Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Stabilisation procedure

On 11/22/2016 12:06 AM, Alice Ferrazzi wrote: > On Sat, Nov 19, 2016 at 12:55:09AM -0800, Daniel Campbell wrote: >> On 11/17/2016 01:07 PM, Robin H. Johnson wrote: >>> On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 03:05:41PM +0100, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote: > Isn't it implied that any stabilisation is approved

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Userkit.eclass

On 11/23/2016 01:08 AM, Michał Górny wrote: > On Wed, 23 Nov 2016 09:44:33 +0100 > Manuel Rüger wrote: > >> I have not started to write it, but I am considering it and rather want >> to gather feedback on my idea first. >> I am aware that https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/GLEP:27

[gentoo-dev] Last rites: app-emulation/open-vm-tools-kmod

# Mike Gilbert (25 Nov 2016) # Modules are now part of app-emulation/open-vm-tools. # Removal in 30 days. app-emulation/open-vm-tools-kmod

Re: [gentoo-dev] Packages up for grabs

> > AFAIK they are not intended to be installed as compiled code at all. > You are supposed to bundle them, or otherwise compile them from sources > along with your project. > > You are correct, apparently they changed their stance on this some time ago as you can read here:

[gentoo-dev] [warning] the bug queue has 86 bugs

Our bug queue has 86 bugs! If you have some spare time, please help assign/sort a few bugs. To view the bug queue, click here: http://bit.ly/m8PQS5 Thanks!

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCH] repos.conf: support strict-misc-digests attribute (bug 600128)

On 11/24/2016 02:24 PM, Robin H. Johnson wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 11:04:54PM -0800, Zac Medico wrote: >> The current GLEP 60 draft specifies that non-strict handling of MISC >> digests should be supported. > In my followup post about how it should work, I noted that in non-strict >

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCH] unpack: fix txz unpack support (bug 600660)

On 11/24/2016 11:07 AM, Brian Dolbec wrote: > On Thu, 24 Nov 2016 10:46:21 -0800 > Zac Medico wrote: > >> Since txz unpack support was added in commit >> daa65a336102050396482f08c77524fe99e48c9f, it has been non-functional, >> as follows: >> >> phase-helpers.sh: line 521:

Re: [gentoo-dev] Packages up for grabs

On Fri, 25 Nov 2016 12:25:37 -0500 Mike Gilbert wrote: > On Fri, Nov 25, 2016 at 10:06 AM, Thomas Kahle wrote: > > Hi, > > > > I'd like to pass on maintainership of > > > > dev-cpp/gtest > > dev-cpp/gmock > > > > I don't use them and I don't even remember

Re: [gentoo-dev] Packages up for grabs

On Fri, Nov 25, 2016 at 10:06 AM, Thomas Kahle wrote: > Hi, > > I'd like to pass on maintainership of > > dev-cpp/gtest > dev-cpp/gmock > > I don't use them and I don't even remember how I came to maintain > them. These two are among the packages that have googlecode in > their

Re: [gentoo-dev] Packages up for grabs

Hi, I use them so I don't mind (proxy) maintaining them. gr, Mathy -- Met vriendelijke groeten, Best regards, Mathy Vanvoorden 2016-11-25 16:06 GMT+01:00 Thomas Kahle : > Hi, > > I'd like to pass on maintainership of > > dev-cpp/gtest > dev-cpp/gmock > > I don't use them

[gentoo-dev] Packages up for grabs

Hi, I'd like to pass on maintainership of dev-cpp/gtest dev-cpp/gmock I don't use them and I don't even remember how I came to maintain them. These two are among the packages that have googlecode in their SRC_URI, so this is a bit urgent. Upstream has moved to github and merged the two

[gentoo-dev] Re: Improving the stabilisation process - part 1

On 25/11/16 21:00, Jason Zaman wrote: > On Fri, Nov 25, 2016 at 08:27:12PM +1100, Michael Palimaka wrote: >> On 25/11/16 17:51, Jason Zaman wrote: Automation == It's easy to forget to check that all the required dependencies are in stable before filing a

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Improving the stabilisation process - part 1

On Fri, 25 Nov 2016 20:05:55 +1100 Michael Palimaka wrote: > I'm not sure what you mean. A standardised format and a bot to repoman > check lists in this format is part of my original post. Ah. I didn't take enough care reading it and mostly replied on the earlier part.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Improving the stabilisation process - part 1

On Fri, Nov 25, 2016 at 08:27:12PM +1100, Michael Palimaka wrote: > On 25/11/16 17:51, Jason Zaman wrote: > >> Automation > >> == > >> > >> It's easy to forget to check that all the required dependencies are in > >> stable before filing a stabilisation test, but this wastes the actioning >

[gentoo-dev] Re: Improving the stabilisation process - part 1

On 25/11/16 17:51, Jason Zaman wrote: >> Automation >> == >> >> It's easy to forget to check that all the required dependencies are in >> stable before filing a stabilisation test, but this wastes the actioning >> developer's time. I have prepared a bot that repoman checks the list of >>

[gentoo-dev] Re: Improving the stabilisation process - part 1

On 25/11/16 18:51, Kent Fredric wrote: > On Fri, 25 Nov 2016 14:40:36 +0800 > Jason Zaman wrote: > >> One way would be to use a plain text attachment with a standardized >> filename. If there are updates to the list then the new should obsolete >> the old and the script can

[gentoo-dev] Re: Improving the stabilisation process - part 1

On 25/11/16 17:40, Jason Zaman wrote: > On Fri, Nov 25, 2016 at 05:54:41PM +1300, Kent Fredric wrote: >> On Fri, 25 Nov 2016 06:41:20 +1100 >> Michael Palimaka wrote: >> >>> Example atom list from a bug with amd64, arm, and x86 in CC: >>> >>> =app-foo/bar-1.2.3 #

Re: [gentoo-dev] new eclass: tmpfiles.eclass round 3

On Wed, 16 Nov 2016 16:37:15 -0600 William Hubbs wrote: > # @FUNCTION: tmpfiles_process > # @USAGE: tmpfiles_process ... > # @DESCRIPTION: > # Call a tmpfiles.d implementation to create new volatile and temporary > # files and directories. > # Specific files and