-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Am 12.06.2007 um 13:29 schrieb Christoph Mende:
On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 12:59:42 +0200
cilly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jun 12, 2007, at 12:53 PM, cilly wrote:
Additional:
Sometimes the chance for the users to place the ebuild comfortably
into
On Wed, Jun 13, 2007 at 04:35:31PM +0200, Robert Buchholz wrote:
The problem is rather that the patches are gone from the distfiles
mirror after two weeks. The sources often stay upstream, but could
also be gone.
Is there an archive for these files I missed?
That archive ('purgatory' being
Hi all,
I think it's worth to discuss the `behaviour of removing ebuilds from
the tree`.
In my opinion, ebuilds are removed too soon, i.e. if an ebuild gets
updated
the older ebuild gets removed in the same turn. In my opinion, it is
better to
keep the older ebuild around for a while
cilly wrote:
Hi all,
I think it's worth to discuss the `behaviour of removing ebuilds from
the tree`.
Currently it's up to the developer, some people are more conservative,
some prefer to get rid of certain stuff asap.
You should differentiate between ~ and stable ones btw...
In my
On Tue, Jun 12, 2007 at 11:40:26AM +0200, cilly wrote:
In my opinion, ebuilds are removed too soon, i.e. if an ebuild gets
updated the older ebuild gets removed in the same turn. In my
opinion, it is better to keep the older ebuild around for a while
since if there are some bugs in the
On Tue, Jun 12, 2007 at 11:59:28AM +0200, Luca Barbato wrote:
lu - that prefers less rules and more people aware.
Couldn't agree more.
- ferdy
--
Fernando J. Pereda Garcimartín
20BB BDC3 761A 4781 E6ED ED0B 0A48 5B0C 60BD 28D4
pgpliNQUioYQL.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Jun 12, 2007, at 12:01 PM, Fernando J. Pereda wrote:
I think that setting arbitrary guidelines that try to rule every
situation is just *plain* wrong.
Some of the packages I maintain are better removed when a new
maintenance version is released. And I plan to keep it that way :)
As usual,
On Tue, Jun 12, 2007 at 12:14:37PM +0200, cilly wrote:
On Jun 12, 2007, at 12:01 PM, Fernando J. Pereda wrote:
I think that setting arbitrary guidelines that try to rule every
situation is just *plain* wrong.
Some of the packages I maintain are better removed when a new
maintenance
On Jun 12, 2007, at 12:21 PM, Fernando J. Pereda wrote:
Well, if maintainers can't properly follow upstream development they
should probably seek help in their maintenance job.
Hi Fernando,
well, I wouldn't bring up this discussion if there aren't any
problems. I `think` a reminder to all
Fernando J. Pereda wrote:
Some of the packages I maintain are better removed when a new
maintenance version is released. And I plan to keep it that way :)
Can you clarify this? What scenarios do you run into where it isn't
good for stable users to have access to more than one version of the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
cilly wrote:
well, I wouldn't bring up this discussion if there aren't any problems.
Hi Cecilia,
perhaps you could go into some more specifics of these problems?
Which packages were removed and were they stable, testing or masked at the
time of
Richard Freeman wrote:
Can you clarify this? What scenarios do you run into where it isn't
good for stable users to have access to more than one version of the
software?
- Security issues.
- Downgrade to hell scenarios
- Other colorful issues that may happen from time to time.
One thing
On Tue, Jun 12, 2007 at 06:36:31AM -0400, Richard Freeman wrote:
Fernando J. Pereda wrote:
Some of the packages I maintain are better removed when a new
maintenance version is released. And I plan to keep it that way :)
Can you clarify this? What scenarios do you run into where it isn't
On Jun 12, 2007, at 12:40 PM, Marijn Schouten (hkBst) wrote:
Hi Cecilia,
perhaps you could go into some more specifics of these problems?
Which packages were removed and were they stable, testing or masked
at the
time of removal? What problems did the removal cause?
Marijn
Hi Marijn,
On Jun 12, 2007, at 12:48 PM, Luca Barbato wrote:
Keep in mind that the trade off is :
- our time
- our sanity
- what provide to our used
- the quality of what we provide to out users.
We all try our best to not burn out while serving you the best we
could
think.
Does it make such a
On Jun 12, 2007, at 12:46 PM, Fernando J. Pereda wrote:
Known to be buggy versions.
Of course, there are bugs in every version. Sometimes a user must be
able to choose which bug is more problematic, i.e. the bug in the
newer ebuild which makes the package unusable for them or the older
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Richard Freeman wrote:
One thing that I noticed is that in many cases there are multiple
testing versions of a package available, and one stable version. So, if
you run unstable you can pick and choose, but if you're running stable
(which in
On Jun 12, 2007, at 12:53 PM, cilly wrote:
Of course, there are bugs in every version. Sometimes a user must
be able to choose which bug is more problematic, i.e. the bug in
the newer ebuild which makes the package unusable for them or the
older bug which has a security issue the users are
On Tue, Jun 12, 2007 at 12:53:16PM +0200, cilly wrote:
On Jun 12, 2007, at 12:46 PM, Fernando J. Pereda wrote:
Known to be buggy versions.
Of course, there are bugs in every version. Sometimes a user must be able to
choose which bug is more problematic, i.e. the bug in the newer
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
cilly wrote:
please, understand that I do not want to `blame` any developer, unless
it is discussed here with a final solution. Since I am not a gentoo-dev,
some of the devs `may not understand` my concerns and probably `feel
offended`.
Hi
cilly kirjoitti:
On Jun 12, 2007, at 12:48 PM, Luca Barbato wrote:
Keep in mind that the trade off is :
- our time
- our sanity
- what provide to our used
- the quality of what we provide to out users.
We all try our best to not burn out while serving you the best we could
think.
On Jun 12, 2007, at 1:03 PM, Fernando J. Pereda wrote:
If the user thinks he knows better than me which version he wants to
use, there is the code. I'll still keep in Gentoo's tree whatever *I*
feel it is best for every gentoo user.
Fernando, I do not complain against you, may be if everyone
cilly wrote:
Sometimes the chance for the users to place the ebuild comfortably into
overlay is simply taken, since the ebuild has been removed and doesn't
exist after a sync anymore.
any ebuild from day 0 till now lives in the cvs, you can fetch it from
the cvs attic anytime, I'm afraid this
On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 12:59:42 +0200
cilly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jun 12, 2007, at 12:53 PM, cilly wrote:
Additional:
Sometimes the chance for the users to place the ebuild comfortably
into overlay is simply taken, since the ebuild has been removed and
doesn't exist after a sync
On Jun 12, 2007, at 1:27 PM, Luca Barbato wrote:
any ebuild from day 0 till now lives in the cvs, you can fetch it from
the cvs attic anytime, I'm afraid this information isn't exactly well
known =/
I am aware of it, but this means much more frickle-time (forget
frickle if you don't know it
On Jun 12, 2007, at 1:29 PM, Christoph Mende wrote:
It's not, CVS keeps every ebuild around, just go to sources.gentoo.org
and hit Show X dead files in the dir of the ebuild you want ;)
so you misunderstood comfortably :)
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
On Jun 12, 2007, at 1:21 PM, Petteri Räty wrote:
Nope and they should usually be kept but we can't make a hard rule
because there are cases where the old ebuilds don't work any more. If
you find that a broken version slipped the cracks of the arch teams
and
made it to stable with the old
Btw, both of your issues could probably be solved by bug 126059 without
adding new rules or new work for ebuild devs.
--
Public Key at http://www.genone.de/info/gpg-key.pub
In the beginning, there was nothing. And God said, 'Let there be
Light.' And there was still nothing, but you could see a
On Jun 12, 2007, at 2:55 PM, Marius Mauch wrote:
Btw, both of your issues could probably be solved by bug 126059
without
adding new rules or new work for ebuild devs.
Thanks a lot for this, I totally agree.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
cilly wrote:
On Jun 12, 2007, at 12:46 PM, Fernando J. Pereda wrote:
Known to be buggy versions.
Of course, there are bugs in every version. Sometimes a user must be
able to choose which bug is more problematic, i.e. the bug in the newer
30 matches
Mail list logo
