(Please note this is to to -core and -dev, with reply-to on -dev)
TL;DR: overlays and the main repos will now live on the same server
Hi all,
Hopefully everybody has seen my email about Gentoo Infrastructure losing
a lot of servers soon. If not, see [1]. This is one of the emails to
work on reduc
On Sat, 14 Jun 2014 07:26:47 +
"Robin H. Johnson" wrote:
> All remaining SVN repos will be migrated to Git.
> This applies to both svn.gentoo.org and svn.overlays.gentoo.org
> This is being tracked in bug #513182 [2]
>
> There are very few repos that still actively commit new content.
> Here
Hi,
Some time ago we've got bug #510780 [1] asking us to bump subslot
on LLVM even though the new version was ABI-compatible with previous
one. It was because it introduced new APIs which applications could
make use of. Since I believe this is a wider issue, I would like to
know the opinion of our
On Sat, 14 Jun 2014 16:41:51 +0200
Michał Górny wrote:
> However, this means that we force much more rebuilds than necessary.
This shouldn't be considered to be a problem.
--
Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
Ciaran McCreesh:
> On Sat, 14 Jun 2014 16:41:51 +0200
> Michał Górny wrote:
>> However, this means that we force much more rebuilds than necessary.
>
> This shouldn't be considered to be a problem.
>
Why not?
On Sat, 14 Jun 2014 15:32:56 +
hasufell wrote:
> Ciaran McCreesh:
> > On Sat, 14 Jun 2014 16:41:51 +0200
> > Michał Górny wrote:
> >> However, this means that we force much more rebuilds than
> >> necessary.
> >
> > This shouldn't be considered to be a problem.
>
> Why not?
If "not having
On Sat, 2014-06-14 at 16:13 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Sat, 14 Jun 2014 16:41:51 +0200
> Michał Górny wrote:
> > However, this means that we force much more rebuilds than necessary.
>
> This shouldn't be considered to be a problem.
This would be suicide for Gentoo as a distro. Organizati
On Sat, 14 Jun 2014 11:50:29 -0400
Alexandre Rostovtsev wrote:
> On Sat, 2014-06-14 at 16:13 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > On Sat, 14 Jun 2014 16:41:51 +0200
> > Michał Górny wrote:
> > > However, this means that we force much more rebuilds than
> > > necessary.
> >
> > This shouldn't be con
14 июня 2014 г. 19:45 пользователь "Ciaran McCreesh" <
ciaran.mccre...@googlemail.com> написал:
>
> On Sat, 14 Jun 2014 15:32:56 +
> hasufell wrote:
> > Ciaran McCreesh:
> > > On Sat, 14 Jun 2014 16:41:51 +0200
> > > Michał Górny wrote:
> > >> However, this means that we force much more rebui
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 14/06/14 10:41 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Some time ago we've got bug #510780 [1] asking us to bump subslot
> on LLVM even though the new version was ABI-compatible with
> previous one. It was because it introduced new APIs which
> applic
On 06/15/2014 02:05 AM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
> I vote that as primary policy/general practice, it only be bumped for
> (2) -- the primary purpose of subslot rebuilds is to allow portage to
> figure out the deptree order when a dependency upgrade is going to
> break a package that may or may not
Ciaran McCreesh:
> On Sat, 14 Jun 2014 15:32:56 +
> hasufell wrote:
>> Ciaran McCreesh:
>>> On Sat, 14 Jun 2014 16:41:51 +0200
>>> Michał Górny wrote:
However, this means that we force much more rebuilds than
necessary.
>>>
>>> This shouldn't be considered to be a problem.
>>
>> Why
On Sat, 2014-06-14 at 16:56 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Sat, 14 Jun 2014 11:50:29 -0400
> Alexandre Rostovtsev wrote:
> > On Sat, 2014-06-14 at 16:13 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > > On Sat, 14 Jun 2014 16:41:51 +0200
> > > Michał Górny wrote:
> > > > However, this means that we force m
On Sat, 14 Jun 2014 16:16:20 +
hasufell wrote:
> Ciaran McCreesh:
> > On Sat, 14 Jun 2014 15:32:56 +
> > hasufell wrote:
> >> Ciaran McCreesh:
> >>> On Sat, 14 Jun 2014 16:41:51 +0200
> >>> Michał Górny wrote:
> However, this means that we force much more rebuilds than
> necess
Ian Stakenvicius:
>
>
> I vote that as primary policy/general practice, it only be bumped for
> (2) -- the primary purpose of subslot rebuilds is to allow portage to
> figure out the deptree order when a dependency upgrade is going to
> break a package that may or may not be emerged later. "brea
Ciaran McCreesh:
> On Sat, 14 Jun 2014 16:16:20 +
> hasufell wrote:
>> Ciaran McCreesh:
>>> On Sat, 14 Jun 2014 15:32:56 +
>>> hasufell wrote:
Ciaran McCreesh:
> On Sat, 14 Jun 2014 16:41:51 +0200
> Michał Górny wrote:
>> However, this means that we force much more rebui
On Sat, 14 Jun 2014 12:17:52 -0400
Alexandre Rostovtsev wrote:
> On Sat, 2014-06-14 at 16:56 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > On Sat, 14 Jun 2014 11:50:29 -0400
> > Alexandre Rostovtsev wrote:
> > > On Sat, 2014-06-14 at 16:13 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > > > On Sat, 14 Jun 2014 16:41:51 +0
On Sat, 2014-06-14 at 17:31 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Sat, 14 Jun 2014 12:17:52 -0400
> Alexandre Rostovtsev wrote:
> > On Sat, 2014-06-14 at 16:56 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > > On Sat, 14 Jun 2014 11:50:29 -0400
> > > Alexandre Rostovtsev wrote:
> > > > On Sat, 2014-06-14 at 16:13
On Sat, 2014-06-14 at 16:41 +0200, Michał Górny wrote:
> Considering the libtool versioning, there are two kinds of library
> bumps relevant to us:
>
> 1) when ABI is altered in backwards-compatible way (so old stuff is not
> touched),
>
> 2) when ABI is altered in backwards-incompatible way.
Th
On Sat, 2014-06-14 at 12:50 -0400, Alexandre Rostovtsev wrote:
> Example: glib and gobject-introspection.
s/gobject-introspection/dbus-glib/
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
On 06/15/2014 02:50 AM, Alexandre Rostovtsev wrote:
> On Sat, 2014-06-14 at 16:41 +0200, Michał Górny wrote:
>> Considering the libtool versioning, there are two kinds of library
>> bumps relevant to us:
>>
>> 1) when ABI is altered in backwards-compatible way (so old stuff is not
>> touched),
>>
>
On Sat, Jun 14, 2014 at 02:38:04AM -0600, Ryan Hill wrote:
> On Sat, 14 Jun 2014 07:26:47 +
> "Robin H. Johnson" wrote:
>
> > All remaining SVN repos will be migrated to Git.
> > This applies to both svn.gentoo.org and svn.overlays.gentoo.org
> > This is being tracked in bug #513182 [2]
> >
On Sat, Jun 14, 2014 at 12:31 PM, Ciaran McCreesh
wrote:
> On Sat, 14 Jun 2014 12:17:52 -0400
> Alexandre Rostovtsev wrote:
>> On Sat, 2014-06-14 at 16:56 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>> > On Sat, 14 Jun 2014 11:50:29 -0400
>> > Alexandre Rostovtsev wrote:
>> > > On Sat, 2014-06-14 at 16:13 +01
Maxim Koltsov (maksbotan):
> # Copyright 1999-2014 Gentoo Foundation
> # Distributed under the terms of the GNU General Public License v2
> # $Header:
> /var/cvsroot/gentoo-x86/games-strategy/openxcom/openxcom-1.0.0.ebuild,v 1.1
> 2014/06/14 16:15:27 maksbotan Exp $
>
> EAPI=5
>
> inherit cmake
В письме от Сб, 14 июня 2014 20:06:54 пользователь hasufell написал:
> Maxim Koltsov (maksbotan):
> <...>
What about adding such checks in repoman?
P.S.
> Did you get a review from the games team?
You're right in all remarks, but Maxim is just proxy here.
And I'm not sure if original maintaine
Vadim A. Misbakh-Soloviov:
> В письме от Сб, 14 июня 2014 20:06:54 пользователь hasufell написал:
>> Maxim Koltsov (maksbotan):
>> <...>
>
> What about adding such checks in repoman?
>
which one?
On Sun, 15 Jun 2014 03:50:06 +0700
"Vadim A. Misbakh-Soloviov" wrote:
> You're right in all remarks, but Maxim is just proxy here.
And that's where the whole proxy maintainership falls down, isn't it?
The committer should check for and take responsibility for any QA
issues that may arise.
On Sat, Jun 14, 2014 at 5:46 PM, Jeroen Roovers wrote:
> On Sun, 15 Jun 2014 03:50:06 +0700
> "Vadim A. Misbakh-Soloviov" wrote:
>
>> You're right in all remarks, but Maxim is just proxy here.
>
> And that's where the whole proxy maintainership falls down, isn't it?
> The committer should check f
On Saturday 14 June 2014 11:50:29 Alexandre Rostovtsev wrote:
> On Sat, 2014-06-14 at 16:13 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > On Sat, 14 Jun 2014 16:41:51 +0200
> >
> > Michał Górny wrote:
> > > However, this means that we force much more rebuilds than necessary.
> >
> > This shouldn't be consid
On Sat, 14 Jun 2014 19:17:49 -0400
Rich Freeman wrote:
> Sure, those who commit are responsible for QA, but in general we
> should be going easy on them, especially for minor stuff.
Nobody was going hard on anyone. hasufell replied to an automated
e-mail, blaming no one in particular for a few i
On Sat, Jun 14, 2014 at 9:44 PM, Jeroen Roovers wrote:
> On Sat, 14 Jun 2014 19:17:49 -0400
> Rich Freeman wrote:
>
>> Sure, those who commit are responsible for QA, but in general we
>> should be going easy on them, especially for minor stuff.
>
> Nobody was going hard on anyone. hasufell replie
31 matches
Mail list logo
