On Saturday 14 April 2007, Matthias Langer wrote:
> bug 165085
i'd do some research into the glibc situation before you go pointing at it
-mike
pgpe73v4Qiw7K.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Sat, 2007-04-14 at 14:58 +0300, Petteri Räty wrote:
> Steve Long kirjoitti:
> >
> > That makes a lot of sense. How about exending it a tiny bit and asking for
> > it to be policy for all ebuilds EAPI=1 not to be allowed into stable
> > without RESTRICT=test, or a functional test suite on the ar
Steve Long kirjoitti:
>
> That makes a lot of sense. How about exending it a tiny bit and asking for
> it to be policy for all ebuilds EAPI=1 not to be allowed into stable
> without RESTRICT=test, or a functional test suite on the arch in question?
> The last bit would be automagically checked by t
Matthias Langer wrote:
> Hmm, as an arch tester, i completely agree that packages where src_test
> fails are an annoyance. However, I would not suggest to activate
> src_test by default, as for normal users, it just introduces another
> source of potential defects, without that much benefits. Inste
Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted
[EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Fri, 13 Apr
2007 23:01:40 -0400:
> they realize they have no way at all of disabling the mandatory test ...
> RESTRICT is an ebuild variable, not a package manager variable
> this is why implementing it via the prof
Luca Barbato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted [EMAIL PROTECTED],
excerpted below, on Sat, 14 Apr 2007 08:14:48 +0200:
> Adding more build time, requirements (yes, there are some tests that
> needs more ram and cpu to complete than the actual build phase) w/out
> ways to opt out is just hindering our us
Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted
[EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Fri, 13 Apr 2007
20:33:09 +0100:
> On Fri, 13 Apr 2007 15:06:44 -0400
> Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > If a test suite isn't viable, the ebuild should be RESTRICTing test
>> > anyway.
>>
>> which do
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > > you're proposing we suddenly bloat all of our src_install
>> > > functions for no gain at all
How big a bloat is it? Surely it's a coupla lines in the eclasses? Cos the
behaviour is inconsistent, as Ciaran pointed out.
>> >
On Friday 13 April 2007, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Except there are. Hence why we want EAPI 1 in the short term, not
> > > several years from now. The stuff that will take longer can go into
> > > a later EAPI.
> >
> > this is really up to the portage
On Fri, 13 Apr 2007 11:11:07 -0400
Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Except there are. Hence why we want EAPI 1 in the short term, not
> > several years from now. The stuff that will take longer can go into
> > a later EAPI.
>
> this is really up to the portage team to drive
If they i
On Friday 13 April 2007, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> Steve Long <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > > Brian Harring <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >> Either way, EAPI=1 *should* have a bit more then just slot deps in
> > >> my opinion; very least it needs discussion to discern wh
On Fri, 13 Apr 2007 15:24:25 +0100
Steve Long <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > Brian Harring <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Either way, EAPI=1 *should* have a bit more then just slot deps in
> >> my opinion; very least it needs discussion to discern what folks
> >> want.
> >
12 matches
Mail list logo
