Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH 2/2] eclass/toolchain-funcs: add clang version functions

2016-07-04 Thread Michał Górny
On Mon, 4 Jul 2016 19:16:55 -0500 Austin English wrote: > On 07/01/2016 03:02 PM, Michał Górny wrote: > > On Mon, 27 Jun 2016 17:04:41 -0500 > > Austin English wrote: > > > >> From ec0be3d1a808ea0c5bdd081a4bb935f86bf78d44 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001

Re: [gentoo-dev] why is the security team running around p.masking packages

2016-07-04 Thread Aaron Bauman
On Tuesday, July 5, 2016 6:09:38 AM JST, Rich Freeman wrote: On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 4:40 PM, Andrew Savchenko wrote: The same applies for the tree-cleaners team. While their job is very important, sometimes they are too hasty, like in commit

Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH 2/2] eclass/toolchain-funcs: add clang version functions

2016-07-04 Thread Austin English
On 07/01/2016 03:02 PM, Michał Górny wrote: > On Mon, 27 Jun 2016 17:04:41 -0500 > Austin English wrote: > >> From ec0be3d1a808ea0c5bdd081a4bb935f86bf78d44 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 >> From: Austin English >> Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2016 16:58:07 -0500 >>

Re: [gentoo-dev] why is the security team running around p.masking packages

2016-07-04 Thread Rich Freeman
On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 4:40 PM, Andrew Savchenko wrote: > > The same applies for the tree-cleaners team. While their job is > very important, sometimes they are too hasty, like in commit > 34181a1045d13142d959b9c894a46ddcebf3c512. If package builds and > works fine, have no

[gentoo-dev] [warning] the bug queue has 89 bugs

2016-07-04 Thread Alex Alexander
Our bug queue has 89 bugs! If you have some spare time, please help assign/sort a few bugs. To view the bug queue, click here: http://bit.ly/m8PQS5 Thanks!

Re: [gentoo-dev] why is the security team running around p.masking packages

2016-07-04 Thread Andrew Savchenko
On Thu, 30 Jun 2016 22:51:51 -0400 Anthony G. Basile wrote: > I'm going to ask the security team to please stop running around > p.masking packages without acknowledgement from the maintainers. I'm > referring in particular to commit > 135b94c85950254f559f290f4865bce8b349a917 regarding monkeyd.

Re: [gentoo-dev] [gentoo-dev-announce] Last rites: dev-util/{...}

2016-07-04 Thread Andrew Savchenko
On Sun, 5 Jun 2016 23:53:02 +0300 Andrew Savchenko wrote: > On Sun, 5 Jun 2016 13:47:48 +0200 Patrice Clement wrote: > > # Patrice Clement (5 Jun 2016) > > # Unmaintained ebuilds. Upstream is either dead or AWOL. Also, most of these > > # ebuilds are still sitting in ~arch

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Re: [PATCH] Add emerge --autounmask-continue option (bug 582624)

2016-07-04 Thread Alexander Berntsen
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 On 04/07/16 20:00, Zac Medico wrote: > I wasn't aware that there was an argument about that. I didn't argue it very heavily, but I do find it useful. > I'll be happy to send pushed emails. Thanks! - -- Alexander berna...@gentoo.org

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Re: [PATCH] Add emerge --autounmask-continue option (bug 582624)

2016-07-04 Thread Zac Medico
On 07/04/2016 05:17 AM, Alexander Berntsen wrote: > Never mind. I see that it's already pushed. I guess this is where I > continue to argue my case for "Pushed as [commit hash]" emails. I wasn't aware that there was an argument about that. I'll be happy to send pushed emails. -- Thanks, Zac

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Re: [PATCH] Add emerge --autounmask-continue option (bug 582624)

2016-07-04 Thread Zac Medico
On 07/04/2016 05:16 AM, Alexander Berntsen wrote: > Looks OK. But you've found a few bugs already. Maybe you'll find more. > I'd appreciate if you hold off until the end of the week before > pushing it confidently. I'm extremely confident in v2 of the patch. I don't expect that we'll find any

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Re: [PATCH] Add emerge --autounmask-continue option (bug 582624)

2016-07-04 Thread Alexander Berntsen
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 Never mind. I see that it's already pushed. I guess this is where I continue to argue my case for "Pushed as [commit hash]" emails. - -- Alexander berna...@gentoo.org https://secure.plaimi.net/~alexander -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG

Re: [gentoo-dev] JavaScript packages?

2016-07-04 Thread Nicolas Bock
On 07/04/2016 10:15 AM, Daniel Campbell wrote: > On 07/04/2016 12:57 AM, Nicolas Bock wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I would like to package a code that depends on JavaScript packages. The >> suggested installation procedure from upstream involves running `npm >> install ...`. How do we (or do we?) deal with

Re: [gentoo-dev] JavaScript packages?

2016-07-04 Thread Daniel Campbell
On 07/04/2016 12:57 AM, Nicolas Bock wrote: > Hi, > > I would like to package a code that depends on JavaScript packages. The > suggested installation procedure from upstream involves running `npm > install ...`. How do we (or do we?) deal with JavaScript packages? > > Best, > > Nick > The

[gentoo-dev] JavaScript packages?

2016-07-04 Thread Nicolas Bock
Hi, I would like to package a code that depends on JavaScript packages. The suggested installation procedure from upstream involves running `npm install ...`. How do we (or do we?) deal with JavaScript packages? Best, Nick signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature