Our bug queue has 81 bugs!
If you have some spare time, please help assign/sort a few bugs.
To view the bug queue, click here: http://bit.ly/m8PQS5
Thanks!
Hi!
On Tue, 11 Aug 2015, Duncan wrote:
Ryan Hill posted on Mon, 10 Aug 2015 18:17:30 -0600 as excerpted:
On Mon, 10 Aug 2015 12:25:58 + (UTC)
Duncan 1i5t5.dun...@cox.net wrote:
What about:
* bug number in summary strongly recommended
Making the bug number in the summary
What's not clear with 'apropriate' word in my sentence?
Let me clarify - if package depend either on Qt4 or Qt5 and CAN not be
built with Qt at all - force this behaviour with REQUIRED_USE.
I think that it was obvious that i have meant exactly this case, cause
other cases are unreasonable here.
On 08/11/2015 10:12 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
Dnia 2015-08-11, o godz. 09:56:55
Dmitry Yu Okunev dyoku...@ut.mephi.ru napisał(a):
On 08/11/2015 12:06 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
3. Too many text, hard to read. Some bugs may refer to a dozen of
URLs.
And how is a dozen numbers better?
Less
On 11 August 2015 at 20:38, Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org wrote:
Dnia 2015-08-11, o godz. 10:29:55
Alexander Berntsen berna...@gentoo.org napisał(a):
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 10/08/15 22:59, Aaron W. Swenson wrote:
Users can fetch/pull from Github.
Users should
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 10/08/15 22:59, Aaron W. Swenson wrote:
Users can fetch/pull from Github.
Users should not have to interface with or rely on proprietary
software to use Gentoo.
- --
Alexander
berna...@gentoo.org
https://secure.plaimi.net/~alexander
-BEGIN
Hello.
I'm not a gentoo-dev, so sorry if I shouldn't express my thoughts with
my lame English here. Please tell me if it's so.
On 08/11/2015 12:06 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
3. Too many text, hard to read. Some bugs may refer to a dozen of
URLs.
And how is a dozen numbers better?
Less text,
Dnia 2015-08-11, o godz. 10:29:55
Alexander Berntsen berna...@gentoo.org napisał(a):
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 10/08/15 22:59, Aaron W. Swenson wrote:
Users can fetch/pull from Github.
Users should not have to interface with or rely on proprietary
software to use
Err, i have read the whole thread and still does not get a point, why i
am wrong.
It's old battle like we have beforce with gtk meaning any versions of
GTK flag. This behaviour should be killed with fire.
Let's me reiterate some of the cases:
1. Package can be build without Qt GUI at all, but
I think ppc64le would become popular, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ppc64.
1. enable porting x86 Linux based application with minimal effort.
2. Some PowerPC user, little endian apparently feels cheap, wrong, and
PCish.
3. Other distrbutions like Ubuntu, Redhat and SUSE already support little
On 11 August 2015 at 20:57, Tobias Klausmann klaus...@gentoo.org wrote:
The cat/pn rule is tricky anyway: what if one commit touches 100
packages? Or should that be split into 100 commits for easier
partial rollback?
I think you've misread The rule
Dnia 2015-08-11, o godz. 09:56:55
Dmitry Yu Okunev dyoku...@ut.mephi.ru napisał(a):
Hello.
I'm not a gentoo-dev, so sorry if I shouldn't express my thoughts with
my lame English here. Please tell me if it's so.
On 08/11/2015 12:06 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
3. Too many text, hard to read.
Greetings ! Any Ideas/steps of how to porting gentoo on ppc64le
architecture?
Is it that we should add 'ppc64le' keyword to portage ?
As some of you might know, Ubuntu has been introduced in support of
ppc64le. http://www.ubuntu.com/download/server/power8 ! It's just as it
sounds ppc64(
Hi,
On 10/08/15 21:02, Daniel Campbell (zlg) wrote:
On 08/10/2015 06:15 AM, Doug Goldstein wrote:
On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 3:36 AM, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn
chith...@gentoo.org wrote:
Doug Goldstein schrieb:
gpg: cancelled by user gpg: skipped 0xA2BC03DC87ED1BD4:
Operation cancelled
On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 17:22:21 +0800
Leno Hou leno...@gmail.com wrote:
Please let me know forward/steps to port gentoo on ppc64le.
I'm not on the ppc team but I do some ppc(64) testing for Java
packages. Although these are relatively well-maintained keywords
overall, I think the team would
On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 11:44 PM, Matthias Maier tam...@gentoo.org wrote:
That is, I was under the impression signing a tag only signs the
references themselves, and then relies on SHA1 referential integrity
beyond that.
No, a signed tag verifies that the whole integrirty of the entire
11.08.2015 15:30, Michael Palimaka пишет:
On 11/08/15 20:10, Sergey Popov wrote:
Err, i have read the whole thread and still does not get a point, why i
am wrong.
You clearly have not. The reasoning behind Qt team's policy is described
on the page and has been reiterated on this list. You
11.08.2015 15:32, Michael Palimaka пишет:
On 11/08/15 20:17, Sergey Popov wrote:
09.08.2015 23:28, Ulrich Mueller пишет:
I disagree with this. Really, REQUIRED_USE should be used sparingly,
and IMHO the above is not a legitimate usage case for it.
So, you prefer to make ugly mess of deps
11.08.2015 13:18, Georg Rudoy пишет:
You missed the fourth option: the package can not be built without Qt
GUI, but it supports building with either Qt version at the same time.
Not a problem.
REQUIRED_USE=|| ( qt4 qt5 )
At least one of flags should be enabled, but both can be enabled
2015-08-11 11:10 GMT+01:00 Sergey Popov pinkb...@gentoo.org:
3. Package can be build with Qt4 or Qt5 or both AT THE SAME TIME(if such
package even exists?)
Take app-text/poppler as an officially supported example.
Take x11-libs/qwt as an example of a library that gets a patched library
name
I'd suggest to make a QA team meeting to override this policies with
more correct and rationale.
Qt team members are greatly appreciated on this meeting. Even more, i
think that we should not take any decision on this without at least Qt
team lead(or half of Qt team devs)
So, let's arrange some
On 08/11/2015 08:34 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
commit: 719cc5ef240b766953ddbe1e7a6593f8091eed12
Author: Mike Frysinger vapier AT gentoo DOT org
AuthorDate: Tue Aug 11 06:28:16 2015 +
Commit: Mike Frysinger vapier AT gentoo DOT org
CommitDate: Tue Aug 11 06:34:22 2015 +
On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 10:29:55 +0200
Alexander Berntsen berna...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 10/08/15 22:59, Aaron W. Swenson wrote:
Users can fetch/pull from Github.
Users should not have to interface with or rely on proprietary
software to use Gentoo.
Like the stuff running on the big expensive
On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 5:12 AM, Kent Fredric kentfred...@gmail.com wrote:
On 11 August 2015 at 20:57, Tobias Klausmann klaus...@gentoo.org wrote:
The cat/pn rule is tricky anyway: what if one commit touches 100
packages? Or should that be split into 100 commits for easier
partial rollback?
11.08.2015 16:04, Sergey Popov пишет:
11.08.2015 15:32, Michael Palimaka пишет:
On 11/08/15 20:17, Sergey Popov wrote:
09.08.2015 23:28, Ulrich Mueller пишет:
I disagree with this. Really, REQUIRED_USE should be used sparingly,
and IMHO the above is not a legitimate usage case for it.
So,
11.08.2015 16:11, James Le Cuirot пишет:
On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 15:58:49 +0300
Sergey Popov pinkb...@gentoo.org wrote:
If both of flags are not set - we stick to default.
Should this be set in EVERY ebuild explicitly?
Maybe provide some sugar like $(qt_use_default qtgui 5), where
09.08.2015 23:28, Ulrich Mueller пишет:
I disagree with this. Really, REQUIRED_USE should be used sparingly,
and IMHO the above is not a legitimate usage case for it.
So, you prefer to make ugly mess of deps here like i posted before or
introduce some really unneded USE-flag like 'gui', 'qt',
On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 5:07 AM, Kent Fredric kentfred...@gmail.com wrote:
Having a quality infrastructure should happen in parallel to github mirrors.
Uses may use the proprietary one or the opensource one.
While I generally tend to agree with you, if we're just talking about
mirroring is
On 08/11/2015 01:49 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 5:12 AM, Kent Fredric kentfred...@gmail.com wrote:
On 11 August 2015 at 20:57, Tobias Klausmann klaus...@gentoo.org wrote:
The cat/pn rule is tricky anyway: what if one commit touches 100
packages? Or should that be split
On 11/08/15 20:10, Sergey Popov wrote:
Err, i have read the whole thread and still does not get a point, why i
am wrong.
You clearly have not. The reasoning behind Qt team's policy is described
on the page and has been reiterated on this list. You are undermining
what little confidence there is
On 11/08/15 20:17, Sergey Popov wrote:
09.08.2015 23:28, Ulrich Mueller пишет:
I disagree with this. Really, REQUIRED_USE should be used sparingly,
and IMHO the above is not a legitimate usage case for it.
So, you prefer to make ugly mess of deps here like i posted before or
introduce some
On Tue, 2015-08-11 at 16:04 +0300, Sergey Popov wrote:
You want to migrate to such decision? Like:
qt? (
qt5? ( dev-lang/qtcore:5 )
!qt5? ( dev-lang/qtcore:4 )
)
Fine by me, if you would ask.
That flag should be called gui. Not qt.
This would be the real solution to gnome
On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 15:58:49 +0300
Sergey Popov pinkb...@gentoo.org wrote:
If both of flags are not set - we stick to default.
Should this be set in EVERY ebuild explicitly?
Maybe provide some sugar like $(qt_use_default qtgui 5), where
qt_use_default is the name of function, qtgui is the
11.08.2015 16:30, Michael Palimaka пишет:
Don't forget that as a project with no special authority, Qt's policy
remains a suggestion for the vast majority of maintainers. If someone
wishes to provide support for only one Qt version or abuse their users
with REQUIRED_USE they are still free
On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 8:26 AM, Ciaran McCreesh
ciaran.mccre...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 10:29:55 +0200
Alexander Berntsen berna...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 10/08/15 22:59, Aaron W. Swenson wrote:
Users can fetch/pull from Github.
Users should not have to interface with or rely
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 11/08/15 04:57 AM, Tobias Klausmann wrote:
The more we stuff into the summary line, the harder it will be to
write meaningful summaries. And thus, people will write crappy ones
or ignore the length limit. I recommend against any more
On 12 August 2015 at 02:28, Ian Stakenvicius a...@gentoo.org wrote:
Stuff like 'cat/pn: version bumps', 'cat/pn: new features', 'cat/pn:
adjusted dependencies' are generic (and short) enough yet descriptive
enough to see what went on while scanning the log.
I personally find those summaries a
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 11/08/15 10:01 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
Dnia 2015-08-11, o godz. 15:52:16 Patrice Clement
monsie...@gentoo.org napisał(a):
Hi there
According to
https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Gentoo_git_workflow#Branching_Model,
there may be
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 11/08/15 10:19 AM, Rich Freeman wrote:
On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 9:42 AM, Sergey Popov pinkb...@gentoo.org
wrote:
11.08.2015 16:36, Rich Freeman пишет:
On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 9:19 AM, Sergey Popov
pinkb...@gentoo.org wrote:
11.08.2015 16:11,
Hi there
According to https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Gentoo_git_workflow#Branching_Model,
there may be developer-specific, task-specific, project-specific branches
etc. As far as I understand, it means I can go and create my own branch on the
main repository and push it and it gets spread all over
Dnia 2015-08-11, o godz. 15:52:16
Patrice Clement monsie...@gentoo.org napisał(a):
Hi there
According to https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Gentoo_git_workflow#Branching_Model,
there may be developer-specific, task-specific, project-specific branches
etc. As far as I understand, it means I can go
On 11/08/15 23:04, Sergey Popov wrote:
11.08.2015 15:32, Michael Palimaka пишет:
On 11/08/15 20:17, Sergey Popov wrote:
09.08.2015 23:28, Ulrich Mueller пишет:
I disagree with this. Really, REQUIRED_USE should be used sparingly,
and IMHO the above is not a legitimate usage case for it.
So,
Hello,
A quick patch for review. It changes the DTD for repositories.xml to
support multiple owner/ tags. We have at least one repository with
more than one owner, and I don't really see creating aliases for our
users just to support that. Any comments?
Index: repositories.dtd
On Wed, 2015-08-12 at 00:02 +1000, Michael Palimaka wrote:
3. Create a whole new solution like USE=gui (what happens if I have
multiple gui implementation USE flags set?)
This is what I would suggest. It would remove 90% of the problem since
most applications use only one gui toolkit.
If no
On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 9:42 AM, Sergey Popov pinkb...@gentoo.org wrote:
11.08.2015 16:36, Rich Freeman пишет:
On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 9:19 AM, Sergey Popov pinkb...@gentoo.org wrote:
11.08.2015 16:11, James Le Cuirot пишет:
On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 15:58:49 +0300
Sergey Popov pinkb...@gentoo.org
On 8/11/15 10:19 AM, hasufell wrote:
On 08/11/2015 04:10 PM, Alexis Ballier wrote:
On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 16:01:05 +0200
Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org wrote:
Dnia 2015-08-11, o godz. 15:52:16
Patrice Clement monsie...@gentoo.org napisał(a):
Hi there
According to
11.08.2015 17:36, hasufell пишет:
On 08/11/2015 04:28 PM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
On 11/08/15 04:57 AM, Tobias Klausmann wrote:
The more we stuff into the summary line, the harder it will be to
write meaningful summaries. And thus, people will write crappy ones
or ignore the length limit.
On 12/08/15 00:29, Rich Freeman wrote:
On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 9:39 AM, Sergey Popov pinkb...@gentoo.org wrote:
11.08.2015 16:30, Michael Palimaka пишет:
Don't forget that as a project with no special authority, Qt's policy
remains a suggestion for the vast majority of maintainers. If someone
On 8/11/15 10:33 AM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 11/08/15 06:11 AM, Leno Hou wrote:
I think ppc64le would become popular,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ppc64.
1. enable porting x86 Linux based application with minimal effort.
2. Some PowerPC
constantly adds any security to the tree. What might add security for
end-users is if git automatically checked the push signatures, which
are the signatures that ensure that branches aren't tampered with
(which is what rebasing you bring up actually does).
It is news to me that a signature
11.08.2015 16:36, Rich Freeman пишет:
On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 9:19 AM, Sergey Popov pinkb...@gentoo.org wrote:
11.08.2015 16:11, James Le Cuirot пишет:
On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 15:58:49 +0300
Sergey Popov pinkb...@gentoo.org wrote:
If both of flags are not set - we stick to default.
Should this
Hi!
On Tue, 11 Aug 2015, Michał Górny wrote:
Dnia 2015-08-11, o godz. 15:52:16
Patrice Clement monsie...@gentoo.org napisał(a):
According to
https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Gentoo_git_workflow#Branching_Model,
there may be developer-specific, task-specific, project-specific branches
On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 16:01:05 +0200
Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org wrote:
Dnia 2015-08-11, o godz. 15:52:16
Patrice Clement monsie...@gentoo.org napisał(a):
Hi there
According to
https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Gentoo_git_workflow#Branching_Model,
there may be developer-specific,
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 11/08/2015 16:32, Michał Górny wrote:
Hello, everyone.
Now that we're officially on git and can officially use pull
requests to provide rapid community interaction, it'd be convenient
to have a little better framework for pinging package
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 11/08/15 08:58 AM, Sergey Popov wrote:
11.08.2015 15:30, Michael Palimaka пишет:
On 11/08/15 20:10, Sergey Popov wrote:
Err, i have read the whole thread and still does not get a
point, why i am wrong.
You clearly have not. The reasoning
On 11/08/15 22:58, Sergey Popov wrote:
11.08.2015 15:30, Michael Palimaka пишет:
On 11/08/15 20:10, Sergey Popov wrote:
Err, i have read the whole thread and still does not get a point, why i
am wrong.
You clearly have not. The reasoning behind Qt team's policy is described
on the page and
On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 04:12:29PM +0200, hasufell wrote:
On 08/11/2015 03:52 PM, Patrice Clement wrote:
Hi there
According to
https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Gentoo_git_workflow#Branching_Model,
there may be developer-specific, task-specific, project-specific branches
etc. As far as I
On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 10:33:26 -0400
Ian Stakenvicius a...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 11/08/15 06:11 AM, Leno Hou wrote:
I think ppc64le would become popular,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ppc64.
1. enable porting x86 Linux based application with minimal effort.
2. Some PowerPC user, little
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 11/08/15 09:04 AM, Sergey Popov wrote:
11.08.2015 15:32, Michael Palimaka пишет:
On 11/08/15 20:17, Sergey Popov wrote:
09.08.2015 23:28, Ulrich Mueller пишет:
I disagree with this. Really, REQUIRED_USE should be used
sparingly, and IMHO the
On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 16:19:12 +0200
hasufell hasuf...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 08/11/2015 04:10 PM, Alexis Ballier wrote:
On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 16:01:05 +0200
Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org wrote:
Dnia 2015-08-11, o godz. 15:52:16
Patrice Clement monsie...@gentoo.org napisał(a):
Hi there
On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 9:19 AM, Sergey Popov pinkb...@gentoo.org wrote:
11.08.2015 16:11, James Le Cuirot пишет:
On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 15:58:49 +0300
Sergey Popov pinkb...@gentoo.org wrote:
If both of flags are not set - we stick to default.
Should this be set in EVERY ebuild explicitly?
On 08/11/2015 03:52 PM, Patrice Clement wrote:
Hi there
According to https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Gentoo_git_workflow#Branching_Model,
there may be developer-specific, task-specific, project-specific branches
etc. As far as I understand, it means I can go and create my own branch on
the
On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 9:39 AM, Sergey Popov pinkb...@gentoo.org wrote:
11.08.2015 16:30, Michael Palimaka пишет:
Don't forget that as a project with no special authority, Qt's policy
remains a suggestion for the vast majority of maintainers. If someone
wishes to provide support for only one
On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 10:26:46 -0400
Anthony G. Basile bluen...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 8/11/15 10:19 AM, hasufell wrote:
On 08/11/2015 04:10 PM, Alexis Ballier wrote:
On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 16:01:05 +0200
Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org wrote:
Dnia 2015-08-11, o godz. 15:52:16
Patrice
On 08/11/2015 04:10 PM, Alexis Ballier wrote:
On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 16:01:05 +0200
Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org wrote:
Dnia 2015-08-11, o godz. 15:52:16
Patrice Clement monsie...@gentoo.org napisał(a):
Hi there
According to
On 11/08/15 23:39, Sergey Popov wrote:
11.08.2015 16:30, Michael Palimaka пишет:
Don't forget that as a project with no special authority, Qt's policy
remains a suggestion for the vast majority of maintainers. If someone
wishes to provide support for only one Qt version or abuse their users
Hello, everyone.
Now that we're officially on git and can officially use pull requests
to provide rapid community interaction, it'd be convenient to have
a little better framework for pinging package maintainers.
With the unofficial mirror/pull request project, I was either looking
for project
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 11/08/15 06:11 AM, Leno Hou wrote:
I think ppc64le would become popular,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ppc64.
1. enable porting x86 Linux based application with minimal effort.
2. Some PowerPC user, little endian apparently feels cheap,
On 08/11/2015 04:28 PM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
On 11/08/15 04:57 AM, Tobias Klausmann wrote:
The more we stuff into the summary line, the harder it will be to
write meaningful summaries. And thus, people will write crappy ones
or ignore the length limit. I recommend against any more
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 11/08/15 06:10 AM, Sergey Popov wrote:
Err, i have read the whole thread and still does not get a point,
why i am wrong.
It's old battle like we have beforce with gtk meaning any
versions of GTK flag. This behaviour should be killed with
11.08.2015 17:32, Michał Górny пишет:
Hello, everyone.
Now that we're officially on git and can officially use pull requests
to provide rapid community interaction, it'd be convenient to have
a little better framework for pinging package maintainers.
With the unofficial mirror/pull
On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 10:26 AM, Anthony G. Basile bluen...@gentoo.org wrote:
I would not say caution so much as good judgment. The first example that
came to mind was working with the profiles which crosses many directories
and files. In the past when I did restructuring to the hardened
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 11/08/15 12:03 PM, hasufell wrote:
On 08/11/2015 05:21 PM, Alexis Ballier wrote:
Big changes that that go in feature branches and are merged in
one pass are, from my experience, way too much prone to errors.
Did anyone ever try to review a
On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 10:53 AM, Matthias Maier tam...@gentoo.org wrote:
constantly adds any security to the tree. What might add security for
end-users is if git automatically checked the push signatures, which
are the signatures that ensure that branches aren't tampered with
(which is
Dnia 2015-08-11, o godz. 18:45:40
hasufell hasuf...@gentoo.org napisał(a):
On 08/11/2015 06:42 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
Dnia 2015-08-10, o godz. 22:51:59
hasufell hasuf...@gentoo.org napisał(a):
I was wondering if that could be automated in a separate branch (only
needs to update in
On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 11:11:43 -0400
Ian Stakenvicius a...@gentoo.org wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 11/08/15 10:01 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
Dnia 2015-08-11, o godz. 15:52:16 Patrice Clement
monsie...@gentoo.org napisał(a):
Hi there
According to
On 08/11/2015 05:21 PM, Alexis Ballier wrote:
Big changes that that go in feature branches and are merged in one pass
are, from my experience, way too much prone to errors. Did anyone ever
try to review a merge commit?
You will run repoman (and probably other pkgcore based checks) before
On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 10:42 AM, Michael Palimaka
kensing...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 12/08/15 00:29, Rich Freeman wrote:
I realize this is frustrating and contentious, but I think we're
better off hashing this out, and implementing something reasonable,
than having a bazillion different
Dnia 2015-08-10, o godz. 22:51:59
hasufell hasuf...@gentoo.org napisał(a):
On 08/10/2015 10:47 PM, Andrew Savchenko wrote:
On Mon, 10 Aug 2015 22:13:23 +0200 hasufell wrote:
On 08/10/2015 05:09 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 11:04 AM, Mike Gilbert flop...@gentoo.org wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 11/08/15 10:35 AM, Kent Fredric wrote:
On 12 August 2015 at 02:28, Ian Stakenvicius a...@gentoo.org
wrote:
Stuff like 'cat/pn: version bumps', 'cat/pn: new features',
'cat/pn: adjusted dependencies' are generic (and short) enough
yet
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 11/08/15 11:21 AM, Alexis Ballier wrote:
On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 11:11:43 -0400 Ian Stakenvicius
a...@gentoo.org wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256
On 11/08/15 10:01 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
Dnia 2015-08-11, o godz.
On 08/11/2015 06:42 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
Dnia 2015-08-10, o godz. 22:51:59
hasufell hasuf...@gentoo.org napisał(a):
I was wondering if that could be automated in a separate branch (only
needs to update in 24h intervals).
Please don't cruft the repo with huge metadata. And I have
On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 04:32:40PM +0200, Michał Górny wrote:
Hello, everyone.
Now that we're officially on git and can officially use pull requests
to provide rapid community interaction, it'd be convenient to have
a little better framework for pinging package maintainers.
With the
On 08/11/2015 10:48 AM, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
On Thu, 2015-07-23 at 08:47 -0700, Zac Medico wrote:
On 07/23/2015 12:46 AM, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
On Wed, 2015-07-22 at 19:47 -0400, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
Sent from an iPhone, sorry for the HTML...
On Jul 22, 2015, at 5:38 PM, Rich
On Tue, 2015-08-11 at 10:55 -0700, Zac Medico wrote:
On 08/11/2015 10:48 AM, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
On Thu, 2015-07-23 at 08:47 -0700, Zac Medico wrote:
On 07/23/2015 12:46 AM, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
On Wed, 2015-07-22 at 19:47 -0400, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
Sent from an
Remove the code skipping EAPI=0 output in cache entries. There is really
no reason to treat EAPI=0 specially here, and this makes the output more
consistent.
---
bin/egencache | 2 --
1 file changed, 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/bin/egencache b/bin/egencache
index 6075ccf..5c00248 100755
---
On Thu, 2015-07-23 at 08:47 -0700, Zac Medico wrote:
On 07/23/2015 12:46 AM, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
On Wed, 2015-07-22 at 19:47 -0400, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
Sent from an iPhone, sorry for the HTML...
On Jul 22, 2015, at 5:38 PM, Rich Freeman ri...@gentoo.org wrote:
On
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Hi all,
given non-negative replies this is published now.
Greeting.
Am 08.08.2015 um 13:28 schrieb Johannes Huber:
Hello Gentoos,
please read and comment on the attached news item for the upcoming
Nepomuk removal.
Greetings,
- --
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Am 09.08.2015 um 05:01 schrieb Duncan:
Johannes Huber posted on Sat, 08 Aug 2015 13:28:08 +0200 as
excerpted:
Title: Nepomuk removal
Looks good here, and the title's nice and short too. =:^)
Thanks for positive feedback.
Greetings
- --
All,
I found something in this patch which I have fixed locally. It is just a
replace on a couple of lines, so I'll explain what it is here rather
than reposting the patch.
Every occurance of '%/*' in the patch should be '%/...' instead.
William
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On 08/11/2015 10:38 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
Remove the code skipping EAPI=0 output in cache entries. There is really
no reason to treat EAPI=0 specially here, and this makes the output more
consistent.
---
bin/egencache | 2 --
1 file changed, 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/bin/egencache
On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 10:16 AM, Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org wrote:
Hello,
A quick patch for review. It changes the DTD for repositories.xml to
support multiple owner/ tags. We have at least one repository with
more than one owner, and I don't really see creating aliases for our
users
On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 18:03:54 +0200
hasufell hasuf...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 08/11/2015 05:21 PM, Alexis Ballier wrote:
Big changes that that go in feature branches and are merged in one
pass are, from my experience, way too much prone to errors. Did
anyone ever try to review a merge
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 08/11/2015 03:41 AM, Sergey Popov wrote:
I'd suggest to make a QA team meeting to override this policies
with more correct and rationale.
Qt team members are greatly appreciated on this meeting. Even more,
i think that we should not take
On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 11:51:14 -0400
Ian Stakenvicius a...@gentoo.org wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 11/08/15 11:21 AM, Alexis Ballier wrote:
On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 11:11:43 -0400 Ian Stakenvicius
a...@gentoo.org wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash:
On 08/11/2015 11:11 AM, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
On Tue, 2015-08-11 at 10:55 -0700, Zac Medico wrote:
On 08/11/2015 10:48 AM, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
On Thu, 2015-07-23 at 08:47 -0700, Zac Medico wrote:
On 07/23/2015 12:46 AM, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
On Wed, 2015-07-22 at 19:47 -0400, Ian
Is a possible solution something like an eselect module to indicate
the preferred
interface kit? It could default to any package that is available with
a sequential
set of preferred order.
Then ebuild would consult the eselect module, and users who care can
select the kit they want, and users who
On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 3:13 PM, Gregory Woodbury redwo...@gmail.com wrote:
Is a possible solution something like an eselect module to indicate
the preferred
interface kit? It could default to any package that is available with
a sequential
set of preferred order.
Then ebuild would consult
On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 10:54:10 -0700
Zac Medico zmed...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 08/11/2015 10:38 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
Remove the code skipping EAPI=0 output in cache entries. There is
really no reason to treat EAPI=0 specially here, and this makes the
output more consistent.
---
On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 01:22:40PM -0500, William Hubbs wrote:
All,
I found something in this patch which I have fixed locally. It is just a
replace on a couple of lines, so I'll explain what it is here rather
than reposting the patch.
Every occurance of '%/*' in the patch should be
1 - 100 of 105 matches
Mail list logo
