Duncan wrote:
> Steve Long <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted
> [EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Fri, 01 Dec 2006 07:23:09
> +:
>
>> Excellent; pkgcore really sounds great- is there any possibility that
>> it'll become the new portage?
>
> Possibility, yes. It's not certain, as there are mul
Steve Long <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted
[EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Fri, 01 Dec 2006 07:23:09
+:
> Excellent; pkgcore really sounds great- is there any possibility that it'll
> become the new portage?
Possibility, yes. It's not certain, as there are multiple contenders
(paludis is
On Wed, 2006-11-29 at 20:10 +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> By "didn't see", he means he was so busy participating in his favourite
> game of Chris bashing that he didn't get around to reading any of the
> relevant material first...
Could be, or (as happened here) mails arrived at different time
On Wed, 29 Nov 2006 13:01:37 -0700 "Richard Fish"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| On 11/29/06, Stuart Herbert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| > On 11/29/06, Bo Ørsted Andresen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| > > Maybe you should read the replies you got the first time you made
| > > this claim on this list
On 11/29/06, Stuart Herbert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi,
On 11/29/06, Bo Ørsted Andresen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Maybe you should read the replies you got the first time you made this claim
> on this list [1].
Many thanks for these links. I didn't see your original email.
Wanna add a
Hi,
On 11/29/06, Bo Ørsted Andresen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Maybe you should read the replies you got the first time you made this claim
on this list [1].
Many thanks for these links. I didn't see your original email.
Best regards,
Stu
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Stuart Herbert wrote:
Just because we didn't take the time out to stop and make
sure you were personally comfortable with the change doesn't mean we
didn't prepare for it and announce it.
I'm sorry that you've gone with the "I always know best, you're a
fucking chump so shut the fuck up" type
On Wednesday 29 November 2006 18:11, Stuart Herbert wrote:
> > Except it was announced before we even made the snapshot,
>
> Sorry, I've looked, but the only announcement I found on gentoo-dev
> was posted two days before gcc-4.1 was stabilised [1]. I must have
> missed the earlier announcement?
Stuart Herbert wrote:
Sorry, I've looked, but the only announcement I found on gentoo-dev
was posted two days before gcc-4.1 was stabilised [1]. I must have
missed the earlier announcement?
Do you just ignore the rest of the thread when responding to individual emails?
About 2 hours ago, some
On 11/29/06, Chris Gianelloni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'm sorry, but how the hell do you know? You are not a member of
Release Engineering, and have *NO CLUE* what we do over there. What we
release isn't the only thing we do.
Then this is a great opportunity to set the record straight, by
Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> While I truly appreciate your ability to give your opinion, I don't
> care. As I said, I am working on this concept as an experiment. It is
> being done by Release Engineering. We aren't really *asking* anyone for
> their opinion. We're simply stating what we plan on w
On 11/29/06, Andrew Gaffney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
From other developers, most of which were releng members?
I get most of mine from users, who are normally kind enough to submit
the required patches at the same time.
It's stupid to "blame" releng for the stabilization of gcc-4.1.1. We
On Wed, 2006-11-29 at 08:37 +, Stuart Herbert wrote:
> On 11/28/06, Andrew Gaffney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > You make it sound like releng doesn't care at all about non-desktop
> > packages.
>
> That wasn't how it was meant. Was simply meant as a statement of
> fact. Releng activities
On Wednesday 29 November 2006 09:37, Stuart Herbert wrote:
> > Gcc 4.1.1 wasn't a last minute change.
>
> I can't agree with you there. It doesn't matter how many months of
> planning and work you guys put into getting gcc-4.1 fit for stable.
> If you're doing it off in your own little corner of t
Stuart Herbert wrote:
On 11/29/06, Andrew Gaffney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The 3-4 weeks of releng filing a ton of "doesn't build with gcc-4.1.1"
bugs
wasn't a big enough clue? :)
No. We get those all the time; there's always someone trying out an
unsupported release of gcc.
From other d
On 11/29/06, Andrew Gaffney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The 3-4 weeks of releng filing a ton of "doesn't build with gcc-4.1.1" bugs
wasn't a big enough clue? :)
No. We get those all the time; there's always someone trying out an
unsupported release of gcc.
Also, the arch teams (or at least th
Stuart Herbert wrote:
> b) Release trees have a nasty habit of picking up last minute changes
> (such as gcc 4.1) to suit the release, not stability.
Gcc 4.1.1 wasn't a last minute change.
I can't agree with you there. It doesn't matter how many months of
planning and work you guys put into g
On 11/28/06, Andrew Gaffney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
You make it sound like releng doesn't care at all about non-desktop packages.
That wasn't how it was meant. Was simply meant as a statement of
fact. Releng activities are currently exclusively desktop-oriented.
Until that changes, releng
Stuart Herbert wrote:
On 11/28/06, Chris Gianelloni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
As I have said, I've mentioned several times the idea of doing a
"release tree" to go along with each release.
The release tree is not the basis for this.
a) Releases (and the releng work that goes into it) are exc
On Tue, 28 Nov 2006 14:56:47 -0600
"James Potts" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This looks good on the surface, Chris, but what happens in the case
> where somebody wants to use the Release tree, but also wants (or
> needs) one or more packages from the Live tree, and doesn't want to
> switch comple
On 11/28/06, Chris Gianelloni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
As I have said, I've mentioned several times the idea of doing a
"release tree" to go along with each release.
The release tree is not the basis for this.
a) Releases (and the releng work that goes into it) are exclusively
desktop-orient
James Potts wrote:
This looks good on the surface, Chris, but what happens in the case
where somebody wants to use the Release tree, but also wants (or
needs) one or more packages from the Live tree, and doesn't want to
switch completely over to the live tree? If I understand what you
want to do
On Tue, 2006-11-28 at 14:56 -0600, James Potts wrote:
> This looks good on the surface, Chris, but what happens in the case
> where somebody wants to use the Release tree, but also wants (or
> needs) one or more packages from the Live tree, and doesn't want to
> switch completely over to the live t
they could pull the more current ebuilds and put them in an overlay.
also correct me if I'm wrong isn't it possible only to sync certain
parts of the tree using excludes. maybe some additional functionality
saying only sync package X for updates.
On 11/28/06, James Potts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
On 11/28/06, Chris Gianelloni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Mon, 2006-11-27 at 16:18 +0100, Kevin F. Quinn wrote:
> One method could be to snapshot all package versions at the time that
> Release Engineering make a release, building a package.mask file out of
> it masking out all packages of high
On Mon, 2006-11-27 at 16:18 +0100, Kevin F. Quinn wrote:
> One method could be to snapshot all package versions at the time that
> Release Engineering make a release, building a package.mask file out of
> it masking out all packages of higher revisions (i.e. having '>CPVR'
> entry for every package
On Mon, 2006-11-27 at 13:02 +, Stuart Herbert wrote:
> I think the original poster hit the nail on the head. The real
> barrier preventing a slower-moving tree is cultural.
Somewhat.
As I have said, I've mentioned several times the idea of doing a
"release tree" to go along with each release
On Mon, 2006-11-27 at 11:33 +, Steve Long wrote:
> > In any event, what I'd like to raise is the issue of having a
> > (semi-)official version of gentoo that lags behind the cutting-edge distro
> > for stability. Is this feasible?
> >
> > Apologies if this is already being discussed elsewhere.
On Mon, 27 Nov 2006 11:33:58 +
Steve Long <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > In any event, what I'd like to raise is the issue of having a
> > (semi-)official version of gentoo that lags behind the cutting-edge
> > distro for stability. Is this feasible?
> >
> > Apologies if this is already being
On Mon, 27 Nov 2006 13:02:17 +
"Stuart Herbert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 11/27/06, paul <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > You can't take workload out of the picture since it's the main issue
> > here. Stable tree means backport fixes and I don't see this
> > happening as it can't be automa
On 11/27/06, paul <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
You can't take workload out of the picture since it's the main issue
here. Stable tree means backport fixes and I don't see this happening as
it can't be automated:
"Stable tree means backport fixes" is an assumption, not a requirement.
It's one rea
Steve Long schrieb:
>> In any event, what I'd like to raise is the issue of having a
>> (semi-)official version of gentoo that lags behind the cutting-edge distro
>> for stability. Is this feasible?
>>
>> Apologies if this is already being discussed elsewhere.
>>
> I appreciate that there is GLEP 1
> In any event, what I'd like to raise is the issue of having a
> (semi-)official version of gentoo that lags behind the cutting-edge distro
> for stability. Is this feasible?
>
> Apologies if this is already being discussed elsewhere.
>
I appreciate that there is GLEP 19 according to earlier dis
33 matches
Mail list logo
