On Fri, 05 Apr 2013 22:18:22 -0400
Ian Stakenvicius a...@gentoo.org wrote:
Revbump -- very important in this case, as the slot-operator dep
(iirc) does not take effect to allow sub-slot-triggered until after a
version with the slot-operator has been emerged.
So we want users to re-emerge
On Sat, Apr 6, 2013 at 10:33 AM, Alexis Ballier aball...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Fri, 05 Apr 2013 22:18:22 -0400
Ian Stakenvicius a...@gentoo.org wrote:
Revbump -- very important in this case, as the slot-operator dep
(iirc) does not take effect to allow sub-slot-triggered until after a
On Sat, 6 Apr 2013 11:02:14 -0400
Mike Gilbert flop...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Sat, Apr 6, 2013 at 10:33 AM, Alexis Ballier aball...@gentoo.org
wrote:
On Fri, 05 Apr 2013 22:18:22 -0400
Ian Stakenvicius a...@gentoo.org wrote:
Revbump -- very important in this case, as the slot-operator
On Sat, Apr 6, 2013 at 11:09 AM, Alexis Ballier aball...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Sat, 6 Apr 2013 11:02:14 -0400
Mike Gilbert flop...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Sat, Apr 6, 2013 at 10:33 AM, Alexis Ballier aball...@gentoo.org
wrote:
On Fri, 05 Apr 2013 22:18:22 -0400
Ian Stakenvicius
On Sat, 6 Apr 2013 11:13:36 -0400
Mike Gilbert flop...@gentoo.org wrote:
I'm just not sure how the package managers like an in-place EAPI
change. If it works, great.
If you don't revbump when going from an EAPI that doesn't have subslots
to one that does, and then people start using subslot
On Sat, 6 Apr 2013 16:27:33 +0100
Ciaran McCreesh ciaran.mccre...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Sat, 6 Apr 2013 11:13:36 -0400
Mike Gilbert flop...@gentoo.org wrote:
I'm just not sure how the package managers like an in-place EAPI
change. If it works, great.
If you don't revbump when going
Hello,
As far as I'm aware, we don't really have much of a patch maintenance
policy in Gentoo. There a few loose rules like «don't put awfully big
files into FILESDIR» or the common sense «use unified diff», but no
complete and clear policy.
Especially considering the late discussion related to
On Sat, 2013-04-06 at 20:08 +0200, Michał Górny wrote:
What are your thoughts?
Sensible document. Can we have it on the agenda for the council meeting
please. It looks suitable for a yes/no vote, and I expect some guidance
from the wider developer community in how they respond on the list.
On 6 April 2013 19:08, Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org wrote:
Hello,
...
What are your thoughts?
Maybe it is time to setup a patch tracking system like Debian[1]?
Sometimes it is really hard to understand what patches are applied by
an ebuild (especially when all the
build process is handled
On Sat, 2013-04-06 at 20:08 +0200, Michał Górny wrote:
2. Patches have to apply to the top directory of the source tree with
'patch -p1'. If patches are applied to sub-directories, necessary '-p'
argument shall be passed to 'epatch' explicitly. Developers are
encouraged to create patches which
On Sat, 06 Apr 2013 14:35:47 -0400
Alexandre Rostovtsev tetrom...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Sat, 2013-04-06 at 20:08 +0200, Michał Górny wrote:
2. Patches have to apply to the top directory of the source tree with
'patch -p1'. If patches are applied to sub-directories, necessary '-p'
argument
On Apr 6, 2013 2:36 PM, Alexandre Rostovtsev tetrom...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Sat, 2013-04-06 at 20:08 +0200, Michał Górny wrote:
2. Patches have to apply to the top directory of the source tree with
'patch -p1'. If patches are applied to sub-directories, necessary '-p'
argument shall be
On 4/6/13 11:08 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
1. Patches have to be either in unified or context diff format. Unified
diff is preferred.
Are there any other formats than unified and context diff? If not, it'd
be like another for indoor or outdoor use only or home or office use
- i.e. no need to
On 06/04/13 03:02 PM, Paweł Hajdan, Jr. wrote:
Are there any other formats than unified and context diff? If not, it'd
be like another for indoor or outdoor use only or home or office use
- i.e. no need to explicitly list all possible options.
From the man page:
-c, -C NUM, --context[=NUM]
On Sat, 06 Apr 2013 12:02:28 -0700
Paweł Hajdan, Jr. phajdan...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 4/6/13 11:08 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
5. The patch name shall shortly summarize the changes done by it.
Common sense again. :) And I agree that patches should do that, the
question is just whether we put
On 4/6/13 12:41 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
6. Patch files shall start with a brief description of what the patch
does. Developers are encouraged to use git-style tags like 'Fixes:' to
point to the relevant bug URIs.
That could be helpful - could this be made more precise though? Is there
any
# Ryan Hill dirtye...@gentoo.org (06 Apr 2013)
# Restrictive licence, basically demo versions of paid software. 14 versions
# have been released in the past 4 years and not one person has requested a
# bump. Use dev-util/codeblocks for all your wxWidgets IDE needs.
# Bug #464768. Removal May
On Sat, Apr 06, 2013 at 08:08:43PM +0200, Michał Górny wrote:
The above-listed policy will apply to the patches kept in the gx86 tree
(in FILESDIRs) and patch archives created by Gentoo developers. They
will not apply to the patch archives created upstream.
What about patches created by
On Sat, 06 Apr 2013 13:00:35 -0700
Paweł Hajdan, Jr. phajdan...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 4/6/13 12:41 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
I would honestly just go for the git style. It's the first thing that
really succeeded in standardizing patches. Inventing something new is
not really necessary, I
19 matches
Mail list logo
