Hi,
I'm getting Connection refused when trying to connect to
http://bugs.gentoo.org. Is this intentional?
Bye...
Dirk
--
Dirk Heinrichs | Tel: +49 (0)162 234 3408
Configuration Manager | Fax: +49 (0)211 47068 111
Capgemini Deutschland | Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, Jul 03, 2008 at 08:08:38AM +0200, Dirk Heinrichs wrote:
I'm getting Connection refused when trying to connect to
http://bugs.gentoo.org. Is this intentional?
Yeah, read the -dev topic.
I broke it, and I'm working on it.
--
Robin Hugh Johnson
Gentoo Linux Developer Infra Guy
E-Mail
Ok, my bad. I screwed up. I changed something in cfengine, then rushed
off to a family dinner, and caused a couple of hours of bugzilla
badness because I didn't fully review my change.
Approximately:
2008/07/03 02h38 till 05h06.
The following bugs may have duplicate comments, or the various
Robin H. Johnson a écrit :
Ok, my bad. I screwed up. I changed something in cfengine, then rushed
off to a family dinner, and caused a couple of hours of bugzilla
badness because I didn't fully review my change.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shit_happens :)
Everything should be back online in
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Robin H. Johnson wrote:
On Sat, Jun 28, 2008 at 04:53:06PM +, Marijn Schouten (hkbst) wrote:
hkbst 08/06/28 16:53:06
Modified: ChangeLog
Added:reversion.patch drscheme-4.0.1.ebuild
* Rémi Cardona [EMAIL PROTECTED] [080703 11:04]:
Well thanks anyway for admitting your mistakes and fixing them. Such
behavior is rare enough these days that you deserve to be commended for it.
ack ;)
--
Michael Hammer|
On Thursday 03 July 2008 01:06:17 Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
-r1 has this values:
P=quassel-
PN=quassel
PV=
PF=quassel--r1
PVR=-r1 (was this the right variable name? I sincerely forgot)
PVR is right. You only forgot PR=r1.
On Thu, Jul 03, 2008 at 01:10:27PM +0200, Michael Hammer wrote:
* Rémi Cardona [EMAIL PROTECTED] [080703 11:04]:
Well thanks anyway for admitting your mistakes and fixing them. Such
behavior is rare enough these days that you deserve to be commended for it.
ack ;)
++
After all you did
On Thu, 03 Jul 2008 12:23:01 +0200
Marijn Schouten (hkBst) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Robin H. Johnson wrote:
On Sat, Jun 28, 2008 at 04:53:06PM +, Marijn Schouten (hkbst)
wrote:
hkbst 08/06/28 16:53:06
Modified:
2008-07-01 07:30:01 Mike Frysinger napisał(a):
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
Duncan [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Jim Ramsay [EMAIL PROTECTED] posted [EMAIL PROTECTED],
excerpted below, on Tue, 01 Jul 2008 11:29:56 -0400:
Mark Loeser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Its a good idea, but since our users don't always provide useful
reports, it seems like we are just shifting
Hi fellow developers,
it seems I've run into a minor issue with fellow bug wrangler carlo
(who has been putting a lot of work into that, for which we should all
be grateful).
Carsten has a cut-and-paste message that he posts in comments to
version bump bug reports that he finds have been
On Fri, 2008-07-04 at 01:16 +0200, Jeroen Roovers wrote:
1) How do you feel when you receive an early version bump request?
If it is for software where I am also upstream (Audacious for example),
it does tend to annoy me when people try their utmost to file bug
reports before I commit my ebuild.
Tony Chainsaw Vroon wrote:
The time I can spend
trawling upstream sites for new releases is limited.
Same here - I would never mind getting a 0-day bump request, since
someone else might have noticed before I did that a new version is
available.
Just an idea:
How about a metadata.xml tag
On Fri, Jul 04, 2008 at 12:26:13AM +0100, Tony Chainsaw Vroon wrote:
2) If you had your way, would you discourage users from filing early
version bump requests?
Just an idea:
How about a metadata.xml tag that indicates whether early bump requests are
welcome?
It's more of an individual
On Friday 04 July 2008, Tony Chainsaw Vroon wrote:
How about a metadata.xml tag that indicates whether early bump requests are
welcome?
People obviously don't care about what it says on the website, why should they
start looking into metadata.xml?
I think we should remove the useless
On Fri, 4 Jul 2008 01:16:09 +0200
Jeroen Roovers [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Disclaimer: I'm not really a package maintainer anymore.
1) How do you feel when you receive an early version bump request?
I guess like with most people it depends
a) If I'm already aware of the new version, or would
Tony \Chainsaw\ Vroon [EMAIL PROTECTED] posted
[EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Fri, 04 Jul 2008
00:26:13 +0100:
2) If you had your way, would you discourage users from filing early
version bump requests?
AFAIK, it has been at least informal policy to discourage bump requests
for the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Jeroen Roovers wrote:
| -
| 1) How do you feel when you receive an early version bump request?
|
|
It's generally fine with me; though I would handle it differently
depending upon the situation.
For example, sometimes these version bumps
I'd like to add a few words from the users perspective:
-
1) How do you feel when you receive an early version bump request?
I hope developers are not annoyed - well, sometimes the words chosen are
maybe a bit too offensive.
I like these bump requests. I add myself as a CC and wait for
Fabian Groffen wrote:
On 30-06-2008 17:35:08 +0200, Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis wrote:
How can you easily revert it in a profile?
You can set LDFLAGS= in a subprofiles's make.defaults.
How elegant... but I guess I'll have no choice.
Shouldn't possible have a subprofile with
On Fri, 2008-07-04 at 02:31 +0200, Marius Mauch wrote:
On Fri, 4 Jul 2008 01:16:09 +0200
Jeroen Roovers [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Disclaimer: I'm not really a package maintainer anymore.
I am, and Marius said all the things that I would have said. :-)
One of the reasons that it depends is
22 matches
Mail list logo
