-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 10/11/11 06:22, Matt Turner wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 9, 2011 at 11:22 AM, Markos Chandras
> wrote:
>> I am not in QA fwiw just trying to keep a basic QA level in
>> portage tree.
>
> Wait, what? If you're not even in QA, then who are you to start
>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 10/11/11 04:00, Ryan Hill wrote:
> On Sat, 08 Oct 2011 18:33:15 +0300 Samuli Suominen
> wrote:
>
>> It's not like fastened lastriting hasn't happened before. I
>> question your motives in picking this particular one. It's not
>> like I expected
On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 12:37 PM, Markos Chandras wrote:
> On 10/11/11 06:22, Matt Turner wrote:
>> On Sun, Oct 9, 2011 at 11:22 AM, Markos Chandras
>> wrote:
>>> I am not in QA fwiw just trying to keep a basic QA level in
>>> portage tree.
>>
>> Wait, what? If you're not even in QA, then who are
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 10/11/11 05:36, Alec Warner wrote:
>
> 3) Maintainers (and upstreams) are not always responsive. The bug
> was opened in February and wasn't really worked on until recently.
>
It is a bit of surprise all this talking for a bug that went
unattend
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 10/11/11 08:21, Nirbheek Chauhan wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 12:37 PM, Markos Chandras
> wrote:
>> On 10/11/11 06:22, Matt Turner wrote:
>>> On Sun, Oct 9, 2011 at 11:22 AM, Markos Chandras
>>> wrote:
I am not in QA fwiw just trying t
В Втр, 11/10/2011 в 08:09 +0100, Markos Chandras пишет:
> Isn't this the same situation with gcc stabilizations?
No. As was pointed many times, there was (and still is) no clear
stabilization path announced. But there is some work behind scene and
pressing dates with absolutely no need. If you wan
Markos Chandras posted on Tue, 11 Oct 2011 08:09:21 +0100 as excerpted:
> On 10/11/11 04:00, Ryan Hill wrote:
>> Then stop trying to remove packages that have an active maintainer.
>> I could have sworn that was written down somewhere.
>>
> Isn't this the same situation with gcc stabilizations?
Ryan Hill schrieb:
> On Sat, 08 Oct 2011 18:33:15 +0300
> Samuli Suominen wrote:
>
>> It's not like fastened lastriting hasn't happened before. I question
>> your motives in picking this particular one. It's not like I expected
>> cookies for the time I've put into this porting effort, but not thi
Markos Chandras schrieb:
>> 3) Maintainers (and upstreams) are not always responsive. The bug
>> was opened in February and wasn't really worked on until recently.
> It is a bit of surprise all this talking for a bug that went
> unattended for 9 months isn't it? O:) It is like people want open bugs
2011/10/11 Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn :
> There was no indication 9 months ago that this bug is so bad that the
> package would be removed if not fixed. Masking the package is ok if it
> is totally broken or violates policy. Removal when the maintainer is
> explicitly against it is not ok.
Agree
On 10/11/2011 08:38 AM, Peter Volkov wrote:
> В Вск, 09/10/2011 в 22:28 +, Duncan пишет:
>> Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn posted on Sun, 09 Oct 2011 18:37:59 +0200 as
>> excerpted:
>>
>>> Duncan schrieb:
Libpng isn't held up that way, while the package still gets its 30 day
masking las
On 10/11/2011 07:10 PM, Samuli Suominen wrote:
> On 10/11/2011 08:38 AM, Peter Volkov wrote:
>> В Вск, 09/10/2011 в 22:28 +, Duncan пишет:
>>> Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn posted on Sun, 09 Oct 2011 18:37:59 +0200 as
>>> excerpted:
>>>
Duncan schrieb:
> Libpng isn't held up that way, w
On Tue, 11 Oct 2011 19:10:01 +0300
Samuli Suominen wrote:
> so no, you don't get to use this as anykind of weapon against me or
> anyone else involved.
I thought the idea was to fix the problem in whatever way best serves
the needs of Gentoo's users, not to engage in warfare. What's all this
talk
On 10/11/2011 07:28 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Oct 2011 19:10:01 +0300
> Samuli Suominen wrote:
>> so no, you don't get to use this as anykind of weapon against me or
>> anyone else involved.
>
> I thought the idea was to fix the problem in whatever way best serves
> the needs of Gen
On 10/11/2011 08:38 AM, Peter Volkov wrote:
> В Вск, 09/10/2011 в 22:28 +, Duncan пишет:
>> Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn posted on Sun, 09 Oct 2011 18:37:59 +0200 as
>> excerpted:
>>
>>> Duncan schrieb:
Libpng isn't held up that way, while the package still gets its 30 day
masking las
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 10/11/11 14:57, Rich Freeman wrote:
> Finally, when you are taking action in some role (QA, whatever),
> make a note of it so that people know in what capacity you are
> acting and what project head to escalate to. If you can't say that
> "I'm do
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 10/11/11 14:57, Rich Freeman wrote:
> 2011/10/11 Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn :
The previous e-mail was not a direct response to you but I picked it
at random so I can reply to @all since I sent the entire thread to
/dev/null
- --
Regards,
Mark
On 10/11/2011 07:49 PM, Fabian Groffen (grobian) wrote:
> grobian 11/10/11 16:49:18
>
> Modified: ChangeLog chrpath-0.13-r2.ebuild
> Log:
> Revert ssuominen's changes that were totally uncalled for and most
> importantly broke the installation of this package on the main con
On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 12:52 PM, Markos Chandras wrote:
> Seems like none of you ever bothered to read the bug about pngcrush
> and what was discussed there.
I read the entire discussion before making a single post - it would be
irresponsible not to. Now, I can't say that I checked the cvs
hist
On 11-10-2011 19:59:13 +0300, Samuli Suominen wrote:
> So I've missed one ${EPREFIX} for docdir= ? How about just fixing that,
> and not crapping all over the package?
How about first asking the maintainer before you completely rewrite an
ebuild? I'm not innocent on this topic either (ask Diego f
On 10/11/2011 08:05 PM, Fabian Groffen wrote:
> On 11-10-2011 19:59:13 +0300, Samuli Suominen wrote:
>> So I've missed one ${EPREFIX} for docdir= ? How about just fixing that,
>> and not crapping all over the package?
>
> How about first asking the maintainer before you completely rewrite an
> ebu
On 11-10-2011 21:01:40 +0300, Samuli Suominen wrote:
> On 10/11/2011 08:05 PM, Fabian Groffen wrote:
> > On 11-10-2011 19:59:13 +0300, Samuli Suominen wrote:
> >> So I've missed one ${EPREFIX} for docdir= ? How about just fixing that,
> >> and not crapping all over the package?
> >
> > How about f
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 10/11/11 18:34, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 12:52 PM, Markos Chandras
> wrote:
I understand your points but given the fact that we have no active QA
team to pick up the mess whenever needed (Diego can't do eveyrything
on his ow
On 10/11/2011 09:13 PM, Fabian Groffen wrote:
> On 11-10-2011 21:01:40 +0300, Samuli Suominen wrote:
>> On 10/11/2011 08:05 PM, Fabian Groffen wrote:
>>> On 11-10-2011 19:59:13 +0300, Samuli Suominen wrote:
So I've missed one ${EPREFIX} for docdir= ? How about just fixing that,
and not cr
On 11-10-2011 21:34:22 +0300, Samuli Suominen wrote:
> Thanks, the end result of installed files look now OK. Care to reopen
> the stabilization bug? The changes are trivial.
Shall we stick to the policy and wait 30 days without bugs first?
> I just hope nobody will take an example of the ebuild
Hi,
Today I have found that build dependencies are left in the system but
won't be upgraded when running emerge -vauD1 world.
This can be inconvenient since security issues fixed in those left over
packages won't be applied properly.
So, is there any reason for this behaviour? Shouldn't build depe
On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 2:34 PM, Samuli Suominen wrote:
> I just hope nobody will take an example of the ebuild with code
> duplication (multiple epatch calls), overquoting, redudant use of find
> when rm is more than enough, ...
I haven't looked, but if we don't already, a little style guide wou
On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 3:07 AM, Markos Chandras wrote:
>> Wait, what? If you're not even in QA, then who are you to start
>> masking other people's packages?
>>
> It seems you don't even bother to read the masking message or my
> comments on the bug. I said "Talk to QA and CC me if you want to
>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 10/11/11 19:50, Francisco Blas Izquierdo Riera (klondike) wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Today I have found that build dependencies are left in the system
> but won't be upgraded when running emerge -vauD1 world. This can be
> inconvenient since security issue
El 11/10/11 20:55, Markos Chandras escribió:
> On 10/11/11 19:50, Francisco Blas Izquierdo Riera (klondike) wrote:
> > Hi,
>
> > Today I have found that build dependencies are left in the system
> > but won't be upgraded when running emerge -vauD1 world. This can be
> > inconvenient since security
On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 12:23 PM, Francisco Blas Izquierdo Riera
(klondike) wrote:
> El 11/10/11 20:55, Markos Chandras escribió:
>> On 10/11/11 19:50, Francisco Blas Izquierdo Riera (klondike) wrote:
>> > Hi,
>>
>> > Today I have found that build dependencies are left in the system
>> > but won't
On 10/11/2011 09:46 PM, Fabian Groffen wrote:
> On 11-10-2011 21:34:22 +0300, Samuli Suominen wrote:
>> Thanks, the end result of installed files look now OK. Care to reopen
>> the stabilization bug? The changes are trivial.
>
> Shall we stick to the policy and wait 30 days without bugs first?
OK
On Tue, 11 Oct 2011 14:50:30 -0400
Matt Turner wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 2:34 PM, Samuli Suominen
> wrote:
> > I just hope nobody will take an example of the ebuild with code
> > duplication (multiple epatch calls), overquoting, redudant use of
> > find when rm is more than enough, ...
>
On 11-10-2011 22:38:10 +0300, Samuli Suominen wrote:
> This document should be fixed. Any comments about the patches belong to
> header of those patches, available for possible upstreams as well.
> Doesn't belong to ebuilds.
The devmanual doesn't suggest this is the way to go, does it?
> So it ve
On Tue, 11 Oct 2011 12:36:15 -0700
Alec Warner wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 12:23 PM, Francisco Blas Izquierdo Riera
> (klondike) wrote:
> > El 11/10/11 20:55, Markos Chandras escribió:
> >> On 10/11/11 19:50, Francisco Blas Izquierdo Riera (klondike) wrote:
> >> > Hi,
> >>
> >> > Today I ha
On 10/11/2011 10:49 PM, Fabian Groffen wrote:
> On 11-10-2011 22:38:10 +0300, Samuli Suominen wrote:
>> This document should be fixed. Any comments about the patches belong to
>> header of those patches, available for possible upstreams as well.
>> Doesn't belong to ebuilds.
>
> The devmanual does
On Dienstag 11 Oktober 2011 20:23:13 Markos Chandras wrote:
> On 10/11/11 18:34, Rich Freeman wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 12:52 PM, Markos Chandras
>
> > wrote:
> I understand your points but given the fact that we have no active QA
> team to pick up the mess whenever needed (Diego can't d
On 11-10-2011 23:00:19 +0300, Samuli Suominen wrote:
> > The devmanual doesn't suggest this is the way to go, does it?
>
> No, but it should.
different topic
--
Fabian Groffen
Gentoo on a different level
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
El 11/10/11 21:36, Alec Warner escribió:
> On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 12:23 PM, Francisco Blas Izquierdo Riera
> (klondike) wrote:
>> El 11/10/11 20:55, Markos Chandras escribió:
>>> On 10/11/11 19:50, Francisco Blas Izquierdo Riera (klondike) wrote:
Hi,
Today I have found that build depend
On 10/11/2011 11:04 PM, Fabian Groffen wrote:
> On 11-10-2011 23:00:19 +0300, Samuli Suominen wrote:
>>> The devmanual doesn't suggest this is the way to go, does it?
>>
>> No, but it should.
>
> different topic
still on the same one.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 10/11/11 21:01, Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
> On Dienstag 11 Oktober 2011 20:23:13 Markos Chandras wrote:
>> On 10/11/11 18:34, Rich Freeman wrote:
>>> On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 12:52 PM, Markos Chandras
>>
>>> wrote:
>> I understand your points but
On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 2:50 PM, Francisco Blas Izquierdo Riera
(klondike) wrote:
> So, is there any reason for this behaviour? Shouldn't build dependencies
> either be cleaned with --depclean after building or be upgraded to avoid
> possible issues?
>
I agree: with-bdeps should either default to
On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 1:29 PM, Markos Chandras wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA512
>
> On 10/11/11 21:01, Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
>> On Dienstag 11 Oktober 2011 20:23:13 Markos Chandras wrote:
>>> On 10/11/11 18:34, Rich Freeman wrote:
On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 12:52
On Tue, 11 Oct 2011 17:52:42 +0100
Markos Chandras wrote:
> Seems like none of you ever bothered to read the bug about pngcrush
> and what was discussed there. It is getting a little bit of a habit to
> escalate minor problems to flames in Gentoo. So feel free to
> write/say/do whatever you want(
Mike Gilbert posted on Tue, 11 Oct 2011 17:04:02 -0400 as excerpted:
> On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 2:50 PM, Francisco Blas Izquierdo Riera
> (klondike) wrote:
>> So, is there any reason for this behaviour? Shouldn't build
>> dependencies either be cleaned with --depclean after building or be
>> upgra
On Tue, 11 Oct 2011 08:09:21 +0100
Markos Chandras wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA512
>
> On 10/11/11 04:00, Ryan Hill wrote:
> > On Sat, 08 Oct 2011 18:33:15 +0300 Samuli Suominen
> > wrote:
> >
> >> It's not like fastened lastriting hasn't happened before. I
> >> ques
On Tue, 11 Oct 2011 19:41:21 -0600
Ryan Hill wrote:
> > Isn't this the same situation with gcc stabilizations? Once the
> > timeframe for fixing broken packages with e.g gcc-4.5 is passed, the
> > remaining broken packages will be gone.
>
> Absolutely not. They aren't even masked. There are us
On 10/11/2011 11:50 AM, Francisco Blas Izquierdo Riera (klondike) wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Today I have found that build dependencies are left in the system but
> won't be upgraded when running emerge -vauD1 world.
> This can be inconvenient since security issues fixed in those left over
> packages won't
Michał Górny wrote:
> I don't think that passing multiple files to epatch actually improves
> readability. Simple example:
>
> # bug #123456, foo, bar
> epatch "${FILESDIR}"/${P}-foo.patch
> # bug #234567, baz bazinga blah blah
> epatch "${FILESDIR}"/${P}-baz.patch
>
> With multiple arguments, yo
Hi all
Recently, there was a firestorm on the gentoo-user list over the idea
that udev would eventually require /usr to be on the same physical
parition as /, or else use initramfs, which is its own can of worms. I'm
not a programmer, let alone a developer. Rather than merely ranting, I
went an
On 10/11/2011 02:04 PM, Mike Gilbert wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 2:50 PM, Francisco Blas Izquierdo Riera
> (klondike) wrote:
>> So, is there any reason for this behaviour? Shouldn't build dependencies
>> either be cleaned with --depclean after building or be upgraded to avoid
>> possible issu
On 10/11/2011 12:56 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
> Or go with a saner defaults...
So, are any of the following sane?
1) Pull in updates for packages even though those packages won't be used
for anything.
2) Pull in build-time dependencies for packages that are already built,
even though no portage ve
On 10/11/2011 09:40 PM, Walter Dnes wrote:
> Hi all
>
> Recently, there was a firestorm on the gentoo-user list over the idea
> that udev would eventually require /usr to be on the same physical
> parition as /, or else use initramfs, which is its own can of worms. I'm
> not a programmer, let al
On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 12:40:23AM -0400, Walter Dnes wrote:
> Hi all
>
> Recently, there was a firestorm on the gentoo-user list over the idea
> that udev would eventually require /usr to be on the same physical
> parition as /, or else use initramfs, which is its own can of worms. I'm
> not a
On 10/12/2011 12:54 AM, Zac Medico wrote:
> On 10/11/2011 12:56 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
>> Or go with a saner defaults...
>
> So, are any of the following sane?
>
> 1) Pull in updates for packages even though those packages won't be used
> for anything.
>
Francisco raised a possibly valid point
On 10/11/2011 10:28 PM, Mike Gilbert wrote:
> On 10/12/2011 12:54 AM, Zac Medico wrote:
>> On 10/11/2011 12:56 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
>>> Or go with a saner defaults...
>>
>> So, are any of the following sane?
>>
>> 1) Pull in updates for packages even though those packages won't be used
>> for a
Zac Medico writes:
> On 10/11/2011 10:28 PM, Mike Gilbert wrote:
>> Francisco raised a possibly valid point in his original message: though
>> packages may not be currently used for anything, but they could contain
>> un-patched security flaws.
>
> If they contain something that's accessed at run
On 10/11/2011 10:59 PM, Graham Murray wrote:
> Zac Medico writes:
>
>> On 10/11/2011 10:28 PM, Mike Gilbert wrote:
>>> Francisco raised a possibly valid point in his original message: though
>>> packages may not be currently used for anything, but they could contain
>>> un-patched security flaws.
58 matches
Mail list logo
