On Thu, 4 May 2006 21:20:48 -0500
spradlim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I have a question that I havn't been able to find that is somewhat
> related to the following email. I know and understand Linux very
> well. I also know how ebuilds work. So how do I go about maintaining
> packages and gett
On Thu, 04 May 2006 16:29:56 -0700
Michael Kirkland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This leads to people trying to maintain a
> frankenstinian /etc/portage/package.keywords file, constantly adding
> to it and never knowing when things can be removed from it.
If you use specific versions in the pack
I think the problem is that Gentoo is falling into the same sandtrap the
Debian project has been mired in forever. "arch" and "~arch" are polarizinginto "stable, but horribly out of date", and "maybe it will work".This leads to people trying to maintain a
frankenstinian /etc/portage/package.keyword
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
spradlim wrote:
> I have a question that I havn't been able to find that is somewhat
> related to the following email. I know and understand Linux very well.
> I also know how ebuilds work. So how do I go about maintaining packages
> and getting them
I have a question that I havn't been able to find that is somewhat
related to the following email. I know and understand Linux very well.
I also know how ebuilds work. So how do I go about maintaining packages
and getting them into portage. For example I would like to maintain a
munin, munin-plu
On Thursday 04 May 2006 05:21, Jeff Rollin wrote:
> All,
>
> If I might weigh in at this late stage:
>
> How did we end up here in the first place? Isn't the point of ~arch that we
> can put stuff here that might WELL be unstable? Sure, we'll get lots of "I
> set my ACCEPT_KEYWORDS to ~arch and now
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
The following packages require a new maintainer, some might just be
absorbed into their herds w/o a direct maintainer leaving them to the
teams maintaining those herds, others might face extinction w/o a direct
maintainer.
./app-admin/gtkdiskfree
./sc
On Thu, May 04, 2006 at 09:54:53AM +0100, Roy Marples wrote:
> On Wednesday 03 May 2006 19:27, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Wed, May 03, 2006 at 01:22:39PM +0100, Roy Marples wrote:
> > > On Wednesday 03 May 2006 12:26, Jakub Moc wrote:
> > > > Well, it should not be loaded first of all... Hence why I wan
On Thu, May 04, 2006 at 10:20:04AM +0100, Benjamin Smee (strerror) wrote:
> I'd say ldap is fine right now. I think we've got most of the big issues
> out of the way and I'm happy to update whatever documentation people
> think needs updating if someone would point me at the current versions.
>
Paul,
That cleared it up for me, thanks
Jeff.On 04/05/06, Paul de Vrieze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Actually the testing keywords are not for unstable packages. If somethingis unstable it must be masked. If we however want to test our packagingwe put it in ~arch. If something is in ~arch that mea
I'm just an user here, but I'd like to ask a simple question:
For Gnome 2.14 there is a tracker bug on b.g.o [1]. I think this is
really usefull for users like me who want to know the status of this
release at any time (and I hope this is useful for devs too :)). Why
such a tracker doesn't exist f
On Thursday 04 May 2006 14:21, Jeff Rollin wrote:
> All,
>
> If I might weigh in at this late stage:
>
> How did we end up here in the first place? Isn't the point of ~arch
> that we can put stuff here that might WELL be unstable? Sure, we'll get
> lots of "I set my ACCEPT_KEYWORDS to ~arch and now
On Thursday 04 May 2006 14:17, Stuart Herbert wrote:
> Talking about an SVN perspective ... provided the trees live in a
> single repository (which would make a lot of sense), it would be very
> straightforward to provide a tool to copy a particular ebuild & its
> files from an unstable tree simult
Bart Braem posted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, excerpted below, on Thu,
04 May 2006 13:48:03 +0200:
> As a user I have to add my opinion here. I have been using Gentoo for some
> years now and it was always fairly up to date. Currently KDE is really
> behind on the current situation upstream.
> And then
On Thu, 04 May 2006 11:44:18 +0100
Stuart Herbert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> However, if you have a separate tree per-arch, that tree can be tested
> and approved for release as a single unit.
How big would this tree be? Would it be every package? How will this make the
arch teams' life easie
I think that sums up some good answers to my questions, too.Jeff.On 04/05/06, Chris Gianelloni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:On Thu, 2006-05-04 at 13:48 +0200, Bart Braem wrote:> Does compiling KDE introduce so many bugs? I mean, let's be serious, all
> other distributions have a stable 3.5.x now. Don
All,If I might weigh in at this late stage:How did we end up here in the first place? Isn't the point of ~arch that we can put stuff here that might WELL be unstable? Sure, we'll get lots of "I set my ACCEPT_KEYWORDS to ~arch and now my system is broken," messages, but if people are going to try ~a
On Thu, 2006-05-04 at 13:48 +0200, Bart Braem wrote:
> Does compiling KDE introduce so many bugs? I mean, let's be serious, all
> other distributions have a stable 3.5.x now. Don't they experience all
> those horrible bugs?
Compiling KDE doesn't introduce bugs. Compiling KDE with any
combination
On 5/4/06, Chris Gianelloni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Thu, 2006-05-04 at 11:44 +0100, Stuart Herbert wrote:
> From a SCM point of view, arches are a subset of the full Gentoo
> tree. They would fit very well into a branching model - and
> Subversion's support for branching would make it a b
On Thu, 2006-05-04 at 11:44 +0100, Stuart Herbert wrote:
> From a SCM point of view, arches are a subset of the full Gentoo
> tree. They would fit very well into a branching model - and
> Subversion's support for branching would make it a breeze for us to
> support without overloading the a
(sorry if you receive this mail twice, my subscription was not ok)
Philip Webb wrote:
> 060404 Caleb Tennis wrote:
>> historically we were much more bleeding edge with our stable KDE
>> versions, but if you've spent any significant time playing with 3.5.0 or
>> 3.5.1, you would agree that they ar
Quoting Molle Bestefich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Does it? How does having a stable and unstable branch differ from
having stable and unstable keywords?
Agreed. That doesn't make sense.
It does if you have a separate stable tree per-arch. With the current
tree design, it's too easy to break
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
lo,
On Wednesday 03 May 2006 19:51, Grant Goodyear wrote:
> I just had somebody ask me about whether or not we still needed LDAP
> help. It's a good question, and I didn't know the answer, which is
> rather embarrassing since I'm the one who filed th
> Having a live tree requires people to be perfect. People are not
> perfect and requiring it is ridiculous. I love having commits in my
> local tree within the hour, but having a stable and unstable branch
> makes a lot of sense.
Does it? How does having a stable and unstable branch differ fr
On Wednesday 03 May 2006 19:27, Greg KH wrote:
> On Wed, May 03, 2006 at 01:22:39PM +0100, Roy Marples wrote:
> > On Wednesday 03 May 2006 12:26, Jakub Moc wrote:
> > > Well, it should not be loaded first of all... Hence why I want to have
> > > an ability to turn off the coldplug thing *completely
25 matches
Mail list logo
