Hi all,
I was nosing through bugzilla, and noticed:
* Number of open bugs is greater than 14,000
* Number of open bugs untouched for more than 2 years - well over 2000.
* Number of open bugs untouched between 1 and 2 years - well over 2000.
* Number of open bugs untouched between 6 months and 1
Hi all
I'm finally giving in to reality and retiring as a Gentoo Dev. I've
been effectively inactive since March last year and lack of time
means that isn't going to change any time soon. I'll still be using
Gentoo of course, so I'll still stick my nose in on bugzilla now and
again :)
-fatal).
In a broader scope, we could do with a QA check control file or
something to provide finer-grained control of these QA checks. However
the QA checks themselves seem to be a bit ad-hoc at the moment.
--
Kevin F. Quinn
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
, or disable distcc).
On a related note, we had a discussion on bug #128810 a while back about
whether the package manager should be doing distcc and ccache at all,
anyway. Personally I think the package manager shouldn't be involved in
that at all.
--
Kevin F. Quinn
signature.asc
Description: PGP
and have the
relevant packages use that license name.
--
Kevin F. Quinn
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
be
that in practice, most libraries are never used in their static form -
but the point is that the ebuild doesn't know enough information to
make the decision.
However, with INSTALL_MASK, the user makes the decision never to have
static binaries, and thus gets a system free of static libraries.
--
Kevin F
On Sun, 22 Apr 2007 17:46:18 +0200
Danny van Dyk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Am Sonntag, 22. April 2007 schrieb Michael Cummings:
On Sat, Apr 21, 2007 at 08:47:54AM +0100, Kevin F. Quinn wrote:
I do the same. The '$Header: $' tells me which version of a file
in the CVS tree I last synced
.
--
Kevin F. Quinn
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
that didn't have that information. The reason
people put that information in, is so that when the file is taken out
of the context of the SCM repository, it's still clear where it came
from. This is precisely how I'm using it.
--
Kevin F. Quinn
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
in the way, much like many other markup languages (LaTeX, GROFF
etc). Docutils' RST (reStructuredText) is much better in this regard;
its markup is much less intrusive than anything else I've used.
--
Kevin F. Quinn
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
you receive.
--
Kevin F. Quinn
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
think of it. To that end
I'd like to propose bugzilla be reconfigured to use the phrase
NOCHANGE instead of INVALID. NOCHANGE would indicate that whatever
the original issue, no change is needed on our part to resolve the
issue.
Any reasons why this would be a bad idea?
--
Kevin F. Quinn
On Sat, 24 Mar 2007 19:14:38 +0100
Marius Mauch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, 24 Mar 2007 18:34:21 +0100
Kevin F. Quinn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
People reporting bugs often get annoyed when their bug is marked
INVALID; especially when they're relatively new to the Gentoo
Experience
On Sat, 24 Mar 2007 14:48:25 -0400
Michael Cummings [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, Mar 24, 2007 at 06:34:21PM +0100, Kevin F. Quinn wrote:
People reporting bugs often get annoyed when their bug is marked
INVALID; especially when they're relatively new to the Gentoo
Experience. We've all
to them.
Still, changing the name from INVALID to NOTABUG + NOTOURBUG does
make sense, as the meaning doesn't get lost.
I don't think we need NOTOURBUG. Anything that's a real bug, but not a
bug in what we do, can be marked UPSTREAM.
Kevin F. Quinn wrote:
On Sat, 24 Mar 2007 19:14:38
On Sat, 24 Mar 2007 23:17:52 +0200
Alin Năstac [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Kevin F. Quinn wrote:
The problem I have with NOTABUG is pretty much the same problem I
have with INVALID - it's not as severe, but it still does the same
thing to the user (i.e. slaps him with a wet fish rather than
On Sat, 24 Mar 2007 22:46:07 +0100
Marius Mauch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, 24 Mar 2007 22:07:08 +0100
Kevin F. Quinn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Certainly good explanations as to why a bug is being closed are to
be encouraged. My issue isn't with that - it's with the way
the higher-numbers are removed is important (this is
what users will see if they do emerge -l).
--
Kevin F. Quinn
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
of the
solution, not the part of the problem.
--
Kevin F. Quinn
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
I'd just like to say good job and thanks, to all involved in the CoC.
--
Kevin F. Quinn
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
and then presented for review against the scope
before final sign-off.
--
Kevin F. Quinn
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
may help limit the number of people who get
involved. Perhaps gentoo-discuss.
--
Kevin F. Quinn
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
:)
Seriously, if you want portage to be re-factored, just go ahead and do
it; there's nothing to stop you.
--
Kevin F. Quinn
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
')
Well, that's about all I can manage for now - don't expect a full
critique in such a short timescale...
--
Kevin F. Quinn
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
more about steam venting than the specific
issues at hand at the time. Responding to the sort of pathetic
blogging seen on Distrowatch is a bad thing, its sends the signal that
rantings on the blog-o-sphere are due some respect, which the article
of the 13th certainly does not.
--
Kevin F. Quinn
On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 18:18:58 +0100
Christian Faulhammer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Kevin F. Quinn [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
So please, friends, just ignore it, nothing positive will come of
it.
Unfortunately it made its way onto big news site and lowers the view
on Gentoo even more. From many
didn't before, your mail program threads
correctly by references ;)
--
Kevin F. Quinn
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
to the user having LC_* set apart from
LC_MESSAGES?
--
Kevin F. Quinn
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
important
to the work that I do for Gentoo. After all, although we call
ourselves developers, really we're integrators.
Today, being a dev (which essentially means having commit access
to Gentoo repositories) is mostly about taking responsibility for what
is finally committed.
--
Kevin F. Quinn
in PDF here:
http://www.fsf-europe.org/projects/fla/FLA.en.pdf
This may be more appropriate than a straight copyright assingment as
used by FSF (US).
I guess this is an issue for the trustees, rather than the council, but
(b)cc'ed both for comment.
--
Kevin F. Quinn
signature.asc
Description
behaviours should be classed as quirks or EAPI=0 behaviour,
presumably because the answer has a large impact on the design of a
package manager. A good example is the recent one about whether EAPI=0
should require that the ebuild be sourced in every phase or only once.
--
Kevin F. Quinn
be in EAPI=0
or not...
--
Kevin F. Quinn
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
should be encouraging people to continue using packages
when we know there are known security issues.
--
Kevin F. Quinn
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Sun, 11 Feb 2007 12:33:52 +
Ciaran McCreesh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, 11 Feb 2007 13:22:48 +0100 Kevin F. Quinn
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| Do you object to such packages (specifically with security issues)
| being p.masked?
If it's forcing a downgrade, yes.
| I'm not sure
---
--
Kevin F. Quinn
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
baselayout install different versions of
init.d/conf.d and default shell for runscript depending on USE flags
USE=posix - install posix 'sh' versions of conf.d/init.d scripts, have
runscript default to /bin/sh
otherwise install the bash versions with runscript defaulting
to /bin/bash.
--
Kevin F
..
How about baselayout-nb (No Bash) :)
More seriously baselayout-posix, if posix-compliance of all scripts is
a primary motivation.
--
Kevin F. Quinn
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
we're talking
about whether we want position-independent code or not (but I defer to
solar in these things).
If it looks enough useful for many people; then i think we can
proceed to implement it; if it will only be used by this ebuild; then
i am already against it ;-)
--
Kevin F. Quinn
available isn't such a big deal, and one for
limited systems, restricted to busybox-standard sh. Actually I kinda
assumed that's what baselayout-lite was all about...
--
Kevin F. Quinn
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
, hence the need for a new config.
I think the argument for conf.d files is better than that for init.d
scripts; you could have multiple baselayout setups that share conf.d
file formats.
--
Kevin F. Quinn
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Sat, 03 Feb 2007 14:04:49 -0600
Ryan Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Kevin F. Quinn wrote:
It would but having some kind of deadline after which you are for
example free to take over the package if you want to would be nice.
That's going too far; there's certainly no need to take over
On Fri, 2 Feb 2007 10:19:21 -0600
Grant Goodyear [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[lots of good stuff]
I was going to respond to Timothy's proposal in much the same way - but
Grant has said everything much better than I would have done!
+lots Grant :)
--
Kevin F. Quinn
signature.asc
Description
, it should then be put in the hands of
devrel to arbitrate. I don't see that anything more is needed.
--
Kevin F. Quinn
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
; across the
10,000+ packages in the tree only a handful use 'built_with_use' fex.
That makes a strong case for having a simple solution in the near term,
and re-visit if it becomes commonplace.
--
Kevin F. Quinn
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
be to make it identical to the template at
opensource.org: http://www.opensource.org/licenses/bsd-license.php
This means just removing the redundant '*'s from the continuation lines.
--
Kevin F. Quinn
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
/gentoo could just support it and stop breaking the end user.
A simple expedient would be to have the package manager re-create the
symlink according to the variable, whenever it is run.
--
Kevin F. Quinn
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
, with the aim of fixing sandbox if it isn't quite up to the job.
The only shortcoming I'm aware of in sandbox is bug #135745 (have
fopen/open() fail normally if the file does not exist, rather than
report a violation). Waiting on azarah to roll a new sandbox version,
I think.
--
Kevin F. Quinn
exception.
that seems like a not-too-shabby idea actually
Not sure. Would we run the risk that working ebuilds would start to
fail when newer autotools versions arrive?
--
Kevin F. Quinn
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
they need; those wanting GPL-2 or later would
have ACCEPT_LICENSES=GPL-2 GPL-3 GPL-2+.
For me, the only other sane alternative would be to use license groups
(assuming license groups can be specified in the LICENSE variable). I
don't recall the status of license groups in portage.
--
Kevin F
changed to
GPL-2+ if appropriate, after a while we can change the GPL-2
description to be GPL-2 only and let GPL-3-only people (there's
always one) bug about packages that are still unchanged when they hit
them.
--
Kevin F. Quinn
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
everything where it currently is, and build a big tree of
symlinks from the places you want. That's a lot of symlinks, however...
One last thing - their 'readdir' kernel hack (GoboHide) - that's
really nasty! Hacking the kernel interfaces to deliberately break
compatibility is lunacy.
--
Kevin F
-link
from /etc/portage/package.mask to that list.
It's just a suggestion - I'm not prepared to do the work ;) However it
might be a simple but effective method to help people maintain secure
but relatively stable systems, without having to upgrade umpteen
packages a week.
--
Kevin F. Quinn
say whether the proposed rules are necessary and sufficient.
--
Kevin F. Quinn
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
is the time say as it can be removed with impunity.
I did consider adding the functions to eutils.eclass, but I prefer to
have it separate.
--
Kevin F. Quinn
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Tue, 21 Nov 2006 14:03:08 -0500
Chris Gianelloni [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 2006-11-21 at 17:59 +0100, Kevin F. Quinn wrote:
Am I correct in thinking that the ACCEPT_LICENSE behaviour will just
affect how portage calculates whether something can be installed or
not (much like
engineer.
--
Kevin F. Quinn
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
).
--
Kevin F. Quinn
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
and the maintainer. The amount of
work the dev has to do depends on how well the maintainer follows the
Gentoo ebuild rules.
--
Kevin F. Quinn
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Wed, 4 Oct 2006 11:44:07 -0400
Thomas Cort [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 10/4/06, Kevin F. Quinn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 09:41:45 -0400
Alec Warner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My view is that while they're being actively supported, there's no
reason to remove them
On Wed, 4 Oct 2006 11:44:07 -0400
Thomas Cort [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 10/4/06, Kevin F. Quinn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 09:41:45 -0400
Alec Warner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My view is that while they're being actively supported, there's no
reason to remove them
On Wed, 4 Oct 2006 11:39:07 -0400
Thomas Cort [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 10/4/06, Kevin F. Quinn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 4 Oct 2006 09:21:08 -0400
Thomas Cort [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The minority arches like mips, sparc etc seem to get along
quite happily
On Wed, 4 Oct 2006 14:18:54 +0100
Ciaran McCreesh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 4 Oct 2006 15:02:17 +0200 Kevin F. Quinn
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| Yuck. Devs should be free to add whatever packages they like,
| provided they're willing to maintain them.
There're already some
, by name, do you think meet
those criteria. Explain why you consider those projects to be a
hindrance to users or developers.
--
Kevin F. Quinn
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
should hinge primarily on whether stuff
has an active Gentoo maintainer.
--
Kevin F. Quinn
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
an existing LICENSE keywording in the ebuilds,
why not just focus on patching portage to allow a make.conf variable
for allowed licenses and block based on that?
Sounds good enough to me. Perhaps two variables; ALLOW_LICENSES and
DENY_LICENSES (with wildcard support).
--
Kevin F. Quinn
to
merge, then you could happily install hspell again and end up with a
confused dep tree.
Also, to my understanding, having configure automagically build support
for hspell if it's available on the system is not the way we're
supposed to handle such dependencies.
--
Kevin F. Quinn
On Sun, 03 Sep 2006 17:54:33 -0600
Ryan Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Kevin F. Quinn wrote:
If you don't care whether a package is stable or not, just let the
arch team go ahead and do what they need to do to stabilise when
they wish to. The role of package maintainer has nothing to do
,
presumably the contributor has write access to that overlay, and should
be the assignee of the bug.
--
Kevin F. Quinn
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
, but do not
have either a proper herd, or a specific gentoo.org dev listed as
maintainer.
--
Kevin F. Quinn
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Sun, 03 Sep 2006 13:57:10 +0200
Stefan Schweizer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Kevin F. Quinn wrote:
I don't think it's a good idea for devs to be putting stuff into the
tree without taking responsibility for it.
sure I can put myself in there but it will help no one because I
cannot test
happen for packages in the
official tree.
--
Kevin F. Quinn
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
configurations.
--
Kevin F. Quinn
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
have the power to sort out this problem on your own system. Just
build the relevant packages with gcc-3.4.6 instead of gcc-4.1.1 (see
gcc-config for switching your selected compiler).
--
Kevin F. Quinn
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
where sets/set/set-V.ebuild is like a meta-ebuild.
--
Kevin F. Quinn
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
the rest of the team do, or if it does
they don't care), you can just go ahead. Your summary implies explicit
consent from the team would be needed, which I don't think would be a
good idea.
--
Kevin F. Quinn
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
even for successful tests.
--
Kevin F. Quinn
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
for an
individual package, that could be noted in the comments along with
the link to the standard info.
I think the info changes frequently enough that it's easier, and more
likely to be correct, if it's posted to the bug at the time the report
is made.
--
Kevin F. Quinn
signature.asc
Description: PGP
On Fri, 11 Aug 2006 00:51:56 +0200
Jeroen Roovers [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 10 Aug 2006 23:58:46 +0200
Kevin F. Quinn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The problem with attachments is that processing the report takes
longer
- you have to go to the web to read the attachment to find out
On Fri, 11 Aug 2006 13:40:23 +0200
Jeroen Roovers [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 11 Aug 2006 12:52:30 +0200
Kevin F. Quinn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In general it depends what you're doing. Personally I find inline
emerge --info quicker to process, as I tend to do that by scrolling
up
to build stuff to ROOT=/usr/${CTARGET}. Again
in concept a /${CTARGET}/{bin,include,lib...} would exists for
essential boot stuff, althought that's a bit academic.
Just a thought for the pot ;)
--
Kevin F. Quinn
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
, you can compare the
reports and see what differences might be triggering the fault.
--
Kevin F. Quinn
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
at that point).
--
Kevin F. Quinn
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
. It's not insignificant.
--
Kevin F. Quinn
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Sat, 5 Aug 2006 02:39:16 +0200
Danny van Dyk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Am Samstag, 5. August 2006 02:11 schrieb Kevin F. Quinn:
At the very least, ebuild maintainers and ATs should be running with
tests switched on. If the tests are known to fail then the ebuild
can either RESTRICT=test
it goes to 2.1.1 if we think it won't be too disruptive).
p.s I hope all dev's run with test and collision-protect, I know I
know you don't but I can hope.
IMO devs should be working with collision-protect sandbox strict
stricter test userpriv but let's not get too excited ;)
--
Kevin F. Quinn
. Clearly if something in glibc is not
behaving properly, the effects can be nasty.
--
Kevin F. Quinn
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
, if you set FEATURES=test, add test also to your USE
flags. USE=test should never be used for anything other than
supporting FEATURES=test.
--
Kevin F. Quinn
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Sat, 5 Aug 2006 14:35:49 -0400
Mike Frysinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Saturday 05 August 2006 06:57, Kevin F. Quinn wrote:
On Sat, 5 Aug 2006 11:49:53 +0200
Danny van Dyk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Please re-read the list of packages that fail tests:
* glibc
* autoconf
On Thu, 03 Aug 2006 19:48:01 -0400
Alec Warner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
To briefly go over requirements you need to be able to:
Speak English;
Why? Surely read write is enough.
--
Kevin F. Quinn
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
switched on. If the tests are known to fail then the ebuild can
either RESTRICT=test, or just return successfully from src_test()
where the test report is useful even if some tests fail.
Thoughts?
--
Kevin F. Quinn
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
the lead by majority
decision (hopefully a rare occurrence).
--
Kevin F. Quinn
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
,
and not to be modifying eclasses that exist in the tree - this sort of
change is for managed dev overlays.
--
Kevin F. Quinn
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Sat, 22 Jul 2006 21:42:07 +0100
Ciaran McCreesh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, 22 Jul 2006 18:04:10 +0200 Kevin F. Quinn
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| If it were to be implemented with symlinks (implying one entry is
| real and the others are aliases) the package manager just needs
On Sat, 22 Jul 2006 13:35:08 -0700
Brian Harring [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, Jul 22, 2006 at 06:04:10PM +0200, Kevin F. Quinn wrote:
On Fri, 21 Jul 2006 01:05:20 -0700
Brian Harring [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Unfortunately the category system is deeply embedded in portage
On Sun, 23 Jul 2006 12:19:28 +0100
Stuart Herbert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Kevin F. Quinn wrote:
An advantage to this approach is that package moves just become
aliases
- existing stuff doesn't break yet you get the new categorisation as
well.
That's actually a disadvantage
On Mon, 24 Jul 2006 06:23:59 -0700
Brian Harring [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Jul 24, 2006 at 02:47:46PM +0200, Kevin F. Quinn wrote:
On Sun, 23 Jul 2006 12:19:28 +0100
Stuart Herbert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Just adding an alias
into a second category makes the tree more
On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 13:24:55 -0700
Brian Harring [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Jul 20, 2006 at 08:41:46PM +0200, Kevin F. Quinn wrote:
On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 00:37:47 -0700
Brian Harring [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Jul 20, 2006 at 09:05:03AM +0200, Kevin F. Quinn wrote:
On Wed
change to the
amount of processing required.
An advantage to this approach is that package moves just become aliases
- existing stuff doesn't break yet you get the new categorisation as
well.
--
Kevin F. Quinn
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 17:15:38 +0100
Ciaran McCreesh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 08:57:32 +0200 Kevin F. Quinn
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| Things that package moves cause:
| 1) Dependencies throughout the tree have to be updated
And? This isn't a breakage.
It is however
On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 00:37:47 -0700
Brian Harring [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Jul 20, 2006 at 09:05:03AM +0200, Kevin F. Quinn wrote:
On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 17:15:38 +0100
Ciaran McCreesh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 08:57:32 +0200 Kevin F. Quinn
[EMAIL PROTECTED
1 - 100 of 203 matches
Mail list logo
