On 16/12/17 17:45, Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
> Am Donnerstag, 14. Dezember 2017, 13:21:47 CET schrieb Fabian Groffen:
>> Can we make it a policy to list /what/ QA issues are the justification
>> for commits like these? A description in the commit message would be
>> preferred, but a pointer to a l
Am Donnerstag, 14. Dezember 2017, 13:21:47 CET schrieb Fabian Groffen:
> Can we make it a policy to list /what/ QA issues are the justification
> for commits like these? A description in the commit message would be
> preferred, but a pointer to a location where said issues can be found
> would do
Neat. I didn't spot those new fbreader feature(s).
I also didn't notice m-n status on fbreader deps.
I'll review this thread, research upstream(s), etc.
(if it's within my abilities & available time, I'll maint)
- kuzetsa
P.S. yes: at times, QA messages are a tad vague
On 12/14/2017 07:56 AM
On 14/12/17 17:09, David Seifert wrote:
>> So I can add tons of broken packages, sprinkled over different
>> days, hidden between other valid bumps, and can then tell people
>> they need to lastrite this stuff first and do the 30-day rain
>> dance? Come on, even for Gentoo standards, that's absolut
On Thu, 2017-12-14 at 15:04 +0100, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote:
> Michał Górny schrieb:
> > Breaking the dependency tree was a *honest* mistake on the person
> > who
> > reverted this commit.
> >
> > Andrey pretty clearly stated that he did this *on purpose*.
>
> The removal of the package
W dniu czw, 14.12.2017 o godzinie 22∶16 +0700, użytkownik
gro...@gentoo.org napisał:
> On Thu, 14 Dec 2017, Michał Górny wrote:
> > > > > f7329bef1eb169d3363f040cefcc323cfd0a0bc53290a35a395e1d1adc849539
> > > > > SHA512
> > > > > 43da73f66fabd8fdef444c5a06ad1800464a0aeab590938522d6c19973950a242f2c
On Thu, 14 Dec 2017, Michał Górny wrote:
f7329bef1eb169d3363f040cefcc323cfd0a0bc53290a35a395e1d1adc849539 SHA512
43da73f66fabd8fdef444c5a06ad1800464a0aeab590938522d6c19973950a242f2ccc0575a93d10d87bdcf82610452117ac081ddb73f47271a8c2a65897e11c
WHIRLPOOL
ad71bc5910ca3dff994651022a5a6c6093cd402385227
On Thu, 14 Dec 2017, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote:
I think you could alternatively have used a pkgmove from liblinebreak to
libunibreak, then do the bump.
This would break the old liblinebreak-2.1.ebuild which is stable on 3
arches.
Andrey
W dniu czw, 14.12.2017 o godzinie 14∶56 +0100, użytkownik Fabian Groffen
napisał:
> On 14-12-2017 14:41:17 +0100, Michał Górny wrote:
> > W dniu czw, 14.12.2017 o godzinie 13∶56 +0100, użytkownik Fabian Groffen
> > napisał:
> > > On 14-12-2017 13:39:18 +0100, Michał Górny wrote:
> > > > Dnia 14 gru
gro...@gentoo.org schrieb:
If the developers of liblinebreak had not decided to rename their
library, I could safely bump it from 2.1 to 4.0, in spite of the fact
that it is maintainer-needed, right?
Am I personally responsible for their decision to use the new name
libunibreak?
I think you c
Michał Górny schrieb:
Breaking the dependency tree was a *honest* mistake on the person who
reverted this commit.
Andrey pretty clearly stated that he did this *on purpose*.
The removal of the package in violation of Gentoo policy was fully
intentional from what I can see. There was no 30-day
On 14-12-2017 14:41:17 +0100, Michał Górny wrote:
> W dniu czw, 14.12.2017 o godzinie 13∶56 +0100, użytkownik Fabian Groffen
> napisał:
> > On 14-12-2017 13:39:18 +0100, Michał Górny wrote:
> > > Dnia 14 grudnia 2017 13:21:47 CET, Fabian Groffen
> > > napisał(a):
> > > > Can we make it a policy t
On 14-12-2017 14:43:11 +0100, Michał Górny wrote:
> Bull-shit.
>
> Breaking the dependency tree was a *honest* mistake on the person who
> reverted this commit.
Honestly, so making mistakes is evaluated based on honesty, then still,
did Andreas (not a QA member as far as I can see) contact Andrey
W dniu czw, 14.12.2017 o godzinie 14∶38 +0100, użytkownik Fabian Groffen
napisał:
> On 14-12-2017 14:34:51 +0100, Michał Górny wrote:
> > W dniu czw, 14.12.2017 o godzinie 20∶24 +0700, użytkownik
> > gro...@gentoo.org napisał:
> > > If the developers of liblinebreak had not decided to rename their
W dniu czw, 14.12.2017 o godzinie 13∶56 +0100, użytkownik Fabian Groffen
napisał:
> On 14-12-2017 13:39:18 +0100, Michał Górny wrote:
> > Dnia 14 grudnia 2017 13:21:47 CET, Fabian Groffen
> > napisał(a):
> > > Can we make it a policy to list /what/ QA issues are the justification
> > > for commit
On 14-12-2017 14:34:51 +0100, Michał Górny wrote:
> W dniu czw, 14.12.2017 o godzinie 20∶24 +0700, użytkownik
> gro...@gentoo.org napisał:
> > If the developers of liblinebreak had not decided to rename their library,
> > I could safely bump it from 2.1 to 4.0, in spite of the fact that it is
> >
W dniu czw, 14.12.2017 o godzinie 20∶24 +0700, użytkownik
gro...@gentoo.org napisał:
> If the developers of liblinebreak had not decided to rename their library,
> I could safely bump it from 2.1 to 4.0, in spite of the fact that it is
> maintainer-needed, right?
> Am I personally responsible for
On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 8:30 AM, James Le Cuirot wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Dec 2017 14:14:19 +0100
> Fabian Groffen wrote:
>
>> > >On 14-12-2017 12:10:59 +, Andreas Hüttel wrote:
>> > >> Also other QA issues.
>>
>> Apart from that maintainer-needed has nothing to do with Quality of an
>> ebuild, yo
W dniu czw, 14.12.2017 o godzinie 19∶56 +0700, użytkownik
gro...@gentoo.org napisał:
> This is in fact a newer version of liblinebreak (under a new name).
> liblinebreak is m-n. The ebuild is just a slightly improved
> liblinebreak-2.1.
> This new version improves the functionality of fbreader (t
On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 8:24 AM, wrote:
> If the developers of liblinebreak had not decided to rename their library, I
> could safely bump it from 2.1 to 4.0, in spite of the fact that it is
> maintainer-needed, right?
> Am I personally responsible for their decision to use the new name
> libunib
On Thu, 14 Dec 2017 14:14:19 +0100
Fabian Groffen wrote:
> > >On 14-12-2017 12:10:59 +, Andreas Hüttel wrote:
> > >> Also other QA issues.
>
> Apart from that maintainer-needed has nothing to do with Quality of an
> ebuild, you mentioned it as an QA issue, so I am interested in the
> "ot
If the developers of liblinebreak had not decided to rename their library,
I could safely bump it from 2.1 to 4.0, in spite of the fact that it is
maintainer-needed, right?
Am I personally responsible for their decision to use the new name
libunibreak?
If there are QA problems in libunibreak-4.0
On 14-12-2017 13:39:18 +0100, Michał Górny wrote:
> Dnia 14 grudnia 2017 13:21:47 CET, Fabian Groffen
> napisał(a):
> >Can we make it a policy to list /what/ QA issues are the justification
> >for commits like these? A description in the commit message would be
> >preferred, but a pointer to a l
On 14-12-2017 13:39:18 +0100, Michał Górny wrote:
> Dnia 14 grudnia 2017 13:21:47 CET, Fabian Groffen
> napisał(a):
> >Can we make it a policy to list /what/ QA issues are the justification
> >for commits like these? A description in the commit message would be
> >preferred, but a pointer to a l
This is in fact a newer version of liblinebreak (under a new name).
liblinebreak is m-n. The ebuild is just a slightly improved
liblinebreak-2.1.
This new version improves the functionality of fbreader (the new revision
-r4 depends on libunibreak). Removing libunibreak would require also
removi
Dnia 14 grudnia 2017 13:21:47 CET, Fabian Groffen
napisał(a):
>Can we make it a policy to list /what/ QA issues are the justification
>for commits like these? A description in the commit message would be
>preferred, but a pointer to a location where said issues can be found
>would do too.
Maint
Can we make it a policy to list /what/ QA issues are the justification
for commits like these? A description in the commit message would be
preferred, but a pointer to a location where said issues can be found
would do too.
Thanks,
Fabian
On 14-12-2017 12:10:59 +, Andreas Hüttel wrote:
> URL
27 matches
Mail list logo
