050906 Jason Stubbs wrote:
On Tuesday 06 September 2005 01:06, Philip Webb wrote:
050905 Jason Stubbs wrote:
it's possible that unmerging slotted packages of the one key
may break your system. How's about not warning
if there's more than one installed cat/pkg (rather than cat/pkg-ver)
On Fri, 2005-09-02 at 18:32 +0900, Chris White wrote:
Ok, say yah, this thread is to long, so I decided, Hey, let's make a
summary of the main important points. That way everyone doesn't have to
read threads that are longer than the combined code of portage.
[snip]
Hopefully this makes
5.9.2005, 22:09:28, Stuart Herbert wrote:
I kept PHP5 masked for those 14 months, and (as Jakub and others can
confirm) most of the feedback has been limited to unmask that
puppy (sometimes put in stronger terms ;-) There were some bugs from
users who had found issues, but not many.
Well,
On Sun, 4 Sep 2005 00:45:00 + (UTC)
John N. Laliberte [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If you would like to help us find bugs in this release, please unmask
all packages located in the GNOME 2.12 section of package.mask.
Also, these need to be placed in package.keywords. I've posted
Yet another thread that's getting horrificly long, here comes your summary
folks:
Introduction
An email was sent by Grant Goodyear containing a GLEP for the official x86
arch team establishment [1].
Discussions
Ciaran McCreesh requested more information on exactly what the line:
There will
On Tuesday 06 September 2005 17:33, Philip Webb wrote:
Sorry, but that's neither adequate nor polite as a response
to the genuine problem which I raised as the original poster.
The answer to your question should be clear from the rest of my message
-- the present warning is misleading, as
On Tuesday 06 September 2005 17:33, Philip Webb wrote:
Sorry, but that's neither adequate nor polite as a response
You've rattled me enough that I only responded to this part.
to the genuine problem which I raised as the original poster.
It wasn't a response to the original poster. It was
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Chris White wrote:
[snip]
| * Although x86 arch recruitment is currently underway, I suspect that
|we will need notably more devs to be x86 arch devs than we currently
|have signed up. (I don't know how many arch devs amd64 have, but I
|
On Sun, 2005-09-04 at 22:46 +0200, Simon Stelling wrote:
Stuart Herbert wrote:
I've no personal problem with arch teams sometimes needing to do their
own thing, provided it's confined to a specific class of package.
Outside of the core packages required to boot maintain a platform,
when
Chris Gianelloni wrote:
On Sun, 2005-09-04 at 22:46 +0200, Simon Stelling wrote:
Stuart Herbert wrote:
I've no personal problem with arch teams sometimes needing to do their
own thing, provided it's confined to a specific class of package.
Outside of the core packages required to boot
On Sun, Sep 04, 2005 at 10:39:44PM +0100, Stuart Herbert wrote:
At the moment, the only way for a package maintainer to mark a package
stable is to mark it stable on a real arch. Creating the maintainer
arch solves this very problem.
Yes, but please don't call it the maintainer arch. This
As an outsider reading that summary the message *I* read is that there
is some strain over fitting the development model into stable, ~,
and package.mask. I think I see people basically saying that they
have differing views over what qualifies for each level?
Perhaps part of the solution is
On Tue, 6 Sep 2005 17:22:09 +0200 Sven Vermeulen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| On Sun, Sep 04, 2005 at 10:39:44PM +0100, Stuart Herbert wrote:
| At the moment, the only way for a package maintainer to mark a
| package stable is to mark it stable on a real arch. Creating the
| maintainer arch
On Tuesday 06 September 2005 19:11, Joshua Baergen wrote:
Sven Vermeulen wrote:
MAINTENANCE=~x86 # Maintainer uses x86, package not deemed stable
I would even suggest not indicating maintainer arch at all. If ATs are
going to be responsible for keywording we should blackbox the process to
Joe Wells wrote:
The best solution to this that I can think of is to extend OpenSSH
with the capability to copy terminfo information to ~/.terminfo on the
remote system.
IMHO automated overwriting files in $HOME on every login is a *very* bad
thing. And if you wanted to remove those -via-ssh-#
On Tue, 2005-09-06 at 12:25 -0400, Luis F. Araujo wrote:
Chris Gianelloni wrote:
On Sun, 2005-09-04 at 22:46 +0200, Simon Stelling wrote:
Stuart Herbert wrote:
I've no personal problem with arch teams sometimes needing to do their
own thing, provided it's confined to a
On Tue, 2005-09-06 at 17:22 +0200, Sven Vermeulen wrote:
On Sun, Sep 04, 2005 at 10:39:44PM +0100, Stuart Herbert wrote:
At the moment, the only way for a package maintainer to mark a package
stable is to mark it stable on a real arch. Creating the maintainer
arch solves this very problem.
Chris Gianelloni wrote:
You'd have a really long list of maintenance architectures for me. Like
I said, I don't use a single machine. The idea of *any* architecture
being my primary one just doesn't really fit. There's also the simple
fact that it doesn't matter *at all* what the maintainer
Chris Gianelloni wrote:
On Tue, 2005-09-06 at 12:25 -0400, Luis F. Araujo wrote:
Chris Gianelloni wrote:
On Sun, 2005-09-04 at 22:46 +0200, Simon Stelling wrote:
Stuart Herbert wrote:
I've no personal problem with arch teams sometimes needing to do their
own
On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 12:35:31 -0700 Donnie Berkholz
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| Chris Gianelloni wrote:
| You'd have a really long list of maintenance architectures for me.
| Like I said, I don't use a single machine. The idea of *any*
| architecture being my primary one just doesn't really fit.
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 18:03:37 +0100 Ed W [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| As an outsider reading that summary the message *I* read is that
| there is some strain over fitting the development model into
| stable, ~, and package.mask. I think I see people basically
| saying that
On Tue, 2005-09-06 at 20:47 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 12:35:31 -0700 Donnie Berkholz
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| Chris Gianelloni wrote:
| You'd have a really long list of maintenance architectures for me.
| Like I said, I don't use a single machine. The idea of
On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 23:19:43 +0200 Martin Schlemmer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| What about !arch or something (to connect with the one reply to the
| summary thread) to really indicate unstable on that arch? Should
| cover those things that sorda work on the arch, but you rather want
| developers
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 23:19:43 +0200 Martin Schlemmer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| What about !arch or something (to connect with the one reply to the
| summary thread) to really indicate unstable on that arch? Should
| cover those things that sorda work on the arch, but you
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 23:19:43 +0200 Martin Schlemmer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| What about !arch or something (to connect with the one reply to the
| summary thread) to really indicate unstable on that arch? Should
| cover those things that sorda work on the arch, but you
On Tue, 2005-09-06 at 22:31 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 23:19:43 +0200 Martin Schlemmer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| What about !arch or something (to connect with the one reply to the
| summary thread) to really indicate unstable on that arch? Should
| cover those things
On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 17:46:40 -0400 Stephen P. Becker
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| This is true, however it requires users to possibly make a gazillion
| entries in their /etc/portage/package.unmask if they want to use a
| lot of what are considered truly unstable packages.
There are dozens of
On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 17:41:35 -0400 warnera6 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| Speaking of flexabilty, are there tools out there to perform look-ups
| into p.masks to figure out why things are masked?
emerge -pv
--
Ciaran McCreesh : Gentoo Developer (Vim, Shell tools, Fluxbox, Cron)
Mail:
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 17:41:35 -0400 warnera6 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| Speaking of flexabilty, are there tools out there to perform look-ups
| into p.masks to figure out why things are masked?
emerge -pv
emerge -pv would be a cludge for what many are after. If I
On 9/6/05, Martin Schlemmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
arch- in theory stable~arch - in theory should work, but needs testing-arch - do not work at all
Just out of curiosity, why are there know broken packages in portage?
Wouldn't -arch packages best be handled outside of the official
portage tree
Dave Shanker wrote:
On 9/6/05, *Martin Schlemmer* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
arch - in theory stable
~arch - in theory should work, but needs testing
-arch - do not work at all
Just out of curiosity, why are there know broken packages in portage?
What
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Mon, 5 Sep 2005 9:44:41 +0200 Kevin F. Quinn [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| On 5/9/2005 1:29:57, Ciaran McCreesh ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
| On Mon, 5 Sep 2005 1:12:54 +0200 Kevin F. Quinn
| [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| wrote:
| | 3) All packages need to be assigned an x86
Hi,
This is Rafael Fernández López. I'm a spanish student (computer
engineering) and I'd like to know if I can do some work for portage...
like translating it to spanish or if I see any bugs, fix them. I'm
starting to read portage code, and I'd like to know if anyone can
mentor me.
Thank you
33 matches
Mail list logo
