Christian Faulhammer wrote:
What we propose is proper testing and keywording by anyone
around...not just team members.
I agree... our main problem is manpower -- people actually working on
the stable bugs. I've tried to do it myself a few times, but each time
it just burns me out to the po
Christian Faulhammer wrote:
>
> What we propose is proper testing and keywording by anyone
> around...not just team members.
>
Thanks for the info - inactive maintainers are obviously a problem.
Maybe the proper approach is for a more "Free-for-all" system like you
suggest, with arch teams focu
Raúl Porcel wrote:
>
> IIRC you are from the blubb era, i'm i right? Blubb did a really god job
> with amd64, and in fact amd64 started 'slacking' since blubb left.
> Unfortunately that doesn't work anymore, in a lot of bugs i've seen an
> AT of yours posting his results, when i was going to do my
Duncan schrieb:
Bernd Steinhauser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted
[EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Sat, 01 Mar
2008 23:50:09 +0100:
What about the timezone?
Baselayout had a setting for the timezone in /etc/conf.d/clock.
baselayout-2.0.0
+ openrc doesn't seem to have that. Not needed?
Bernd Steinhauser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted
[EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Sat, 01 Mar
2008 23:50:09 +0100:
> What about the timezone?
> Baselayout had a setting for the timezone in /etc/conf.d/clock.
> baselayout-2.0.0
> + openrc doesn't seem to have that. Not needed?
Not needed indeed
Roy Marples schrieb:
On Friday 29 February 2008 16:15:51 Ed W wrote:
On the other hand since there still isn't a masked ebuild in portage
(and I seem some notes on my on Roy's site) then I have to assume that
in fact we are still a good way away from calling it a replacement and
starting to p
At one time there were some apps which reported back "usage" from
people's systems and showed package versions in use? Now, whilst this
in itself is not an indication of package quality or bug-freeness.
Perhaps it would be an interesting datastream to assist in deciding
whether to mark a pack
On Saturday 01 March 2008 22:26:24 Ed W wrote:
> Hmm, all interesting stuff
>
> You mention in the notes also that openrc has some kind of "keepalive"
> function which can restart crashing services. Can point me towards how
> that works (assuming it needs some kind of config?)
No such function :)
Hmm, all interesting stuff
You mention in the notes also that openrc has some kind of "keepalive"
function which can restart crashing services. Can point me towards how
that works (assuming it needs some kind of config?)
I haven't had any time yet to try this on a test machine, but intereste
Roy Marles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted [EMAIL PROTECTED],
excerpted below, on Sat, 01 Mar 2008 10:50:50 +:
> As others pointed out, this is a package manager issue and those
> blockers are there because of this. Not an OpenRC issue as such ;)
>
> Thanks
... And thank /you/! =8^)
--
Duncan
Richard Freeman wrote:
Raúl Porcel wrote:
Peter Weller wrote:
Oh, I'd be more than happy to accept help from developers like that.
It's just a case of what the "big bosses" think of it. Plus there's
the fact that some other arches operate on a "it compiles, mark it
stable" policy, and we don't
Hi,
Richard Freeman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > Hope you're not referring to any of my arches because that's not
> > true :) In fact, if i did that, i wouldn't crash the alpha dev box
> > so often, right Tobias?
> I dunno - I just hit bug 211021 today while trying to clean out old
> bugs. Already st
Raúl Porcel wrote:
> Peter Weller wrote:
>>
>> Oh, I'd be more than happy to accept help from developers like that.
>> It's just a case of what the "big bosses" think of it. Plus there's
>> the fact that some other arches operate on a "it compiles, mark it
>> stable" policy, and we don't want devel
В Сбт, 01/03/2008 в 14:39 +, Peter Weller пишет:
> There are also a number of problems with people on the team who are there
> soley so that they don't have to ask the team to mark a package stable for
> them - they can just go and stable it themselves.
It'll be even better if we prohibit s
Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote:
Hello fellow devs, users and Gentoo community,
here are our 2008 trustees :
NeddySeagoon
fmccor
tsunam
tgall
wltjr
Congrats guys. :D
--
fonts,by design, by neglect
gcc-porting,
Santiago M. Mola wrote:
A lot of users don't feel comfortable using Bugzilla and often are
lost with our procedures for keyword (both ~ and stable) requests. I
think we could use an easy web interface for requesting specific
keywords for packages in a point-and-click fashion.
Speaking about Bug
Peter Weller wrote:
Oh, I'd be more than happy to accept help from developers like that. It's just
a case of what the "big bosses" think of it. Plus there's the fact that some
other arches operate on a "it compiles, mark it stable" policy, and we don't
want developers to bring that attitude t
On Saturday 01 March 2008 10:55:06 Raúl Porcel wrote:
[..snip..]
There are also a number of problems with people on the team who are there
soley so that they don't have to ask the team to mark a package stable for
them - they can just go and stable it themselves. OK, this may help the amd64
tea
On Saturday 01 March 2008 10:55:06 Raúl Porcel wrote:
> So it would be cool if they accepted help from other devs who don't have
> an amd64 system but have access to one and can test stuff. Cla is
> willing to help.
Oh, I'd be more than happy to accept help from developers like that. It's just
Christian Faulhammer wrote:
[snip]
I agree 100%, thanks for explaining it better than me :P
--
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Hi,
Richard Freeman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Raúl Porcel wrote:
> >
> > So it would be cool if they accepted help from other devs who don't
> > have an amd64 system but have access to one and can test stuff. Cla
> > is willing to help.
[...]
> I don't keyword a package stable unless I've done at l
Raúl Porcel wrote:
So it would be cool if they accepted help from other devs who don't have
an amd64 system but have access to one and can test stuff. Cla is
willing to help.
I think this may be more a question of what our policy should be
regarding level of testing/stability accepted.
I want to propose to the council to talk about the amd64 arch team and
its big bug list [1] considering they are the most staffed arch team.
They have some bugs that are more than a month old and they are the last
arch. Same for security bugs, and i think amd64 is an important arch and
has a l
On Saturday 01 March 2008 02:08:44 Duncan wrote:
> Is direct upgrade from previous baselayout-2.0.0-rcX going to be
> supported?
Existing configs should work just fine - with the exception of the modules
config. It's been moved to /etc/conf.d/modules instead of
the /etc/modules.autoload.d folder
This is your monthly friendly reminder ! Same bat time (typically
the 2nd Thursday at 2000 UTC / 1600 EST), same bat channel
(#gentoo-council @ irc.freenode.net) !
If you have something you'd wish for us to chat about, maybe even
vote on, let us know ! Simply reply to this e-mail for the whole
G
Doug Klima <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted [EMAIL PROTECTED],
excerpted below, on Fri, 29 Feb 2008 23:59:06 -0500:
>> Is direct upgrade from previous baselayout-2.0.0-rcX going to be
>> supported? I was running that for some time and just now added and
>> upgraded to the via layman version. There's
26 matches
Mail list logo
