On 20/08/2013 22:25, Tom Wijsman wrote:
On Tue, 20 Aug 2013 22:00:52 +0200
Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com wrote:
As a long time user and citizen of -user I can tell you what the
general feeling of arch vs ~arch there is:
Thanks for jumping into the discussion.
arch has plenty
On 21/08/2013 05:31, Tom Wijsman wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, 20 Aug 2013 14:28:15 -0400
Ian Stakenvicius a...@gentoo.org wrote:
I see a few issues with ~arch - table migrations:
#1 - things just sit in ~arch. The auto-stablereq script should help
with this
On Aug 20, 2013, at 11:19 AM, William Hubbs willi...@gentoo.org wrote:
My question is, how can we improve our stabilization procedures/policies
so we can convince people not to run production servers on ~arch and
keep the stable tree more up to date?
do the Arch Linux thing…keep just one
On 21/08/2013 03:54, Doug Goldstein wrote:
Its also precisely that mix and match that might cause instability due
to people not testing things. Case in point QEMU 1.6.0 just came out and
it went through a number of release candidates but no one ever saw that
it depends only on Python 2.4 but
On 21/08/2013 05:24, Tom Wijsman wrote:
On Tue, 20 Aug 2013 13:19:10 -0500
William Hubbs willi...@gentoo.org wrote:
All,
I'm not really sure what the answer to this problem is, so I want to
know what the group thinks about how we can handle it.
During the last release of OpenRC, I learned
Le mercredi 21 août 2013 à 12:15 +0800, Ben de Groot a écrit :
On 21 August 2013 07:36, Gilles Dartiguelongue e...@gentoo.org wrote:
Le mardi 20 août 2013 à 17:31 +0400, Sergey Popov a écrit :
16.08.2013 21:15, hasufell пишет:
https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=420493
gtk2 and
20.08.2013 22:28, Ian Stakenvicius пишет:
I see a few issues with ~arch - table migrations:
#1 - things just sit in ~arch. The auto-stablereq script should help
with this one I think; we should give it some time to see if it works out.
My personal opinion on this - there is some package,
20.08.2013 23:48, Tom Wijsman пишет:
Yes, +1; last time this came up on chat, I asked whether it would be a
nice idea to have something between stable and ~, what you propose
sounds similar and might make sense. Though, on the other hand, doing
it this way we don't get the advantages that
20.08.2013 23:42, Tom Wijsman пишет:
On Tue, 20 Aug 2013 14:29:09 -0400
Wyatt Epp wyatt@gmail.com wrote:
What manner of bitrot?
They might ...
2. ... contain security bugs that later versions have fixed.
There should be security bug on our bugzilla with quick stabilization on
it
On 21/08/2013 17:54, Sergey Popov wrote:
Why we should bring new half-stable, half-testing keyword for this? I
think that this is no way to go. We should improve current situation
with arches by some other ways(e.g., recruiting people). Maybe drop some
damn-bad understaffed arches to unstable
21.08.2013 00:06, Tom Wijsman пишет:
On Tue, 20 Aug 2013 15:41:42 -0400
Rich Freeman ri...@gentoo.org wrote:
Let me dig up an example...
Our last sys-kernel/gentoo-sources stabilization was 3 months ago:
I don't really see a problem with stable package being all of 3 months
old.
21.08.2013 00:00, Alan McKinnon пишет:
Hey, maybe you guys are doing your job in ~arch *too well*, to your own
detriment :-) Something to consider?
~arch should not break every day, yeah(we have hardmasked for that :-P),
but it means that breakages are ALLOWED and it is NORMAL if they are not
On Wed, 21 Aug 2013 16:51:37 +1000
Michael Palimaka kensing...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 21/08/2013 05:31, Tom Wijsman wrote:
On Tue, 20 Aug 2013 14:28:15 -0400
Ian Stakenvicius a...@gentoo.org wrote:
That script has been running for long enough now. It doesn't work
out...
What do you
On Wed, 21 Aug 2013 11:54:48 +0400
Sergey Popov pinkb...@gentoo.org wrote:
by some other ways(e.g., recruiting people).
Recruiting shows to be a hard task; so, the suggestions I am doing are
assuming that that doesn't work out. In which case, I wonder what by
some other ways you would think
On Wed, 21 Aug 2013 11:57:22 +0400
Sergey Popov pinkb...@gentoo.org wrote:
20.08.2013 23:42, Tom Wijsman пишет:
On Tue, 20 Aug 2013 14:29:09 -0400
Wyatt Epp wyatt@gmail.com wrote:
What manner of bitrot?
They might ...
2. ... contain security bugs that later versions have
El mié, 21-08-2013 a las 18:08 +1000, Michael Palimaka escribió:
On 21/08/2013 17:54, Sergey Popov wrote:
Why we should bring new half-stable, half-testing keyword for this? I
think that this is no way to go. We should improve current situation
with arches by some other ways(e.g.,
21.08.2013 12:17, Tom Wijsman пишет:
On Wed, 21 Aug 2013 11:57:22 +0400
Sergey Popov pinkb...@gentoo.org wrote:
20.08.2013 23:42, Tom Wijsman пишет:
On Tue, 20 Aug 2013 14:29:09 -0400
Wyatt Epp wyatt@gmail.com wrote:
What manner of bitrot?
They might ...
2. ... contain security
On 21/08/2013 18:10, Tom Wijsman wrote:
On Wed, 21 Aug 2013 16:51:37 +1000
Michael Palimaka kensing...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 21/08/2013 05:31, Tom Wijsman wrote:
On Tue, 20 Aug 2013 14:28:15 -0400
Ian Stakenvicius a...@gentoo.org wrote:
That script has been running for long enough now. It
On Wed, 21 Aug 2013 12:07:16 +0400
Sergey Popov pinkb...@gentoo.org wrote:
21.08.2013 00:06, Tom Wijsman пишет:
On Tue, 20 Aug 2013 15:41:42 -0400
Rich Freeman ri...@gentoo.org wrote:
Let me dig up an example...
Our last sys-kernel/gentoo-sources stabilization was 3 months ago:
On Wed, 21 Aug 2013 17:04:45 +1000
Michael Palimaka kensing...@gentoo.org wrote:
We would probably benefit from formalising a clearer definition of
arch/~arch - it seems to mean a lot of different things to different
people.
http://devmanual.gentoo.org/keywording lists a definition; so, now
21.08.2013 12:13, Tom Wijsman пишет:
Recruiting shows to be a hard task; so, the suggestions I am doing are
assuming that that doesn't work out. In which case, I wonder what by
some other ways you would think of...
Dropping some keywords to unstable on minor arches. And about
recruiting, it is
On Tue, 20 Aug 2013 20:42:57 -0400
Rich Freeman ri...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 5:03 PM, Andreas K. Huettel
dilfri...@gentoo.org wrote:
Stable implies not so often changing. If you really need newer
packages on a system that has to be rock-solid, then keyword what
you
21.08.2013 12:25, Tom Wijsman пишет:
3.10 is not a shiny new version, it has been in the Portage tree for 7
weeks now (upstream release at 2013-06-30 22:13:42 (GMT)); so, that's
almost double the time you are suggesting.
Current stabilization target(3.10.7) was added to tree:
On Wed, 21 Aug 2013 18:23:33 +1000
Michael Palimaka kensing...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 21/08/2013 18:10, Tom Wijsman wrote:
On Wed, 21 Aug 2013 16:51:37 +1000
Michael Palimaka kensing...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 21/08/2013 05:31, Tom Wijsman wrote:
On Tue, 20 Aug 2013 14:28:15 -0400
Ian
21.08.2013 12:39, Tom Wijsman пишет:
The latest distros seemed to be just a bunch of same old stuff.
Nothing new -- nothing innovative. ~ Larry's frustration. :(
Then Larry tried Gentoo Linux. He was just impressed. ... He
discovered lots of up-to-date packages ... ~ Larry's happiness. :)
On Wed, 21 Aug 2013 10:22:39 +0200
Pacho Ramos pa...@gentoo.org wrote:
Regarding the kernel... well, I don't think having a 3.8.x kernel as
stable one is so old, what are current kernel versions in stable
Fedora, OpenSuSE, Mageia... last time I checked we weren't so ahead
on this (thanks to
On 21/08/2013 18:30, Tom Wijsman wrote:
On Wed, 21 Aug 2013 17:04:45 +1000
Michael Palimaka kensing...@gentoo.org wrote:
We would probably benefit from formalising a clearer definition of
arch/~arch - it seems to mean a lot of different things to different
people.
On Wed, 21 Aug 2013 12:32:35 +0400
Sergey Popov pinkb...@gentoo.org wrote:
21.08.2013 12:13, Tom Wijsman пишет:
Recruiting shows to be a hard task; so, the suggestions I am doing
are assuming that that doesn't work out. In which case, I wonder
what by some other ways you would think of...
On Wed, 21 Aug 2013 12:21:41 +0400
Sergey Popov pinkb...@gentoo.org wrote:
21.08.2013 12:17, Tom Wijsman пишет:
On Wed, 21 Aug 2013 11:57:22 +0400
Sergey Popov pinkb...@gentoo.org wrote:
20.08.2013 23:42, Tom Wijsman пишет:
On Tue, 20 Aug 2013 14:29:09 -0400
Wyatt Epp
Am Mittwoch, 21. August 2013, 10:39:23 schrieb Tom Wijsman:
The latest distros seemed to be just a bunch of same old stuff.
Nothing new -- nothing innovative. ~ Larry's frustration. :(
Then Larry tried Gentoo Linux. He was just impressed. ... He
discovered lots of up-to-date packages ... ~
On 08/21/2013 09:57 AM, Sergey Popov wrote:
20.08.2013 23:42, Tom Wijsman пишет:
On Tue, 20 Aug 2013 14:29:09 -0400
Wyatt Epp wyatt@gmail.com wrote:
What manner of bitrot?
They might ...
2. ... contain security bugs that later versions have fixed.
There should be security bug on
On Wed, 21 Aug 2013 12:49:03 +0400
Sergey Popov pinkb...@gentoo.org wrote:
21.08.2013 12:39, Tom Wijsman пишет:
The latest distros seemed to be just a bunch of same old stuff.
Nothing new -- nothing innovative. ~ Larry's frustration. :(
Then Larry tried Gentoo Linux. He was just
21.08.2013 13:28, Tom Wijsman пишет:
That is 3.10.7, not 3.10; please look into how kernel releases work,
minor releases are merely a small number of backported known fixes.
What you propose, waiting 30 days for a minor; simply doesn't work
when there are one to two minors a week, it puts us
21.08.2013 13:17, Manuel Rüger пишет:
Security team could maintain its own p.accept_keywords in profiles/ and
add testing keyworded ebuilds that fix security issues there.
Users who are interested skipping the stabilization process could link
it into their /etc/portage/p.accept_keywords
Dnia 2013-08-20, o godz. 13:01:34
Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org napisał(a):
Hello,
Due to the widespread breakage in the tree noted in bug #480892 [1],
and mis-design of multilib-minimal.eclass, we'd like to put some more
work into getting einstalldocs() ready for EAPI 6.
When it's
21.08.2013 13:13, Tom Wijsman пишет:
On Wed, 21 Aug 2013 12:32:35 +0400
Sergey Popov pinkb...@gentoo.org wrote:
21.08.2013 12:13, Tom Wijsman пишет:
Recruiting shows to be a hard task; so, the suggestions I am doing
are assuming that that doesn't work out. In which case, I wonder
what by
On 21/08/2013 07:05, Tom Wijsman wrote:
See `imlate --mtime=180 -s | less`. (From app-portage/gentoolkit-dev)
I quote:
==
4392 Stable candidates for 'gentoo' on 'amd64'
==
Let's double the number to a
On Wed, 21 Aug 2013 13:42:56 +0400
Sergey Popov pinkb...@gentoo.org wrote:
So it is definitely NOT 7 weeks
Let me clarify this again, our last stable kernel is from 7 weeks ago.
21.08.2013 13:28, Tom Wijsman пишет:
That is 3.10.7, not 3.10; please look into how kernel releases work,
minor
On Wed, 21 Aug 2013 20:13:00 +1000
Michael Palimaka kensing...@gentoo.org wrote:
For those not familiar with imlate, please note that these numbers
include packages that have never been stabilised.
True, this brings up two questions:
1. How do we filter out those that were never stabilized?
On Wed, 21 Aug 2013, Michał Górny wrote:
Proposed implementation follows:
einstalldocs() {
if ! declare -p DOCS /dev/null ; then
local d
for d in README* ChangeLog AUTHORS NEWS TODO CHANGES \
THANKS BUGS FAQ CREDITS CHANGELOG ; do
[[ -s
On Wed, 21 Aug 2013 13:54:51 +0400
Sergey Popov pinkb...@gentoo.org wrote:
21.08.2013 13:13, Tom Wijsman пишет:
On Wed, 21 Aug 2013 12:32:35 +0400
Sergey Popov pinkb...@gentoo.org wrote:
21.08.2013 12:13, Tom Wijsman пишет:
Recruiting shows to be a hard task; so, the suggestions I am
On 08/20/2013 01:01 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
Hello,
Due to the widespread breakage in the tree noted in bug #480892 [1],
and mis-design of multilib-minimal.eclass, we'd like to put some more
work into getting einstalldocs() ready for EAPI 6.
What mis-design?
On 21/08/2013 20:31, Tom Wijsman wrote:
On Wed, 21 Aug 2013 20:13:00 +1000
Michael Palimaka kensing...@gentoo.org wrote:
For those not familiar with imlate, please note that these numbers
include packages that have never been stabilised.
True, this brings up two questions:
1. How do we
On Wed, 21 Aug 2013 13:50:22 +0400
Sergey Popov pinkb...@gentoo.org wrote:
Easing stabilization procedure makes stable more, well, unstable.
It doesn't have to be easier; it just has to be done differently, in
which way we can benefit from the users whom are actively testing it.
Currently we
On Wed, 21 Aug 2013, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
On Wed, 21 Aug 2013, Michał Górny wrote:
Proposed implementation follows:
elif [[ $(declare -p DOCS) == declare -a * ]] ; then
I forgot about another issue pointed out by Arfrever some time ago.
We may want to change the above to declare -a*
Hi,
It's time of year again to consider moving a few arches to dev-only status.
I propose the following arches to lose their stable keywords
- s390
- sh
- ia64
- alpha
- m68k
- sparc
The manpower on these arches is below acceptable levels and they often
block stabilizations
for many months.
On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 1:04 PM, Markos Chandras hwoar...@gentoo.org wrote:
I propose the following arches to lose their stable keywords
- s390
- sh
- ia64
- alpha
- m68k
- sparc
+many.
Cheers,
Dirkjan
El mié, 21-08-2013 a las 11:52 +0200, Michał Górny escribió:
Dnia 2013-08-20, o godz. 13:01:34
Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org napisał(a):
Hello,
Due to the widespread breakage in the tree noted in bug #480892 [1],
and mis-design of multilib-minimal.eclass, we'd like to put some more
El mié, 21-08-2013 a las 11:16 +0200, Tom Wijsman escribió:
[...]
That's not what I am suggesting.
It is not about bringing in new versions, but about getting rid of
OLD versions which LIKELY contain MORE security problems than you
imagine. Keeping them around for too long time isn't
El mié, 21-08-2013 a las 10:57 +0200, Tom Wijsman escribió:
On Wed, 21 Aug 2013 10:22:39 +0200
Pacho Ramos pa...@gentoo.org wrote:
Regarding the kernel... well, I don't think having a 3.8.x kernel as
stable one is so old, what are current kernel versions in stable
Fedora, OpenSuSE,
On 08/21/2013 01:04 PM, Markos Chandras wrote:
Hi,
It's time of year again to consider moving a few arches to dev-only status.
I propose the following arches to lose their stable keywords
- s390
- sh
- ia64
- alpha
- m68k
- sparc
The manpower on these arches is below acceptable levels and
On Wed, 21 Aug 2013 13:09:55 +0200
Dirkjan Ochtman d...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 1:04 PM, Markos Chandras
hwoar...@gentoo.org wrote:
I propose the following arches to lose their stable keywords
- s390
- sh
- ia64
- alpha
- m68k
- sparc
+many.
++many.
If any
On 08/21/2013 12:35 AM, Ben de Groot wrote:
On 21 August 2013 04:12, Michael Orlitzky mich...@orlitzky.com wrote:
[snip]
Ok, this one is ridiculous. The stable version of Rails is 2.3.18, and
3.0 was released almost exactly three years ago. Every time rails-3.x
gets bumped, I have to manually
El mié, 21-08-2013 a las 12:04 +0100, Markos Chandras escribió:
[...]
If I get enough positive feedback on this, I will propose this in the
next Council's agenda.
+ :)
On 21/08/2013 21:04, Markos Chandras wrote:
I propose the following arches to lose their stable keywords
- s390
- sh
- ia64
- alpha
- m68k
- sparc
+1
21.08.2013 15:04, Markos Chandras пишет:
Hi,
It's time of year again to consider moving a few arches to dev-only status.
I propose the following arches to lose their stable keywords
- s390
- sh
- ia64
- alpha
- m68k
- sparc
+1 for that. Perl herd has *really* many work with
Markos Chandras hwoar...@gentoo.org writes:
I propose the following arches to lose their stable keywords
- s390
- sh
- ia64
- alpha
- m68k
- sparc
I support this proposal.
I only have an old sparc box at hand. They are no longer major as time
goes, IMHO.
On 08/21/2013 07:04 AM, Markos Chandras wrote:
Hi,
It's time of year again to consider moving a few arches to dev-only status.
I propose the following arches to lose their stable keywords
- s390
- sh
- ia64
- alpha
- m68k
- sparc
Mips, as you know, has been ~arch for a while and we've been
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 08/20/2013 01:01 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
Hello,
Due to the widespread breakage in the tree noted in bug #480892
[1], and mis-design of multilib-minimal.eclass, we'd like to put
some more work into getting einstalldocs() ready for EAPI 6.
Ok,
Mips, as you know, has been ~arch for a while and we've been doing just fine
with it.
We can't pretend, however, that this doesn't shift some burden to the user.
One example is perl where some modules need 5.12.4 (the current stable) and
cannot use 5.16.x (~arch). On mips you might emerge
El mié, 21-08-2013 a las 13:45 +0200, hasufell escribió:
On 08/20/2013 01:01 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
Hello,
Due to the widespread breakage in the tree noted in bug #480892
[1], and mis-design of multilib-minimal.eclass, we'd like to put
some more work into getting einstalldocs() ready
On 21 August 2013 19:04, Markos Chandras hwoar...@gentoo.org wrote:
Hi,
It's time of year again to consider moving a few arches to dev-only status.
I propose the following arches to lose their stable keywords
- s390
- sh
- ia64
- alpha
- m68k
- sparc
++
And consider adding ppc and
On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 4:39 AM, Tom Wijsman tom...@gentoo.org wrote:
The latest distros seemed to be just a bunch of same old stuff.
Nothing new -- nothing innovative. ~ Larry's frustration. :(
Then Larry tried Gentoo Linux. He was just impressed. ... He
discovered lots of up-to-date
21.08.2013 14:36, Tom Wijsman пишет:
On Wed, 21 Aug 2013 13:54:51 +0400
Sergey Popov pinkb...@gentoo.org wrote:
21.08.2013 13:13, Tom Wijsman пишет:
On Wed, 21 Aug 2013 12:32:35 +0400
Sergey Popov pinkb...@gentoo.org wrote:
21.08.2013 12:13, Tom Wijsman пишет:
Recruiting shows to be a
21.08.2013 14:29, Tom Wijsman пишет:
On Wed, 21 Aug 2013 13:42:56 +0400
You do draw assumptions, because you don't take a look; please do:
https://bugs.gentoo.org/buglist.cgi?quicksearch=assignee%3Asecurity%40gentoo.org%20CC%3Akernel%40gentoo.org
Sort by Changed such that the newest appear
On Wed, 21 Aug 2013 16:16:53 +0400
Sergey Popov pinkb...@gentoo.org wrote:
And if you want to move stabilization checks to unqualified users,
then it is way to nowhere.
No, because there would be much more users giving feedback.
Feedback is good. But if it simple works for me without
On Wed, 21 Aug 2013, Pacho Ramos wrote:
Could appending to DOCS be allowed? I have seen a lot of time of me
needing to install all docs manually only to add a doc file over
default DOCS. Would be interesting to simply do: DOCS+=( otherfile )
instead of needing to specify all files handled
On Wed, 21 Aug 2013 16:22:28 +0400
Sergey Popov pinkb...@gentoo.org wrote:
21.08.2013 14:29, Tom Wijsman пишет:
On Wed, 21 Aug 2013 13:42:56 +0400
You do draw assumptions, because you don't take a look; please do:
El mié, 21-08-2013 a las 14:25 +0200, Tom Wijsman escribió:
[...]
2) recruit more arch testers/arch team members;
Same point as before, let's see if that will be enough.
Well, ago has being doing a great work getting more Arch Testers (at
least for amd64), maybe some of them could give the
El mié, 21-08-2013 a las 14:35 +0200, Ulrich Mueller escribió:
On Wed, 21 Aug 2013, Pacho Ramos wrote:
Could appending to DOCS be allowed? I have seen a lot of time of me
needing to install all docs manually only to add a doc file over
default DOCS. Would be interesting to simply do:
On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 5:50 AM, Sergey Popov pinkb...@gentoo.org wrote:
As i said earlier, we should recruit more people - then problem will go
away.
This is a point most of the people in this thread seem to be dancing
around that's sort of problematic. You can talk about recruiting
until
On Wed, 21 Aug 2013, Michał Górny wrote:
elif [[ $(declare -p DOCS) == declare -a * ]] ; then
Thinking about it again, the pattern matching (already present in
default_src_install of EAPI 4) is brittle and relies on the output
of declare -p whose exact format is undocumented.
Maybe we
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 21/08/13 07:45 AM, hasufell wrote:
On 08/20/2013 01:01 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
Hello,
Due to the widespread breakage in the tree noted in bug #480892
[1], and mis-design of multilib-minimal.eclass, we'd like to put
some more work into
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 21/08/13 08:36 AM, Tom Wijsman wrote:
Given the kernel volume, I think even CVE's don't cover
everything...
Kernel is really a special case here, imo -- emerge doesn't install
kernels, it just provides their sources. End-users still need
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, 21 Aug 2013 10:27:51 -0400
Ian Stakenvicius a...@gentoo.org wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 21/08/13 08:36 AM, Tom Wijsman wrote:
Given the kernel volume, I think even CVE's don't cover
everything...
15.08.2013 12:12, Pacho Ramos пишет:
El mié, 14-08-2013 a las 15:17 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh escribió:
Ah, looks like I was too optimistic and we are (again) with the usual
blocking (and blocker) issues -_- (PMS refusing to include something
because of lack of documentation :S)
And they
On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 10:27 AM, Ian Stakenvicius a...@gentoo.org wrote:
That's not to say that gentoo-sources shouldn't follow the regular
overall stabilization policies, but focusing on the kernel as the
impetus for adjusting the stabilization policy or pointing out what's
wrong with the
21.08.2013 15:04, Markos Chandras пишет:
Hi,
It's time of year again to consider moving a few arches to dev-only status.
I propose the following arches to lose their stable keywords
- s390
- sh
- ia64
- alpha
- m68k
- sparc
The manpower on these arches is below acceptable levels
20.08.2013 17:22, Sergey Popov пишет:
20.08.2013 17:02, Michał Górny пишет:
Is there a future-eapi bug open for it? If not, please open one.
I will, thanks
Here it is: https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=481980
--
Best regards, Sergey Popov
Gentoo developer
Gentoo Desktop-effects
On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 4:04 AM, Markos Chandras hwoar...@gentoo.org wrote:
Hi,
It's time of year again to consider moving a few arches to dev-only status.
I propose the following arches to lose their stable keywords
- s390
- sh
- ia64
- alpha
- m68k
- sparc
I want some level between
On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 11:32 AM, Matt Turner matts...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 4:04 AM, Markos Chandras hwoar...@gentoo.org wrote:
Hi,
It's time of year again to consider moving a few arches to dev-only status.
I propose the following arches to lose their stable keywords
On 21 August 2013 16:32, Matt Turner matts...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 4:04 AM, Markos Chandras hwoar...@gentoo.org wrote:
Hi,
It's time of year again to consider moving a few arches to dev-only status.
I propose the following arches to lose their stable keywords
- s390
-
On 08/21/2013 01:04 PM, Markos Chandras wrote:
The manpower on these arches is below acceptable levels and they often
block stabilizations
for many months. This also causes troubles to developers trying to get
rid of old versions of
packages.
I am CC'ing Mike and on this to draw his
21.08.2013 17:38, Wyatt Epp пишет:
Fundamentally, I see this as a problem of tooling.
I think that no tool can cover all cases of checking that software
WORKS. I mean - in generic, for all kinds of software. You can guarantee
if it builds, if it follow some QA rules about
On 22/08/2013 01:56, Michael Weber wrote:
On 08/21/2013 01:04 PM, Markos Chandras wrote:
The manpower on these arches is below acceptable levels and they often
block stabilizations
for many months. This also causes troubles to developers trying to get
rid of old versions of
packages.
I am
On 22/08/2013 01:32, Matt Turner wrote:
I want some level between stable and completely supported and loses
all its stable keywords., at least for alpha.
Is switching their profiles to dev the way to do that?
What would you feel about instead of dropping stable completely,
re-evaluating which
On 21/08/13 12:23 PM, Michael Palimaka wrote:
Imho the situation is that agos intensive work displaced all the other
ones, or they at least rely on ago doing the work and loose focus.
At one point before Ago came along, stabilisation of Qt was taking so
long we had to start masking reverse
On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 8:40 AM, Mike Gilbert flop...@gentoo.org wrote:
The proposal is to drop stable keywords on arches that cannot keep up.
Do you feel this is not the case on alpha?
I'm not sure if that's my claim. I'm worried because I think it might
be a disaster for alpha (and perhaps
On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 8:50 AM, Markos Chandras hwoar...@gentoo.org wrote:
Is there an alternative? afaik a profile can be either stable,dev or
exp. I can't see how we can implement something between
stable and dev. And what would that represent? It may or may not be
stable? If this is the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 08/21/2013 05:56 PM, Michael Weber wrote:
On 08/21/2013 01:04 PM, Markos Chandras wrote:
The manpower on these arches is below acceptable levels and they
often block stabilizations for many months. This also causes
troubles to developers
Instead of dropping them entirely to ~arch, maybe something in between
could be done: Said arches could start moving to ~arch the leaf and
less important packages. E.g. we have (had?) a lot of sparc keywords on
sound packages or ppc keywords on ocaml ones because at some point
(~10 years ago)
On Wed, 21 Aug 2013, I wrote:
Maybe we could change the test for an array to the following?
elif ! declare +a DOCS /dev/null; then
I retract this suggestion. It doesn't work because of issues with
local and global scope.
Sorry for the noise.
Ulrich
On 21 August 2013 19:28, Alexis Ballier aball...@gentoo.org wrote:
Instead of dropping them entirely to ~arch, maybe something in between
could be done: Said arches could start moving to ~arch the leaf and
less important packages. E.g. we have (had?) a lot of sparc keywords on
sound packages
On Wed, 21 Aug 2013 20:03:30 +0100
Markos Chandras hwoar...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 21 August 2013 19:28, Alexis Ballier aball...@gentoo.org wrote:
Instead of dropping them entirely to ~arch, maybe something in
between could be done: Said arches could start moving to ~arch the
leaf and less
On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 10:56 AM, Tom Wijsman tom...@gentoo.org wrote:
That doesn't make it a special case here, imo; especially not, since
we are designing and implementing ebuilds that _build_ the kernel.
Whether it provides the sources, or build it; what does that matter?
Yes and no. I
On 21 August 2013 20:10, Alexis Ballier aball...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Wed, 21 Aug 2013 20:03:30 +0100
Markos Chandras hwoar...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 21 August 2013 19:28, Alexis Ballier aball...@gentoo.org wrote:
Instead of dropping them entirely to ~arch, maybe something in
between could
This sounds like cool stuff... I wonder if this could be a step towards
unprivileged users being able to use portage for user-installed apps.
On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 10:05 PM, Albert Hopkins mar...@letterboxes.org wrote:
This sounds like cool stuff... I wonder if this could be a step towards
unprivileged users being able to use portage for user-installed apps.
Sounds like Prefix, lite?
Rich
On 21 August 2013 23:03, Sergey Popov pinkb...@gentoo.org wrote:
15.08.2013 12:12, Pacho Ramos пишет:
El mié, 14-08-2013 a las 15:17 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh escribió:
Ah, looks like I was too optimistic and we are (again) with the usual
blocking (and blocker) issues -_- (PMS refusing to
On 22 August 2013 01:19, Matt Turner matts...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 8:50 AM, Markos Chandras hwoar...@gentoo.org wrote:
Is there an alternative? afaik a profile can be either stable,dev or
exp. I can't see how we can implement something between
stable and dev. And what
100 matches
Mail list logo
