guide, I'd say no, sets can't be
atoms.
Because sets can't have "base name" and "version" sub
On Wed, 28 Dec 2016 21:11:43 +0100
Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> PMS uses "package dependency specification", but that may be too long
> for the name of the field. How about "ebuilds to stabilise"?
>
> Ulrich
Reading "man 5 ebuild"
Atom Bases
The base atom is just a full category/pa
Ühel kenal päeval, N, 29.12.2016 kell 20:51, kirjutas Marc Schiffbauer:
> * Ulrich Mueller schrieb am 29.12.16 um 16:52 Uhr:
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Thu, 29 Dec 2016, Marc Schiffbauer wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > I'd prefer "package versions" but the
* Ciaran McCreesh schrieb am 29.12.16 um 18:23 Uhr:
> On Thu, 29 Dec 2016 13:28:12 +0100
> Marc Schiffbauer wrote:
> > "atom" is a well defined term in the gentoo world, so why not use it?
>
> Because it isn't... Are set names atoms? Are package names without an
> associated category atoms?
That
* Ulrich Mueller schrieb am 29.12.16 um 16:52 Uhr:
> > On Thu, 29 Dec 2016, Marc Schiffbauer wrote:
>
> > I'd prefer "package versions" but the people will come up with
> > "sys-apps/eix-1.2.3" or just "1.2.3", not the desired
> > "=sys-apps/eix-1.2.3".
>
> Why would the equals sign be nee
On Thu, 29 Dec 2016 13:28:12 +0100
Marc Schiffbauer wrote:
> "atom" is a well defined term in the gentoo world, so why not use it?
Because it isn't... Are set names atoms? Are package names without an
associated category atoms?
--
Ciaran McCreesh
On Thu, 29 Dec 2016 16:44:12 +0100
Jeroen Roovers wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Dec 2016 22:31:19 +
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > We made a deliberate decision not to use the word "atom" in PMS
> > because it means subtly different things in different contexts.
>
> You're doing it again! You're not c
> On Thu, 29 Dec 2016, Marc Schiffbauer wrote:
> I'd prefer "package versions" but the people will come up with
> "sys-apps/eix-1.2.3" or just "1.2.3", not the desired
> "=sys-apps/eix-1.2.3".
Why would the equals sign be needed there?
Ulrich
pgpPFAUVWZSRj.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Wed, 28 Dec 2016 22:31:19 +
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> We made a deliberate decision not to use the word "atom" in PMS
> because it means subtly different things in different contexts.
You're doing it again! You're not citing any decisions on actual
mailing lists, chat logs or in documentat
* Ulrich Mueller schrieb am 29.12.16 um 13:08 Uhr:
> > On Thu, 29 Dec 2016, Michael Palimaka wrote:
>
> >> Any suggestions for improved text? Ideally it would be
> >> stabilisation/keywording agnostic as the same field is used in both
> >> components.
>
> > ago suggested "Packages list" or "P
On 12/29/2016 01:08 PM, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>> On Thu, 29 Dec 2016, Michael Palimaka wrote:
>
>>> Any suggestions for improved text? Ideally it would be
>>> stabilisation/keywording agnostic as the same field is used in both
>>> components.
>
>> ago suggested "Packages list" or "Package lis
> On Thu, 29 Dec 2016, Michael Palimaka wrote:
>> Any suggestions for improved text? Ideally it would be
>> stabilisation/keywording agnostic as the same field is used in both
>> components.
> ago suggested "Packages list" or "Package list" - thoughts?
Isn't it rather a list of "ebuilds" or
On 29/12/16 03:49, Michael Palimaka wrote:
> On 28/12/16 20:57, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>>> On Sun, 25 Dec 2016, Agostino Sarubbo wrote:
>>
>>> with the great and awesome work of Michael Palimaka (kensington) and
>>> the support of the wg-stable, for the stabilization process, some
>>> changes on
> On Wed, 28 Dec 2016, Jeroen Roovers wrote:
> How about "atoms". We've been using that for ages (regardless of
> what PMS authors think) so why change it now?
The best definition I could find for "atom" is in ebuild(5):
A depend atom is simply a dependency that is used by portage when
On Wed, 28 Dec 2016 23:21:51 +0100
Jeroen Roovers wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Dec 2016 03:49:30 +1100
> Michael Palimaka wrote:
> > > Can you please avoid reintroducing the term "atom" there, when we
> > > are trying to get rid of it elsewhere [1]? Note that PMS doesn't
> > > define the term [2].
> >
On Thu, 29 Dec 2016 03:49:30 +1100
Michael Palimaka wrote:
> > Can you please avoid reintroducing the term "atom" there, when we
> > are trying to get rid of it elsewhere [1]? Note that PMS doesn't
> > define the term [2].
>
> Any suggestions for improved text? Ideally it would be
> stabilisat
> On Thu, 29 Dec 2016, Michael Palimaka wrote:
> On 28/12/16 20:57, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>> Can you please avoid reintroducing the term "atom" there, when we
>> are trying to get rid of it elsewhere [1]? Note that PMS doesn't
>> define the term [2].
> Any suggestions for improved text? Ideal
On Thu, 29 Dec 2016 03:49:30 +1100
Michael Palimaka wrote:
> On 28/12/16 20:57, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> >> On Sun, 25 Dec 2016, Agostino Sarubbo wrote:
> >
> >> with the great and awesome work of Michael Palimaka (kensington) and
> >> the support of the wg-stable, for the stabilization p
On 28/12/16 20:57, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>> On Sun, 25 Dec 2016, Agostino Sarubbo wrote:
>
>> with the great and awesome work of Michael Palimaka (kensington) and
>> the support of the wg-stable, for the stabilization process, some
>> changes on our bugzilla have been done.
>
> Thank you for
30 matches
Mail list logo
