Stephen P. Becker wrote:
Grant Goodyear wrote:
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
My point is that that's a nasty QA bug that's relying upon input from
Stuart to be fixed. Whilst that one's still alive, I'm not going to go
around filing more similar breaks non-interactively bugs because the
discussion
On Monday 27 February 2006 16:12, Stuart Herbert wrote:
On Mon, 2006-02-27 at 20:54 +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
Whilst that one's still alive, I'm not going to go
around filing more similar breaks non-interactively bugs because the
discussion will just get repeated over and over.
This
On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 21:12:22 +
Stuart Herbert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 2006-02-27 at 20:54 +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
My point is that that's a nasty QA bug that's relying upon input
from Stuart to be fixed.
I'm afraid you've been mis-informed. The PHP herd has provided a
Mike Myers posted [EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Sun,
26 Feb 2006 17:05:57 -0600:
Do you know if there's a way or going to be a way to handle the split
ebuilds so that reemerging or unemerging a split ebuild will reemerge or
unemerge the corresponding packages? It seems like the
On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 21:49:23 +0100 Jakub Moc [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| rhetorical question
| May I ask how is that related to webapp-config?
| /rhetorical question
It is related to Stuart, and hence utterly relevant to the conversation.
--
Ciaran McCreesh : Gentoo Developer (Wearer of the
On Mon, Feb 27, 2006 at 05:30:27PM +, Stephen Bennett [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
(Yes, I'm taking that sentence out of context, but the fact that it
comes up at all says something, to my mind.)
Your mind is a dark and twisted place!
--
Role:Gentoo Linux Kernel Lead
Gentoo
27.2.2006, 22:33:21, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 21:49:23 +0100 Jakub Moc [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| rhetorical question
| May I ask how is that related to webapp-config?
| /rhetorical question
It is related to Stuart, and hence utterly relevant to the conversation.
Ah,
Stephen P. Becker wrote:
Grant Goodyear wrote:
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
My point is that that's a nasty QA bug that's relying upon input from
Stuart to be fixed. Whilst that one's still alive, I'm not going to go
around filing more similar breaks non-interactively bugs because the
discussion
27.2.2006, 22:32:39, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
I quote the official policy:
http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/devrel/handbook/handbook.xml?part=2chap=1
Occasionally, ebuilds will have conflicting USE flags for
functionality. Checking for them and returning an error is not a
viable solution.
On Monday 27 February 2006 18:15, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 10:47:58 -0600 Lance Albertson
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| So if the maintainer sticks SANDBOX_DISABLE=1 rm -fr / in global
| scope and refuses to move it, QA will have to get council approval
| to fix it?
|
|
On Monday 27 February 2006 21:37, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
| You know where bugzilla is. You know how to contact any of the
| webapp-config maintainers via email, or via IRC. We're ready to
| listen to your input, and to work with you (or anyone else) on fixing
| any genuine problems that
On Monday 27 February 2006 19:19, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 12:05:58 -0600 Grant Goodyear [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| Of course, that leaves the question of who decides on the severity of
| a QA violation?
All this talk of severity, and no talk of ease of detection or ease
Hi all,
at FOSDEM we had a nice discussion about languages, translations etc.
Having people from the US (wolf31o2) who never have problems and people
from Japan (usata) who always have problems with encodings /
charsets / ... was quite interesting.
During that discussion we realized that having
Hi peeps,
LINX (http://www.linx.net) are looking for a sys-admin with excellent
Gentoo knowledge. Hardened toolchain and/or grsec experience are
considered a big plus.
You will act as the Gentoo guru for the IT department and are expected
to be very comfortably with Gentoo on servers. Where you
Would we be required to fix the mess left by the previous sys-admin? :pGeorgeOn 28/02/06, Rob Holland [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:Hi peeps,LINX (http://www.linx.net
) are looking for a sys-admin with excellentGentoo knowledge. Hardened toolchain and/or grsec experience areconsidered a big plus.You
On Tuesday 28 February 2006 11:58, Patrick Lauer wrote:
During that discussion we realized that having utf-8 not enabled by
default and no utf8 fonts available by default causes lots of
recompilation and reconfiguration.
At the same time, you'll probably hear people bitching about UTF-8 being
27.2.2006, 22:32:39, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
I quote the official policy:
http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/devrel/handbook/handbook.xml?part=2chap=1
Occasionally, ebuilds will have conflicting USE flags for
functionality. Checking for them and returning an error is not a
viable solution.
On Tuesday 28 February 2006 12:47, Patrick Lauer wrote:
It is still optional, just enabled by default :-)
Would be enough to be criticized probably, mainly by english-speaking users
that doesn't care of extended characters.
Although, this would follow also the direction of both Apple and
* Patrick Lauer [EMAIL PROTECTED] [06/02/28 11:58 +0100]:
Enabling the unicode useflag in the profiles should help our
international users and should not cause any problems. Are there any
known bugs / problems this would trigger? Any reasons against that?
It is enabled by default. At least on
You still haven't posted posted a *single example* of webapp-config
brokeness. You, I'd say you should either back up claims about all the ways
in which webapp-config is broken or apologize to the concerned developers
for false claims.
Still waiting.
OK, here is one. It seems that
28.2.2006, 13:54:36, Stephen P. Becker wrote:
You still haven't posted posted a *single example* of webapp-config
brokeness. You, I'd say you should either back up claims about all the ways
in which webapp-config is broken or apologize to the concerned developers
for false claims.
Still
I'm not sure how to correctly handle bug #87542.
It is about a dev-tex package that doesn't have a license (ctan doesn't
state one, and no license can be found anywhere else).
By definition I have to assume that it is proprietary.
But an eager bug reporter has gotten a statement from the two
On Tue, 2006-02-28 at 13:50 +0100, Lars Weiler wrote:
* Patrick Lauer [EMAIL PROTECTED] [06/02/28 11:58 +0100]:
Enabling the unicode useflag in the profiles should help our
international users and should not cause any problems. Are there any
known bugs / problems this would trigger? Any
webapp-config should be updated to handle such situation more gracefully, so
why don't you file a bug about this? Is that all you have wrt all the ways
in which webapp-config is broken? If so, that's not really much of a
justification of the broad claim ciaranm has made as a QA project member.
On Tuesday 28 February 2006 14:46, Martin Ehmsen wrote:
Should I require a public statement from the authors, like an update
version on ctan that states the license, or is it enough to refer to the
bug report? (ie., is it enough that the reporter says that the author
said the package is
On Tuesday 28 February 2006 06:47, Patrick Lauer wrote:
On Tue, 2006-02-28 at 12:32 +0100, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
On Tuesday 28 February 2006 11:58, Patrick Lauer wrote:
During that discussion we realized that having utf-8 not enabled by
default and no utf8 fonts available by
On 2/28/06, Stephen P. Becker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
OK, here is one. It seems that webapp-config silently assumes your
webserver is apache by default. If a user uses lighttpd for example,
this is totally incorrect.
Now, this doesn't cause webapp-config to fail to emerge, but the first
On Tuesday 28 February 2006 04:49, Jakub Moc wrote:
No, that's not a policy document, ebuild policy is documented here:
http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/devrel/handbook/handbook.xml?style=printable;
part=3chap=1
so what, you want us to duplicate everything in one document and place it in
the
28.2.2006, 15:00:49, Stephen P. Becker wrote:
What kind of non-interactivity? What's this universal non-interactivity
blurb of yours and ciaranm's about? There's no such thing when it comes to
configuration. If you want automated configuration, then please use
Windows and stop moaning. If
On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 10:49:13 +0100 Jakub Moc [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| No, that's not a policy document, ebuild policy is documented here:
|
http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/devrel/handbook/handbook.xml?style=printablepart=3chap=1
No, the whole thing is policy.
| Moreover, the cited howto is
On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 14:21:14 + Stuart Herbert
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| We've committed a fix for this problem upstream. We'll probably roll
| out w-c 1.5.11 at the weekend. That'll give us suitable time to test
| this, and to incorporate the QA issues from Ciaran that we're still
| waiting
I can't say if there are any problems, as I didn't received
a bug for a long time. The only thing that's nasty: we
don't have any good utf8-fonts for the console.
I think that's acceptable.
The only issue related to that we really have is this bug, which is
annoying but not fatal:
On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 11:34:49 +0100 Paul de Vrieze [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| Once that is supported, I'm also sure that those people involved will
| be more than happy to fix their ebuilds to use those features. I do
| agree with them though that the distribution should not be held back
| by
On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 11:21:23 +0100 Paul de Vrieze [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| http://www.gentoo.org/cgi-bin/viewcvs.cgi/*checkout*/sys-apps/bootstrap
| _cmds/bootstrap_cmds-44.ebuild?rev=1.1content-type=text/plain
|
| Probably because although it isn't a good ebuild it still works and
| does not
On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 10:38:17 +0100 Jakub Moc [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| You still haven't posted posted a *single example* of webapp-config
| brokeness. You, I'd say you should either back up claims about all
| the ways in which webapp-config is broken or apologize to the
| concerned developers
On 2/28/06, Ciaran McCreesh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm still not convinced that it's worth my while
*You* chose to mention webapp-config in this thread. Stop making
excuses. Make good on your claims.
Put up, or shut up.
Best regards,
Stu
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
On Tuesday 28 February 2006 15:48, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 11:21:23 +0100 Paul de Vrieze [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Huh? It violates the sandbox even if you do 'emerge sync' and never
touch the ebuild. Look at the frickin' mkdir!
Hmm. Didn't realise that the sandbox is more
On Tuesday 28 February 2006 15:00, Stephen P. Becker wrote:
Basically, I really don't see why webapp-config can't have some logic
built in which makes it smart enough to figure out which webserver
somebody is using.
Please remember that the apache group is just another name for httpd
group.
28.2.2006, 15:39:40, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 10:49:13 +0100 Jakub Moc [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| No, that's not a policy document, ebuild policy is documented here:
|
http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/devrel/handbook/handbook.xml?style=printablepart=3chap=1
No, the whole
Paul de Vrieze wrote:
On Sunday 26 February 2006 22:29, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
On Fri, Feb 24, 2006 at 02:19:40PM +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
Side note: if the packages in question are fetch restricted, you're
screwed, and will not be able to add them to the tree.
Actually, there is a
On Tue, 2006-02-28 at 14:52 +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 10:38:17 +0100 Jakub Moc [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| You still haven't posted posted a *single example* of webapp-config
| brokeness. You, I'd say you should either back up claims about all
| the ways in which
On Tue, Feb 28, 2006 at 02:52:46PM +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
Yes, it's an utterly trivial problem, but it is a QA violation. Getting
a complete list is something that takes a heck of a lot longer, and I
have yet to be convinced that my time would not be better spent
elsewhere.
So let me
On Tuesday 28 February 2006 15:47, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 11:34:49 +0100 Paul de Vrieze [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| Once that is supported, I'm also sure that those people involved will
| be more than happy to fix their ebuilds to use those features. I do
| agree with them
A few days ago I added net-im/wildfire to the tree. This is the sucessor to
jive-messenger. The ebuild is diferent and now complays to net-im/jabber-base.
In a week or so I'll remove jive-messenger from the tree.
--
Gustavo Felisberto
(HumpBack)
Web: http://dev.gentoo.org/~humpback
Blog:
As the title says, what would you prefer for the future of MySQL in Gentoo?
Please take a moment to read
https://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-t-438557.html and vote (and
eventually comment on it).
Thanks!
--
Best regards,
Luca Longinotti aka CHTEKK
LongiTEKK Networks Admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
As the title says, what would you prefer for the future of MySQL in Gentoo?
Please take a moment to read
https://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-t-438557.html and vote (and
eventually comment on it).
Thanks!
--
Best regards,
Luca Longinotti aka CHTEKK
LongiTEKK Networks Admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
28.2.2006, 16:29:07, Stephen Bennett wrote:
On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 16:08:05 +0100
Jakub Moc [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
When and where has been the following change discussed and who
approved that?
On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 16:17:20 +0100 Paul de Vrieze [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| On Tuesday 28 February 2006 15:52, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
| Yes, it's an utterly trivial problem, but it is a QA violation.
| Getting a complete list is something that takes a heck of a lot
| longer, and I have yet to
On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 16:26:37 +0100 Jakub Moc [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| If you can't do any better, then please apologize for your conduct
| and false claims and shut up... TIA.
Sure I can do better. But you didn't originally ask for better, you
asked for anything. If better's what you're after:
On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 16:08:05 +0100 Jakub Moc [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| 28.2.2006, 15:39:40, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
| On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 10:49:13 +0100 Jakub Moc [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| wrote:
| | No, that's not a policy document, ebuild policy is documented
| | here:
| |
|
On Monday 27 February 2006 11:47, Lance Albertson wrote:
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Sun, 26 Feb 2006 17:53:20 -0800 Donnie Berkholz
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| The maintainer should be the absolute authority over his/her packages,
| and only the council should be able to overrule
On Tuesday 28 February 2006 10:08, Jakub Moc wrote:
28.2.2006, 15:39:40, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 10:49:13 +0100 Jakub Moc [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| No, that's not a policy document, ebuild policy is documented here:
On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 16:42:30 +0100
Jakub Moc [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Punting every single piece of broken sh*t from the tree requires
notifying everyone on -dev ml and allowing a period of time before
it's actually done, so silently changing/stating policies is a very
broken practice.
This
On Tue, 2006-02-28 at 15:42 +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 16:26:37 +0100 Jakub Moc [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| If you can't do any better, then please apologize for your conduct
| and false claims and shut up... TIA.
Sure I can do better. But you didn't originally ask for
28.2.2006, 16:42:46, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 16:26:37 +0100 Jakub Moc [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| If you can't do any better, then please apologize for your conduct
| and false claims and shut up... TIA.
Sure I can do better. But you didn't originally ask for better, you
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi Jakub,
Jakub Moc schrieb:
| 28.2.2006, 16:29:07, Stephen Bennett wrote:
|When and where has been the following change discussed and who
|approved that?
|
Lars Weiler wrote:
* Patrick Lauer [EMAIL PROTECTED] [06/02/28 11:58 +0100]:
Enabling the unicode useflag in the profiles should help our
international users and should not cause any problems. Are there any
known bugs / problems this would trigger? Any reasons against that?
It is enabled by
On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 17:11:58 +0100 Patrick Lauer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| Ok, sorry for being dumb :-)
| What exactly is the issue there? I don't see the issue in setting SLOT
| depending on ... uhm ... some variable. Looks kinda logical at first
| glance, but I'm not aware of the issues it
On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 17:22:57 +0100 Jakub Moc [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| Eh? Seen kernel2.eclass? Going to file a bug about that as well? Seen
| gst/gstreamer eclasses? Going to file QA bugs about them as well? And
| - what's exactly the QA violation there, if you could enlighten us?
You're
28.2.2006, 17:24:21, Danny van Dyk wrote:
Hi Jakub,
If you don't agree with the contents, why didn't you raise your
opposition earlier?
I don't feel any need to raise opposition against some unofficial manual,
what would be the point in that? I'm raising my hand against silently
On Tue, Feb 28, 2006 at 05:11:58PM +0100, Patrick Lauer wrote:
Ok, sorry for being dumb :-)
What exactly is the issue there? I don't see the issue in setting SLOT
depending on ... uhm ... some variable. Looks kinda logical at first
glance, but I'm not aware of the issues it causes.
One issue
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Ooh, I'm very much in favor of unicode being enabled by default. It's not like
users would be limited *only* to UTF-8 on their new installs, anyway. I'd love
to see this implemented.
++ for the suggestion. :)
Patrick Lauer wrote:
Hi all,
at
28.2.2006, 17:35:32, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 17:11:58 +0100 Patrick Lauer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| Ok, sorry for being dumb :-)
| What exactly is the issue there? I don't see the issue in setting SLOT
| depending on ... uhm ... some variable. Looks kinda logical at
On Tue, Feb 28, 2006 at 04:35:32PM +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
Ebuilds can't override this either. Read on in the eclass and you'll
notice that it checks that SLOT hasn't been changed to something sane.
Excepting that you can set WEBAPP_MANUAL_SLOT=yes and set SLOT to whatever the
hell you
On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 18:00:03 +0100 Jakub Moc [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| PVR includes the revision of an ebuild. This means that if a
| revbump is made on a webapp package to fix a critical flaw, users
| will still have the old broken package installed too. This is
| especially relevant for
On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 17:02:11 + Renat Lumpau [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| On Tue, Feb 28, 2006 at 04:35:32PM +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
| Ebuilds can't override this either. Read on in the eclass and you'll
| notice that it checks that SLOT hasn't been changed to something
| sane.
|
|
28.2.2006, 18:09:54, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 18:00:03 +0100 Jakub Moc [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| PVR includes the revision of an ebuild. This means that if a
| revbump is made on a webapp package to fix a critical flaw, users
| will still have the old broken package
On Tue, 2006-02-28 at 11:58 +0100, Patrick Lauer wrote:
Hi all,
at FOSDEM we had a nice discussion about languages, translations etc.
Having people from the US (wolf31o2) who never have problems and people
from Japan (usata) who always have problems with encodings /
charsets / ... was quite
On Tue, Feb 28, 2006 at 05:11:57PM +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
And it sticks out a nasty ewarn and says that the ebuild is probably
broken.
Which it _probably_ is. See, this is a numbers game. In most cases, if you use
the webapp eclass, setting SLOT=0 is incorrect. There are some cases in
On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 12:47:33 -0500 solar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| I forget where I read it but I thought that unicode lead to overflows
| and was considered a general security risk. I wish I knew where I read
| that but I'm unable to find it.
|
| Any list readers know anything relating to that?
On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 17:38:10 +
Ciaran McCreesh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
if [ ${IS_UPGRADE} = 1 ] ; then
einfo Removing old version ${REMOVE_PKG}
emerge -C ${REMOVE_PKG}
fi
Uh, what the fuck is that doing in an eclass ?
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
28.2.2006, 18:11:57, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 17:02:11 + Renat Lumpau [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| On Tue, Feb 28, 2006 at 04:35:32PM +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
| Ebuilds can't override this either. Read on in the eclass and you'll
| notice that it checks that SLOT
On Tue, 2006-02-28 at 17:38 +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
Sheesh, you'll probably claim that this isn't broken next too:
if [ ${IS_UPGRADE} = 1 ] ; then
einfo Removing old version ${REMOVE_PKG}
emerge -C ${REMOVE_PKG}
fi
Ciaran,
(and this is valid for all emails to
On Tue, Feb 28, 2006 at 06:59:49PM +0100, Patrick Lauer wrote:
If you show a wrong code snippet please explain _why_ it is wrong in the
same email.
Ehm you mean it is not obvious that calling emerge inside an eclass
is utterly wrong ?
--
Fernando J. Pereda Garcimartín
Gentoo Developer
On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 18:59:49 +0100
Patrick Lauer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(and this is valid for all emails to technical lists,)
please save us some time and many emails by stating what is wrong when
you show a QA violation.
This is a technical discussion list, and as such it is fair to
On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 18:59:49 +0100 Patrick Lauer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| (and this is valid for all emails to technical lists,)
| please save us some time and many emails by stating what is wrong when
| you show a QA violation.
Oh come on. I'm not going to insult the intelligence of people
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 18:30:24 +0100 Jakub Moc [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| OK, so kernel-2.eclass is abusing the slot as well, go scream on
| kernel devs.
No. kernel-2 installs sources, not an actual package.
| | Yeah, it checks for that since that's the way the eclass is
On Tue, Feb 28, 2006 at 12:47:33PM -0500, solar wrote:
I forget where I read it but I thought that unicode lead to overflows
and was considered a general security risk. I wish I knew where I read
that but I'm unable to find it.
Any list readers know anything relating to that?
It's true
On Tuesday 28 February 2006 11:39, Jakub Moc wrote:
28.2.2006, 17:24:21, Danny van Dyk wrote:
If you don't agree with the contents, why didn't you raise your
opposition earlier?
I don't feel any need to raise opposition against some unofficial manual,
what would be the point in that? I'm
On Tue, 2006-02-28 at 18:19 +, Stephen Bennett wrote:
On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 18:59:49 +0100
Patrick Lauer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(and this is valid for all emails to technical lists,)
please save us some time and many emails by stating what is wrong when
you show a QA violation.
On Tue, Feb 28, 2006 at 06:12:57PM +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
Oh come on. I'm not going to insult the intelligence of people reading
this list by explaining something that frickin' obvious. When it's a
subtle issue I explain why it's wrong. When it isn't, I try to avoid
wasting everyone's
28.2.2006, 18:38:10, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
Sheesh, you'll probably claim that this isn't broken next too:
if [ ${IS_UPGRADE} = 1 ] ; then
einfo Removing old version ${REMOVE_PKG}
emerge -C ${REMOVE_PKG}
fi
No, I won't claim that... I'd rather love to know why
On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 13:02:10 -0500,
Alec Warner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
if [ ${IS_UPGRADE} = 1 ] ; then
einfo Removing old version ${REMOVE_PKG}
emerge -C ${REMOVE_PKG}
fi
Semantics of the logic aside, calling emerge from within an
On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 12:47:33 -0500
solar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I forget where I read it but I thought that unicode lead to overflows
and was considered a general security risk. I wish I knew where I read
that but I'm unable to find it.
Well, stuff I could find includes:
On Tue, Feb 28, 2006 at 08:11:26PM +0100, Thomas de Grenier de Latour wrote:
On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 13:02:10 -0500,
Alec Warner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
if [ ${IS_UPGRADE} = 1 ] ; then
einfo Removing old version ${REMOVE_PKG}
emerge -C
On Tue, Feb 28, 2006 at 08:11:26PM +0100, Thomas de Grenier de Latour wrote:
On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 13:02:10 -0500,
Alec Warner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
if [ ${IS_UPGRADE} = 1 ] ; then
einfo Removing old version ${REMOVE_PKG}
emerge -C
28.2.2006, 19:39:15, Mike Frysinger wrote:
snip ewarn This ebuild overrides the default SLOT behaviour for
webapps ewarn If this package installs files into the htdocs dir, this
is ewarn probably a bug in the ebuild. /snip
Sigh... what kind of QA issue is that?
which part dont you
On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 20:27:01 +0100
Jakub Moc [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Once again, don't invent problems, please.
Just because you don't see a problem doesn't mean it's not there.
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Jakub Moc schrieb:
| 28.2.2006, 18:38:10, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
| No, I won't claim that... I'd rather love to know why didn't you point out
| to an obvious eclass flaw about 30 emails and many hours ago, saving
us from
| all the eclass formating,
which part dont you understand ? the user sets a variable and then is told
that the package probably contains a bug ... seems pretty confusing to me
-mike
rl03 already replied to that. I don't see any QA issues there, and if
someone from QA team does, then he probably has too much time to
On Tuesday 28 February 2006 12:51, Renat Lumpau wrote:
On Tue, Feb 28, 2006 at 05:11:57PM +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
And it sticks out a nasty ewarn and says that the ebuild is probably
broken.
Which it _probably_ is. See, this is a numbers game. In most cases, if you
use the webapp
28.2.2006, 20:59:42, Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Tuesday 28 February 2006 12:51, Renat Lumpau wrote:
On Tue, Feb 28, 2006 at 05:11:57PM +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
And it sticks out a nasty ewarn and says that the ebuild is probably
broken.
Which it _probably_ is. See, this is a numbers
On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 20:09:02 +0100 Jakub Moc [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| 28.2.2006, 18:38:10, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
| Sheesh, you'll probably claim that this isn't broken next too:
|
| if [ ${IS_UPGRADE} = 1 ] ; then
| einfo Removing old version ${REMOVE_PKG}
|
| emerge
On Tue, 2006-02-28 at 20:18 +0100, Kevin F. Quinn (Gentoo) wrote:
On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 12:47:33 -0500
solar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I forget where I read it but I thought that unicode lead to overflows
and was considered a general security risk. I wish I knew where I read
that but I'm
On Tuesday 28 February 2006 15:10, Jakub Moc wrote:
28.2.2006, 20:59:42, Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Tuesday 28 February 2006 12:51, Renat Lumpau wrote:
On Tue, Feb 28, 2006 at 05:11:57PM +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
And it sticks out a nasty ewarn and says that the ebuild is probably
28.2.2006, 21:39:43, Mike Frysinger wrote:
whats your point ? if an ebuild author wants to control the SLOT, then
they should be able to without having an invalid warning issued on the
subject
considering the nature of the warning, it should be trivial to make it into a
proper QA check by
On Tuesday 28 February 2006 16:02, Jakub Moc wrote:
28.2.2006, 21:39:43, Mike Frysinger wrote:
whats your point ? if an ebuild author wants to control the SLOT, then
they should be able to without having an invalid warning issued on the
subject
considering the nature of the warning, it
On Tue, Feb 28, 2006 at 04:31:37PM -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote:
today's lesson: proactive QA is frowned upon, it's only a bug when a user
files a report at bugs.gentoo.org
I don't think that's the lesson. It oughtta be: we need a way to figure out
which QA issues are important and which are
On 2/28/06, Renat Lumpau [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Feb 28, 2006 at 04:31:37PM -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote:
today's lesson: proactive QA is frowned upon, it's only a bug when a user
files a report at bugs.gentoo.org
I don't think that's the lesson. It oughtta be: we need a way to
On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 21:50:40 + Renat Lumpau [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| On Tue, Feb 28, 2006 at 04:31:37PM -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote:
| today's lesson: proactive QA is frowned upon, it's only a bug when
| a user files a report at bugs.gentoo.org
|
| I don't think that's the lesson. It
1 - 100 of 123 matches
Mail list logo
