On Wed, 27 Aug 2008 06:02:02 +0200
Jeroen Roovers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Aug 2008 20:17:48 -0600
> Ryan Hill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Should LICENSE changes require a revision bump?
>
> No.
>
> Any ebuild should be published with a correct reference to a license.
> If y
On 27-08-2008 12:15:35 -0700, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
> For those not using SSH ControlMaster, one of the side-effects of having
> to do two separate commits is the SSH setup latency hitting twice.
>
> I wouldn't call it repoman's fault like Fabian did, but the
Right. I thought I suggested that
On 27-08-2008 11:57:30 -0700, Alec Warner wrote:
> > For who is it a mess? Not for repoman users, I suppose, and everyone
> > should be using it, right? As the one who personally played with the
> > code in repoman that determines whether or not the "double commit" is
> > necessary, I think it's
On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 11:57:30AM -0700, Alec Warner wrote:
> So you are saying we should do what?
>
> precompute the CVS header and inject it into $header$ ourselves
> take the checksums
> generate the manifest
> revert the $header$ change
> then commit the ebuild and manifest at once
>
> The o
On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 10:38 AM, Fabian Groffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 27-08-2008 10:28:57 -0700, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
>> On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 06:35:57PM +0200, Fabian Groffen wrote:
>> > For that reason I'd pretty much prefer to keep the CVS Header in place,
>> > unless there is a
On 27-08-2008 10:28:57 -0700, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 06:35:57PM +0200, Fabian Groffen wrote:
> > For that reason I'd pretty much prefer to keep the CVS Header in place,
> > unless there is a very good reason to remove it.
> As I wrote in the other thread, my reason for as
On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 06:35:57PM +0200, Fabian Groffen wrote:
> For that reason I'd pretty much prefer to keep the CVS Header in place,
> unless there is a very good reason to remove it.
As I wrote in the other thread, my reason for asking is that it's one of
the things that doesn't have clear ma
On Tue, 2008-08-26 at 13:40 -0700, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
> Q: How much have you utilized the primary use case?
Not at all
> Q: Are there any other use-cases you have and actively use?
No
On 26-08-2008 15:41:07 -0500, Yuri Vasilevski wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Aug 2008 13:40:36 -0700
> "Robin H. Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I'm doing some research on our usages of the $Header$ keyword in our
> > main CVS repo.
> >
> > Q: Are there any other use-cases you have and actively us
Ryan Hill wrote:
On the other hand, it also seems completely ridiculous from a practical
POV to have to wait 30 days (and waste arch team resources) to fix an
incorrect licence on a stable package.
And have everyone recompile the package, thus wasting cpu cycles and
users' time.
I would have
Yuri Vasilevski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted
[EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Wed,
27 Aug 2008 09:34:27 -0500:
> As Another example, the user might statically link bits of the exact
> same library against a GPL-2 (not a GPL-2 or latter) program, just
> because he is misinformed by portage tha
Yuri Vasilevski a écrit :
> so, my point is that licences are very important in some environments
> and to some people, and having an inconsistently can cause serious
> legal problems to users. So it is very important to keep them in sync
> in all tree of upstream, portage tree and vdb tree.
And p
On Wed, 27 Aug 2008 08:10:06 +0200
Ulrich Mueller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Should LICENSE changes require a revision bump?
>
> No, since it would be a waste of users' resources.
>
> For example, if a dev has missed a change from GPL-2 to GPL-3 (which I
> guess is a common case), would you
Hi,
It won't be long before I ask for poppler-0.8 and -bindings to be
stabilized. This will bump the soname for poppler and force a rebuild
of all packages depending on it. I've opened a tracker bug at
http://bugs.gentoo.org/235897 where you can add a comment or place a
blocker bug if you want
14 matches
Mail list logo
