[gentoo-dev] Reminder about touching profiles

2008-11-10 Thread Raúl Porcel
Please, when you need to touch a profile, remember to do it on both 2007.0 and 2008.0 profiles. The files you need to touch are in: arch/$ARCH default-linux/$ARCH Stop using default/linux/$ARCH unless you need to touch an specific version of the profile, in that case it would be

Re: [gentoo-dev] To ELISA, PIGMENT, PIGMENT-PYTHON dev's

2008-11-10 Thread Daniel Pielmeier
2008/11/10 Mateusz Mierzwinski (me.matheos.org) [EMAIL PROTECTED]: I just want to install latest media-tv/Elisa (0.5.17 i think) (This is Linux MC) but guess what? There is no Elisa in portage (there was, because I was checking the forums and even found some Wiki about that - that was deleted

Re: [gentoo-dev] To ELISA, PIGMENT, PIGMENT-PYTHON dev's

2008-11-10 Thread Josh Saddler
Mateusz Mierzwinski (me.matheos.org) wrote: (stuff) http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=159086 signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature

[gentoo-dev] To ELISA, PIGMENT, PIGMENT-PYTHON dev's

2008-11-10 Thread Mateusz Mierzwinski (me.matheos.org)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi, I just want to install latest media-tv/Elisa (0.5.17 i think) (This is Linux MC) but guess what? There is no Elisa in portage (there was, because I was checking the forums and even found some Wiki about that - that was deleted because of

[gentoo-dev] Proposal for how to handle stable ebuilds

2008-11-10 Thread Mark Loeser
Instead of addressing archs as being slackers or not, this addresses it as a more granular layer of looking at ebuilds. Thanks to Richard Freeman for the initial proposal that I based this off of. Please give me feedback on this proposal, if you think it sucks (preferably with an explanation

Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposal for how to handle stable ebuilds

2008-11-10 Thread Ciaran McCreesh
On Mon, 10 Nov 2008 13:13:34 -0500 Mark Loeser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Arch teams will normally have 30 days from the day a bug was filed, keyworded STABLEREQ, the arch was CCed, and the maintainer either filed the bug or commented that it was OK to stabilize (clock starts when all of these

Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposal for how to handle stable ebuilds

2008-11-10 Thread Mart Raudsepp
On E, 2008-11-10 at 13:13 -0500, Mark Loeser wrote: Removing Stable Ebuilds If an ebuild meets the time criteria above, and there are no technical issues preventing stabilization, then the maintainer MAY choose to delete an older version even if it is the most recent stable version for a

Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposal for how to handle stable ebuilds

2008-11-10 Thread Steev Klimaszewski
On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 12:23 PM, Mart Raudsepp [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On E, 2008-11-10 at 13:13 -0500, Mark Loeser wrote: Removing Stable Ebuilds If an ebuild meets the time criteria above, and there are no technical issues preventing stabilization, then the maintainer MAY choose to delete

Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposal for how to handle stable ebuilds

2008-11-10 Thread Jeremy Olexa
Mark Loeser wrote: snip I really don't understand why it is better to break the stable trees of $ARCH instead of just making them all ~ARCH. (ie. ~mips, ~x86-fbsd, etc). If the $ARCH doesn't have the manpower to do stable reqs then they don't have the manpower to fix broken stable trees

Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for November

2008-11-10 Thread Donnie Berkholz
On 05:30 Sat 01 Nov , Mike Frysinger wrote: If you have something you'd wish for us to chat about, maybe even vote on, let us know ! Simply reply to this e-mail for the whole Gentoo dev list to see. If anyone has topics they want a council decision on, you really need to reply to this

Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposal for how to handle stable ebuilds

2008-11-10 Thread Santiago M. Mola
El lun, 10-11-2008 a las 13:13 -0500, Mark Loeser escribió: Ebuild Stabilization Time Arch teams will normally have 30 days from the day a bug was filed, keyworded STABLEREQ, the arch was CCed, and the maintainer either filed the bug or commented that it was OK to stabilize (clock starts

Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposal for how to handle stable ebuilds

2008-11-10 Thread Jose Luis Rivero
Mark Loeser wrote: Removing Stable Ebuilds If an ebuild meets the time criteria above, and there are no technical issues preventing stabilization, then the maintainer MAY choose to delete an older version even if it is the most recent stable version for a particular arch. Mark, I think you

Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposal for how to handle stable ebuilds

2008-11-10 Thread Mark Loeser
Jose Luis Rivero [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: Mark Loeser wrote: Removing Stable Ebuilds If an ebuild meets the time criteria above, and there are no technical issues preventing stabilization, then the maintainer MAY choose to delete an older version even if it is the most recent stable

Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposal for how to handle stable ebuilds

2008-11-10 Thread Richard Freeman
Jose Luis Rivero wrote: I would prefer to analyze the causes of the slacker arch (manpower, hardware, etc) and if we are not able to solve the problem by any way (asking for new devs, buying hardware, etc) go for mark it as experimental and drop all stable keywords. How is that better?