Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Future of gentoo's stable and unstable trees: what are your thoughts?

On 07/28/2017 12:44 PM, Alec Warner wrote: > > > On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 3:44 AM, Andreas K. Huettel > > wrote: > > Am Dienstag, 25. Juli 2017, 01:22:44 CEST schrieb Peter Stuge: > > > > I hold a perhaps radical view: I would like

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Future of gentoo's stable and unstable trees: what are your thoughts?

On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 3:44 PM, Alec Warner wrote: > > On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 3:44 AM, Andreas K. Huettel > wrote: >> >> Am Dienstag, 25. Juli 2017, 01:22:44 CEST schrieb Peter Stuge: >> > >> > I hold a perhaps radical view: I would like to simply

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC] Future of gentoo's stable and unstable trees: what are your thoughts?

On Fri, 28 Jul 2017 21:45:57 + (UTC) Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote: > William L. Thomson Jr. posted on Fri, 28 Jul 2017 16:10:42 -0400 as > excerpted: > > > It seems odd that upstream will release a package. Just for > > downstream to consider it not stable. Did it get messed up during

[gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC] Future of gentoo's stable and unstable trees: what are your thoughts?

William L. Thomson Jr. posted on Fri, 28 Jul 2017 16:10:42 -0400 as excerpted: > It seems odd that upstream will release a package. Just for downstream > to consider it not stable. Did it get messed up during packaging? Did it > get messed up by the distro? The whole lag thing does not make sense

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Future of gentoo's stable and unstable trees: what are your thoughts?

On Fri, 28 Jul 2017 16:12:26 -0500 "A. Wilcox" wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA256 > > On 28/07/17 15:10, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote: > > Gentoo is as stable as YOU make it > > And by "YOU", that would be the people writing ebuilds and

[gentoo-dev] Project:Bazaar has no members now!

Hi, everyone. It seems that recently the last member has left the Bazaar project [1]. FWICS, the project was focused on maintaining packages related to Bazaar VCS (list below). I'm not sure if that's really a worthwhile reason to run a whole project -- we don't have git, Mercurial and so on

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Future of gentoo's stable and unstable trees: what are your thoughts?

On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 07:03:25PM -0500, Denis Dupeyron wrote: > On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 6:41 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: > > > > When in the last 16 years was this 2 year period of running stable? > > The general state of QA has varied quite a bit over that time. > > > > I would

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Future of gentoo's stable and unstable trees: what are your thoughts?

On Fri, 2017-07-28 at 15:59 -0400, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote: > On Fri, 28 Jul 2017 23:10:35 +1000 > "Sam Jorna (wraeth)" wrote: > > > On 28 July 2017 8:44:20 PM AEST, "Andreas K. Huettel" > > wrote: > > > > > That's not feasible. It would kill off

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Future of gentoo's stable and unstable trees: what are your thoughts?

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 28/07/17 15:10, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote: > Gentoo is as stable as YOU make it And by "YOU", that would be the people writing ebuilds and committing them without test suites or integration testing of any kind. The devs who yell and

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Future of gentoo's stable and unstable trees: what are your thoughts?

Gentoo is as stable as YOU make it I have run Gentoo exclusively as well for 14+ years, since ~2003. While my production servers are all mostly stable, none are 100%. All production systems have some ~arch packages, usually mine. Development network and desktops/laptops have always been

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Future of gentoo's stable and unstable trees: what are your thoughts?

On Fri, 28 Jul 2017 23:10:35 +1000 "Sam Jorna (wraeth)" wrote: > On 28 July 2017 8:44:20 PM AEST, "Andreas K. Huettel" > wrote: > > >That's not feasible. It would kill off any semi-professional or > >professional > >Gentoo use, where a minimum of

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Future of gentoo's stable and unstable trees: what are your thoughts?

On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 3:44 AM, Andreas K. Huettel wrote: > Am Dienstag, 25. Juli 2017, 01:22:44 CEST schrieb Peter Stuge: > > > > I hold a perhaps radical view: I would like to simply remove stable. > > > > I continue to feel that maintaining two worlds (stable+unstable)

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCH v2] Support different compressors for binary packages

The patch is looking really good now. Thanks for working on this! On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 2:59 AM, Manuel Rüger wrote: > @@ -518,6 +526,26 @@ def doebuild_environment(myebuild, mydo, myroot=None, > settings=None, > mysettings["KV"] = "" >

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Future of gentoo's stable and unstable trees: what are your thoughts?

On 28 July 2017 8:44:20 PM AEST, "Andreas K. Huettel" wrote: >Am Dienstag, 25. Juli 2017, 01:22:44 CEST schrieb Peter Stuge: >> >> I hold a perhaps radical view: I would like to simply remove stable. >> >> I continue to feel that maintaining two worlds (stable+unstable)

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Future of gentoo's stable and unstable trees: what are your thoughts?

On 2017-07-28 12:43, Andreas K. Huettel wrote: >> I continue to feel that maintaining two worlds (stable+unstable) >> carries with it an unneccessary cost. > That's not feasible. It would kill off any semi-professional or > professional Gentoo use, where a minimum of stability is required. This.

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Future of gentoo's stable and unstable trees: what are your thoughts?

Am Dienstag, 25. Juli 2017, 01:22:44 CEST schrieb Peter Stuge: > > I hold a perhaps radical view: I would like to simply remove stable. > > I continue to feel that maintaining two worlds (stable+unstable) > carries with it an unneccessary cost. > That's not feasible. It would kill off any

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC pre-GLEP] Gentoo Git Workflow

Am Dienstag, 25. Juli 2017, 10:05:06 CEST schrieb Michał Górny: > Hi, everyone. > > There have been multiple attempts at grasping this but none so far > resulted in something official and indisputable. At the same time, we > end having to point our users at semi-official guides which change > in

[gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCH v2] Support different compressors for binary packages

This patch allows to set the compressor for binary packages via a BINPKG_COMPRESSION variable. BINPKG_COMPRESSION_ARGS allows to specify command-line arguments for the chosen compressor. --- bin/misc-functions.sh | 6 ++- bin/quickpkg