On 8/6/10 3:36 PM, Alex Legler wrote:
> On Fri, 06 Aug 2010 14:49:19 -0700, "Paweł Hajdan, Jr."
> wrote:
>> 1. The Gentoo Security team is severly understaffed, they have an
>> entry on the Staffing Needs page, but no long-term improvement is
>> visible over the last 6 months. The status visibilit
On Wed, Aug 04, 2010 at 08:47:36PM +0300, Petteri Räty wrote:
> On 08/04/2010 08:34 PM, Markos Chandras wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 04, 2010 at 07:12:18PM +0300, Petteri Räty wrote:
> >> On 08/04/2010 02:50 PM, Markos Chandras wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>> @Council: Yet another example that we need to track t
On Fri, 06 Aug 2010 14:49:19 -0700, "Paweł Hajdan, Jr."
wrote:
>
> 1. The Gentoo Security team is severly understaffed, they have an
> entry on the Staffing Needs page, but no long-term improvement is
> visible over the last 6 months. The status visibility is low, and
> it's even hard to ask for
On 8/6/10 12:26 PM, Tomáš Chvátal wrote:
> since I am this meetings girl for everything here is first pass on our
> agenda.
I'd like to add some points to the agenda.
1. The Gentoo Security team is severly understaffed, they have an entry
on the Staffing Needs page, but no long-term improvement i
Hi,
since I am this meetings girl for everything here is first pass on our
agenda.
I am adding this mail only to g-dev and g-dev-announce to see if
everyone notice, sorry if it slip your radar. Also if you have something
to say on this mail please reply to gentoo-dev, or you will render me
quite s
On Fri, 6 Aug 2010 11:18:46 -0700
Brian Harring wrote:
> And by "right now", I assume you meant to say "minimally a year down
> the line after a portage is stabled supporting g55 semantics and
> resolving any breakage it's usage induces". You know, the same issue
> EAPI itself had to go throug
On Fri, Aug 06, 2010 at 06:48:31PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Fri, 6 Aug 2010 10:27:32 -0700
> Brian Harring wrote:
> > As for 'blatant hack', if you've got no users nor preexisting ebuild
> > data, you can design whatever you want- it's quite easy to call
> > things blatant hacks if you
On Fri, 6 Aug 2010 10:27:32 -0700
Brian Harring wrote:
> As for 'blatant hack', if you've got no users nor preexisting ebuild
> data, you can design whatever you want- it's quite easy to call
> things blatant hacks if you can design things from scratch and not
> worry about compatibility. This i
On Fri, Aug 06, 2010 at 05:15:15PM +0100, David Leverton wrote:
> On 5 August 2010 04:27, Brian Harring wrote:
> > If an EAPI adds a new global function that cannot set/influence EAPI,
> > PM's that don't support that EAPI will spit complaints about 'missing
> > command' during sourcing- however t
On 5 August 2010 04:27, Brian Harring wrote:
> If an EAPI adds a new global function that cannot set/influence EAPI,
> PM's that don't support that EAPI will spit complaints about 'missing
> command' during sourcing- however the PM will still see the EAPI value
> is one it knows it doesn't support
# Diego E. Pettenò (06 Aug 2010)
# on behalf of QA team
#
# bsfilter is dead upstream, not bumped since 2006;
# current stable was added in 2005 (and is not the last one
# available); claws-mail-bsfilter is the only user and also
# has broken dependencies.
#
# Removal on 2010-10-05
mail-filter/b
Jeremy Olexa posted on Thu, 05 Aug 2010 18:43:55 -0500 as excerpted:
> People will not "hate you" - if the portage with EAPI4 is in ~arch, you
> can have PHP w/EAPI4 in ~arch, even on zero-day of release. Likewise
> with stable tree. It does not matter when council "approves" EAPI4, it
> matters w
12 matches
Mail list logo
