On Thursday 25 February 2010 08:22:17 Ulrich Mueller wrote:
On Wed, 24 Feb 2010, Robin H Johnson wrote:
Metadata.xml should allow use of a changepolicies element. Within
the element, package maintainers should be able to describe how
non-maintainer changes to the package are handled.
On Thu, 25 Feb 2010, Markos Chandras wrote:
Could we allow this element in the category metadata files, too?
Its value there would be the default for the category, with the
possibility to override it for individual packages.
How are you so sure that a general rule can apply to a whole
Torsten Veller ml...@veller.net said:
* Torsten Veller t...@gentoo.org:
Can we please move the mips profiles from dev to exp in
profiles/profiles.desc?
Based on the current feedback I'll change it not earlier than friday
next week if nobody objects.
That would be nice. I'd also love to
On 02/25/2010 05:14 PM, Mark Loeser wrote:
Torsten Veller ml...@veller.net said:
* Torsten Veller t...@gentoo.org:
Can we please move the mips profiles from dev to exp in
profiles/profiles.desc?
Based on the current feedback I'll change it not earlier than friday
next week if nobody
I agree that additional repoman checks can help to improve quality in
Gentoo...
It seems that currently neither metagen nor repoman check what I put in
for herd (i.e. if such a herd exists or not).
Does anyone feel like getting his hands on that or like teaming up on it?
Sebastian
On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 05:24:25PM +0200, Samuli Suominen wrote:
Every machine type profile has a developer, desktop and server sub profile.
How about deleting those? If you are capable of setting up a Gentoo/MIPS
setup, then you are certainly capable of setting up few profile defaults
on
On 02/25/2010 02:41 PM, Markos Chandras wrote:
On Thursday 25 February 2010 08:22:17 Ulrich Mueller wrote:
On Wed, 24 Feb 2010, Robin H Johnson wrote:
Metadata.xml should allow use of achangepolicies element. Within
the element, package maintainers should be able to describe how
On 24-02-2010 23:41:26 +, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
Proposed types:
---
- version-bump
- trivial-version-bump
- trivial-fixes
- fixes
- enhancements
- qa-fixes
- trivial-qa-fixes
Isn't the QA team by its definition allowed to fix QA issues? If so, I
don't see a point in
Stop.
Is introduction of such a high level of bureaucracy really a good idea?
In my eyes it could backfire and make matters worse as people either
- start ignoring it due to high noise
- reduce people's activity below set permissions
To summarize presented proposal has a few points that may not
On Friday 22 January 2010 18:15:49 Ben de Groot wrote:
2009/10/24 Maciej Mrozowski reave...@gmail.com:
Hi there!
Resulting from discussion during last Gentoo KDE team meeting taking
place 22 Oct 2009 at #gentoo-meetings (summary fill be available soon),
having Gentoo GNOME team
On Thu, 25 Feb 2010 11:30:32 +0100
Torsten Veller ml...@veller.net wrote:
* Torsten Veller t...@gentoo.org:
Can we please move the mips profiles from dev to exp in
profiles/profiles.desc?
Based on the current feedback I'll change it not earlier than friday
next week if nobody objects.
I think this is good to go, let's get some comments from the list.
Ben
-- Forwarded message --
From: Richard Freeman ri...@gentoo.org
Date: 24 February 2010 16:57
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Pending mask of Qt3 and MythTV
To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
How about this revised
* Ryan Hill dirtye...@gentoo.org:
Torsten Veller ml...@veller.net wrote:
* Torsten Veller t...@gentoo.org:
Can we please move the mips profiles from dev to exp in
profiles/profiles.desc?
Based on the current feedback I'll change it not earlier than friday
next week if nobody
13 matches
Mail list logo
