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. PMS permits
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. PMS permits
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, but limits
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
problems with
-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-bub
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
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 Council
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 try
@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 all,
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 eight digits
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 miss
-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
boneheaded
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?
Cut the
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 let this
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 doesn't
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
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 appealed
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 meeting.
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
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 tree pending
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 apps are
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 further notice.
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
decission can be
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 decision and it
be binding
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 are illegal in the tree
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 further notice.
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 FORCE
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
suffixes are illegal in the tree
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 for
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 have package
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
released (very
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
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 a
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
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,
Jurek
--
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 imagine when
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 portage
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,
Piotr
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
-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 participating
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.
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
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's been
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
of
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
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 versioning in
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-utils
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?
There is no
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_rc0120070102 (leading
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 entire
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
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:
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
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
] increment
54 matches
Mail list logo
