Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH 1/1] kernel-2.eclass: Point user to additional kernel removal, instructions. See bug #581522.

[Mike Pagano]

Thank

On 12/27/2016 09:12 PM, Alice Ferrazzi wrote:
> looks like nice information to give :)
> 
> ok, for me.
> 
> On Wed, Dec 28, 2016 at 9:52 AM, Mike Pagano  wrote:
>> This addresses concerns that users might not realize that after an
>> unmerge of kernel sources some files will need to be removed manually.
>> The particular concern was specific to the files in /lib/modules/. I
>> liked this solution, since it does not require a wordy explanation to be
>> written in the eclass.
>>
>> --

Thanks. Committed.

-- 
Mike Pagano
Gentoo Developer - Kernel Project
Gentoo Sources - Lead
E-Mail : mpag...@gentoo.org
GnuPG FP   : 52CC A0B0 F631 0B17 0142 F83F 92A6 DBEC 81F2 B137
Public Key :
http://http://pgp.mit.edu/pks/lookup?search=0x92A6DBEC81F2B137&op=index




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: The changes about the stabilization process

[Ciaran McCreesh]

On Wed, 28 Dec 2016 23:21:51 +0100
Jeroen Roovers  wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Dec 2016 03:49:30 +1100
> Michael Palimaka  wrote:
> > > Can you please avoid reintroducing the term "atom" there, when we
> > > are trying to get rid of it elsewhere [1]? Note that PMS doesn't
> > > define the term [2].
> > 
> > Any suggestions for improved text? Ideally it would be
> > stabilisation/keywording agnostic as the same field is used in both
> > components.  
> 
> How about "atoms". We've been using that for ages (regardless of what
> PMS authors think) so why change it now? Alternatively, I would
> propose to call them "bikesheds" as that will work just as well as
> any other label and will succinctly refer to the creative process
> that made it a replacement for "atoms".

We made a deliberate decision not to use the word "atom" in PMS because
it means subtly different things in different contexts.

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: The changes about the stabilization process

[Jeroen Roovers]

On Thu, 29 Dec 2016 03:49:30 +1100
Michael Palimaka  wrote:

> > Can you please avoid reintroducing the term "atom" there, when we
> > are trying to get rid of it elsewhere [1]? Note that PMS doesn't
> > define the term [2].  
> 
> Any suggestions for improved text? Ideally it would be
> stabilisation/keywording agnostic as the same field is used in both
> components.

How about "atoms". We've been using that for ages (regardless of what
PMS authors think) so why change it now? Alternatively, I would propose
to call them "bikesheds" as that will work just as well as any other
label and will succinctly refer to the creative process that made it
a replacement for "atoms".


 jer

[gentoo-dev] Re: The changes about the stabilization process

[Ulrich Mueller]

> On Thu, 29 Dec 2016, Michael Palimaka wrote:

> On 28/12/16 20:57, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>> Can you please avoid reintroducing the term "atom" there, when we
>> are trying to get rid of it elsewhere [1]? Note that PMS doesn't
>> define the term [2].

> Any suggestions for improved text? Ideally it would be
> stabilisation/keywording agnostic as the same field is used in both
> components.

PMS uses "package dependency specification", but that may be too long
for the name of the field. How about "ebuilds to stabilise"?

Ulrich


pgpmnuTmlJynS.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: The changes about the stabilization process

[Michał Górny]

On Thu, 29 Dec 2016 03:49:30 +1100
Michael Palimaka  wrote:

> On 28/12/16 20:57, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> >> On Sun, 25 Dec 2016, Agostino Sarubbo wrote:  
> >   
> >> with the great and awesome work of Michael Palimaka (kensington) and
> >> the support of the wg-stable, for the stabilization process, some
> >> changes on our bugzilla have been done.  
> > 
> > Thank you for the great work.
> >   
> >> [...]  
> >   
> >> When you will choose one of those, you will see two new fields:
> >> - Atoms to stabilize  
> > 
> > Can you please avoid reintroducing the term "atom" there, when we are
> > trying to get rid of it elsewhere [1]? Note that PMS doesn't define
> > the term [2].  
> 
> Any suggestions for improved text? Ideally it would be
> stabilisation/keywording agnostic as the same field is used in both
> components.

How about: package versions?

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny



pgpNboKaf4YmM.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

[gentoo-dev] Re: The changes about the stabilization process

[Michael Palimaka]

On 28/12/16 20:57, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>> On Sun, 25 Dec 2016, Agostino Sarubbo wrote:
> 
>> with the great and awesome work of Michael Palimaka (kensington) and
>> the support of the wg-stable, for the stabilization process, some
>> changes on our bugzilla have been done.
> 
> Thank you for the great work.
> 
>> [...]
> 
>> When you will choose one of those, you will see two new fields:
>> - Atoms to stabilize
> 
> Can you please avoid reintroducing the term "atom" there, when we are
> trying to get rid of it elsewhere [1]? Note that PMS doesn't define
> the term [2].

Any suggestions for improved text? Ideally it would be
stabilisation/keywording agnostic as the same field is used in both
components.

Re: [gentoo-dev] The changes about the stabilization process

[Ulrich Mueller]

> On Sun, 25 Dec 2016, Agostino Sarubbo wrote:

> with the great and awesome work of Michael Palimaka (kensington) and
> the support of the wg-stable, for the stabilization process, some
> changes on our bugzilla have been done.

Thank you for the great work.

> [...]

> When you will choose one of those, you will see two new fields:
> - Atoms to stabilize

Can you please avoid reintroducing the term "atom" there, when we are
trying to get rid of it elsewhere [1]? Note that PMS doesn't define
the term [2].

Ulrich

[1] https://projects.gentoo.org/council/meeting-logs/20151213-summary.txt
[2] https://bugs.gentoo.org/174322


pgpYeuImF8n_Q.pgp
Description: PGP signature