Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: New category for Lua related packages
I've just created a tracker bug [1] and CC'd the affected maintainers. [1] http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=344229 Best regards, -- Rafael Goncalves Martins Gentoo Linux developer http://rafaelmartins.eng.br/
Re: [gentoo-dev] Upcoming git.overlays.g.o Maintenance: 2010/11/06 (Saturday) 15:00-16:00 UTC
What will change and for whom? In this mail (Table of contents) Information for ... - Everyone - New public key file format - Your real name - Your mail address - Nicknames - SSH options - Multiple keys - Querying your permissions - Repository owners - Overlay admins Everyone New public key file format -- We have a new ssh public key format. The old one contained only your pubkey while the new format expects at least your pubkey + 3 "variables". Example of the new format: # git-realname: [# git-realname-ascii: ] # git-email: # git-username: [ ] [..] git-realname, git-email, and git-username are required. Your real name ^^ git-realname-ascii is optional and only necessary if your real name contains non-ASCII chars. Your mail address - Your mail address will not be sent to cia.vc! It's only used a) to be able to contact you in case something goes wrong, or b) in case you commit to a repo where each commit will be sent to gentoo-comm...@lists.gentoo.org. It will be obfuscated to avoid spam. Nicknames ^ All current keys have been updated either by hand or one of the Overlay admins already got the right data for those variables. Otherwise the default user name is the same as you use to commit. For Gentoo devs it's the nick. SSH options ^^^ SSH key options like 'from="..."' are allowed, any forbidden options will be stripped automatically. Multiple keys ^ If you have multiple keys simply put them into one pubkey file or send us multiple pubkey files, for the required filename take a look at [3]. Querying your permissions - You're also able to see what permissions you were granted on a certain repository, see [4]. Repository owners (including everyone with a dev overlay) = Branch- and file-specific access rules -- You're now able to get branch based access rules for your repository in place [1]. The default permission is now "RW+" (read, write, forced pushing) for all users that had write access before. It's up to you if you want someone to have other permissions, like "RW" (i.e. with forced pushing denied). See [1] for further information about permissions and esp. differences between permissions. Overlay admins == First of all, you should take a look at example.conf, it's included in the admin repository. Furthermore take a look at the available permissions and branch based access rules [1]. Also important for you are: [4,5,6,7,8]. The group @all includes _all_, so even gitweb and git daemon. If you say "R = @all" it means that anybody can read/clone this repo via SSH/git daemon/DAV and gitweb has read permissions. If you don't want to enable gitweb, use "- = gitweb" or "daemon" for git-daemon. NOTE: If you add a repository description, gitweb will automatically get read access! You cannot break gitolite as easily as gitosis. gitolite "compiles" the config first and it'll tell you about any errors. You're still able to fix your mistakes yourself then, unlike before where you had to contact somebody from infra in such an event. [1] http://github.com/sitaramc/gitolite/blob/pu/conf/example.conf [2] http://github.com/sitaramc/gitolite/blob/pu/doc/3-faq-tips-etc.mkd#_one_user_many_keys [3] http://github.com/sitaramc/gitolite/blob/pu/doc/report-output.mkd [4] http://github.com/sitaramc/gitolite/blob/pu/doc/2-admin.mkd [5] http://github.com/sitaramc/gitolite/blob/pu/doc/3-faq-tips-etc.mkd [6] http://github.com/sitaramc/gitolite/blob/pu/doc/delegation.mkd [7] http://github.com/sitaramc/gitolite/blob/pu/doc/gitolite-and-ssh.mkd [8] http://github.com/sitaramc/gitolite/blob/pu/doc/progit-article.mkd -- Regards, Christian Ruppert Role: Gentoo Linux developer, Bugzilla administrator and Infrastructure member Fingerprint: EEB1 C341 7C84 B274 6C59 F243 5EAB 0C62 B427 ABC8 signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
[gentoo-dev] Upcoming git.overlays.g.o Maintenance: 2010/11/06 (Saturday) 15:00-16:00 UTC
Hey guys, We're going to migrate our git.overlays.gentoo.org backend from gitosis to gitolite. It'll bring us new features, more flexibility and it's more robust. For more details read my upcoming mail about it. When: 2010/11/06 (Saturday) 15:00-16:00 UTC Read/Write access to git.overlays.g.o will be disabled during the migration. NOTE: Only git is affected! Planned is a maximum of 1 hour downtime. It might be less or in the worst case a bit more. I'll let you know as soon as it is back up again. -- Regards, Christian Ruppert Role: Gentoo Linux developer, Bugzilla administrator and Infrastructure member Fingerprint: EEB1 C341 7C84 B274 6C59 F243 5EAB 0C62 B427 ABC8 signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Lastrite app-pda/*synce*
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 04-11-2010 18:34, Samuli Suominen wrote: > On 11/04/2010 09:13 PM, Olivier Galibert wrote: >> On Thu, Nov 04, 2010 at 09:03:13PM +0200, Samuli Suominen wrote: >>> # Samuli Suominen (04 Nov 2010) >>> # Over 20 open bugs, http://tinyurl.com/2wurbtz >>> # Bugs assigned to a proxy maintainer without CVS access >>> # Every package outdated, bug 340007 >>> # Removal in 30 days >> >> The bug 340007 you're citing shows that people are working on adding >> the next version but are not done yet. What's the point of this >> masking/removal besides fucking up the installation of people who use >> the software? >> >> OG. >> > > Watch your language. Nobody with commit access is working on it, the bug > has only comments from users (and a retired developer in CC list). Samuli, there was a very recent thread in this ml about these packages and the conclusion was that they fall to the pda herd. The proxy-user also asked for help and showed interest in working to become a developer. As such, did you contact the pda herd about these packages? Did peper drop the herd from these packages? Waiting more than 1 day to "kill" these wouldn't "hurt us". - -- Regards, Jorge Vicetto (jmbsvicetto) - jmbsvicetto at gentoo dot org Gentoo- forums / Userrel / Devrel / KDE / Elections / RelEng -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.16 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJM0w4aAAoJEC8ZTXQF1qEPTh0P/1IZK4Gdu7WqJxlL7vSgf2to rSBAljrLDP7Ye6YkDKLVSRooWZDGfI0dkxvjIHEZhuvnekpolLjcct56tKzkPw47 buEyKIfFFyROBL6++brvE1aseSd+FGryqivd424+eYVkxw6tr+2yYWUEnZdFF+pX TBBTn3YxsvIy4KmRErdIoWebjP19Q9QIhJy0FUFBkOTJKKCGXrfptT1NogPHTZ1X XMUU8nBODuYKezw80FHmZ4yURbWMgXMnhz5lQbxgvYH8JMHYpoAbqRF7L4sKtScV I6AnH96dmtKqShGLTvVYunzMhPl+CFjboAHzQw9/A2duRbsIHyxcQKvHTx+NstHp yIwujpLblpXlykjIxwfTztuN2Fc+WfNuHJVdHgypMnj038KenG6jYWRlNs+pzx0T Cws41czGJd0nYbJ9vyN4iC5/ZIQZEccWswcLWFPsZUE2ldoDeNbn89gEA/eZPk1+ qMPxaGoZfc2GZkvj6SSN5GYm0Kc2wxfOs+XZuaNzp0Q0Q406/U7yACXsPeUN7+E9 X3gMkV1RS+/QvnuIhv+qmDrXQSseZIbnSHcd+hUq3G5rKHMc2NCU8mVvS+LuFTot jdqPKjBmdZOU7eRTaMMqLvtXmsJP1dvWLgTWhLNv2c1atH2mK4qQmlQKFJZtw12+ KRmlcpf14+48ryaZg4JP =G9wH -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [gentoo-dev] Lastrite app-pda/*synce*
On 11/04/2010 09:13 PM, Olivier Galibert wrote: > On Thu, Nov 04, 2010 at 09:03:13PM +0200, Samuli Suominen wrote: >> # Samuli Suominen (04 Nov 2010) >> # Over 20 open bugs, http://tinyurl.com/2wurbtz >> # Bugs assigned to a proxy maintainer without CVS access >> # Every package outdated, bug 340007 >> # Removal in 30 days > > The bug 340007 you're citing shows that people are working on adding > the next version but are not done yet. What's the point of this > masking/removal besides fucking up the installation of people who use > the software? > > OG. > Watch your language. Nobody with commit access is working on it, the bug has only comments from users (and a retired developer in CC list).
Re: [gentoo-dev] Lastrite app-pda/*synce*
On Thu, Nov 04, 2010 at 09:03:13PM +0200, Samuli Suominen wrote: > # Samuli Suominen (04 Nov 2010) > # Over 20 open bugs, http://tinyurl.com/2wurbtz > # Bugs assigned to a proxy maintainer without CVS access > # Every package outdated, bug 340007 > # Removal in 30 days The bug 340007 you're citing shows that people are working on adding the next version but are not done yet. What's the point of this masking/removal besides fucking up the installation of people who use the software? OG.
[gentoo-dev] Re: Policy about adding prefix keywords
On 04-11-2010 18:00:10 +0100, Markus Duft wrote: > I'm currently doing keywording of ebuilds for ~x86-interix prefix. Now > my question is: what's the current policy about committing prefix > keywords (and only keywords, no patches) to the gentoo-x86 tree. > Should I check back with maintainers, as with patches, or can i go > ahead and commit those? Keywords are an arch team thing, and you're your own arch team for interix, so you're free to add those keywords to any ebuild. > A second thing: I'm doing the keywording (and possibly patching) > against the latest versions available from the gx86 tree, which may > not necessarily match with versions from the prefix tree, if the > package is still in there. How should i go about merging those > changes? Update the prefix tree and apply them there? Commit the > changes to gx86, so both versions support prefix, but the one in gx86 > only interix? I don't really understand what you want. If the package is in the prefix tree, it needs to be migrated to gx86. If at the same time of migrating, you also add interix stuff, then that's fine with me, as long as the maintainer is. Of course, you need to take care that you bring over all necessary changes, remove the package from the prefix tree, and add it to the whitelist.txt file. -- Fabian Groffen Gentoo on a different level
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in net-irc/quassel: metadata.xml ChangeLog quassel-9999.ebuild quassel-0.7.1.ebuild
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Dne 4.11.2010 18:40, Mark Loeser napsal(a): > Please do remove the flag. The fact that there are some ebuilds in the > tree that use it does not make it alright to introduce more. > > Thanks, > You should read cvs log first :) I already did at the moment they reported it. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.16 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAkzS8Y4ACgkQHB6c3gNBRYcVowCfbLWQvR7micSnv+v/NtFUCpQp ngoAoKhNjIYT8uWgogSuwGcisuJSM+88 =692t -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in net-irc/quassel: metadata.xml ChangeLog quassel-9999.ebuild quassel-0.7.1.ebuild
On 11/4/10 6:40 PM, Mark Loeser wrote: > Please do remove the flag. The fact that there are some ebuilds in the > tree that use it does not make it alright to introduce more. Yeah, the "he's doing that too" bad excuse... But there is a right point in that: why QA doesn't just commit fixes to the ebuilds that misuse the logrotate flag? signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in net-irc/quassel: metadata.xml ChangeLog quassel-9999.ebuild quassel-0.7.1.ebuild
Tomáš Chvátal said: > Dne 4.11.2010 15:37, Jeremy Olexa napsal(a): > > On Thu, 4 Nov 2010 14:33:59 + (UTC), Tomas Chvatal (scarabeus) wrote: > >> scarabeus10/11/04 14:33:59 > >> > >> Modified: metadata.xml ChangeLog quassel-.ebuild > >> quassel-0.7.1.ebuild > >> Log: > >> Introduce logrotate useflag. > > > > Please remove the logrotate useflag, it should NOT be introduced. > > > > https://bugs.gentoo.org/198901 - "[TRACKER] Nuking logrotate use flag" > > > > -Jeremy > You've got 3 years to get rid of that local useflag entirely, yet still > 5 ebuilds use it. > So do me a favor, remove it proactively if you really want to have it gone. Please do remove the flag. The fact that there are some ebuilds in the tree that use it does not make it alright to introduce more. Thanks, -- Mark Loeser email - halcy0n AT gentoo DOT org email - mark AT halcy0n DOT com web - http://www.halcy0n.com signature.asc Description: Digital signature
[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in net-irc/quassel: metadata.xml ChangeLog quassel-9999.ebuild quassel-0.7.1.ebuild
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Dne 4.11.2010 15:37, Jeremy Olexa napsal(a): > On Thu, 4 Nov 2010 14:33:59 + (UTC), Tomas Chvatal (scarabeus) wrote: >> scarabeus10/11/04 14:33:59 >> >> Modified: metadata.xml ChangeLog quassel-.ebuild >> quassel-0.7.1.ebuild >> Log: >> Introduce logrotate useflag. > > Please remove the logrotate useflag, it should NOT be introduced. > > https://bugs.gentoo.org/198901 - "[TRACKER] Nuking logrotate use flag" > > -Jeremy You've got 3 years to get rid of that local useflag entirely, yet still 5 ebuilds use it. So do me a favor, remove it proactively if you really want to have it gone. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.16 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAkzSx4kACgkQHB6c3gNBRYfiagCfYojScpuXS0MZzXxywg+3+oc+ 7yYAn1A8mPTJ6Kda22te4pmycoaIjdf9 =rFhE -END PGP SIGNATURE-
[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in net-irc/quassel: metadata.xml ChangeLog quassel-9999.ebuild quassel-0.7.1.ebuild
Tomas Chvatal (scarabeus) : > scarabeus 10/11/04 14:33:59 > > Modified: metadata.xml ChangeLog quassel-.ebuild > quassel-0.7.1.ebuild > Log: > Introduce logrotate useflag. > Please don't! See http://bugs.gentoo.org/198901 -- Daniel Pielmeier
[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in net-irc/quassel: metadata.xml ChangeLog quassel-9999.ebuild quassel-0.7.1.ebuild
On Thu, 4 Nov 2010 14:33:59 + (UTC), Tomas Chvatal (scarabeus) wrote: scarabeus10/11/04 14:33:59 Modified: metadata.xml ChangeLog quassel-.ebuild quassel-0.7.1.ebuild Log: Introduce logrotate useflag. Please remove the logrotate useflag, it should NOT be introduced. https://bugs.gentoo.org/198901 - "[TRACKER] Nuking logrotate use flag" -Jeremy
