Catching up on your inbox, foser? ;-)
foser wrote:[Mon Aug 01 2005, 01:06:10PM EDT]
> On Sat, 2005-06-11 at 14:46 -0400, Aron Griffis wrote:
> > foser wrote:[Sat Jun 11 2005, 04:15:22AM EDT]
> > > Arch keywords are concepts and as such may not primarily be dealt as
> > > a an alphabeti
On Sat, 2005-06-11 at 14:46 -0400, Aron Griffis wrote:
> foser wrote: [Sat Jun 11 2005, 04:15:22AM EDT]
> > Arch keywords are concepts and as such may not primarily be dealt as
> > a an alphabetical list but as words in a sentence, there is no abc
> > order in sentences.
>
> Foser, no offense int
Georgi Georgiev wrote: [Sat Jun 11 2005, 08:39:41PM EDT]
> Oh. That would still not find the case when ppc64 comes before ppc, but
> I agree it was a quick fix.
You're right (of course). Here's yet another try:
grep -hr --include=\*.ebuild '^KEYWORDS=' /usr/portage | perl -ne '
s/[^[:lower:
maillog: 11/06/2005-08:48:17(-0400): Aron Griffis types
> Georgi Georgiev wrote:[Fri Jun 10 2005, 08:04:25PM EDT]
> > maillog: 10/06/2005-13:19:30(-0400): Aron Griffis types
> > > Btw, here's an interesting statistic which really doesn't add to (or
> > > detract from, I hope) this discussio
On Saturday 11 June 2005 04:15 am, foser wrote:
> > if you ever had to do arch-specific KEYWORDing on a frequent basis (and
> > i'm 99% sure you have nfc we support other arches than x86 if we use
> > arch-specific breakage in GNOME depends as any sort of track record),
>
> If there was ever arch s
foser wrote:[Sat Jun 11 2005, 04:15:22AM EDT]
> Arch keywords are concepts and as such may not primarily be dealt as
> a an alphabetical list but as words in a sentence, there is no abc
> order in sentences.
Foser, no offense intended, but you started out in this thread making
a couple good po
On 6/11/05, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Saturday 11 June 2005 17:21, Joshua Baergen wrote:
> > I don't
> > care what order they're in. It's not like there are 100 keywords or
> > something,
> Wait until ppc-od, x86-fbsd and amd64-fbsd keywords make their way into the
>
Georgi Georgiev wrote: [Fri Jun 10 2005, 08:04:25PM EDT]
> maillog: 10/06/2005-13:19:30(-0400): Aron Griffis types
> > Btw, here's an interesting statistic which really doesn't add to (or
> > detract from, I hope) this discussion...
> >
> > grep -hr --include=\*.ebuild '^KEYWORDS=' /usr/portage |
On Saturday 11 June 2005 17:21, Joshua Baergen wrote:
> I don't
> care what order they're in. It's not like there are 100 keywords or
> something,
Wait until ppc-od, x86-fbsd and amd64-fbsd keywords make their way into the
tree... the problem there is worst, and the alphabetical order is really
On 6/11/05, foser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, 2005-06-11 at 17:28 +0900, Jason Stubbs wrote:
> > By lack of policy?
>
> Well I'm sort of concerned by the fact that I have to state the obvious,
> but really by people reordering them for no reason.
>
> It's not the lack of policy that is t
On Sat, Jun 11, 2005 at 10:15:22AM +0200, foser wrote:
> On Fri, 2005-06-10 at 12:33 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > you'd
> > know that scattered KEYWORDS is a pita to deal with ... i've seen cases
> > where
> > a specific arch was duplicated in KEYWORDS; once near the beginning and
> > once
On Sat, 2005-06-11 at 17:28 +0900, Jason Stubbs wrote:
> By lack of policy?
Well I'm sort of concerned by the fact that I have to state the obvious,
but really by people reordering them for no reason.
It's not the lack of policy that is the problem here, it's the use of
some self defined not unif
On Saturday 11 June 2005 17:15, foser wrote:
> Anyway, my feud is with the inconsistency within packages and how it got
> introduced, not with whatever order is preferred by some. Now tell me
> how this happened again?
By lack of policy?
Regards,
Jason Stubbs
pgp16vjho2Xm4.pgp
Description: PGP
On Fri, 2005-06-10 at 12:33 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> consistency is one advantage (which i'm sure you'll say is pointless)
I've been the one talking consistency, something you've knowingly broken
for a long time here.
> as for the rest of the ramble you posted here it's really quite wrong .
maillog: 10/06/2005-13:19:30(-0400): Aron Griffis types
> Btw, here's an interesting statistic which really doesn't add to (or
> detract from, I hope) this discussion...
>
> grep -hr --include=\*.ebuild '^KEYWORDS=' /usr/portage | perl -ne '
> s/[^[:lower:]\s]//; @F = split; @S = sort @F; $sor
foser wrote:[Fri Jun 10 2005, 10:55:17AM EDT]
> As the threadstarter indicated, this was done without discussing it
> and in the knowledge that there was no agreement on this issue. As
> said before, the fact that something gets done some way, doesn't
> mean it's right to do it that way.
Not t
On Friday 10 June 2005 10:55 am, foser wrote:
> > If everyone starts using ekeyword now with the alphabetical ordering
> > built in, everything will be consistent, and there shouldn't be a
> > problem.
>
> even vapier indicates
> that there really is no reason to do it alphabetically, except maybe
On Thu, 2005-06-09 at 11:50 -0400, Stephen P. Becker wrote:
> Whoever said we were voting? I was just showing my support for
> alphabetical keyword ordering. Remember, alphabetical keywording is
> *already* implemented in ekeyword, and we are discussing whether or not
> to revert it.
As the thr
On Thu, Jun 09, 2005 at 03:10:31PM +0200, foser wrote:
> Maintainer's arch could be ebuild/slot specific. I'm not yet convinced
> metadata is the right place.
But are you convinced the keyword order is not the right place?
In case you are, stop reading =]
In case you are not, I would argue that m
foser wrote:
> On Tue, 2005-06-07 at 22:58 +0200, Danny van Dyk wrote:
>
>>-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>>Hash: SHA1
>>
>>Luca Barbato schrieb:
>>
>>>Stephen P. Becker wrote:
>>>
>>>
alpha++
>>>
>>>
>>>alpha++
>>>
>>
>>once again, alpha++
>
>
> It's not a vote, it's a discussion. You g
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi foser,
>>>alpha++
>>once again, alpha++
> It's not a vote, it's a discussion. You guys--.
^^^Yeah, this proofs your ability to discuss very well...
> As vapier indicates he's the whole reason this ever became a problem. He
> was the one who starte
* foser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [05/06/09 15:19 +0200]:
> The point is that with his reordering implicit information was lost for
> no particular purpose.
If you store implicit information in the keywords, then make
them explicit. That involves, find another way to store the
data (like in metadata),
On Tue, 2005-06-07 at 22:58 +0200, Danny van Dyk wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Luca Barbato schrieb:
> > Stephen P. Becker wrote:
> >
> >>alpha++
> >
> >
> > alpha++
> >
> once again, alpha++
It's not a vote, it's a discussion. You guys--.
As vapier indicates h
On Tue, 2005-06-07 at 00:47 +0200, Lars Weiler wrote:
> * Aron Griffis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [05/06/06 18:26 -0400]:
> > alpha
> > -
> > - looks nicer (subjective)
> > - easier to tell at a glance if a given keyword is in the list
>
> I'm for this. You can
On Tue, 2005-06-07 at 18:18 -0400, Aron Griffis wrote:
> Ciaran would have something to say about this, along the lines of some
> packages sitting idle in ~arch state because the maintainer isn't
> really paying attention. In that case, who can really blame an arch
> team for moving ahead on their
On Wednesday 08 June 2005 16:39, Joseph Jezak wrote:
> > Agreed, the PPC team is very good at arbitrarily marking things stable
> > whenever they feel like it, and often times before the maintainer does.
>
> This is not usually our policy. However, because we moved GCC-3.4 to
> stable before many
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, 8 Jun 2005, Joseph Jezak wrote:
Agreed, the PPC team is very good at arbitrarily marking things stable
whenever they feel like it, and often times before the maintainer does.
This is not usually our policy. However, because we moved GCC-3
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
> Agreed, the PPC team is very good at arbitrarily marking things stable
> whenever they feel like it, and often times before the maintainer does.
This is not usually our policy. However, because we moved GCC-3.4 to
stable before many arches, there w
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, 7 Jun 2005, Aron Griffis wrote:
Marcus D. Hanwell wrote:[Tue Jun 07 2005, 05:32:31PM EDT]
I also vote for alpha. I would like to see some indication of
maintainer arch in metadata too, but in general agree with the
policy of if one arch sta
On Tue, 2005-06-07 at 23:07 +, Ferris McCormick wrote:
> I also like alpha, but that is not what I am responding to. And I have to
> admit that I haven't followed this too closely. But the "if one arch
> stabalises..." assumption can be misleading. For example, xorg-x11
> maintainer arch
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Ferris McCormick wrote:
> I also like alpha, but that is not what I am responding to. And I have
> to admit that I haven't followed this too closely. But the "if one arch
> stabalises..." assumption can be misleading. For example, xorg-x11
> maintai
* Marcus D. Hanwell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [05/06/07 23:11 +0100]:
> I have always managed to spot (I think) the ones that looked like they
> skipped
> ahead of the maintainer, but it is another reason why having a maintainer
> arch set would be nice.
And sometimes (or even quite often) the mainta
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, 7 Jun 2005, Marcus D. Hanwell wrote:
On Monday 06 June 2005 23:26, Aron Griffis wrote:
I am willing to revert the ekeyword change if that is what devs would
prefer, but I won't make the change without a discussion on -dev,
which was my mis
On Wednesday 08 June 2005 00:31, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> Does that make sense?
It does.. but still makes the things way harder :)
Well I actually don't mark anything stable that I don't maintain myself.. so
that's not a problem too much for me anyway.
--
Diego "Flameeyes" Pettenò
Gentoo Develo
On Tue, 2005-06-07 at 17:30 +0200, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
> On Tuesday 07 June 2005 17:15, Aron Griffis wrote:
> > That would be better for tools to help determining which are
> > candidates for stable marking. But for humans it's not really
> > different from looking at the ChangeLog, i
On Tue, 2005-06-07 at 16:20 +0200, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
> On Tuesday 07 June 2005 16:04, Aron Griffis wrote:
> > Could you explain why that policy needs to be dropped for alpha to be
> > preferred? It's not obvious to me how that policy requires append.
> You can't assume that maintain
Olivier Crete wrote:[Tue Jun 07 2005, 05:56:35PM EDT]
> Are you sure its not a policy?
Fairly certain. It's been discussed around in circles in the past.
> Because it should be and it has been
> discussed before. Arch teams should NOT get ahead of the maintainer
> without his permission... or i
On Tuesday 07 June 2005 22:56, Olivier Crete wrote:
> On Tue, 2005-07-06 at 17:44 -0400, Aron Griffis wrote:
> > Marcus D. Hanwell wrote:[Tue Jun 07 2005, 05:32:31PM EDT]
> >
> > > I also vote for alpha. I would like to see some indication of
> > > maintainer arch in metadata too, but in general ag
On Tue, 2005-07-06 at 17:44 -0400, Aron Griffis wrote:
> Marcus D. Hanwell wrote:[Tue Jun 07 2005, 05:32:31PM EDT]
> > I also vote for alpha. I would like to see some indication of
> > maintainer arch in metadata too, but in general agree with the
> > policy of if one arch stabilises then we can as
Marcus D. Hanwell wrote:[Tue Jun 07 2005, 05:32:31PM EDT]
> I also vote for alpha. I would like to see some indication of
> maintainer arch in metadata too, but in general agree with the
> policy of if one arch stabilises then we can assume that is the
> maintainer arch.
Whoa, careful there. It's
On Monday 06 June 2005 23:26, Aron Griffis wrote:
>
> I am willing to revert the ekeyword change if that is what devs would
> prefer, but I won't make the change without a discussion on -dev,
> which was my mistake last time. Your thoughts?
>
I also vote for alpha. I would like to see some indicat
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Luca Barbato schrieb:
> Stephen P. Becker wrote:
>
>>alpha++
>
>
> alpha++
>
once again, alpha++
- --
Danny van Dyk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Gentoo/AMD64 Project, Gentoo Scientific Project
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)
Michael Cummings wrote:[Tue Jun 07 2005, 12:49:21PM EDT]
> HA! Oh man, I needed a good chuckle. cvs log is about the only
> nearly reliable thing I have found sometimes - seems folks that
> don't like to use metadata.xml when commiting a random package also
> avoid using ChangeLogs. Go figure.
I g
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Aaron Walker wrote:
> I agree with Lars (particulary about adding maintaining arch to metdata if
> it's
> necessary). Another alpha++.
So, let's get a way to do this. That way most concerns will be
addressed.
Thanks,
Donnie
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE
On Tuesday 07 June 2005 11:15 am, Aron Griffis wrote:
> Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:[Tue Jun 07 2005, 10:20:51AM EDT]
>
> > You can't assume that maintainer arch would be x86, and with
> > alphabetic order, you must ask to the maintainer which is his arch
> > (and there's no way to learn all th
On Tuesday 07 June 2005 17:15, Aron Griffis wrote:
> That would be better for tools to help determining which are
> candidates for stable marking. But for humans it's not really
> different from looking at the ChangeLog, is it?
It should be possible using ChangeLog if we are sure that ChangeLog is
Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:[Tue Jun 07 2005, 10:20:51AM EDT]
> You can't assume that maintainer arch would be x86, and with
> alphabetic order, you must ask to the maintainer which is his arch
> (and there's no way to learn all them by heart).
or look at the ChangeLog
> Maybe we can add this
On Tuesday 07 June 2005 16:04, Aron Griffis wrote:
> Could you explain why that policy needs to be dropped for alpha to be
> preferred? It's not obvious to me how that policy requires append.
You can't assume that maintainer arch would be x86, and with alphabetic order,
you must ask to the mainta
Simon Stelling wrote:[Tue Jun 07 2005, 07:23:57AM EDT]
> From [1]:
> |When a package version has proved stable for sufficient time and the
> |Gentoo maintainer of the package is confident that the upgrade will not
> |break a regular Gentoo user's machine, then it can be moved from ~ARCH
> |to ARCH.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Lars Weiler wrote:
> * Aron Griffis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [05/06/06 18:26 -0400]:
>
>>alpha
>>-
>>- looks nicer (subjective)
>>- easier to tell at a glance if a given keyword is in the list
>
>
> I'm for thi
Stephen P. Becker wrote:
> alpha++
alpha++
--
Luca Barbato
Gentoo/linux Developer Gentoo/PPC Operational Leader
http://dev.gentoo.org/~lu_zero
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Hi,
Aron Griffis wrote:
> - A few people, myself included, pointed out that there's some
> valuable information available when keywords are always added to
> the end rather than being alphabetized. In particular, the
> concept of a "maintainer arch" is possible, in which the
Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Monday 06 June 2005 06:26 pm, Aron Griffis wrote:
>
>>alpha
>
>
> i'm all for alpha (as many know seeing as how they've cursed me profusely
> when
> i first started doing it) ... seeing as how i tend to mark for 4 or 5 arches,
> alpha is a huge help since i know
* Aron Griffis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [05/06/06 18:26 -0400]:
> alpha
> -
> - looks nicer (subjective)
> - easier to tell at a glance if a given keyword is in the list
I'm for this. You can easily compare two ebuilds' KEYWORDS,
when you have the same order.
On Monday 06 June 2005 06:26 pm, Aron Griffis wrote:
> alpha
i'm all for alpha (as many know seeing as how they've cursed me profusely when
i first started doing it) ... seeing as how i tend to mark for 4 or 5 arches,
alpha is a huge help since i know about where to look in the list
also, t
Hi guys,
As some of you have noticed, I made a change recently in ekeyword that
causes ekeyword to alphabetize the keywords. I've realized I should
have brought it up for discussion before making the change to the
program. On that note, I apologize for unilaterally making that
change without con
56 matches
Mail list logo
