28.2.2006, 16:29:10, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 16:08:05 +0100 Jakub Moc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> | 28.2.2006, 15:39:40, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
| >> On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 10:49:13 +0100 Jakub Moc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
| >> wrote:
| >> | No, that's not a policy document, ebuild p
28.2.2006, 16:31:26, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 16:17:20 +0100 Paul de Vrieze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> | On Tuesday 28 February 2006 15:52, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
| >> Yes, it's an utterly trivial problem, but it is a QA violation.
| >> Getting a complete list is something
1.3.2006, 1:40:53, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Tuesday 28 February 2006 19:28, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>> On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 18:13:57 -0600 Lance Albertson
>>
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> | I should note that if are a Gentoo Developer and have
>> | problems/concerns/issues with Ciaran's attitu
Lance Albertson wrote:
> I should note that if are a Gentoo Developer and have
> problems/concerns/issues with Ciaran's attitude/actions, please comment
> on bug #114944. (this bug is only open to Gentoo developers). Its better
> if you say it yourself in this bug rather than letting other people
On Tuesday 28 February 2006 19:28, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 18:13:57 -0600 Lance Albertson
>
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> | I should note that if are a Gentoo Developer and have
> | problems/concerns/issues with Ciaran's attitude/actions, please
> | comment on bug #114944. (th
On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 18:13:57 -0600 Lance Albertson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| I should note that if are a Gentoo Developer and have
| problems/concerns/issues with Ciaran's attitude/actions, please
| comment on bug #114944. (this bug is only open to Gentoo developers).
| Its better if you say it
Mark Loeser wrote:
> I don't think you will find one person that is going to say they are
> capable of changing how Ciaran interacts with people. This is an
> entirely different issue though, and I have talked to Ciaran about it.
> What I was saying above is that I am not going to go and get invo
Renat Lumpau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> So you're saying it's ok to have one team member who steps out of line and
> cannot be managed? Are all teams allowed that exception?
Did you read what I said? I talked to him and told him what I expect.
I'm telling you to not expect him to change, not th
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Patrick Lauer skrev:
> Hi all,
>
> at FOSDEM we had a nice discussion about languages, translations etc.
> Having people from the US (wolf31o2) who never have problems and people
> from Japan (usata) who always have problems with encodings /
> charset
On Tue, Feb 28, 2006 at 06:34:32PM -0500, Mark Loeser wrote:
> Renat Lumpau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> > Yes. Here's a quote from Halcy0n (with his permission):
> >
> > Don't mistake me not getting involved for approval. I am just not going
> > to
> > get involved in every single dev->dev d
Patrick Lauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Tue, 2006-02-28 at 16:14 -0600, Grant Goodyear wrote:
> > So, back to the big issue, are there any real complaints about the QA
> > team essentially formulating QA policy? Should new QA policies instead
> > follow the same rules as new global USE flags
Renat Lumpau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Yes. Here's a quote from Halcy0n (with his permission):
>
> Don't mistake me not getting involved for approval. I am just not going to
> get involved in every single dev->dev disagreement, and certainly not when I
> do not have all of the facts. I w
On Tue, 2006-02-28 at 22:50 +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 23:42:34 +0100 Patrick Lauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> | ("We'll file bugs on Saturday if there are no objections to removal
> | of mkdir in global scope")
>
> Eek no. Have you any idea what happens when someone s
On Tuesday 28 February 2006 16:58, Alec Warner wrote:
> Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On Tuesday 28 February 2006 16:02, Jakub Moc wrote:
> >>28.2.2006, 21:39:43, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> >>>whats your point ? if an ebuild author wants to control the SLOT, then
> >>>they should be able to without havin
On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 23:42:34 +0100 Patrick Lauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| ("We'll file bugs on Saturday if there are no objections to removal
| of mkdir in global scope")
Eek no. Have you any idea what happens when someone shoves an mkdir in
global scope? That one is most definitely on the lis
On Tue, 2006-02-28 at 16:14 -0600, Grant Goodyear wrote:
> So, back to the big issue, are there any real complaints about the QA
> team essentially formulating QA policy? Should new QA policies instead
> follow the same rules as new global USE flags or eclasses--an e-mail to
> -dev asking for comm
On Tue, Feb 28, 2006 at 04:14:33PM -0600, Grant Goodyear wrote:
> I think
> it's fair to say that these QA checks will find problems ranging from
> not-awful-but-annoying to could-break-your-system, but they are all bugs
> that ought to be fixed eventually. Now, if you're currently working on
> fi
Renat Lumpau wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 28, 2006 at 04:31:37PM -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>> today's lesson: proactive QA is frowned upon, it's only a bug when a user
>> files a report at bugs.gentoo.org
>
> I don't think that's the lesson. It oughtta be: we need a way to figure out
> which QA issues
On Tue, Feb 28, 2006 at 09:57:05PM +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 21:50:40 + Renat Lumpau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> | On Tue, Feb 28, 2006 at 04:31:37PM -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> | > today's lesson: proactive QA is frowned upon, it's only a bug when
> | > a user fil
On Tue, Feb 28, 2006 at 04:55:52PM -0500, Dan Meltzer wrote:
> eh, see, from what I can tell you are just deciding to make it complicated.
How is having a process for resolving disagreements complicating things? I
should be able to escalate a conflict (differing opinions on whether something
is a
Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Tuesday 28 February 2006 16:02, Jakub Moc wrote:
>
>>28.2.2006, 21:39:43, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>>
>>>whats your point ? if an ebuild author wants to control the SLOT, then
>>>they should be able to without having an invalid warning issued on the
>>>subject
>>>
>>>consi
On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 21:50:40 + Renat Lumpau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| On Tue, Feb 28, 2006 at 04:31:37PM -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote:
| > today's lesson: proactive QA is frowned upon, it's only a bug when
| > a user files a report at bugs.gentoo.org
|
| I don't think that's the lesson. It o
On 2/28/06, Renat Lumpau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 28, 2006 at 04:31:37PM -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > today's lesson: proactive QA is frowned upon, it's only a bug when a user
> > files a report at bugs.gentoo.org
>
> I don't think that's the lesson. It oughtta be: we need a way
On Tue, Feb 28, 2006 at 04:31:37PM -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> today's lesson: proactive QA is frowned upon, it's only a bug when a user
> files a report at bugs.gentoo.org
I don't think that's the lesson. It oughtta be: we need a way to figure out
which QA issues are important and which are l
On Tuesday 28 February 2006 16:02, Jakub Moc wrote:
> 28.2.2006, 21:39:43, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > whats your point ? if an ebuild author wants to control the SLOT, then
> > they should be able to without having an invalid warning issued on the
> > subject
> >
> > considering the nature of the w
28.2.2006, 21:39:43, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> whats your point ? if an ebuild author wants to control the SLOT, then
> they should be able to without having an invalid warning issued on the
> subject
> considering the nature of the warning, it should be trivial to make it into a
> proper QA chec
On Tuesday 28 February 2006 15:10, Jakub Moc wrote:
> 28.2.2006, 20:59:42, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On Tuesday 28 February 2006 12:51, Renat Lumpau wrote:
> >> On Tue, Feb 28, 2006 at 05:11:57PM +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> >> > And it sticks out a nasty ewarn and says that the ebuild is probab
On Tue, 2006-02-28 at 20:18 +0100, Kevin F. Quinn (Gentoo) wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 12:47:33 -0500
> solar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I forget where I read it but I thought that unicode lead to overflows
> > and was considered a general security risk. I wish I knew where I read
> > that
On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 20:09:02 +0100 Jakub Moc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| 28.2.2006, 18:38:10, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
| > Sheesh, you'll probably claim that this isn't broken next too:
|
| > if [ "${IS_UPGRADE}" = "1" ] ; then
| > einfo "Removing old version ${REMOVE_PKG}"
|
| >
28.2.2006, 20:59:42, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Tuesday 28 February 2006 12:51, Renat Lumpau wrote:
>> On Tue, Feb 28, 2006 at 05:11:57PM +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>> > And it sticks out a nasty ewarn and says that the ebuild is probably
>> > broken.
>>
>> Which it _probably_ is. See, this is
On Tuesday 28 February 2006 12:51, Renat Lumpau wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 28, 2006 at 05:11:57PM +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > And it sticks out a nasty ewarn and says that the ebuild is probably
> > broken.
>
> Which it _probably_ is. See, this is a numbers game. In most cases, if you
> use the web
>> which part dont you understand ? the user sets a variable and then is told
>> that the package probably contains a bug ... seems pretty confusing to me
>> -mike
>
> rl03 already replied to that. I don't see any QA issues there, and if
> someone from QA team does, then he probably has too much
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Jakub Moc schrieb:
| 28.2.2006, 18:38:10, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
| No, I won't claim that... I'd rather love to know why didn't you point out
| to an obvious eclass flaw about 30 emails and many hours ago, saving
us from
| all the eclass formating, s
On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 20:27:01 +0100
Jakub Moc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Once again, don't invent problems, please.
Just because you don't see a problem doesn't mean it's not there.
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
28.2.2006, 19:39:15, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>> ewarn "This ebuild overrides the default SLOT behaviour for
>> webapps" ewarn "If this package installs files into the htdocs dir, this
>> is" ewarn "probably a bug in the ebuild."
>>
>> Sigh... what kind of QA issue is that?
> which part dont you
On Tue, Feb 28, 2006 at 08:11:26PM +0100, Thomas de Grenier de Latour wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 13:02:10 -0500,
> Alec Warner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> >
> > >if [ "${IS_UPGRADE}" = "1" ] ; then
> > >einfo "Removing old version ${REMOVE_PKG}"
> > >
>
On Tue, Feb 28, 2006 at 08:11:26PM +0100, Thomas de Grenier de Latour wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 13:02:10 -0500,
> Alec Warner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> >
> > >if [ "${IS_UPGRADE}" = "1" ] ; then
> > >einfo "Removing old version ${REMOVE_PKG}"
> > >
>
On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 12:47:33 -0500
solar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I forget where I read it but I thought that unicode lead to overflows
> and was considered a general security risk. I wish I knew where I read
> that but I'm unable to find it.
Well, stuff I could find includes:
http://www.kde
On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 13:02:10 -0500,
Alec Warner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>
> >if [ "${IS_UPGRADE}" = "1" ] ; then
> >einfo "Removing old version ${REMOVE_PKG}"
> >
> >emerge -C "${REMOVE_PKG}"
> >fi
> >
> >
> >
> Semantics of the logic aside, c
28.2.2006, 18:38:10, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> Sheesh, you'll probably claim that this isn't broken next too:
> if [ "${IS_UPGRADE}" = "1" ] ; then
> einfo "Removing old version ${REMOVE_PKG}"
> emerge -C "${REMOVE_PKG}"
> fi
No, I won't claim that... I'd rather love to
On Tue, Feb 28, 2006 at 06:12:57PM +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> Oh come on. I'm not going to insult the intelligence of people reading
> this list by explaining something that frickin' obvious. When it's a
> subtle issue I explain why it's wrong. When it isn't, I try to avoid
> wasting everyone'
On Tue, 2006-02-28 at 18:19 +, Stephen Bennett wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 18:59:49 +0100
> Patrick Lauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > (and this is valid for all emails to technical lists,)
> > please save us some time and many emails by stating what is wrong when
> > you show a QA violat
On Tuesday 28 February 2006 13:00, Jakub Moc wrote:
> 28.2.2006, 18:11:57, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 17:02:11 + Renat Lumpau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > | On Tue, Feb 28, 2006 at 04:35:32PM +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> | >> Ebuilds can't override this either. Read on
On Tuesday 28 February 2006 11:39, Jakub Moc wrote:
> 28.2.2006, 17:24:21, Danny van Dyk wrote:
> > If you don't agree with the contents, why didn't you raise your
> > opposition earlier?
>
> I don't feel any need to raise opposition against some unofficial manual,
> what would be the point in that
On Tue, Feb 28, 2006 at 12:47:33PM -0500, solar wrote:
> I forget where I read it but I thought that unicode lead to overflows
> and was considered a general security risk. I wish I knew where I read
> that but I'm unable to find it.
>
> Any list readers know anything relating to that?
>
It's tru
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 18:30:24 +0100 Jakub Moc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| OK, so kernel-2.eclass is abusing the slot as well, go scream on
| kernel devs.
No. kernel-2 installs sources, not an actual package.
| > | Yeah, it checks for that since that's the way the eclass
On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 18:59:49 +0100 Patrick Lauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| (and this is valid for all emails to technical lists,)
| please save us some time and many emails by stating what is wrong when
| you show a QA violation.
Oh come on. I'm not going to insult the intelligence of people re
On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 18:59:49 +0100
Patrick Lauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> (and this is valid for all emails to technical lists,)
> please save us some time and many emails by stating what is wrong when
> you show a QA violation.
This is a technical discussion list, and as such it is fair to a
On Tue, Feb 28, 2006 at 06:59:49PM +0100, Patrick Lauer wrote:
> If you show a wrong code snippet please explain _why_ it is wrong in the
> same email.
Ehm you mean it is not obvious that calling emerge inside an eclass
is utterly wrong ?
--
Fernando J. Pereda Garcimartín
Gentoo Developer (A
On 2/28/06, Patrick Lauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 2006-02-28 at 17:38 +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > Sheesh, you'll probably claim that this isn't broken next too:
> >
> > if [ "${IS_UPGRADE}" = "1" ] ; then
> > einfo "Removing old version ${REMOVE_PKG}"
> >
> >
On Tue, 2006-02-28 at 17:38 +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> Sheesh, you'll probably claim that this isn't broken next too:
>
> if [ "${IS_UPGRADE}" = "1" ] ; then
> einfo "Removing old version ${REMOVE_PKG}"
>
> emerge -C "${REMOVE_PKG}"
> fi
Ciaran,
(and this is valid for
28.2.2006, 18:11:57, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 17:02:11 + Renat Lumpau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> | On Tue, Feb 28, 2006 at 04:35:32PM +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
| >> Ebuilds can't override this either. Read on in the eclass and you'll
| >> notice that it checks that S
On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 17:38:10 +
Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> if [ "${IS_UPGRADE}" = "1" ] ; then
> einfo "Removing old version ${REMOVE_PKG}"
>
> emerge -C "${REMOVE_PKG}"
> fi
Uh, what the fuck is that doing in an eclass ?
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mai
On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 12:47:33 -0500 solar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| I forget where I read it but I thought that unicode lead to overflows
| and was considered a general security risk. I wish I knew where I read
| that but I'm unable to find it.
|
| Any list readers know anything relating to that
On Tue, Feb 28, 2006 at 05:11:57PM +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> And it sticks out a nasty ewarn and says that the ebuild is probably
> broken.
Which it _probably_ is. See, this is a numbers game. In most cases, if you use
the webapp eclass, setting SLOT="0" is incorrect. There are some cases in
On Tue, 2006-02-28 at 11:58 +0100, Patrick Lauer wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> at FOSDEM we had a nice discussion about languages, translations etc.
> Having people from the US (wolf31o2) who never have problems and people
> from Japan (usata) who always have problems with encodings /
> charsets / ... was
On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 18:30:24 +0100 Jakub Moc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| OK, so kernel-2.eclass is abusing the slot as well, go scream on
| kernel devs.
No. kernel-2 installs sources, not an actual package.
| > | Yeah, it checks for that since that's the way the eclass is
| > | designed. You can
28.2.2006, 18:09:54, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 18:00:03 +0100 Jakub Moc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| >> PVR includes the revision of an ebuild. This means that if a
| >> revbump is made on a webapp package to fix a critical flaw, users
| >> will still have the old broken packag
On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 17:02:11 + Renat Lumpau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| On Tue, Feb 28, 2006 at 04:35:32PM +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
| > Ebuilds can't override this either. Read on in the eclass and you'll
| > notice that it checks that SLOT hasn't been changed to something
| > sane.
|
|
On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 18:00:03 +0100 Jakub Moc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| > PVR includes the revision of an ebuild. This means that if a
| > revbump is made on a webapp package to fix a critical flaw, users
| > will still have the old broken package installed too. This is
| > especially relevant fo
On Tue, Feb 28, 2006 at 04:35:32PM +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> Ebuilds can't override this either. Read on in the eclass and you'll
> notice that it checks that SLOT hasn't been changed to something sane.
Excepting that you can set WEBAPP_MANUAL_SLOT="yes" and set SLOT to whatever the
hell you
28.2.2006, 17:35:32, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 17:11:58 +0100 Patrick Lauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> | Ok, sorry for being dumb :-)
> | What exactly is the issue there? I don't see the issue in setting SLOT
> | depending on ... uhm ... some variable. Looks kinda logical a
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Ooh, I'm very much in favor of unicode being enabled by default. It's not like
users would be limited *only* to UTF-8 on their new installs, anyway. I'd love
to see this implemented.
++ for the suggestion. :)
Patrick Lauer wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> at FO
On Tue, Feb 28, 2006 at 05:11:58PM +0100, Patrick Lauer wrote:
> Ok, sorry for being dumb :-)
> What exactly is the issue there? I don't see the issue in setting SLOT
> depending on ... uhm ... some variable. Looks kinda logical at first
> glance, but I'm not aware of the issues it causes.
One iss
28.2.2006, 17:24:21, Danny van Dyk wrote:
> Hi Jakub,
> If you don't agree with the contents, why didn't you raise your
> opposition earlier?
I don't feel any need to raise opposition against some unofficial manual,
what would be the point in that? I'm raising my hand against silently
incorpora
On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 17:22:57 +0100 Jakub Moc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| Eh? Seen kernel2.eclass? Going to file a bug about that as well? Seen
| gst/gstreamer eclasses? Going to file QA bugs about them as well? And
| - what's exactly the QA violation there, if you could enlighten us?
You're misun
On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 17:11:58 +0100 Patrick Lauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| Ok, sorry for being dumb :-)
| What exactly is the issue there? I don't see the issue in setting SLOT
| depending on ... uhm ... some variable. Looks kinda logical at first
| glance, but I'm not aware of the issues it cau
Lars Weiler wrote:
> * Patrick Lauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [06/02/28 11:58 +0100]:
>> Enabling the unicode useflag in the profiles should help our
>> international users and should not cause any problems. Are there any
>> known bugs / problems this would trigger? Any reasons against that?
>
> It is
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi Jakub,
Jakub Moc schrieb:
| 28.2.2006, 16:29:07, Stephen Bennett wrote:
|>>When and where has been the following change discussed and who
|>>approved that?
|>>
|>>http://www.gentoo.org/cgi-bin/viewcvs.cgi/xml/htdocs/proj/en/devrel/handbook/hb-guid
28.2.2006, 16:42:46, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 16:26:37 +0100 Jakub Moc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> | If you can't do any better, then please apologize for your conduct
> | and false claims and shut up... TIA.
> Sure I can do better. But you didn't originally ask for better,
On Tue, 2006-02-28 at 15:42 +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 16:26:37 +0100 Jakub Moc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> | If you can't do any better, then please apologize for your conduct
> | and false claims and shut up... TIA.
>
> Sure I can do better. But you didn't originally as
On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 16:42:30 +0100
Jakub Moc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Punting every single piece of broken sh*t from the tree requires
> notifying everyone on -dev ml and allowing a period of time before
> it's actually done, so silently changing/stating policies is a very
> broken practice.
On Tuesday 28 February 2006 10:08, Jakub Moc wrote:
> 28.2.2006, 15:39:40, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 10:49:13 +0100 Jakub Moc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > | No, that's not a policy document, ebuild policy is documented here:
> >
> > http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/devrel/handbo
On Monday 27 February 2006 11:47, Lance Albertson wrote:
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > On Sun, 26 Feb 2006 17:53:20 -0800 Donnie Berkholz
> >
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > | The maintainer should be the absolute authority over his/her packages,
> > | and only the council should be able to overr
On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 16:08:05 +0100 Jakub Moc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| 28.2.2006, 15:39:40, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
| > On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 10:49:13 +0100 Jakub Moc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
| > wrote:
| > | No, that's not a policy document, ebuild policy is documented
| > | here:
| > |
| >
http://www
On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 16:26:37 +0100 Jakub Moc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| If you can't do any better, then please apologize for your conduct
| and false claims and shut up... TIA.
Sure I can do better. But you didn't originally ask for better, you
asked for anything. If better's what you're after:
On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 16:12:32 +0100 Patrick Lauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| Wow. That is ... impressive. After about two days of asking for any
| real bugs you are able to show a trivial syntax issue?
|
| Please stop yelling "it si teh b0rk!" if you can't even list any
| serious issues, and stop
On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 16:17:20 +0100 Paul de Vrieze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| On Tuesday 28 February 2006 15:52, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
| > Yes, it's an utterly trivial problem, but it is a QA violation.
| > Getting a complete list is something that takes a heck of a lot
| > longer, and I have yet
28.2.2006, 16:29:07, Stephen Bennett wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 16:08:05 +0100
> Jakub Moc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> When and where has been the following change discussed and who
>> approved that?
>>
>> http://www.gentoo.org/cgi-bin/viewcvs.cgi/xml/htdocs/proj/en/devrel/handbook/hb-guide
As the title says, what would you prefer for the future of MySQL in Gentoo?
Please take a moment to read
https://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-t-438557.html and vote (and
eventually comment on it).
Thanks!
--
Best regards,
Luca Longinotti aka CHTEKK
LongiTEKK Networks Admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Gento
As the title says, what would you prefer for the future of MySQL in Gentoo?
Please take a moment to read
https://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-t-438557.html and vote (and
eventually comment on it).
Thanks!
--
Best regards,
Luca Longinotti aka CHTEKK
LongiTEKK Networks Admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Gento
A few days ago I added net-im/wildfire to the tree. This is the sucessor to
jive-messenger. The ebuild is diferent and now complays to net-im/jabber-base.
In a week or so I'll remove jive-messenger from the tree.
--
Gustavo Felisberto
(HumpBack)
Web: http://dev.gentoo.org/~humpback
Blog: http://
On Tuesday 28 February 2006 15:16, Marius Mauch wrote:
> Check your mail archives for the old discussions about distfile name
> mangling (short version: a lot of stuff relies on distfile-name ==
> basename(src_uri), also if at all this would only be a long term
> solution due to compat issues invol
28.2.2006, 16:12:32, Patrick Lauer wrote:
>> This is a whitespace / coding style breakage. The correct format should
>> be:
>>
>> webapp_read_config() {
>>
>> Yes, it's an utterly trivial problem, but it is a QA violation. Getting
>> a complete list is something that takes a heck of a lot l
On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 16:08:05 +0100
Jakub Moc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> When and where has been the following change discussed and who
> approved that?
>
> http://www.gentoo.org/cgi-bin/viewcvs.cgi/xml/htdocs/proj/en/devrel/handbook/hb-guide-ebuild.xml?r1=1.25&r2=1.26&root=gentoo
According to
On Tuesday 28 February 2006 15:47, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 11:34:49 +0100 Paul de Vrieze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> wrote:
> | Once that is supported, I'm also sure that those people involved will
> | be more than happy to fix their ebuilds to use those features. I do
> | agree wi
On Tue, Feb 28, 2006 at 02:52:46PM +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> Yes, it's an utterly trivial problem, but it is a QA violation. Getting
> a complete list is something that takes a heck of a lot longer, and I
> have yet to be convinced that my time would not be better spent
> elsewhere.
So let m
On Tuesday 28 February 2006 15:52, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> Yes, it's an utterly trivial problem, but it is a QA violation. Getting
> a complete list is something that takes a heck of a lot longer, and I
> have yet to be convinced that my time would not be better spent
> elsewhere.
Where is a cod
On Tue, 2006-02-28 at 14:52 +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 10:38:17 +0100 Jakub Moc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> | You still haven't posted posted a *single example* of webapp-config
> | brokeness. You, I'd say you should either back up claims about "all
> | the ways in which w
Paul de Vrieze wrote:
On Sunday 26 February 2006 22:29, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
On Fri, Feb 24, 2006 at 02:19:40PM +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
Side note: if the packages in question are fetch restricted, you're
screwed, and will not be able to add them to the tree.
Actually, there is a so
28.2.2006, 15:39:40, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 10:49:13 +0100 Jakub Moc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> | No, that's not a policy document, ebuild policy is documented here:
> |
> http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/devrel/handbook/handbook.xml?style=printable&part=3&chap=1
> No, the w
On Tuesday 28 February 2006 15:00, Stephen P. Becker wrote:
> Basically, I really don't see why webapp-config can't have some logic
> built in which makes it smart enough to figure out which webserver
> somebody is using.
Please remember that the apache group is just another name for httpd
group
On Tuesday 28 February 2006 15:48, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 11:21:23 +0100 Paul de Vrieze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> Huh? It violates the sandbox even if you do 'emerge sync' and never
> touch the ebuild. Look at the frickin' mkdir!
Hmm. Didn't realise that the sandbox is more res
On 2/28/06, Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm still not convinced that it's worth my while
*You* chose to mention webapp-config in this thread. Stop making
excuses. Make good on your claims.
Put up, or shut up.
Best regards,
Stu
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 10:38:17 +0100 Jakub Moc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| You still haven't posted posted a *single example* of webapp-config
| brokeness. You, I'd say you should either back up claims about "all
| the ways in which webapp-config is broken" or apologize to the
| concerned developers
On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 11:21:23 +0100 Paul de Vrieze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| > http://www.gentoo.org/cgi-bin/viewcvs.cgi/*checkout*/sys-apps/bootstrap
| >_cmds/bootstrap_cmds-44.ebuild?rev=1.1&content-type=text/plain
|
| Probably because although it isn't a good ebuild it still works and
| does
On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 11:34:49 +0100 Paul de Vrieze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| Once that is supported, I'm also sure that those people involved will
| be more than happy to fix their ebuilds to use those features. I do
| agree with them though that the distribution should not be held back
| by miss
I can't say if there are any problems, as I didn't received
a bug for a long time. The only thing that's nasty: we
don't have any good utf8-fonts for the console.
I think that's acceptable.
The only issue related to that we really have is this bug, which is
annoying but not fatal:
http://bu
On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 14:21:14 + "Stuart Herbert"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| We've committed a fix for this problem upstream. We'll probably roll
| out w-c 1.5.11 at the weekend. That'll give us suitable time to test
| this, and to incorporate the QA issues from Ciaran that we're still
| wait
On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 10:49:13 +0100 Jakub Moc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| No, that's not a policy document, ebuild policy is documented here:
|
http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/devrel/handbook/handbook.xml?style=printable&part=3&chap=1
No, the whole thing is policy.
| Moreover, the cited howto is w
1 - 100 of 135 matches
Mail list logo
