On 06/29/14 17:33, Markos Chandras wrote:
On 06/29/2014 10:23 AM, Patrick Lauer wrote:
On Sunday 29 June 2014 17:03:52 Patrick Lauer wrote:
On Sunday 29 June 2014 10:12:22 Tom Wijsman wrote:
On Sun, 29 Jun 2014 09:09:36 +0100
Markos Chandras hwoar...@gentoo.org wrote:
It's been a long time.
On Sat, 28 Jun 2014 20:46:08 -0700
Greg KH gre...@gentoo.org wrote:
So, given a total lack of testing by anyone, I might as well just
remove the mask, so it can actually be done given that people are
wanting the latest Docker release, especially due to the security
fixes in it over the one
On 06/29/2014 03:58 AM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
Hi Markos,
I was wondering why docker 1.0.0 wasn't seeming to get updated on my
boxes recently, despite me commiting the update to the cvs tree, and
Tianon noticed that it was masked at the moment:
# Markos Chandras hwoar...@gentoo.org (03
On Sun, 29 Jun 2014 09:09:36 +0100
Markos Chandras hwoar...@gentoo.org wrote:
It's been a long time. To be honest I don't remember masking docker
but I most likely did it because I was asked to mask =lxc-1.0.0 by
the virtualization team (and Diego (flameeyes). And docker depends on
lxc-1.0.0
On 06/29/2014 09:12 AM, Tom Wijsman wrote:
On Sun, 29 Jun 2014 09:09:36 +0100
Markos Chandras hwoar...@gentoo.org wrote:
It's been a long time. To be honest I don't remember masking docker
but I most likely did it because I was asked to mask =lxc-1.0.0 by
the virtualization team (and Diego
On Sunday 29 June 2014 10:12:22 Tom Wijsman wrote:
On Sun, 29 Jun 2014 09:09:36 +0100
Markos Chandras hwoar...@gentoo.org wrote:
It's been a long time. To be honest I don't remember masking docker
but I most likely did it because I was asked to mask =lxc-1.0.0 by
the virtualization team
On Sunday 29 June 2014 17:03:52 Patrick Lauer wrote:
On Sunday 29 June 2014 10:12:22 Tom Wijsman wrote:
On Sun, 29 Jun 2014 09:09:36 +0100
Markos Chandras hwoar...@gentoo.org wrote:
It's been a long time. To be honest I don't remember masking docker
but I most likely did it because I
On 06/29/2014 10:03 AM, Patrick Lauer wrote:
On Sunday 29 June 2014 10:12:22 Tom Wijsman wrote:
On Sun, 29 Jun 2014 09:09:36 +0100
Markos Chandras hwoar...@gentoo.org wrote:
It's been a long time. To be honest I don't remember masking docker
but I most likely did it because I was asked to
On 06/29/2014 10:23 AM, Patrick Lauer wrote:
On Sunday 29 June 2014 17:03:52 Patrick Lauer wrote:
On Sunday 29 June 2014 10:12:22 Tom Wijsman wrote:
On Sun, 29 Jun 2014 09:09:36 +0100
Markos Chandras hwoar...@gentoo.org wrote:
It's been a long time. To be honest I don't remember masking
Greg KH:
On Sun, Jun 29, 2014 at 05:17:36AM +0200, Jeroen Roovers wrote:
On Sat, 28 Jun 2014 19:58:22 -0700
Greg Kroah-Hartman gre...@gentoo.org wrote:
Hi Markos,
I was wondering why docker 1.0.0 wasn't seeming to get updated on my
boxes recently, despite me commiting the update to the cvs
On Sun, 29 Jun 2014 09:25:16 +0100
Markos Chandras hwoar...@gentoo.org wrote:
It's been a long time and sources.g.o is down so i can't check the
history of that file.
$ cvsps -u -f package.mask -l '.*docker.*' -q -g
...
--- gentoo-x86/profiles/package.mask:1.15773Tue Jun 10 02:03:02
2014
On Sun, Jun 29, 2014 at 7:36 AM, hasufell hasuf...@gentoo.org wrote:
If something is that fragile that you want to add it to the tree masked,
maybe it isn't even ready for it yet.
Fun-stuff, alpha-software and other broken things have a good place in
overlays.
How is not putting it in the
Rich Freeman:
If the only one testing it is the maintainer then it probably
shouldn't go in the tree. However, if the maintainer is working with
others to actually test the package, then a short-term mask is
probably fine.
IMO, if you are testing with others without knowing the outcome
On Sun, Jun 29, 2014 at 8:12 AM, hasufell hasuf...@gentoo.org wrote:
Also, those masks are rarely short-term in practice, because well, see
this thread.
Is there any evidence to support this statement? You only notice
masks when they're a problem, and these kinds of masks tend to be a
problem
Rich Freeman:
On Sun, Jun 29, 2014 at 8:12 AM, hasufell hasuf...@gentoo.org wrote:
Also, those masks are rarely short-term in practice, because well, see
this thread.
Is there any evidence to support this statement? You only notice
masks when they're a problem, and these kinds of masks
On Sun, Jun 29, 2014 at 8:36 AM, hasufell hasuf...@gentoo.org wrote:
This is still too vague for me. If it's expected to be short-term, then
it can as well just land in ~arch.
A package that hasn't been tested AT ALL doesn't belong in ~arch.
Suppose the maintainer is unable to test some aspect
Hi Markos,
I was wondering why docker 1.0.0 wasn't seeming to get updated on my
boxes recently, despite me commiting the update to the cvs tree, and
Tianon noticed that it was masked at the moment:
# Markos Chandras hwoar...@gentoo.org (03 May 2014)
# Masked for further testing
On Sat, 28 Jun 2014 19:58:22 -0700
Greg Kroah-Hartman gre...@gentoo.org wrote:
Hi Markos,
I was wondering why docker 1.0.0 wasn't seeming to get updated on my
boxes recently, despite me commiting the update to the cvs tree, and
Tianon noticed that it was masked at the moment:
# Markos
On Sat, Jun 28, 2014 at 11:17 PM, Jeroen Roovers j...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Sat, 28 Jun 2014 19:58:22 -0700
Greg Kroah-Hartman gre...@gentoo.org wrote:
Hi Markos,
I was wondering why docker 1.0.0 wasn't seeming to get updated on my
boxes recently, despite me commiting the update to the cvs
On Sun, Jun 29, 2014 at 05:17:36AM +0200, Jeroen Roovers wrote:
On Sat, 28 Jun 2014 19:58:22 -0700
Greg Kroah-Hartman gre...@gentoo.org wrote:
Hi Markos,
I was wondering why docker 1.0.0 wasn't seeming to get updated on my
boxes recently, despite me commiting the update to the cvs
20 matches
Mail list logo
