[gentoo-dev] Re: firefox-2.0
Michal Kurgan wrote: Recently new firefox-2.0 was released. I (and probably many other users) am interested when this new version would be unmasked and stabilized. If there are any problems, what are they and what to expect if i would force installation now? Is there any roadmap or timeline for stabilization already? Did you try, maybe, looking in bugzilla? -- by design, by neglect [EMAIL PROTECTED]for a fact or just for effect 9B81 6C9F E791 83BB 3AB3 5B2D E625 A073 8379 37E8 (0x837937E8) signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: firefox-2.0
On Sun, 29 Oct 2006 01:01:50 -0600 Ryan Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Did you try, maybe, looking in bugzilla? Yes. -- Michal Kurgan http://dev.gentoo.org/~moloh signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] qadeps(?) - useful(?) tool for deps qa
www.gentoo-sunrise.org seems to be down so I have put qadeps here: http://dev.gentooexperimental.org/~peper/scripts/ -- Piotr Jaroszyński Gentoo Developer -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
[gentoo-dev] Bugday next Saturday (the 4'th of November)
Greetings users and developers. I would like to remind you that next Saturday, the 4'th, is our monthly Bugday! Therefore this is your invitation to show up in #Gentoo-Bugs on irc.freenode.net to hang out with fellow bug hunters and developers and help out with making Gentoo an even better distribution than it already is. Regards, Alexander H. Færøy -- Alexander H. Færøy [EMAIL PROTECTED] Gentoo/Userrel project, Gentoo/Bugday project pgpUYHHja86Ab.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: firefox-2.0
I'm using the -bin version and it seems to be working fine. -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] qadeps(?) - useful(?) tool for deps qa
On Sunday 29 October 2006 03:41, Piotr Jaroszyński wrote:
- Checks whether runtime deps of installed package are all set. The check
is going LEVEL-deep, where LEVEL is user specified. Uses
checkdeps.rb (great betelgeuse's script) to determine needed rdeps.
qlist ${CPV} | scanelf -L -n -q -F '%n #F' | tr , ' ' | xargs qfile -C |
sort -u
This oneliner does more or less what checkrdeps does ...
The main problem is that it will _not_ work without using --as-needed...
- Checks for system packages in dependencies.
This might be intentional, currently the QA policy about this is not clear.
See bug #151758 . I don't want to see dependencies over zlib removed for
instance, you can easily find a way to reproduce packags failing to merge
because zlib is broken, and emerge -e world does not merge them before zlib
(the same applies to paludis and pkgcore as far as I can tell).
As I said on that bug, IMHO system dependencies should be stated unless
obvious (libc, gcc, binutils), problematic for porting (findutils, net-tools)
or creates circular deps (shadow).
--
Diego Flameeyes Pettenò - http://farragut.flameeyes.is-a-geek.org/
Gentoo/Alt lead, Gentoo/FreeBSD, Video, Sound, ALSA, PAM, KDE, CJK, Ruby ...
pgp5n9ESU9YFh.pgp
Description: PGP signature
[gentoo-dev] Last rites for media-video/toxine
Yet another last rites. Toxine was added to portage as a CLI frontend for xine, but it always was below the optimal status for Gentoo. I tried to contact upstream trying to improve the situation, but they didn't answer me, and they didn't release anything new since then. For this reason, it will be removed 29th November (or 30th if I'll be too wasted to do something that day). -- Diego Flameeyes Pettenò - http://farragut.flameeyes.is-a-geek.org/ Gentoo/Alt lead, Gentoo/FreeBSD, Video, Sound, ALSA, PAM, KDE, CJK, Ruby ... pgpo9U2IILW4v.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Last rites for media-video/toxine
On Sun, 29 Oct 2006 19:54:10 +0200 Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | Yet another last rites. Toxine was added to portage as a CLI frontend | for xine, but it always was below the optimal status for Gentoo. I | tried to contact upstream trying to improve the situation, but they | didn't answer me, and they didn't release anything new since then. | For this reason, it will be removed 29th November (or 30th if I'll be | too wasted to do something that day). What specifically is wrong with it? I've been using it because it's the only non-dep-heavy thing that can play my Carl Orff audio DVD. -- Ciaran McCreesh Mail: ciaranm at ciaranm.org Web : http://ciaranm.org/ as-needed is broken : http://ciaranm.org/show_post.pl?post_id=13 signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Last rites for media-video/toxine
On Sunday 29 October 2006 19:07, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: What specifically is wrong with it? I've been using it because it's the only non-dep-heavy thing that can play my Carl Orff audio DVD. Unneeded automagic dependencies, unresponsive upstream, and a few crashes I was able to reproduce with last release. -- Diego Flameeyes Pettenò - http://farragut.flameeyes.is-a-geek.org/ Gentoo/Alt lead, Gentoo/FreeBSD, Video, Sound, ALSA, PAM, KDE, CJK, Ruby ... pgpz97Sfk789k.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Last rites for XMMS
On Monday 23 October 2006 00:44, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote: I've masked the xmms useflag and the following packages: xfce-extra/xfce4-xmms xfce-extra/xfce4-xmms-controller These two were not depending on xmms but won't build without it, also masked pending removal. -- Diego Flameeyes Pettenò - http://farragut.flameeyes.is-a-geek.org/ Gentoo/Alt lead, Gentoo/FreeBSD, Video, Sound, ALSA, PAM, KDE, CJK, Ruby ... pgpNEBEorKgab.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] The (lack of) use of herds
On 10/28/06, Marius Mauch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well, I'd go further and question the whole herd concept. It also gives users the impression that there is an entire team of people maintaining a package,when in fact it might be just one or two people. -Richard -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] firefox-2.0
Michal Kurgan wrote: Hello! Recently new firefox-2.0 was released. I (and probably many other users) am interested when this new version would be unmasked and stabilized. If there are any problems, what are they and what to expect if i would force installation now? Is there any roadmap or timeline for stabilization already? Thanks in advance for any answers. There's no need to rush stabilization; being overly hasty leads to broken systems. If you want it, it's in ~arch, so go get it. Our own documentation gives a guideline of 1 month without outstanding problems/open bugs. A quick search for firefox 2.0 in Bugzilla shows a few open bugs: http://tinyurl.com/yjoy3w -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
[gentoo-dev] Removal request for several desktop-wm packages
The desktop-wm herd is understaffed and has a bunch of dead packages lying around which no one wants to maintain. I tried to give a valid alternative for all of the packages I want removed. At first glance, it seems like all of the following packages also have a dead upstream. x11-wm/aewm++ -- alternative: pekwm x11-wm/aewm++-goodies -- see above x11-wm/amiwm -- no release since 1998-03-15 x11-wm/larswm -- alternative: pekwm x11-wm/lwm -- alternative: pekwm x11-wm/pwm -- bug #149593, alternative: ion x11-wm/wmi -- superceded by wmii Please see bug #153388 for further information along with a list of other bugs requesting removal of desktop-wm packages. Discussion can occur here, but all objections should also be posted on the bug itself. Flame now or forever hold your peace. ;) -- David Shakaryan GnuPG Public Key: 0x4B8FE14B signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
[gentoo-dev] three packages masked for removal
games-action/phobiaiii, media-libs/allegttf, and games-strategy/magnant have been masked for removal. Details in package.mask and bugs. Michael Sterrett -Mr. Bones.- [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=150431 http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=136513 http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=110542 -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
[gentoo-dev] Only you can prevent broken portage trees
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi All, Apparently its been too long since I've sent one of these out, as people are starting to slip up and break the tree again. Please triple check what you want to commit and verify that you don't do any of the following (which are punishable by death): 1) remove the last ebuild that is keyworded for a given arch, especially when resulting in broken dependencies. 2) remove the last stable ebuild for an architecture 3) remove the last testing ebuild for an architecture when there is no stable ebuild available after the removal Consider yourself warned. Violation of any of these will cause the jforman death goat squad to be dispatched to your location for a discreet hit. For repeat offenders, public executions will be had, with Spanky hosting. Thanks :) - -- Jason Wever Gentoo/Sparc Team Co-Lead -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFFRWg1dKvgdVioq28RAj+tAJ4o4sDm3gMHXFJD93p7A3sQfDIjQwCfRGoo 83p8MPbKPzjgbkM0B684l8M= =hGcH -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Removal request for several desktop-wm packages
On Sun, 2006-10-29 at 19:15 -0800, David Shakaryan wrote: The desktop-wm herd is understaffed and has a bunch of dead packages lying around which no one wants to maintain. I tried to give a valid alternative for all of the packages I want removed. At first glance, it seems like all of the following packages also have a dead upstream. x11-wm/aewm++ -- alternative: pekwm x11-wm/aewm++-goodies -- see above x11-wm/amiwm -- no release since 1998-03-15 x11-wm/larswm -- alternative: pekwm x11-wm/lwm -- alternative: pekwm x11-wm/pwm -- bug #149593, alternative: ion x11-wm/wmi -- superceded by wmii Please see bug #153388 for further information along with a list of other bugs requesting removal of desktop-wm packages. Discussion can occur here, but all objections should also be posted on the bug itself. Flame now or forever hold your peace. ;) Pwm is a different wm than ion but they are both provided on the same tarball so why remove pwm ? Are you trying to add a USE for ion to provide pwm ? -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Removal request for several desktop-wm packages
Luis Medinas wrote: Pwm is a different wm than ion but they are both provided on the same tarball so why remove pwm ? Are you trying to add a USE for ion to provide pwm ? Hrm... After a quick glance at the ebuilds and distfiles, it seems like they aren't using the same tarball. Also, the PWM site lists Ion as the successor. Maybe you are confusing ion with ion2 and ion3, which apparently provide nominal PWM2 and PWM3? -- David Shakaryan GnuPG Public Key: 0x4B8FE14B signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Removal request for several desktop-wm packages
On Sun, 2006-10-29 at 19:57 -0800, David Shakaryan wrote: Luis Medinas wrote: Pwm is a different wm than ion but they are both provided on the same tarball so why remove pwm ? Are you trying to add a USE for ion to provide pwm ? Hrm... After a quick glance at the ebuilds and distfiles, it seems like they aren't using the same tarball. Also, the PWM site lists Ion as the successor. Maybe you are confusing ion with ion2 and ion3, which apparently provide nominal PWM2 and PWM3? Yes it's true i was confused my bad. Ion2 and Ion3 provides pwm2 and pwm3. -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Removal request for several desktop-wm packages
On Sun, Oct 29, 2006 at 07:15:01PM -0800, David Shakaryan wrote: The desktop-wm herd is understaffed and has a bunch of dead packages lying around which no one wants to maintain. I tried to give a valid alternative for all of the packages I want removed. At first glance, it seems like all of the following packages also have a dead upstream. x11-wm/larswm -- alternative: pekwm While the last release is from over two years ago, it still works great and has no open bugs. Would you consider keeping it around at least as long as that remains so? (I'll comment on the bug later.) -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Removal request for several desktop-wm packages
Harald van Dijk wrote: On Sun, Oct 29, 2006 at 07:15:01PM -0800, David Shakaryan wrote: The desktop-wm herd is understaffed and has a bunch of dead packages lying around which no one wants to maintain. I tried to give a valid alternative for all of the packages I want removed. At first glance, it seems like all of the following packages also have a dead upstream. x11-wm/larswm -- alternative: pekwm While the last release is from over two years ago, it still works great and has no open bugs. Would you consider keeping it around at least as long as that remains so? (I'll comment on the bug later.) Sure. Just make a comment telling treecleaners to keep it. You can mention that I'm okay with that, if you wish. -- David Shakaryan GnuPG Public Key: 0x4B8FE14B signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Only you can prevent broken portage trees
Jason Wever ha scritto: Hi All, Apparently its been too long since I've sent one of these out, as people are starting to slip up and break the tree again. Please triple check what you want to commit and verify that you don't do any of the following (which are punishable by death): 1) remove the last ebuild that is keyworded for a given arch, especially when resulting in broken dependencies. http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=149626 I'm going to die then, scheduled on 2006-11-05 If keywording without archs support is only gambling I'll go that route 2) remove the last stable ebuild for an architecture 3) remove the last testing ebuild for an architecture when there is no stable ebuild available after the removal Consider yourself warned. Violation of any of these will cause the jforman death goat squad to be dispatched to your location for a discreet hit. For repeat offenders, public executions will be had, with Spanky hosting. Thanks :) -- Jason Wever Gentoo/Sparc Team Co-Lead -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
