[gentoo-dev] deblobbing kernel sources redux (ATTN all overlays with kernel sources packages)
This notice is mainly intended for everybody that maintains kernel sources ebuilds in their overlay. This evening I merged the deblob support from bug #266157, and depending on your kernel source ebuilds, you may need to run a digest pass or tweak them. There are two new variables recognized by kernel-2.eclass now: K_DEBLOB_AVAILABLE - ternary [0, 1, empty], is deblogging available, not, or should we try to guess? K_PREDEBLOBBED - binary, your sources already have blobs removed If you want your kernel sources ebuilds to never be considered for deblobbing, add the following line BEFORE kernel-2 is inherited: K_DEBLOB_AVAILABLE=0 If your kernel source ebuilds are =2.6.27, and you do not add the above line, you will need to run a digest pass on them for the new distfile. -- Robin Hugh Johnson Gentoo Linux: Developer, Trustee Infrastructure Lead E-Mail : robb...@gentoo.org GnuPG FP : 11AC BA4F 4778 E3F6 E4ED F38E B27B 944E 3488 4E85 pgpX3ThRo8ZZz.pgp Description: PGP signature
[gentoo-dev] RFC: bugzilla flags for arch-testing
To make it easier to find stabilization bugs with arch-testers' comments, I'd like to add new flags to Gentoo bugzilla. This is only an initial idea, and maybe a different implementation would be better (like the status whiteboard, if it's easily searchable). Initially, I'd like a new flag x86-at to be added, with states: (default), + (meaning that an AT has tested the package successfully on x86), - (meaning that an AT found some problems preventing stabilization) ? (meaning a developer asks for more urgent AT testing) What do you think? Feel free to suggest alternative implementations. The goal is to easily find bugs where ATs posted comments that the package is ready to go stable. Also, I think it may be useful for other arch teams (like amd64). One solution would be to add yet another flag, like amd64-at, but maybe we can have some better ideas. After a consensus is reached, I'm going to file a bug for infra for necessary changes in bugzilla configuration. Paweł signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: bugzilla flags for arch-testing
On 04/26/2010 11:40 AM, Paweł Hajdan, Jr. wrote: To make it easier to find stabilization bugs with arch-testers' comments, I'd like to add new flags to Gentoo bugzilla. Can you explain how the TESTED Keyword is not sufficient for your goal? It explicitly states: Ebuilds that have been marked as tested by arch testers. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: bugzilla flags for arch-testing
On 4/26/10 12:34 PM, Matti Bickel wrote: On 04/26/2010 11:40 AM, Paweł Hajdan, Jr. wrote: To make it easier to find stabilization bugs with arch-testers' comments, I'd like to add new flags to Gentoo bugzilla. Can you explain how the TESTED Keyword is not sufficient for your goal? It explicitly states: Ebuilds that have been marked as tested by arch testers. I'd like to narrow the search to x86 arch testers. We test independently on each arch. Paweł signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: bugzilla flags for arch-testing
On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 11:40:07AM +0200, Paweł Hajdan, Jr. wrote: Also, I think it may be useful for other arch teams (like amd64). One solution would be to add yet another flag, like amd64-at, but maybe we can have some better ideas. The problem here is that it becomes extremely messy when more and more arches want the same functionality. 13 common arches, 3 fbsd arches, and lots variations from the Prefix arches. This would take up a LOT of screen space in Bugzilla unfortunately. How about the following instead, going into the status whiteboard: AT:x86:+ AT:x86:- AT:x86:? with the same meanings that you defined. It should be just as easy to search, and you can do it today already. -- Robin Hugh Johnson Gentoo Linux: Developer, Trustee Infrastructure Lead E-Mail : robb...@gentoo.org GnuPG FP : 11AC BA4F 4778 E3F6 E4ED F38E B27B 944E 3488 4E85
Re: [gentoo-dev] Requiring two sets of eyes for all eclass commits
On Sun, Apr 25, 2010 at 5:42 PM, Alistair Bush ali_b...@gentoo.org wrote: snip Use common sense here. ^^ Seems pretty clear to me.
[gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: bugzilla flags for arch-testing
Hi, Robin H. Johnson robb...@gentoo.org: How about the following instead, going into the status whiteboard: AT:x86:+ AT:x86:- AT:x86:? with the same meanings that you defined. It should be just as easy to search, and you can do it today already. Yes, sounds good. What is the best way to document it apart from the various AT FAQs? V-Li -- Christian Faulhammer, Gentoo Lisp project URL:http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/lisp/, #gentoo-lisp on FreeNode URL:http://gentoo.faulhammer.org/ signature.asc Description: PGP signature
[gentoo-dev] Last Rites: app-text/manedit
# Paul Varner fuzzy...@gentoo.org (26 Apr 2010) # Masking for removal (bug #315947). # It doesn't compile with newer versions of zlib, still uses gtk1+, and # upstream is unresponsive. Unfortunately, there is not a suitable # replacement. app-text/manedit
[gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: bugzilla flags for arch-testing
On Mon, 26 Apr 2010 11:40:07 +0200 Paweł Hajdan, Jr. phajdan...@gentoo.org wrote: After a consensus is reached, I'm going to file a bug for infra for necessary changes in bugzilla configuration. https://bugs.gentoo.org/213514 -- fonts,by design, by neglect gcc-porting, for a fact or just for effect wxwidgets @ gentoo EFFD 380E 047A 4B51 D2BD C64F 8AA8 8346 F9A4 0662 signature.asc Description: PGP signature
