On Sat, 2005-06-11 at 14:46 -0400, Aron Griffis wrote:
foser wrote: [Sat Jun 11 2005, 04:15:22AM EDT]
Arch keywords are concepts and as such may not primarily be dealt as
a an alphabetical list but as words in a sentence, there is no abc
order in sentences.
Foser, no offense intended,
Catching up on your inbox, foser? ;-)
foser wrote:[Mon Aug 01 2005, 01:06:10PM EDT]
On Sat, 2005-06-11 at 14:46 -0400, Aron Griffis wrote:
foser wrote:[Sat Jun 11 2005, 04:15:22AM EDT]
Arch keywords are concepts and as such may not primarily be dealt as
a an alphabetical list
On Saturday 11 June 2005 17:15, foser wrote:
Anyway, my feud is with the inconsistency within packages and how it got
introduced, not with whatever order is preferred by some. Now tell me
how this happened again?
By lack of policy?
Regards,
Jason Stubbs
pgp16vjho2Xm4.pgp
Description: PGP
On Sat, 2005-06-11 at 17:28 +0900, Jason Stubbs wrote:
By lack of policy?
Well I'm sort of concerned by the fact that I have to state the obvious,
but really by people reordering them for no reason.
It's not the lack of policy that is the problem here, it's the use of
some self defined not
On Sat, Jun 11, 2005 at 10:15:22AM +0200, foser wrote:
On Fri, 2005-06-10 at 12:33 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
you'd
know that scattered KEYWORDS is a pita to deal with ... i've seen cases
where
a specific arch was duplicated in KEYWORDS; once near the beginning and
once
near
On 6/11/05, foser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, 2005-06-11 at 17:28 +0900, Jason Stubbs wrote:
By lack of policy?
Well I'm sort of concerned by the fact that I have to state the obvious,
but really by people reordering them for no reason.
It's not the lack of policy that is the
On Saturday 11 June 2005 17:21, Joshua Baergen wrote:
I don't
care what order they're in. It's not like there are 100 keywords or
something,
Wait until ppc-od, x86-fbsd and amd64-fbsd keywords make their way into the
tree... the problem there is worst, and the alphabetical order is really
Georgi Georgiev wrote: [Fri Jun 10 2005, 08:04:25PM EDT]
maillog: 10/06/2005-13:19:30(-0400): Aron Griffis types
Btw, here's an interesting statistic which really doesn't add to (or
detract from, I hope) this discussion...
grep -hr --include=\*.ebuild '^KEYWORDS=' /usr/portage | perl
On 6/11/05, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Saturday 11 June 2005 17:21, Joshua Baergen wrote:
I don't
care what order they're in. It's not like there are 100 keywords or
something,
Wait until ppc-od, x86-fbsd and amd64-fbsd keywords make their way into the
tree...
foser wrote:[Sat Jun 11 2005, 04:15:22AM EDT]
Arch keywords are concepts and as such may not primarily be dealt as
a an alphabetical list but as words in a sentence, there is no abc
order in sentences.
Foser, no offense intended, but you started out in this thread making
a couple good
maillog: 11/06/2005-08:48:17(-0400): Aron Griffis types
Georgi Georgiev wrote:[Fri Jun 10 2005, 08:04:25PM EDT]
maillog: 10/06/2005-13:19:30(-0400): Aron Griffis types
Btw, here's an interesting statistic which really doesn't add to (or
detract from, I hope) this discussion...
On Friday 10 June 2005 10:55 am, foser wrote:
If everyone starts using ekeyword now with the alphabetical ordering
built in, everything will be consistent, and there shouldn't be a
problem.
even vapier indicates
that there really is no reason to do it alphabetically, except maybe
that
foser wrote:[Fri Jun 10 2005, 10:55:17AM EDT]
As the threadstarter indicated, this was done without discussing it
and in the knowledge that there was no agreement on this issue. As
said before, the fact that something gets done some way, doesn't
mean it's right to do it that way.
Not to
On Tue, 2005-06-07 at 18:18 -0400, Aron Griffis wrote:
Ciaran would have something to say about this, along the lines of some
packages sitting idle in ~arch state because the maintainer isn't
really paying attention. In that case, who can really blame an arch
team for moving ahead on their
On Tue, 2005-06-07 at 00:47 +0200, Lars Weiler wrote:
* Aron Griffis [EMAIL PROTECTED] [05/06/06 18:26 -0400]:
alpha
-
- looks nicer (subjective)
- easier to tell at a glance if a given keyword is in the list
I'm for this. You can easily
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi foser,
alpha++
once again, alpha++
It's not a vote, it's a discussion. You guys--.
^^^Yeah, this proofs your ability to discuss very well...
As vapier indicates he's the whole reason this ever became a problem. He
was the one who started
foser wrote:
On Tue, 2005-06-07 at 22:58 +0200, Danny van Dyk wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Luca Barbato schrieb:
Stephen P. Becker wrote:
alpha++
alpha++
once again, alpha++
It's not a vote, it's a discussion. You guys--.
Whoever said we were voting? I was
On Tue, 2005-06-07 at 23:07 +, Ferris McCormick wrote:
I also like alpha, but that is not what I am responding to. And I have to
admit that I haven't followed this too closely. But the if one arch
stabalises... assumption can be misleading. For example, xorg-x11
maintainer arch is
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, 7 Jun 2005, Aron Griffis wrote:
Marcus D. Hanwell wrote:[Tue Jun 07 2005, 05:32:31PM EDT]
I also vote for alpha. I would like to see some indication of
maintainer arch in metadata too, but in general agree with the
policy of if one arch
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Agreed, the PPC team is very good at arbitrarily marking things stable
whenever they feel like it, and often times before the maintainer does.
This is not usually our policy. However, because we moved GCC-3.4 to
stable before many arches, there
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, 8 Jun 2005, Joseph Jezak wrote:
Agreed, the PPC team is very good at arbitrarily marking things stable
whenever they feel like it, and often times before the maintainer does.
This is not usually our policy. However, because we moved
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Lars Weiler wrote:
* Aron Griffis [EMAIL PROTECTED] [05/06/06 18:26 -0400]:
alpha
-
- looks nicer (subjective)
- easier to tell at a glance if a given keyword is in the list
I'm for this. You can
On Tuesday 07 June 2005 16:04, Aron Griffis wrote:
Could you explain why that policy needs to be dropped for alpha to be
preferred? It's not obvious to me how that policy requires append.
You can't assume that maintainer arch would be x86, and with alphabetic order,
you must ask to the
On Tuesday 07 June 2005 17:15, Aron Griffis wrote:
That would be better for tools to help determining which are
candidates for stable marking. But for humans it's not really
different from looking at the ChangeLog, is it?
It should be possible using ChangeLog if we are sure that ChangeLog is
On Tuesday 07 June 2005 11:15 am, Aron Griffis wrote:
Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:[Tue Jun 07 2005, 10:20:51AM EDT]
You can't assume that maintainer arch would be x86, and with
alphabetic order, you must ask to the maintainer which is his arch
(and there's no way to learn all them by
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Aaron Walker wrote:
I agree with Lars (particulary about adding maintaining arch to metdata if
it's
necessary). Another alpha++.
So, let's get a way to do this. That way most concerns will be
addressed.
Thanks,
Donnie
-BEGIN PGP
Michael Cummings wrote:[Tue Jun 07 2005, 12:49:21PM EDT]
HA! Oh man, I needed a good chuckle. cvs log is about the only
nearly reliable thing I have found sometimes - seems folks that
don't like to use metadata.xml when commiting a random package also
avoid using ChangeLogs. Go figure.
I
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Luca Barbato schrieb:
Stephen P. Becker wrote:
alpha++
alpha++
once again, alpha++
- --
Danny van Dyk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Gentoo/AMD64 Project, Gentoo Scientific Project
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)
On Monday 06 June 2005 23:26, Aron Griffis wrote:
I am willing to revert the ekeyword change if that is what devs would
prefer, but I won't make the change without a discussion on -dev,
which was my mistake last time. Your thoughts?
I also vote for alpha. I would like to see some indication
Marcus D. Hanwell wrote:[Tue Jun 07 2005, 05:32:31PM EDT]
I also vote for alpha. I would like to see some indication of
maintainer arch in metadata too, but in general agree with the
policy of if one arch stabilises then we can assume that is the
maintainer arch.
Whoa, careful there. It's
On Tue, 2005-07-06 at 17:44 -0400, Aron Griffis wrote:
Marcus D. Hanwell wrote:[Tue Jun 07 2005, 05:32:31PM EDT]
I also vote for alpha. I would like to see some indication of
maintainer arch in metadata too, but in general agree with the
policy of if one arch stabilises then we can assume
Olivier Crete wrote:[Tue Jun 07 2005, 05:56:35PM EDT]
Are you sure its not a policy?
Fairly certain. It's been discussed around in circles in the past.
Because it should be and it has been
discussed before. Arch teams should NOT get ahead of the maintainer
without his permission... or if
On Tue, 2005-06-07 at 17:30 +0200, Diego 'Flameeyes' Petten wrote:
On Tuesday 07 June 2005 17:15, Aron Griffis wrote:
That would be better for tools to help determining which are
candidates for stable marking. But for humans it's not really
different from looking at the ChangeLog, is it?
Hi guys,
As some of you have noticed, I made a change recently in ekeyword that
causes ekeyword to alphabetize the keywords. I've realized I should
have brought it up for discussion before making the change to the
program. On that note, I apologize for unilaterally making that
change without
On Monday 06 June 2005 06:26 pm, Aron Griffis wrote:
alpha
i'm all for alpha (as many know seeing as how they've cursed me profusely when
i first started doing it) ... seeing as how i tend to mark for 4 or 5 arches,
alpha is a huge help since i know about where to look in the list
also,
* Aron Griffis [EMAIL PROTECTED] [05/06/06 18:26 -0400]:
alpha
-
- looks nicer (subjective)
- easier to tell at a glance if a given keyword is in the list
I'm for this. You can easily compare two ebuilds' KEYWORDS,
when you have the same order.
Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Monday 06 June 2005 06:26 pm, Aron Griffis wrote:
alpha
i'm all for alpha (as many know seeing as how they've cursed me profusely
when
i first started doing it) ... seeing as how i tend to mark for 4 or 5 arches,
alpha is a huge help since i know about
37 matches
Mail list logo
