Ciaran McCreesh kirjoitti:
On Sat, 05 Jan 2008 20:52:49 -0600
Martin Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
That's making the assumption that anyone looked at it, of course.
Please note comment #9 on
http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=198346. It was still ~8 days
from then that the setuptools k
On Sat, 05 Jan 2008 21:35:52 -0600
Martin Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The original topic of this conversation was about what to do about an
> arch that is obviously not as responsive as other arches. This is a
> concrete example of that fact, which you requested. This seems to be
> a t
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Sat, 05 Jan 2008 20:52:49 -0600
Martin Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
That's making the assumption that anyone looked at it, of course.
Please note comment #9 on
http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=198346. It was still ~8 days
from then that the setuptools keywo
On Sat, 05 Jan 2008 20:52:49 -0600
Martin Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> That's making the assumption that anyone looked at it, of course.
> Please note comment #9 on
> http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=198346. It was still ~8 days
> from then that the setuptools keyword was added.
>
>
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Sat, 05 Jan 2008 20:32:09 -0600
Martin Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Perhaps you should have explicitly stated in the bug that it was for
security reasons and thus a priority. Make things easy for the arch
teams -- if you have useful information like that, provide
When arch people get dozens to hundreds of bug emails per day, no, it's
not. A simple "this is now a security issue, see bug blah" makes it an
awful lot easier for arch people to prioritise -- emails that merely
show blockers added or removed tend to get ignored because a) they're
almost always me
On Sat, 05 Jan 2008 20:32:09 -0600
Martin Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Perhaps you should have explicitly stated in the bug that it was for
> > security reasons and thus a priority. Make things easy for the arch
> > teams -- if you have useful information like that, provide it in an
> > e
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Sat, 05 Jan 2008 20:18:09 -0600
Martin Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
See http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=191550 - it took > 2
months for mips to keyword it.
Security bugs are normally supposed to have enhanced priority for
keywording, etc.
Perhaps you sh
On Sat, 05 Jan 2008 20:18:09 -0600
Martin Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> See http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=191550 - it took > 2
> months for mips to keyword it.
>
> Security bugs are normally supposed to have enhanced priority for
> keywording, etc.
Perhaps you should have explici
And what is the impact of that holdup? Have you explained why you
consider that to be a priority to the arch teams in question?
We had a sec bug on net-snmp that was held up due to
dev-python/setuptools not being ~mips. The net-snmp folks added a
python module to their distribution, and I ad
On Sat, 5 Jan 2008 20:33:15 -0500 (EST)
"Michael Sterrett -Mr. Bones.-" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, 6 Jan 2008, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > So nothing that's a priority for the users of those archs then. Now
> > please provide specific examples of how anyone is being held up.
>
> http://bu
On Sun, 6 Jan 2008, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
So nothing that's a priority for the users of those archs then. Now
please provide specific examples of how anyone is being held up.
http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=202726
Michael Sterrett
-Mr. Bones.-
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Duncan wrote: [Fri Jan 06 2006, 09:15:42AM CST]
> Tell me, from someone who obviously has some FBSD experience, what
> advantages does Gentoo/FreeBSD have over the normal FreeBSD? Why would
> someone use it who is currently using regular FreeBSD, and why are you
> spending the time? There are obv
On Fri, Jan 06, 2006 at 08:15:42AM -0700, Duncan wrote:
>
> Tell me, from someone who obviously has some FBSD experience, what
> advantages does Gentoo/FreeBSD have over the normal FreeBSD? Why would
> someone use it who is currently using regular FreeBSD, and why are you
> spending the time? Th
You better bring this up on the gentoo-alt mailing list. Please
consider posting it there instead of going in a private discussion.
On 06-01-2006 08:15:42 -0700, Duncan wrote:
> And I definitely wish you well in your G/FBSD efforts, but when I
> mentioned them on my local ISP's unix (*ix) group,
On Friday 06 January 2006 16:15, Duncan wrote:
> And I definitely wish you well in your G/FBSD efforts, but when I
> mentioned them on my local ISP's unix (*ix) group, the FBSD groupies
> reaction was "Yuck!"
Same for FreeBSD devs that tries to hinder us. But why? They think to be the
keeper of T
Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò posted
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, excerpted below,
on Fri, 06 Jan 2006 12:23:52 +0100:
> On Friday 06 January 2006 09:37, Duncan wrote:
>> Well, for that matter, "distribution" is considered at least by my *BSD
>> friends, to be a peculiarly Linux term. From their perspective
Ciaran McCreesh posted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, excerpted
below, on Thu, 05 Jan 2006 10:36:28 +:
> On Thu, 05 Jan 2006 03:26:03 -0700 Duncan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> | Anyone who thinks Gentoo isn't progressing simply isn't seeing the
> | forest for all the trees, as they say. Another way of
18 matches
Mail list logo
