[gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: bugzilla flags for arch-testing

2010-04-26 Thread Ryan Hill
On Mon, 26 Apr 2010 11:40:07 +0200 "Paweł Hajdan, Jr." wrote: > After a consensus is reached, I'm going to file a bug for infra for > necessary changes in bugzilla configuration. https://bugs.gentoo.org/213514 -- fonts,by design, by neglect gcc-p

[gentoo-dev] Last Rites: app-text/manedit

2010-04-26 Thread Paul Varner
# Paul Varner (26 Apr 2010) # Masking for removal (bug #315947). # It doesn't compile with newer versions of zlib, still uses gtk1+, and # upstream is unresponsive. Unfortunately, there is not a suitable # replacement. app-text/manedit

[gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: bugzilla flags for arch-testing

2010-04-26 Thread Christian Faulhammer
Hi, "Robin H. Johnson" : > How about the following instead, going into the status whiteboard: > AT:x86:+ > AT:x86:- > AT:x86:? > with the same meanings that you defined. > > It should be just as easy to search, and you can do it today already. Yes, sounds good. What is the best way to document

Re: [gentoo-dev] Requiring two sets of eyes for all eclass commits

2010-04-26 Thread Steev Klimaszewski
On Sun, Apr 25, 2010 at 5:42 PM, Alistair Bush wrote: Use common sense here. ^^ Seems pretty clear to me.

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: bugzilla flags for arch-testing

2010-04-26 Thread Robin H. Johnson
On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 11:40:07AM +0200, "Paweł Hajdan, Jr." wrote: > Also, I think it may be useful for other arch teams (like amd64). One > solution would be to add yet another flag, like amd64-at, but maybe we > can have some better ideas. The problem here is that it becomes extremely messy whe

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Requiring two sets of eyes for all eclass commits

2010-04-26 Thread Paul Varner
On Sun, 2010-04-25 at 13:11 +0300, Petteri Räty wrote: > On 04/25/2010 01:06 PM, Ryan Hill wrote: > > On Sat, 24 Apr 2010 20:40:54 +0300 > > Petteri Räty wrote: > > > >> What do you think about not allowing commits to eclasses without > >> mentioning an another developer who has reviewed and appr

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: bugzilla flags for arch-testing

2010-04-26 Thread Paweł Hajdan, Jr.
On 4/26/10 12:34 PM, Matti Bickel wrote: > On 04/26/2010 11:40 AM, "Paweł Hajdan, Jr." wrote: >> To make it easier to find stabilization bugs with arch-testers' >> comments, I'd like to add new flags to Gentoo bugzilla. > > Can you explain how the "TESTED" Keyword is not sufficient for your > goal

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: bugzilla flags for arch-testing

2010-04-26 Thread Matti Bickel
On 04/26/2010 11:40 AM, "Paweł Hajdan, Jr." wrote: > To make it easier to find stabilization bugs with arch-testers' > comments, I'd like to add new flags to Gentoo bugzilla. Can you explain how the "TESTED" Keyword is not sufficient for your goal? It explicitly states: "Ebuilds that have been mar

[gentoo-dev] RFC: bugzilla flags for arch-testing

2010-04-26 Thread Paweł Hajdan, Jr.
To make it easier to find stabilization bugs with arch-testers' comments, I'd like to add new flags to Gentoo bugzilla. This is only an initial idea, and maybe a different implementation would be better (like the status whiteboard, if it's easily searchable). Initially, I'd like a new flag x86-at

[gentoo-dev] deblobbing kernel sources redux (ATTN all overlays with kernel sources packages)

2010-04-26 Thread Robin H. Johnson
This notice is mainly intended for everybody that maintains kernel sources ebuilds in their overlay. This evening I merged the deblob support from bug #266157, and depending on your kernel source ebuilds, you may need to run a digest pass or tweak them. There are two new variables recognized by k