On 2 October 2011 03:57, Ryan Hill wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Sep 2011 11:19:26 +0300
> Samuli Suominen wrote:
>
>> > 17 tools
>> > 9 utils
>>
>> tools, and utils, what's the difference? perhaps pick one and unify them
>> into global USE flag
>
> Saying what? "Install optional tools or utili
On 10/02/2011 02:44 AM, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote:
> Samuli Suominen schrieb:
>> On 10/01/2011 08:02 PM, Chi-Thanh Christopher Nguyen (chithanh) wrote:
>>> chithanh11/10/01 17:02:59
>>>
>>> Added:metadata.xml ChangeLog qutecom-2.2_p20110210.ebuild
>>> Log:
>>> Bri
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 10/02/2011 03:26 AM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 1, 2011 at 4:36 PM, Markos Chandras
> wrote:
>> # Markos Chandras (01 Oct 2011) #
>> Unmaintained. Plenty of open bugs ( 219892, 230183, 303199 ). #
>> Replaced by dispatch-conf and/or etc-u
People using stable, are welcomed to join the effort in
http://bugs.gentoo.org/384733
We have finished reviewing the bugs, that blocked the linux-headers
tracker bug but as Diego's tinderbox doesn't run on stable, but on
~arch, it's very hard to track down everything
So on your stable system, try
Samuli Suominen schrieb:
>> Please point to existing authoritative documentation which says that
>> downgrades are unacceptable.
>>
>>> It is NOT gentoo-x86 compatible package in it's current form.
>>
>> It sets correct dependency on an existing ebuild in tree. The dependency
>> is only build time,
On 9/17/11 5:42 PM, "Paweł Hajdan, Jr." wrote:
> TLDR: Let's remove FEATURES="stricter" from developer profile, I bet
> most people have it disabled anyway and it doesn't seem useful.
This is now done. Nobody complained and there was +1 from Rafael Martins.
Enjoy a more usable developer profile!
On Sunday, October 02, 2011 08:58:19 Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote:
> Samuli Suominen schrieb:
> >> Please point to existing authoritative documentation which says that
> >> downgrades are unacceptable.
> >>
> >>> It is NOT gentoo-x86 compatible package in it's current form.
> >>
> >> It set
Mike Frysinger schrieb:
> On Sunday, October 02, 2011 08:58:19 Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote:
>> Samuli Suominen schrieb:
Please point to existing authoritative documentation which says that
downgrades are unacceptable.
> It is NOT gentoo-x86 compatible package in it's curre
On Sunday, October 02, 2011 16:00:30 Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote:
> I agree that a downgrade is a bit inconvenient for users. But if another
> package is built later with DEPEND on newer linux-headers or emerge
> --deep option, then it will get upgraded again. As no package runtime
> depends
Mike Frysinger schrieb:
> the system is functioning wrongly because you're forcing users to needlessly
> upgrade/downgrade packages. in addition, packages in the tree aren't the
> only
> things to be considered. if the user is building code that works fine
> against
> the latest stable, but
On 10/02/2011 11:40 PM, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote:
> Mike Frysinger schrieb:
>> the system is functioning wrongly because you're forcing users to needlessly
>> upgrade/downgrade packages. in addition, packages in the tree aren't the
>> only
>> things to be considered. if the user is b
Samuli Suominen schrieb:
>> And again, downgrade of dependencies it is not against any rule which
>> would justify mask and removal.
>>
>> Another example from the X.org packages, installing the proprietary
>> ATI/NVidia drivers will cause downgrades for xorg-server on ~arch
>> systems. Nobody in
On 10/03/2011 12:37 AM, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote:
> Samuli Suominen schrieb:
>
>>> And again, downgrade of dependencies it is not against any rule which
>>> would justify mask and removal.
>>>
>>> Another example from the X.org packages, installing the proprietary
>>> ATI/NVidia drivers
Samuli Suominen schrieb:
>>> Poor example to make a case.
>>
>> VIDEO_CARDS is just for user convenience. run "emerge nvidia-drivers" on
>> any system with xorg-server-1.11 installed and it will downgrade, no
>> matter what VIDEO_CARDS is set to.
>
> And your point is?
My point is that packages c
Really... it took me less time to chuck the new-videodev.patch from [1] into
src_prepare() and compile-test than it did to read the noise in this
thread... :)
HTH,
malc.
[1] http://patch-tracker.debian.org/package/qutecom/2.2.1+dfsg1-2
The attached list notes all of the packages that were added or removed
from the tree, for the week ending 2011-10-02 23h59 UTC.
Removals:
media-sound/gnomeradio 2011-09-30 19:34:47 ssuominen
media-tv/xdtv 2011-09-30 19:36:11 ssuominen
net-im/qutecom
On 00:31 Mon 03 Oct , Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote:
> It may be obvious to you, but it certainly is not obvious to me why
> linux-headers downgrade is so bad. If vapier's unsupported out-of-tree
> software fails to build against old linux-headers, then he has to make
> sure to have the co
On 2 October 2011 13:50, Samuli Suominen wrote:
> On 10/02/2011 02:44 AM, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote:
[...]
>> Bug 361181 is certainly on my TODO list, just not very high up to now.
>> If you think that there is some urgency in getting rid of the package,
>> please do explain so in advance
On 10/2/11 8:26 PM, Arun Raghavan wrote:
> Removing the package again seems to just be unnecessary when the
> maintainer has stated that he'll fix the problem. Would masking it
> till it was fixed not suffice? Seems like a bit unjustified to me
> (from information on this thread alone).
I find the
Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn writes:
> My point is that packages can cause downgrades through "<" dependencies.
> There is no rule against it.
Nearly all of which prevent the upgrade of the dependent package rather
forcing the downgrade of an already installed package.
20 matches
Mail list logo
