On Wed, 25 Dec 2013 20:15:00 -0600
Donnie Berkholz dberkh...@gentoo.org wrote:
repoman does not work in profiles, to my knowledge. It expects
ebuild in package directories in categorie directories.
I'm confused. Isn't that exactly what I just said? add repoman
support
Yes, you did, but
On 12:31 Mon 23 Dec , Jeroen Roovers wrote:
On Sun, 22 Dec 2013 20:07:21 -0600
Donnie Berkholz dberkh...@gentoo.org wrote:
Seems we should add repoman support to check profiles/. Spec mandates
that are not implemented in any tool are unlikely to be adhered to.
repoman does not work
On 10:19 Wed 18 Dec , Ulrich Mueller wrote:
On Wed, 18 Dec 2013, Fabio Erculiani wrote:
I have never seen something like that and this generated an
interesting bug in entropy (well, I fixed it...). What I am asking
is quite simple though. Is this allowed?
The PMS does not allow
Hi,
6 days ago gienah committed a bunch of slotmoves for the haskell
glib/gtk stuff [1], basically moving the pkgs to slot 0 (from slot 2).
This was done in file 4Q-2013.
It turns out that the same gienah moved those pkgs to slot 2 (from
slot 0) in 2Q-2013 [2].
I have never seen something like
On Wed, 18 Dec 2013, Fabio Erculiani wrote:
I have never seen something like that and this generated an
interesting bug in entropy (well, I fixed it...). What I am asking
is quite simple though. Is this allowed?
The PMS does not allow it:
On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 11:11 AM, Fabio Erculiani lx...@gentoo.org wrote:
Hi,
6 days ago gienah committed a bunch of slotmoves for the haskell
glib/gtk stuff [1], basically moving the pkgs to slot 0 (from slot 2).
This was done in file 4Q-2013.
It turns out that the same gienah moved those
On 12/18/13, 10:19 AM, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
On Wed, 18 Dec 2013, Fabio Erculiani wrote:
I have never seen something like that and this generated an
interesting bug in entropy (well, I fixed it...). What I am asking
is quite simple though. Is this allowed?
The PMS does not allow it:
On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 1:13 PM, Paweł Hajdan, Jr.
phajdan...@gentoo.org wrote:
[ snip ]
Finally, do we have a good way now to automate checks against this?
The current PMS spec, as you quoted, allows one way moves only.
For this reason, I guess that simulating the updates twice should
result
