On 09.06.2014 23:45, hasufell wrote:
Thomas Kahle:
then they stay in the overlay
because people feel it is not worth the effort to fix the QA
issues which in turn would be necessary before moving them to the
main tree.
Probably because no one mentored them on how to fix these QA issues.
On Monday 09 June 2014 21:45:26 hasufell wrote:
Probably because no one mentored them on how to fix these QA issues.
Otherwise... if that's attitude, then that's just sad and has to be
fixed by those who run that overlay (review, contribution guidelines).
And I still think that the top 1
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
For what it's worth, I strongly oppose using GitHub or any other SaaSS
that is not licensed using AGPL or under similar terms.
My suggestion is Phabricator, which additionally beats GitHub on
functionality by having proper code review support. I
On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 4:57 AM, Thomas Kahle to...@gentoo.org wrote:
My personal attitude: It is just not worth the effort to rewrite
their build systems for the ~10 users out there. I have better
things to do with my time and I think that these packages can
live forever in the overlay and
On Tue, 10 Jun 2014 10:57:32 +0200
Thomas Kahle to...@gentoo.org wrote:
I was mentored on the QA issues and have come to 'this attitude'
myself. Take sci-mathematics/singular: Upstream is genuinely not
interested in supporting distriutions or their petty QA unless
you can prove them that
On Mon, 9 Jun 2014 21:46:56 -0600
Ryan Hill rh...@gentoo.org wrote:
Yes. But now you've got me worried. We have to build gcc itself with
-fno-stack-protector. Does compiling something with that flag give
an error on hppa? Maybe give 4.8.2-r1 a whirl.
Setting -fstack-protector on HPPA does
On 10.6.2014 5.31, Jeroen Roovers wrote:
On Mon, 9 Jun 2014 18:16:02 -0600
Ryan Hill rh...@gentoo.org wrote:
Beginning with GCC 4.8.3, Stack Smashing Protection (SSP) will be
enabled by default.[..]
.. on supported architectures.
Right?
I would rather make news items architecture
tisdag 10 juni 2014 14.22.11 skrev Jeroen Roovers:
On Mon, 9 Jun 2014 21:46:56 -0600
Ryan Hill rh...@gentoo.org wrote:
Yes. But now you've got me worried. We have to build gcc itself with
-fno-stack-protector. Does compiling something with that flag give
an error on hppa? Maybe give
On 06/10/14 08:22, Jeroen Roovers wrote:
On Mon, 9 Jun 2014 21:46:56 -0600
Ryan Hill rh...@gentoo.org wrote:
Yes. But now you've got me worried. We have to build gcc itself with
-fno-stack-protector. Does compiling something with that flag give
an error on hppa? Maybe give 4.8.2-r1 a
On 06/10/14 10:35, Magnus Granberg wrote:
tisdag 10 juni 2014 14.22.11 skrev Jeroen Roovers:
On Mon, 9 Jun 2014 21:46:56 -0600
Ryan Hill rh...@gentoo.org wrote:
Yes. But now you've got me worried. We have to build gcc itself with
-fno-stack-protector. Does compiling something with that
Hello,
On Mon, 09 Jun 2014 21:45:26 + hasufell wrote:
Thomas Kahle:
then they stay in the overlay
because people feel it is not worth the effort to fix the QA
issues which in turn would be necessary before moving them to the
main tree.
Probably because no one mentored them on
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 10/06/14 17:45, Andrew Savchenko wrote:
I don't know why CVS is still used for Gentoo main repository,
probably some infrastructure elements depends deeply on its
internals, because I see of no other reason why Git is still not
used
On Tue, 10 Jun 2014 17:49:15 +0200 Alexander Berntsen wrote:
On 10/06/14 17:45, Andrew Savchenko wrote:
I don't know why CVS is still used for Gentoo main repository,
probably some infrastructure elements depends deeply on its
internals, because I see of no other reason why Git is still
On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 12:45 PM, Andrew Savchenko birc...@gmail.com wrote:
Why are you saying that git is inefficient with large projects? It
was developed with efficiency in mind in the first place. And
kernel guys will likely disagree with git is not great with crazy
big projects
Rich Freeman wrote:
likely bikeshedding
..
Or we can just accept that those using overlays will have them
break from time to time.
Maybe there's an in-between. It's very reasonable to ask from an
overlay maintainer that they run overlint now and then. If overlint
can be taught to report
On Sat, 7 Jun 2014 23:08:15 +0200 Jeroen Roovers wrote:
On Sat, 07 Jun 2014 15:35:04 -0500
Daniel Campbell cont...@sporkbox.us wrote:
[2]: Overview of bugs that involve OpenRC, most for the package
itself. https://bugs.gentoo.org/buglist.cgi?quicksearch=openrc
I think working on
On Tue, 10 Jun 2014 21:39:30 +0400
Andrew Savchenko birc...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, 7 Jun 2014 23:08:15 +0200 Jeroen Roovers wrote:
On Sat, 07 Jun 2014 15:35:04 -0500
Daniel Campbell cont...@sporkbox.us wrote:
[2]: Overview of bugs that involve OpenRC, most for the package
Andrew Savchenko:
On Tue, 10 Jun 2014 17:49:15 +0200 Alexander Berntsen wrote:
On 10/06/14 17:45, Andrew Savchenko wrote:
I don't know why CVS is still used for Gentoo main repository,
probably some infrastructure elements depends deeply on its
internals, because I see of no other reason
On Tue, 10 Jun 2014 19:58:36 +
hasufell hasuf...@gentoo.org wrote:
Andrew Savchenko:
On Tue, 10 Jun 2014 17:49:15 +0200 Alexander Berntsen wrote:
On 10/06/14 17:45, Andrew Savchenko wrote:
I don't know why CVS is still used for Gentoo main repository,
probably some infrastructure
On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 3:58 PM, hasufell hasuf...@gentoo.org wrote:
interesting read:
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/189776
Does any1 know what fb currently uses or if any of these issues have
been resolved?
Not sure, but I did a git status on the actual gentoo-x86
On 06/10/2014 11:45 PM, Andrew Savchenko wrote:
[lots of whining removed ;) ]
I don't know why CVS is still used for Gentoo main repository,
probably some infrastructure elements depends deeply on its
internals, because I see of no other reason why Git is still not
used despite efforts
On 06/11/2014 01:39 AM, Andrew Savchenko wrote:
On Sat, 7 Jun 2014 23:08:15 +0200 Jeroen Roovers wrote:
On Sat, 07 Jun 2014 15:35:04 -0500
Daniel Campbell cont...@sporkbox.us wrote:
[2]: Overview of bugs that involve OpenRC, most for the package
itself.
On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 6:59 PM, Patrick Lauer patr...@gentoo.org wrote:
The first migration attempt failed after consuming nearly 100GB of RAM!
When it did work it took obscene amounts of time, and the result was
unusably large (e.g. initial checkout would take 16GB RAM on the server,
thus
On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 5:59 AM, Patrick Lauer patr...@gentoo.org wrote:
Another part: Git wasn't ready.
The first migration attempt failed after consuming nearly 100GB of RAM!
When it did work it took obscene amounts of time, and the result was
unusably large (e.g. initial checkout would take
On 06/10/2014 03:52 AM, Thomas Kahle wrote:
On 08/06/14 18:06, hasufell wrote:
I am not sure if that is a joke. You can pretty much ask most major
gentoo projects. The ones where I was involved more deeply definitely
suffer from that problem, including sunrise and games team. Science team
On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 5:48 PM, Duy Nguyen pclo...@gmail.com wrote:
Since v1.9.0 we can clone from a shallow repository.
Wow, awesome! Thank you, git developers, you rock (and sorry I'm too
lazy to tell you in your own mailing list :) )!
On Tue, 10 Jun 2014 09:48:53 -0400
Anthony G. Basile bluen...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 06/10/14 10:35, Magnus Granberg wrote:
tisdag 10 juni 2014 14.22.11 skrev Jeroen Roovers:
On Mon, 9 Jun 2014 21:46:56 -0600
Ryan Hill rh...@gentoo.org wrote:
Yes. But now you've got me worried. We
On Tue, 10 Jun 2014 14:22:11 +0200
Jeroen Roovers j...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Mon, 9 Jun 2014 21:46:56 -0600
Ryan Hill rh...@gentoo.org wrote:
Yes. But now you've got me worried. We have to build gcc itself with
-fno-stack-protector. Does compiling something with that flag give
an
v2: Restrict by arch
--
Title: GCC 4.8.3 defaults to -fstack-protector
Author: Ryan Hill rh...@gentoo.org
Content-Type: text/plain
Posted: 2014-06-10
Revision: 1
News-Item-Format: 1.0
Display-If-Installed: =sys-devel/gcc-4.8.3
Display-If-Keyword: amd64
Display-If-Keyword: arm
Display-If-Keyword:
On Tue, 10 Jun 2014 13:09:26 -0400
Rich Freeman ri...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 12:45 PM, Andrew Savchenko birc...@gmail.com wrote:
Why are you saying that git is inefficient with large projects? It
was developed with efficiency in mind in the first place. And
kernel guys
On 06/11/2014 12:10 PM, Ryan Hill wrote:
But, for the most part we just need to get the back-end re-written to
work with a git repo. Actually migrating the tree itself to git is
largely a solved problem.
Weren't we also waiting for some gpg signing stuff to land?
That's completely
Ryan Hill posted on Tue, 10 Jun 2014 22:10:07 -0600 as excerpted:
[On switching the gentoo tree to git.]
Weren't we also waiting for some gpg signing stuff to land?
At one point, yes, but AFAIK, that was actually resolved some time ago
(a year, two?) now.
--
Duncan - List replies preferred.
32 matches
Mail list logo
