Re: [gentoo-dev] gstreamer eclass review

2012-12-06 Thread Gilles Dartiguelongue
Le jeudi 06 décembre 2012 à 06:01 +0200, Maxim Kammerer a écrit : > Hi, after the commit 3 days ago all kinds of plugins suddenly depend > on gst-plugins-bad. E.g.: gst-plugins-{dts,faad,libmms,resindvd,xvid}. > Is gst-plugins-bad eclass the wrong one to inherit in their case? > Also, vp8 plugin bo

Re: [gentoo-dev] introduce a soft-limit policy for changing other developers ebuilds

2012-12-06 Thread Ben de Groot
On 4 December 2012 17:19, Markos Chandras wrote: > On 4 December 2012 01:18, Ben de Groot wrote: > > In my opinion we should limit the amount of places where we document > > policies and best practices. I suggest we keep only devmanual and PMS as > > authoritative documents. > > > > In that case

Re: Proxy maintainers in metadata.xml (was Re: [gentoo-dev] introduce a soft-limit policy for changing other developers ebuilds)

2012-12-06 Thread Ben de Groot
On 5 December 2012 02:51, Markos Chandras wrote: > On 4 December 2012 17:28, Rick "Zero_Chaos" Farina > wrote: > > On 12/04/2012 12:06 PM, Diego Elio Pettenò wrote: > >> Or maybe we can just agree that common sense rules all, and we always > >> set the proxied maintainer as assignee, and the pro

Re: Proxy maintainers in metadata.xml (was Re: [gentoo-dev] introduce a soft-limit policy for changing other developers ebuilds)

2012-12-06 Thread Markos Chandras
On 6 December 2012 11:02, Ben de Groot wrote: > > > > On 5 December 2012 02:51, Markos Chandras wrote: >> >> On 4 December 2012 17:28, Rick "Zero_Chaos" Farina >> wrote: >> > On 12/04/2012 12:06 PM, Diego Elio Pettenò wrote: >> >> Or maybe we can just agree that common sense rules all, and we al

Re: Proxy maintainers in metadata.xml (was Re: [gentoo-dev] introduce a soft-limit policy for changing other developers ebuilds)

2012-12-06 Thread Peter Stuge
Markos Chandras wrote: > This policy is for the bug-wranglers project, which someone must > read before he attempts to do any bug-wrangling. > I see no reason to move this to devmanual. The reason is that I as a developer (whenever I become one) want to be able to fix stuff right now that is broke

Re: Proxy maintainers in metadata.xml (was Re: [gentoo-dev] introduce a soft-limit policy for changing other developers ebuilds)

2012-12-06 Thread Ian Stakenvicius
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 06/12/12 10:27 AM, Peter Stuge wrote: > [ Snip! ] In the last 15 hours I've dealt with several trivial bugs > that I've found fixes for in bugzilla but which were not committed > anywhere. > > I've committed them to my overlay and that's fine for

Re: Proxy maintainers in metadata.xml (was Re: [gentoo-dev] introduce a soft-limit policy for changing other developers ebuilds)

2012-12-06 Thread Peter Stuge
Ian Stakenvicius wrote: > Essentially, if the problem is with the ebuild or the way the package > is integrated into gentoo, then fixing it immediately is fine. If the > problem is with the software itself, then usually upstream needs to be > involved before the fix will occur in gentoo. Yes that

Re: Proxy maintainers in metadata.xml (was Re: [gentoo-dev] introduce a soft-limit policy for changing other developers ebuilds)

2012-12-06 Thread Markos Chandras
On 6 December 2012 15:27, Peter Stuge wrote: > Markos Chandras wrote: >> This policy is for the bug-wranglers project, which someone must >> read before he attempts to do any bug-wrangling. >> I see no reason to move this to devmanual. > > The reason is that I as a developer (whenever I become one