On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 09:56:02 -0700
Brian Harring <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Best I can figure, the offered reason is "it needs to be blocked
> before it becomes widespread thus cannot be blocked any further"-
> which isn't much of a reason since the support is long term there
> already, and d
>>
>>
> Ciaran,
>
> You missed the bandwagon on trying to use the "conspiracy theories"
> phrase already. That happened a full 24 hrs ago. I'm sorry you were
> off-line. Next time try to come to the party on time, otherwise keep quiet.
>
Already been handled as its offtopic, please just
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 15:16:38 -0400
> Doug Goldstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> This wouldn't have to be because you have a vested interest in paludis
>> and paludis does not support this syntax and there happens to be no
>> reasonable way to support that?
>>
>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi.
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 10:06:55 -0700
> Joshua Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> This is enough. PMS is a work in progress its not going to cover
>> everything that users and developers are going to be in some cases
>> b
On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 10:06:55 -0700
Joshua Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This is enough. PMS is a work in progress its not going to cover
> everything that users and developers are going to be in some cases
> boneheaded enough to actually pull off (always have edge conditions).
No no, you m
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 09:57:39 +0200
> Danny van Dyk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>> Funnily enough... If we're going by PMS drafts, that's illegal
>>> whereas multiple suffixes are legal. PMS permits multiple suffixes,
>>> but limits any individual version component to e
@council; cross posting to provide the reasoning, if discussion continues on
council ml, kindly cc me (unsubscribed long ago). Technical
discussion (which should be the basis of "why it was banned" should be
on dev ml imo).
On Tue, Apr 24, 2007 at 09:11:44PM +0200, Danny van Dyk wrote:
> Hi al
On Wed, 2007-04-25 at 07:08 -0400, Richard Freeman wrote:
> Perhaps they wanted to make sure it remained a 3-package issue, and
> thought that it might grow before it could be addressed?
Exactly.
I agree with the rest of what you've said, also. Being on the Council
is a thankless job where we tr
On Tue, 2007-04-24 at 21:25 -0400, Seemant Kulleen wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-04-25 at 00:30 +0200, Danny van Dyk wrote:
>
> > In my eyes it was a policy issue. Tree-wide policies have to pass the
> > council in one form or the other. So why shouldn't Council care here?
>
> My argument is not that Co
As usual if you have issues with the council's decision, this is the
wrong list to complain on. Try [EMAIL PROTECTED], I here
they have popcorn.
This is the right list to discuss versioning schemes though.
-Alec
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Seemant Kulleen wrote:
>
> If I were to guess I'd say people are a little confused that this
> required action/decision this quickly and outside of a regular council
> meeting -- for a real emergency situation, you'd probably see a lot less
> of a hub
On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 22:30:06 -0700
Alec Warner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Doug Goldstein wrote:
> > I agree -r# is for ebuild changes not code changes. I remember a while
> > back Portage would constantly use -r# instead of a 4th number and we
> > worked at that to change that behavior since it
On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 09:57:39 +0200
Danny van Dyk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Funnily enough... If we're going by PMS drafts, that's illegal
> > whereas multiple suffixes are legal. PMS permits multiple suffixes,
> > but limits any individual version component to eight digits to avoid
> > problem
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 12:31:48 -0700
> "Robin H. Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> printf "_rc%d%04d%02d%02d",$RC,$YEAR,$MONTH,$DAY
>
> Funnily enough... If we're going by PMS drafts, that's illegal whereas
> multiple suffixes are legal. PMS permits multiple suffixes, b
Am Mittwoch, 25. April 2007 schrieb Ciaran McCreesh:
> On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 12:31:48 -0700
>
> "Robin H. Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > printf "_rc%d%04d%02d%02d",$RC,$YEAR,$MONTH,$DAY
>
> Funnily enough... If we're going by PMS drafts, that's illegal
> whereas multiple suffixes are legal.
Am Mittwoch, 25. April 2007 schrieb Ciaran McCreesh:
> On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 12:31:48 -0700
>
> "Robin H. Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > printf "_rc%d%04d%02d%02d",$RC,$YEAR,$MONTH,$DAY
>
> Funnily enough... If we're going by PMS drafts, that's illegal
> whereas multiple suffixes are legal.
On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 15:16:38 -0400
Doug Goldstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This wouldn't have to be because you have a vested interest in paludis
> and paludis does not support this syntax and there happens to be no
> reasonable way to support that?
Cut the conspiracy theories. Paludis will su
On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 12:31:48 -0700
"Robin H. Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> printf "_rc%d%04d%02d%02d",$RC,$YEAR,$MONTH,$DAY
Funnily enough... If we're going by PMS drafts, that's illegal whereas
multiple suffixes are legal. PMS permits multiple suffixes, but limits
any individual version c
Doug Goldstein wrote:
> Donnie Berkholz wrote:
>> Robin H. Johnson wrote:
>>> In my original email, I also suggested this solution, but it seems
>>> that nobody
>>> read it:
>>> ] Alternatively, follow the example of any ebuild that uses a dated
>>> ] patchset, and just have the date of the patchse
Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> Robin H. Johnson wrote:
>> In my original email, I also suggested this solution, but it seems
>> that nobody
>> read it:
>> ] Alternatively, follow the example of any ebuild that uses a dated
>> ] patchset, and just have the date of the patchset in the ebuild, and
>> only
>
On Wed, 2007-04-25 at 00:30 +0200, Danny van Dyk wrote:
> In my eyes it was a policy issue. Tree-wide policies have to pass the
> council in one form or the other. So why shouldn't Council care here?
My argument is not that Council should not care. My question is: what's
the big urgency to rush
On Tue, 2007-04-24 at 19:31 -0400, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> It seems that every time I open my email client, somebody out there is
> trying to say that by the Council using the powers afforded to them that
> somehow they're conspiring to take down Gentoo. Yeah... because that's
> just what the
On Wed, 2007-04-25 at 00:30 +0200, Danny van Dyk wrote:
> I just wonder why several people feel attacked by this decission while
> the affected parties have no problem with it.
There is a growing anti-authority sentiment within the Gentoo developer
community. People want to complain about any de
On Tue, 2007-04-24 at 18:21 -0400, Seemant Kulleen wrote:
> > Seemant: I'd like to continue to discuss the ways of council decission
> > on gentoo-council rather than on gentoo-dev ML. :-)
>
> Happy to do that, in the general case. In this specific case, however,
> it's valid here, because the e
Doug Goldstein wrote:
> Piotr Jaroszyński wrote:
>> There is no need for such a switch, just add new snapshot using the long
>> _rc.
>> Once you do it you will have to keep using it until version bump,
>> e.g. (low to high):
>> 1.0_rc1
>> 1.0_rc000120070101 (newer snapshot of rc1)
>> 1.0_rc012007
Piotr Jaroszyński wrote:
> On Wednesday 25 of April 2007 00:04:35 Jurek Bartuszek wrote:
>> Hmm, is swiching from _rc2 to _rc0002 trouble-free from user's
>> POV too? Wouldn't he be forced to "update" from former to latter then?
>> It's the same version. Or am I missing something?
>
> Ther
Piotr Jaroszyński wrote:
> On Wednesday 25 of April 2007 00:04:35 Jurek Bartuszek wrote:
>> Hmm, is swiching from _rc2 to _rc0002 trouble-free from user's
>> POV too? Wouldn't he be forced to "update" from former to latter then?
>> It's the same version. Or am I missing something?
>
> Ther
Am Mittwoch, 25. April 2007 schrieb Seemant Kulleen:
> Hi Danny,
>
> > Look at it from my POV. I only knew about the alsa version at
> > first. I knew it was removed already. Then i learned about mplayer.
> > Ok... i can live with that as long as nothing else in there. Then I
> > learned about tran
On Wednesday 25 of April 2007 00:04:35 Jurek Bartuszek wrote:
> Hmm, is swiching from _rc2 to _rc0002 trouble-free from user's
> POV too? Wouldn't he be forced to "update" from former to latter then?
> It's the same version. Or am I missing something?
There is no need for such a switch, ju
Hi Danny,
> Look at it from my POV. I only knew about the alsa version at first.
> I knew it was removed already. Then i learned about mplayer. Ok... i can
> live with that as long as nothing else in there. Then I learned about
> transcode and I asked my fellow Council members to cut it.
I'm no
Stephen Bennett wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 23:42:43 +0200
> Jurek Bartuszek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> And there you have another flaw of this system - how am I supposed to
>> predict if I'll ever need the "extended" _rc versioning in case of
>> that one particular package? I think that mas
On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 23:42:43 +0200
Jurek Bartuszek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> And there you have another flaw of this system - how am I supposed to
> predict if I'll ever need the "extended" _rc versioning in case of
> that one particular package? I think that massive ebuild renaming is
> defini
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
It was my understanding,
That minor QA violations like this, which affected the sanity of the
tree, were simply added as checks to repoman - which all committing devs
should use. This would (over time) stop new ebuilds of the broken form
appea
On Tue, 2007-04-24 at 13:39 -0700, Ned Ludd wrote:
> You might be overreacting a little here. To bring you up to speed
> vapier actually filed the original bug for this after I first noticed
> one of these atoms creeping into the tree while doing pre release atom
> compare testing for portage-util
> err. foo-0.1_rc2 < foo-0.1_rc000220070313 < foo-0.1_rc000320070512
>
> What I was trying to say is that once you change to the long versions you
> must
> stay with them.
And there you have another flaw of this system - how am I supposed to
predict if I'll ever need the "extended" _rc versioni
Robin H. Johnson wrote:
In my original email, I also suggested this solution, but it seems that nobody
read it:
] Alternatively, follow the example of any ebuild that uses a dated
] patchset, and just have the date of the patchset in the ebuild, and only
] increment $PR singly.
This solution alr
On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 23:20:05 +0200
Piotr Jaroszyński <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tuesday 24 of April 2007 22:47:00 Jurek Bartuszek wrote:
> > Let me see if I have this straight: suppose we have package foo-0.1_rc2
> > released (very outdated) and we're waiting for foo-0.1_rc3. Then example
> >
On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 21:29:37 +0200
Danny van Dyk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The rationale behind this is the following:
>
> * certain combinations of suffixes don't make sense.
That's highly subjective.
> * only recent Portage versions support it.
I wouldn't call portage-2.1 "recent" as it
> that also means doing some funky $P renamings in the ebuild to catch
> upstream _rc3 tarball, but that's probably better than allowing such
> multiple suffixes.
I disagree, multiple suffixes would be much clearer to read. IMHO
renaming _rc3 to _rc0003 is an overkill. Why not simply allow
Am Dienstag, 24. April 2007 schrieb Piotr Jaroszyński:
> foo-0.1_rc2 < foo-0.1_rc000220070313 < foo-0.1_rc3
Leading zeros are ignored (unless in very special cases in the version
spec and since a recent portage version also in the revision part), so
the above is incorrect - generally spoken.
Da
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Wernfried Haas wrote:
> Just a general note to everyone in this thread:
> I haven't had the time to read the posts in this thread, but proctors
> have received complaints about behaviour within. For the time being, i
> would ask all people participatin
On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 21:54:21 +0200
"Fernando J. Pereda" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You mean real Gentoo users that use a Portage version that don't support
> multiple suffixes, right ?
People still using portage 2.0.x have much more serious problems.
Marius
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
On Tuesday 24 of April 2007 23:20:05 Piotr Jaroszyński wrote:
> foo-0.1_rc2 < foo-0.1_rc000220070313 < foo-0.1_rc3
err. foo-0.1_rc2 < foo-0.1_rc000220070313 < foo-0.1_rc000320070512
What I was trying to say is that once you change to the long versions you must
stay with them.
--
Best Regards,
P
On Tuesday 24 of April 2007 22:47:00 Jurek Bartuszek wrote:
> Let me see if I have this straight: suppose we have package foo-0.1_rc2
> released (very outdated) and we're waiting for foo-0.1_rc3. Then example
> of something between those two would be foo-0.1_rc000220070313? Would
> that force porta
Am Dienstag, 24. April 2007 schrieb Jurek Bartuszek:
> > Existing _rcX cases can be handled like this:
> >
> > _rc2-rMMDD
> >
> > Portage will update from _rc2 to a version with revision part > 0.
>
> However, _rc2-rMMDD-r1 would *not* be valid anymore, and I think
> it's quite easy to im
> Existing _rcX cases can be handled like this:
>
> _rc2-rMMDD
>
> Portage will update from _rc2 to a version with revision part > 0.
However, _rc2-rMMDD-r1 would *not* be valid anymore, and I think
it's quite easy to imagine when this additional -r1 would be neccessary.
Regards,
Jure
> > Only a short response, as I'm a bit in a hurry right now. From
> > #gentoo-council earlier:
> >
> > 18:25 <@robbat2> make him covert it to "_rc%04d%04d%02d%02d",$RC,$YEAR,
> > $MONTH,$DAY
>
> Let me see if I have this straight: suppose we have package foo-0.1_rc2
> released (very outdated) and
On Tue, Apr 24, 2007 at 09:54:20PM +0200, Danny van Dyk wrote:
> 18:25 <@robbat2> make him covert it to "_rc%04d%04d%02d%02d",$RC,$YEAR,
> $MONTH,$DAY
In my original email, I also suggested this solution, but it seems that nobody
read it:
] Alternatively, follow the example of any ebuild that uses
Just a general note to everyone in this thread:
I haven't had the time to read the posts in this thread, but proctors
have received complaints about behaviour within. For the time being, i
would ask all people participating to remember the CoC applies here
and act accordingly.
We will review the po
Jurek Bartuszek wrote:
>> Only a short response, as I'm a bit in a hurry right now. From
>> #gentoo-council earlier:
>>
>> 18:25 <@robbat2> make him covert it to "_rc%04d%04d%02d%02d",$RC,$YEAR,
>> $MONTH,$DAY
>>
>
> Let me see if I have this straight: suppose we have package foo-0.1_rc2
> re
Am Dienstag, 24. April 2007 schrieb Jurek Bartuszek:
> > Only a short response, as I'm a bit in a hurry right now. From
> > #gentoo-council earlier:
> >
> > 18:25 <@robbat2> make him covert it to
> > "_rc%04d%04d%02d%02d",$RC,$YEAR, $MONTH,$DAY
>
> Let me see if I have this straight: suppose we hav
> Only a short response, as I'm a bit in a hurry right now. From
> #gentoo-council earlier:
>
> 18:25 <@robbat2> make him covert it to "_rc%04d%04d%02d%02d",$RC,$YEAR,
> $MONTH,$DAY
Let me see if I have this straight: suppose we have package foo-0.1_rc2
released (very outdated) and we're waiting
Bryan Østergaard wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 24, 2007 at 04:00:42PM -0400, Doug Goldstein wrote:
>
>> Bryan Østergaard wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, Apr 24, 2007 at 03:49:44PM -0400, Doug Goldstein wrote:
>>>
>>>
>> Bryan,
>>
>> You and Danny have clearly shown your bias towards paludis take ove
On Tue, 2007-04-24 at 16:00 -0400, Doug Goldstein wrote:
> Bryan Østergaard wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 24, 2007 at 03:49:44PM -0400, Doug Goldstein wrote:
> >
> >> Stephen Bennett wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 15:16:38 -0400
> >>> Doug Goldstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
Danny van Dyk wrote:
> Am Dienstag, 24. April 2007 schrieb Petteri Räty:
>
>> Danny van Dyk kirjoitti:
>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> [CC'ing [EMAIL PROTECTED] as requested by GLEP amendment from March 8th,
>>> 2007]
>>>
>>> A subset of council members decided today that multiple version
>>> suffix
On Tue, Apr 24, 2007 at 04:00:42PM -0400, Doug Goldstein wrote:
> Bryan Østergaard wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 24, 2007 at 03:49:44PM -0400, Doug Goldstein wrote:
> >
> Bryan,
>
> You and Danny have clearly shown your bias towards paludis take over and
> support of Gentoo. It's fairly poor taste to
Am Dienstag, 24. April 2007 schrieb Petteri Räty:
> Danny van Dyk kirjoitti:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > [CC'ing [EMAIL PROTECTED] as requested by GLEP amendment from March 8th,
> > 2007]
> >
> > A subset of council members decided today that multiple version
> > suffixes are illegal in the tree pending fu
Danny van Dyk kirjoitti:
> Hi all,
>
> [CC'ing [EMAIL PROTECTED] as requested by GLEP amendment from March 8th, 2007]
>
> A subset of council members decided today that multiple version suffixes
> are illegal in the tree pending further notice. This decission can be
> appealed at the next Counc
Fernando J. Pereda wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 24, 2007 at 03:49:44PM -0400, Doug Goldstein wrote:
>
>> Stephen Bennett wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 15:16:38 -0400
>>> Doug Goldstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
So apparently as little as 1 council member can make a d
Stephen Bennett wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 15:49:44 -0400
> Doug Goldstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>> Granted I understand it's important for you paludis users since
>> paludis doesn't support that.
>>
>
> It does support that. Check your facts next time before throwing around
> co
Danny van Dyk wrote:
> Am Dienstag, 24. April 2007 schrieb Doug Goldstein:
>
>> Danny van Dyk wrote:
>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> [CC'ing [EMAIL PROTECTED] as requested by GLEP amendment from March 8th,
>>> 2007]
>>>
>>> A subset of council members decided today that multiple version
>>> suffixes
Bryan Østergaard wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 24, 2007 at 03:49:44PM -0400, Doug Goldstein wrote:
>
>> Stephen Bennett wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 15:16:38 -0400
>>> Doug Goldstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
So apparently as little as 1 council member can make a dec
On Tue, Apr 24, 2007 at 03:49:44PM -0400, Doug Goldstein wrote:
> Stephen Bennett wrote:
> > On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 15:16:38 -0400
> > Doug Goldstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >> So apparently as little as 1 council member can make a decision and it
> >> be binding unless appealed to the
On Tue, Apr 24, 2007 at 03:49:44PM -0400, Doug Goldstein wrote:
> Stephen Bennett wrote:
> > On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 15:16:38 -0400
> > Doug Goldstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >> So apparently as little as 1 council member can make a decision and it
> >> be binding unless appealed to the
Stephen Bennett wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 15:16:38 -0400
> Doug Goldstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>> So apparently as little as 1 council member can make a decision and it
>> be binding unless appealed to the entire council at the next meeting.
>>
>
> There were three council memb
Am Dienstag, 24. April 2007 schrieb Fernando J. Pereda:
> On Tue, Apr 24, 2007 at 03:16:38PM -0400, Doug Goldstein wrote:
> > Danny van Dyk wrote:
> > > Hi all,
> > Danny,
> >
> > This wouldn't have to be because you have a vested interest in
> > paludis and paludis does not support this syntax and
Am Dienstag, 24. April 2007 schrieb Steve Dibb:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > [CC'ing [EMAIL PROTECTED] as requested by GLEP amendment from March 8th,
> > 2007]
> >
> > A subset of council members decided today that multiple version
> > suffixes are illegal in the tree pending further notice. This
> > deciss
Am Dienstag, 24. April 2007 schrieb Doug Goldstein:
> Danny van Dyk wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > [CC'ing [EMAIL PROTECTED] as requested by GLEP amendment from March 8th,
> > 2007]
> >
> > A subset of council members decided today that multiple version
> > suffixes are illegal in the tree pending furt
On Tue, Apr 24, 2007 at 01:15:55PM -0600, Steve Dibb wrote:
> > media-viode/mplayer-1.0_rc2_pre20070321-r4
> > media-video/transcode-1.0.3_rc2_p20070310-r1
> MPlayer needs to be fixed, though it's in the same boat as transcode ...
> it's a release candidate plus a patch level.
>
> Multimedia a
On Tue, Apr 24, 2007 at 03:16:38PM -0400, Doug Goldstein wrote:
> Danny van Dyk wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > [CC'ing [EMAIL PROTECTED] as requested by GLEP amendment from March 8th,
> > 2007]
> >
> > A subset of council members decided today that multiple version suffixes
> > are illegal in the tre
On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 15:16:38 -0400
Doug Goldstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So apparently as little as 1 council member can make a decision and it
> be binding unless appealed to the entire council at the next meeting.
There were three council members who happened to be around at the time,
and
> Hi all,
>
> [CC'ing [EMAIL PROTECTED] as requested by GLEP amendment from March 8th, 2007]
>
> A subset of council members decided today that multiple version suffixes
> are illegal in the tree pending further notice. This decission can be
> appealed at the next Council meeting. If there is suffi
Danny van Dyk wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> [CC'ing [EMAIL PROTECTED] as requested by GLEP amendment from March 8th, 2007]
>
> A subset of council members decided today that multiple version suffixes
> are illegal in the tree pending further notice. This decission can be
> appealed at the next Council mee
Am Dienstag, 24. April 2007 schrieb Danny van Dyk:
> Hi all,
>
> [CC'ing [EMAIL PROTECTED] as requested by GLEP amendment from March 8th,
> 2007]
>
> A subset of council members decided today that multiple version
> suffixes are illegal in the tree pending further notice. This
> decission can be ap
Hi all,
[CC'ing [EMAIL PROTECTED] as requested by GLEP amendment from March 8th, 2007]
A subset of council members decided today that multiple version suffixes
are illegal in the tree pending further notice. This decission can be
appealed at the next Council meeting. If there is sufficient publ
75 matches
Mail list logo
