Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-project] Portage repo usage survey and change evaluation

On 03/02/2016 02:32 AM, Robin H. Johnson wrote: > On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 09:01:19AM +0100, Ulrich Mueller wrote: >> Have I missed your posting the results of this? Especially, what is >> the preferred ordering of ChangeLog entries? > I just hadn't finished putting the results into a long-term

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-project] Portage repo usage survey and change evaluation

On 03/02/2016 08:48 PM, malc wrote: > I still fail to understand the bikeshedding here - you really don't > need a git checkout to get something akin to a changelog. Use the > github API directly... > > The following 1-liner could be trivially productised (maybe even parse > $PWD to set the path

Re: [gentoo-dev] Changing order of default virtual/udev provider

On 02/08/2016 10:08 AM, Patrick Lauer wrote: > Ohey, > > I've opened a bug at: > https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=573922 > > The idea here is to change the order of the providers of virtual/udev. > For existing installs this has zero impact. > For stage3 this would m

[gentoo-dev] Re: BROKEN: repository became broken!

On 03/30/2016 04:32 PM, mgo...@bonedaddy.net wrote: > Looks like someone just broke Gentoo! > > New issues: > https://qa-reports.gentoo.org/output/gentoo-ci/33f062a/output.html#dev-db/aerospike-server-community > > > Introduced by commits: >

Re: [gentoo-dev] Transitioning from #!/sbin/runscript to,#!/sbin/openrc-run

On 05/05/2016 01:12 AM, William Hubbs wrote: > On Wed, May 04, 2016 at 07:41:39PM +1000, Sam Jorna wrote: >> On Wed, May 04, 2016 at 10:57:44AM +0200, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote: >>> On 05/04/2016 10:52 AM, Sam Jorna wrote: On Wed, May 04, 2016 at 10:00:05AM +0200, Ulrich Mueller wrote:

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Transitioning from #!/sbin/runscript to,#!/sbin/openrc-run

On 05/05/2016 09:17 AM, Duncan wrote: > Patrick Lauer posted on Thu, 05 May 2016 07:13:00 +0200 as excerpted: > >> So again, because I feel like either I'm too stupid to understand this, >> or too smart to let such an obviously bad idea continue: >> >> What problem i

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Transitioning from #!/sbin/runscript to,#!/sbin/openrc-run

On 05/05/2016 09:44 AM, M. J. Everitt wrote: > On 05/05/16 08:32, Patrick Lauer wrote: >> To summarize: Lots of churn, no visible benefit, except that some OCD >> people could feel better: except that we can't actually fix the core >> 'issue' without making lots of

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Transitioning from #!/sbin/runscript to,#!/sbin/openrc-run

On 05/05/2016 08:59 PM, Andreas K. Huettel wrote: > Am Donnerstag, 5. Mai 2016, 09:53:10 schrieb Patrick Lauer: > > On 05/05/2016 09:44 AM, M. J. Everitt wrote: > >> On 05/05/16 08:32, Patrick Lauer wrote: > >>> To summarize: Lots of churn, no visible benefit, exc

Re: [gentoo-dev] Transitioning from #!/sbin/runscript to,#!/sbin/openrc-run

On 05/04/2016 06:27 AM, Austin English wrote: > Hi there, > > I've been working on the transition from #!/sbin/runscript to > #!/sbin/openrc-run [1], ... and once more I have to ask: Is there any reason that Stuff Needs To Change because of a packaging conflict in *debian* where it really doesn't

[gentoo-dev] glibc 2.23 and willfully breaking stuff

As of commit ed047cf2c607277629c20bf1a88d727a7f9bb79e we have sys-libs/glibc-2.23 in ~arch. This breaks *lots* of stuff. For example coreutils was broken [1]. According to the tracker bug [2] most of the breakage was introduced in a gentoo-specific patch. On the upstream mailinglist [3] people

Re: [gentoo-dev] glibc 2.23 and willfully breaking stuff

On 04/16/2016 09:23 AM, Patrick Lauer wrote: >I very strongly suggest bumping the glibc ebuild, removing the patch in the bump, and masking the broken version. Then asking people to test the patched version to smoke out failures, and in a few months we can consider re-enabling this tomfool

Re: [gentoo-dev] glibc 2.23 and willfully breaking stuff

On 04/16/2016 09:23 AM, Patrick Lauer wrote: > I very strongly suggest bumping the glibc ebuild, removing the patch in > the bump, and masking the broken version. Then asking people to test the > patched version to smoke out failures, and in a few months we can > consider

Re: [gentoo-dev] Packages up for grabs

On 08/07/2016 10:12 AM, Dirkjan Ochtman wrote: > On Sun, Aug 7, 2016 at 9:51 AM, Pacho Ramos wrote: >> This packages are now up for grabs: >> app-portage/euscan > > Patrick, > > Are you still keeping euscan running? > Yes. It's not in the best shape, but for now it works

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Packages up for grabs

On 08/07/2016 10:04 PM, Alan McKinnon wrote: > On 07/08/2016 19:36, james wrote: >>> The interesting apps out there are mostly running python, go and >>> (sometimes) lua. And that's what I observe in my day job - >>> business/mobile ISP. >> >> >> Look at the job listing on stackoverflow and

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: /etc/hostname on gentoo

On 08/28/2016 08:30 AM, Daniel Campbell wrote: > On 08/24/2016 09:42 AM, Zac Medico wrote: >> On 08/24/2016 09:33 AM, Michael Orlitzky wrote: >>> * no benefit put forth so far, other than that it's the same file that >>> systemd uses, which is true but not beneficial as far as I can tell >>

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: /etc/hostname on gentoo

On 08/28/2016 04:21 PM, Michał Górny wrote: > On Sun, 28 Aug 2016 14:34:20 +0200 > Patrick Lauer <patr...@gentoo.org> wrote: > >> On 08/28/2016 08:30 AM, Daniel Campbell wrote: >>> On 08/24/2016 09:42 AM, Zac Medico wrote: >>>> On 0

[gentoo-dev] Re: Local workarounds with no reported bugs

On 10/17/16 09:23, Michał Górny wrote: > Hello, everyone. > > I'd like to point out a major problem in Gentoo: there's a fair number > of developers who add various local workarounds to problems they meet > and don't bother to report a bug. Worst than that, this applies not > only for upstream

[gentoo-dev] Fixing elasticsearch maintainer

Ohey, as you might have noticed I've just corrected the metadata.xml of all elasticsearch-related packages. For some strange reason I was listed there as maintainer, but since no one wanted to listen to my ideas I guess I wasn't. So now last person who touched it gets stuck with it. Since

Re: [gentoo-dev] Fixing elasticsearch maintainer

On 05/22/2017 03:52 AM, Sam Jorna wrote: On 18/05/17 02:38, Patrick Lauer wrote: Since proxy-maint refuses to be removed from packages (especially since they were unconditionally added to all packages with a non-gentoo-dev maintainer in metadata) they are the de facto maintainers, and overrule

Re: [gentoo-dev] Fixing elasticsearch maintainer

On 05/20/2017 10:51 PM, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote: On 05/20/2017 10:46 PM, Michał Górny wrote: Tomas, please don't go this road. We all know Patrick does a shitty job as Gentoo developer, both technically and socially but you do not have to try to match him. Was this comment really

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Restricted version of gentoo-dev mailing list

On 05/24/2017 12:24 PM, Michał Górny wrote: Yes, I *do not want feedback* on *how to do Gentoo* from people who do *not help me do Gentoo* but instead only complain and demand. But you do gentoo wrong, so as a user I'd like you to reconsider what you wrote there and maybe take a long

Re: [gentoo-dev] Fixing elasticsearch maintainer

On 05/18/2017 07:17 PM, Alec Warner wrote: On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 12:38 PM, Patrick Lauer <patr...@gentoo.org <mailto:patr...@gentoo.org>> wrote: Ohey, as you might have noticed I've just corrected the metadata.xml of all elasticsearch-related packages. For

Re: [gentoo-dev] Fixing elasticsearch maintainer

On 05/19/2017 03:10 PM, Michał Górny wrote: On Wed, 2017-05-17 at 18:38 +0200, Patrick Lauer wrote: Bonus mention: bbdc5412061adf598ed935697441a7d6b05f7614 app-admin/logstash-bin: drop old Signed-off-by: Andrew Savchenko <birc...@gentoo.org> That removed the versions I was usi

Re: [gentoo-dev] [QA] New policy: 'files' directory must not be larger than 32 KiB

On 12/17/17 19:39, Mike Gilbert wrote: > On Sun, Dec 17, 2017 at 8:21 AM, Michał Górny wrote: >> Hello, everyone. >> >> It's my pleasure to announce that with a majority vote the QA team has >> accepted a new policy. The accepted wording is: >> >> Total size of 'files'

<    1   2   3   4   5