[gentoo-dev] Restructuring the ppc/ppc64 profiles to be better multilib
Hi everyone, This is a ppc/ppc64 issues, but I'm sending this to gentoo-dev@ because it seems to me that those herds are pretty scattered right: 1) The issue came up about restructuring the arch/powerpc profiles. There we have some ancient stuff like ppc64/32ul. I don't know why that's needed and it doesn't make much sense wrt the new direction multilib is going. I'd like to clean up those profiles. Any objections to removing ppc64/32ul, coalescing ppc64/64ul into just ppc64 and making whatever other tweaks are needed? 2) Can we try to get the ppc/ppc64 herds communicating more. I don't believe every team needs a lead but at least have a point of reference so we can communicate. -- Anthony G. Basile, Ph. D. Chair of Information Technology D'Youville College Buffalo, NY 14201 (716) 829-8197
[gentoo-dev] Docker 1.0.0 masked for no known reason?
Hi Markos, I was wondering why docker 1.0.0 wasn't seeming to get updated on my boxes recently, despite me commiting the update to the cvs tree, and Tianon noticed that it was masked at the moment: # Markos Chandras hwoar...@gentoo.org (03 May 2014) # Masked for further testing =app-emulation/lxc-1.0.0 =app-emulation/docker-1.0.0 Which is odd, given that I never saw a bug report, nor did Tianon, and I thought we were the ones working on maintaining this package in the tree. So, what's up with keeping docker from being updated? Is it just an lxc bug? This works just fine on my other boxes with other distros :) And why mask without at least dropping me an email? thanks, greg k-h
Re: [gentoo-dev] Docker 1.0.0 masked for no known reason?
On Sat, 28 Jun 2014 19:58:22 -0700 Greg Kroah-Hartman gre...@gentoo.org wrote: Hi Markos, I was wondering why docker 1.0.0 wasn't seeming to get updated on my boxes recently, despite me commiting the update to the cvs tree, and Tianon noticed that it was masked at the moment: # Markos Chandras hwoar...@gentoo.org (03 May 2014) # Masked for further testing Oh, that good old masked for testing, which actually never works. If you want testing to be done, you don't mask stuff. Also, no bug number referenced. All you get is someone's e-mail address. jer
Re: [gentoo-dev] Docker 1.0.0 masked for no known reason?
On Sat, Jun 28, 2014 at 11:17 PM, Jeroen Roovers j...@gentoo.org wrote: On Sat, 28 Jun 2014 19:58:22 -0700 Greg Kroah-Hartman gre...@gentoo.org wrote: Hi Markos, I was wondering why docker 1.0.0 wasn't seeming to get updated on my boxes recently, despite me commiting the update to the cvs tree, and Tianon noticed that it was masked at the moment: # Markos Chandras hwoar...@gentoo.org (03 May 2014) # Masked for further testing Oh, that good old masked for testing, which actually never works. If you want testing to be done, you don't mask stuff. Also, no bug number referenced. All you get is someone's e-mail address. Well, it can make sense if you're actually actively testing it and having it in tree offers convenience when doing so, but generally it should be reserved for cases where it really is actively being tested, and isn't simply sitting around. Then you actually have some kind of roadmap to general release. This is far less disruptive than sticking an ebuild in ~arch when all you know is that it builds. I can't vouch for what is going on in this case. Rich
Re: [gentoo-dev] Docker 1.0.0 masked for no known reason?
On Sun, Jun 29, 2014 at 05:17:36AM +0200, Jeroen Roovers wrote: On Sat, 28 Jun 2014 19:58:22 -0700 Greg Kroah-Hartman gre...@gentoo.org wrote: Hi Markos, I was wondering why docker 1.0.0 wasn't seeming to get updated on my boxes recently, despite me commiting the update to the cvs tree, and Tianon noticed that it was masked at the moment: # Markos Chandras hwoar...@gentoo.org (03 May 2014) # Masked for further testing Oh, that good old masked for testing, which actually never works. Exactly. If you want testing to be done, you don't mask stuff. Also, no bug number referenced. All you get is someone's e-mail address. So, given a total lack of testing by anyone, I might as well just remove the mask, so it can actually be done given that people are wanting the latest Docker release, especially due to the security fixes in it over the one that is currently not masked... thanks, greg k-h
