On 21/05/2013 05:03, Daniel Campbell wrote:
That's missing the point. If you don't run systemd, having unit files is
pointless. Thankfully there's INSTALL_MASK and whatnot, but that seems
like a hack instead of something more robust. Why include systemd unit
files (by default, with no systemd
On Tue, 21 May 2013 09:03:54 +0200
Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com wrote:
On 21/05/2013 05:03, Daniel Campbell wrote:
That's missing the point. If you don't run systemd, having unit files is
pointless. Thankfully there's INSTALL_MASK and whatnot, but that seems
like a hack instead of
On Mon, May 20, 2013, at 11:03 PM, Daniel Campbell wrote:
That's missing the point. If you don't run systemd, having unit files is
pointless. Thankfully there's INSTALL_MASK and whatnot, but that seems
like a hack instead of something more robust. Why include systemd unit
files (by default,
On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 11:03 PM, Daniel Campbell dlcampb...@gmx.com wrote:
something truly astonishing
Well, I have to at least thank you for turning this from just a
typical Gentoo flame-war into a breeding ground for LWN Quote of the
Week candidates.
Rich
William Hubbs wrote:
Steven J. Long wrote:
I haven't seen anyone say that in this entire discussion, but I might have
missed something. If a user wants to run GNOME, he [can] switch to systemd
is clearly not saying that, so we're left with an enigmatic some who
haven't
posted to this
Paweł Hajdan, Jr. schrieb:
Remember this is supposed to _help_ Gentoo. You can opt out of the bugs
(there is a package name and maintainer name regex in the script). You
don't need to hunt them down - if you do nothing another script will
just CC arches after 30 days.
Paweł
Uhm,
Thomas Sachau schrieb:
Uhm, automagic stabilization without maintainer ok? This sounds like a
bad idea. Doing a batch CC-ing after maintainer gave his ok or
anything similar, which starts, when someone actually aproved the
stable going is all ok, but doing this automaticly may get packages
On 05/20/2013 11:34 PM, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 3:03 AM, Daniel Campbell dlcampb...@gmx.com
wrote:
[snip]
That's missing the point. If you don't run systemd, having unit
files is pointless. Thankfully there's INSTALL_MASK and whatnot,
but that seems like a hack
On 21 May 2013 13:21, Thomas Sachau to...@gentoo.org wrote:
Paweł Hajdan, Jr. schrieb:
Remember this is supposed to _help_ Gentoo. You can opt out of the bugs
(there is a package name and maintainer name regex in the script). You
don't need to hunt them down - if you do nothing another script
Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn schrieb:
Thomas Sachau schrieb:
Uhm, automagic stabilization without maintainer ok? This sounds like a
bad idea. Doing a batch CC-ing after maintainer gave his ok or
anything similar, which starts, when someone actually aproved the
stable going is all ok, but
Markos Chandras schrieb:
On 21 May 2013 13:21, Thomas Sachau to...@gentoo.org wrote:
Paweł Hajdan, Jr. schrieb:
Remember this is supposed to _help_ Gentoo. You can opt out of the bugs
(there is a package name and maintainer name regex in the script). You
don't need to hunt them down - if you
On Tue, 21 May 2013 04:45:12 + (UTC)
Duncan 1i5t5.dun...@cox.net wrote:
But the point you're missing is that INSTALL_MASK is NOT a hack.
Sure it is. It's a hack and remains a hack until there's a way of using
it without risk of breakage.
--
Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP
On 05/21/2013 09:50 AM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Tue, 21 May 2013 04:45:12 + (UTC)
Duncan 1i5t5.dun...@cox.net wrote:
But the point you're missing is that INSTALL_MASK is NOT a hack.
Sure it is. It's a hack and remains a hack until there's a way of using
it without risk of breakage.
On Tue, 21 May 2013 09:57:53 -0400
Michael Mol mike...@gmail.com wrote:
On 05/21/2013 09:50 AM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Tue, 21 May 2013 04:45:12 + (UTC)
Duncan 1i5t5.dun...@cox.net wrote:
But the point you're missing is that INSTALL_MASK is NOT a hack.
Sure it is. It's a hack
On 05/21/2013 10:02 AM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Tue, 21 May 2013 09:57:53 -0400
Michael Mol mike...@gmail.com wrote:
On 05/21/2013 09:50 AM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Tue, 21 May 2013 04:45:12 + (UTC)
Duncan 1i5t5.dun...@cox.net wrote:
But the point you're missing is that INSTALL_MASK
On 5/21/13 6:38 AM, Thomas Sachau wrote:
And if a maintainer is not responding within 30 days, you can ping him
or, without a response, try to get a different maintainer. Just assuming
that a stable request is ok without a maintainer response is really not
a good idea.
Thomas, this effort is
On 21 May 2013 19:32, Paweł Hajdan, Jr. phajdan...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 5/21/13 6:38 AM, Thomas Sachau wrote:
And if a maintainer is not responding within 30 days, you can ping him
or, without a response, try to get a different maintainer. Just assuming
that a stable request is ok without a
On Tue, 21 May 2013 20:51:52 +0100
Markos Chandras hwoar...@gentoo.org wrote:
I'd rather not see this process changes, because it has helped
bringing the stable tree up2date. However, given that *a few* people
don't like it, I suggest you don't file bugs for packages owned by
them.
+1
I am
On 5/21/13 1:17 PM, Alexis Ballier wrote:
On Tue, 21 May 2013 20:51:52 +0100 Markos Chandras
hwoar...@gentoo.org wrote:
I'd rather not see this process changes, because it has helped
bringing the stable tree up2date. However, given that *a few*
people don't like it, I suggest you don't file
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 05/21/2013 09:20 AM, Markos Chandras wrote:
On 21 May 2013 13:21, Thomas Sachau to...@gentoo.org wrote:
Paweł Hajdan, Jr. schrieb:
Remember this is supposed to _help_ Gentoo. You can opt out of the bugs
(there is a package name and maintainer
Pawel,
Note that there are several things my script will ignore:
1. Packages with any bugs open.
2. Packages which have at least one ~arch dependency.
how about putting up a webpage documenting your script policies? Just to
shorten discussions like this one...
The page need not be
Am Dienstag, 21. Mai 2013, 15:38:44 schrieb Thomas Sachau:
And if a maintainer is not responding within 30 days, you can ping him
or, without a response, try to get a different maintainer. Just assuming
that a stable request is ok without a maintainer response is really not
a good idea.
If
Ciaran McCreesh posted on Tue, 21 May 2013 14:50:04 +0100 as excerpted:
On Tue, 21 May 2013 04:45:12 + (UTC)
Duncan 1i5t5.dun...@cox.net wrote:
But the point you're missing is that INSTALL_MASK is NOT a hack.
Sure it is. It's a hack and remains a hack until there's a way of using
it
On Tue, 21 May 2013 13:46:18 -0700
Paweł Hajdan, Jr. phajdan...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 5/21/13 1:17 PM, Alexis Ballier wrote:
On Tue, 21 May 2013 20:51:52 +0100 Markos Chandras
hwoar...@gentoo.org wrote:
I'd rather not see this process changes, because it has helped
bringing the stable
On Tue, 21 May 2013 21:37:25 + (UTC)
Duncan 1i5t5.dun...@cox.net wrote:
[snip] FIRE! [snip] hacks of tools, thank you very much! =:^)
Glad you like it! Something that breaks isn't a solution though...
It's a specifically designed part of the whole gentoo support of
choice system you
Paweł Hajdan, Jr. schrieb:
On 5/21/13 6:38 AM, Thomas Sachau wrote:
And if a maintainer is not responding within 30 days, you can ping him
or, without a response, try to get a different maintainer. Just assuming
that a stable request is ok without a maintainer response is really not
a good
Rick Zero_Chaos Farina schrieb:
On 05/21/2013 09:20 AM, Markos Chandras wrote:
On 21 May 2013 13:21, Thomas Sachau to...@gentoo.org wrote:
Paweł Hajdan, Jr. schrieb:
Remember this is supposed to _help_ Gentoo. You can opt out of the bugs
(there is a package name and maintainer name regex in
Am Mittwoch, 22. Mai 2013, 01:43:15 schrieb Thomas Sachau:
Who said, that bugmail is ignored? Repeating myself, it may be
accidently deleted by the dev or some software (hint: spam filters), it
may actually even be ignored to re-use the bug later. Since i dont
remember even seing a hint for
On Tue, 21 May 2013 16:17:30 -0400
Alexis Ballier aball...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Tue, 21 May 2013 20:51:52 +0100
Markos Chandras hwoar...@gentoo.org wrote:
I'd rather not see this process changes, because it has helped
bringing the stable tree up2date. However, given that *a few* people
On Sun, 19 May 2013 15:40:27 +0200
Jeroen Roovers j...@gentoo.org wrote:
OS: Linux
Status: CONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Is a stabilisation an enhancement per se? If all stabilisations are
enhancements, then why isn't Severity set to Normal
Tom Wijsman posted on Wed, 22 May 2013 00:52:15 +0200 as excerpted:
In the Portage tree we could avoid users from having to mask files,
because that could break their system anyway; eg. Go mask some typical
files [1], you'll end up breaking package compilations in the long run
as they need
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 05/21/2013 07:43 PM, Thomas Sachau wrote:
Rick Zero_Chaos Farina schrieb:
On 05/21/2013 09:20 AM, Markos Chandras wrote:
On 21 May 2013 13:21, Thomas Sachau to...@gentoo.org wrote:
Paweł Hajdan, Jr. schrieb:
Remember this is supposed to _help_
On Sat, 18 May 2013 12:14:35 -0700
Matt Turner matts...@gentoo.org wrote:
MMX2/MMXEXT still confuses me.
SSE1 and /Enhanced/ 3DNow! added some extra MMX instructions. Some
(pshufw and pmulhuw particularly) turn out to be rather useful in
software compositing. I use them in the pixman MMX
33 matches
Mail list logo
