Hi everyone,
This is a followup to a discussion on IRC yesterday regarding breakage
that's occurring to catalyst builds as a result of the recent move from
dev-python/python-exec to dev-lang/python-exec. The commit of the later
were pushed into the tree with all KEYWORDS marked stable using re
On Sat, 02 Nov 2013 09:16:45 -0400
"Anthony G. Basile" wrote:
> This is a followup to a discussion on IRC yesterday regarding
> breakage that's occurring to catalyst builds as a result of the
> recent move from dev-python/python-exec to dev-lang/python-exec.
This has been happening to users as w
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 02.11.2013 14:51, Tom Wijsman wrote:
> From what I heard so far this isn't reproducible by the committer;
> so, is anyone else being able to reproduce this? I didn't
> experience this either; so, maybe this is only reproducible on a
> stable system?
Dnia 2013-11-02, o godz. 14:51:26
Tom Wijsman napisał(a):
> On Sat, 02 Nov 2013 09:16:45 -0400
> "Anthony G. Basile" wrote:
>
> > This is a followup to a discussion on IRC yesterday regarding
> > breakage that's occurring to catalyst builds as a result of the
> > recent move from dev-python/pyt
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
# Markos Chandras (02 Nov 2013)
# On behalf of Treecleaners
# Upstream started a complete rewrite of the package
# meaning that existing bugs will not be fixed by future
# version bumps of the existing code.
# It is unclear when/if the new code will
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi,
I don't think that upstream deciding to rewrite a package is good
enough reason to tree clean the package. Have you done this
with eg. bind package which is constantly rewritten and constantly have
security issues?
The same goes for closing bugs
On 11/02/2013 05:55 PM, yac wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I don't think that upstream deciding to rewrite a package is good
> enough reason to tree clean the package. Have you done this
> with eg. bind package which is constantly rewritten and constantly have
> security issues?
>
> The same goes for closing b
On Sat, 02 Nov 2013 17:57:34 +
Markos Chandras wrote:
> On 11/02/2013 05:55 PM, yac wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I don't think that upstream deciding to rewrite a package is good
> > enough reason to tree clean the package. Have you done this
> > with eg. bind package which is constantly rewritten
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 11/02/2013 11:03 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
> Dnia 2013-11-02, o godz. 14:51:26
> Tom Wijsman napisał(a):
>
>> On Sat, 02 Nov 2013 09:16:45 -0400
>> "Anthony G. Basile" wrote:
>>
>>> This is a followup to a discussion on IRC yesterday regarding
>>>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sat, 02 Nov 2013 15:20:41 -0400
"Rick \"Zero_Chaos\" Farina" wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 11/02/2013 11:03 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
> > Dnia 2013-11-02, o godz. 14:51:26
> > Tom Wijsman napisał(a):
> >
> >> On
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 11/02/2013 04:35 PM, yac wrote:
> On Sat, 02 Nov 2013 15:20:41 -0400
> "Rick \"Zero_Chaos\" Farina" wrote:
>
>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>> Hash: SHA1
>
>> On 11/02/2013 11:03 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
>>> Dnia 2013-11-02, o godz. 14:51:2
On Sat, Nov 2, 2013 at 4:57 PM, Rick "Zero_Chaos" Farina
wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 11/02/2013 04:35 PM, yac wrote:
>> On Sat, 02 Nov 2013 15:20:41 -0400
>> "Rick \"Zero_Chaos\" Farina" wrote:
>>
>>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>>> On
On Mon, 21 Oct 2013 20:16:01 +0100
Markos Chandras wrote:
> Lets calm down a little bit. Our documentation is nowhere near perfect
> and common sense is not always obvious (we have hundreds of people
> claiming that the opposite). Instead of arguing in public how about we
> contribute some patche
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On Sat, 02 Nov 2013 16:57:07 -0400
"Rick \"Zero_Chaos\" Farina" wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 11/02/2013 04:35 PM, yac wrote:
> > On Sat, 02 Nov 2013 15:20:41 -0400
> > "Rick \"Zero_Chaos\" Farina" wrote:
> >
>
On 11/02/2013 06:09 PM, yac wrote:
I don't know how this releng stuff works. I bet there is lot of devs
who don't.
This is why you should announce risking commits. Because you may not
know what it will cause, but others will.
--
Anthony G. Basile, Ph.D.
Gentoo Linux Developer [Hardened]
E-M
On Sat, 2013-11-02 at 20:12 +0100, yac wrote:
> c6 indicates xarchiver will break on unrar-5 when it will go stable but
> it still is not stable, is it? Given the way this issue is
> communicated, I have to ask - Is it even true? The rar major version
> seems to be related to rar format version rat
On 11/02/2013 07:12 PM, yac wrote:
> On Sat, 02 Nov 2013 17:57:34 +
> Markos Chandras wrote:
>
>> On 11/02/2013 05:55 PM, yac wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I don't think that upstream deciding to rewrite a package is good
>>> enough reason to tree clean the package. Have you done this
>>> with eg. b
On Sat, 02 Nov 2013 19:19:21 -0400
"Anthony G. Basile" wrote:
> On 11/02/2013 06:09 PM, yac wrote:
> > I don't know how this releng stuff works. I bet there is lot of devs
> > who don't.
>
> This is why you should announce risking commits. Because you may not
> know what it will cause, but oth
On 11/02/2013 07:45 PM, yac wrote:
On Sat, 02 Nov 2013 19:19:21 -0400
"Anthony G. Basile" wrote:
On 11/02/2013 06:09 PM, yac wrote:
I don't know how this releng stuff works. I bet there is lot of devs
who don't.
This is why you should announce risking commits. Because you may not
know what
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sat, 02 Nov 2013 15:20:41 -0400
"Rick \"Zero_Chaos\" Farina" wrote:
> A news item isn't enough for breaking autobuilds. If we can't find a
> way to do this properly so portage knows how to upgrade then it is
> being done WRONG.
Realistically, we'
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 11/02/2013 06:09 PM, yac wrote:
> On Sat, 02 Nov 2013 16:57:07 -0400
> "Rick \"Zero_Chaos\" Farina" wrote:
>
>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>> Hash: SHA1
>
>> On 11/02/2013 04:35 PM, yac wrote:
>>> On Sat, 02 Nov 2013 15:20:41 -0400
>>> "R
21 matches
Mail list logo
