On Sun, 2014-01-26 at 16:35 -0500, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 1:56 PM, Peter Stuge wrote:
> >
> > I don't think that's "completely optional" though, it sounds like a
> > one-way function. If have ever stabilized a package once then must
> > ensure a stable package forever.
> >
>
On Sun, 2014-01-26 at 21:00 +0100, Michał Górny wrote:
> Hi again.
>
> If someone is interested in the results of my tests and benchmarks,
> I've uploaded the initial version of my article on the topic in our
> dev-space.
>
> http://dev.gentoo.org/~mgorny/tmp/squashfs-deltas.pdf
>
> I am terribl
# Dion Moult (27 Jan 2014)
# Mask for removal in 30 days. Used to be used by farsight1 but no longer. No
# other reverse deps. (bug #489550)
dev-libs/jrtplib
dev-libs/jthread
--
Dion Moult
Mike Gilbert wrote:
> It would really nice to have a solution for the few users who do
> have this set that does not involve adding code to random eclasses,
> or leaving things broken for X months/years until all ebuilds can
> be bumped to EAPI 6.
Is there any other solution for users than fixing
The attached list notes all of the packages that were added or removed
from the tree, for the week ending 2014-01-26 23h59 UTC.
Removals:
kde-base/solid 2014-01-20 08:24:49 kensington
kde-base/kuiviewer 2014-01-20 08:25:28 kensington
kde-base/k
Duncan posted on Sun, 26 Jan 2014 22:56:24 + as excerpted:
> Tho AFAIK both Ubuntu and Fedora have an arm variants...
Ugh! Incomplete editing! Me ungrammatical caveman!
s/have an arm variants/have arm variants/
--
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program ha
On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 5:03 PM, Ciaran McCreesh
wrote:
> On Sun, 26 Jan 2014 22:59:59 +0100
> Michał Górny wrote:
>> Dnia 2014-01-26, o godz. 21:35:27
>> Ciaran McCreesh napisał(a):
>> > On Sun, 26 Jan 2014 13:21:44 -0800
>> > Alec Warner wrote:
>> > > Sorry, I work on Portage. What I'm saying
Rich Freeman posted on Sat, 25 Jan 2014 19:59:19 -0500 as excerpted:
> On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 11:02 PM, Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote:
>> I've often wondered just how much faster gentoo could move, and how
>> much better we could keep up with upstream, if we weren't so focused on
>> 30+day
On Sun, 26 Jan 2014 22:59:59 +0100
Michał Górny wrote:
> Dnia 2014-01-26, o godz. 21:35:27
> Ciaran McCreesh napisał(a):
> > On Sun, 26 Jan 2014 13:21:44 -0800
> > Alec Warner wrote:
> > > Sorry, I work on Portage. What I'm saying is that We are free to
> > > change the behavior of *portage* now
Dnia 2014-01-26, o godz. 21:35:27
Ciaran McCreesh napisał(a):
> On Sun, 26 Jan 2014 13:21:44 -0800
> Alec Warner wrote:
> > Sorry, I work on Portage. What I'm saying is that We are free to
> > change the behavior of *portage* now; rather than waiting for a new
> > EAPI. If an ebuild needs to def
On Sun, 26 Jan 2014 13:21:44 -0800
Alec Warner wrote:
> Sorry, I work on Portage. What I'm saying is that We are free to
> change the behavior of *portage* now; rather than waiting for a new
> EAPI. If an ebuild needs to define EAPI=eapi-next to 'correctly' use
> XDG_*, well that is someone else's
On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 1:56 PM, Peter Stuge wrote:
>
> I don't think that's "completely optional" though, it sounds like a
> one-way function. If have ever stabilized a package once then must
> ensure a stable package forever.
>
> I think arbitrarily removing stable versions should also be an opt
On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 12:49 PM, Ciaran McCreesh <
ciaran.mccre...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 26 Jan 2014 12:43:37 -0800
> Alec Warner wrote:
> > I don't buy that. The behavior appears to be currently undefined.
> > Changing it to different undefined behavior is allowed.
>
> The point of u
On Sun, 26 Jan 2014 12:43:37 -0800
Alec Warner wrote:
> I don't buy that. The behavior appears to be currently undefined.
> Changing it to different undefined behavior is allowed.
The point of undefined behaviour is that anything that is relying upon
undefined behaviour doing a particular thing i
On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 4:19 PM, Mike Gilbert wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 7:10 PM, Mike Gilbert wrote:
> > On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 4:16 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
> >> Dnia 2014-01-25, o godz. 11:13:38
> >> Mike Gilbert napisał(a):
> >>
> >>> It seems having XDG variables like XDG_CONFIG_HOM
Hi again.
If someone is interested in the results of my tests and benchmarks,
I've uploaded the initial version of my article on the topic in our
dev-space.
http://dev.gentoo.org/~mgorny/tmp/squashfs-deltas.pdf
I am terribly busy with the uni right now so it will take some time
before I continue
Rich Freeman wrote:
> > Why not make stable completely optional for arch teams?
>
> Stable already is completely optional for the arch teams, and that is
> why we have concerns over stable requests taking forever on minor
> archs in the first place. If the package wasn't marked as stable in
> the
On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 11:53 PM, Peter Stuge wrote:
> Rich Freeman wrote:
>> It seems like the simplest solution in these cases is to just have
>> them focus on @system packages for the stable tree, and let users
>> deal with more breakage outside of that set
>
> Why not make stable completely op
On 01/26/2014 01:57 AM, Chris Reffett wrote:
> On 01/25/2014 12:22 PM, Andrew Hamilton wrote:
>> On 1/25/2014 9:24 AM, Markos Chandras wrote:
>>> On 11/10/2013 06:12 AM, Johann Schmitz wrote:
- gpg control packet
>> I already have too many packages to take care of but my company
>> is
19 matches
Mail list logo
