Re: [gentoo-dev] Closing bugs

2010-09-11 Thread Mike Frysinger
On Saturday, September 11, 2010 15:04:45 Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Sat, 11 Sep 2010 20:51:56 +0200 justin wrote: > > is the following comment an adequate way to close bugs with > > RESOLVED/INVALID? If so, I will change the way I handle bugs and use > > it too. > > > > "" > > virtual/os-headers:

Re: [gentoo-dev] Closing bugs

2010-09-11 Thread Alistair Bush
> On 09/11/2010 03:04 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > > Or does the problem only occur if you mix keywords and ignore > > dependencies? > > I think that if a package doesn't work in a mixed environment, that > points to a likely dependency problem. Sooner or later there is a good > chance it will bi

Re: [gentoo-dev] Closing bugs

2010-09-11 Thread Richard Freeman
On 09/11/2010 03:04 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: Or does the problem only occur if you mix keywords and ignore dependencies? I think that if a package doesn't work in a mixed environment, that points to a likely dependency problem. Sooner or later there is a good chance it will bite somebody.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Closing bugs

2010-09-11 Thread Maciej Mrozowski
On Saturday 11 of September 2010 20:51:56 justin wrote: > Hi all, > > is the following comment an adequate way to close bugs with > RESOLVED/INVALID? If so, I will change the way I handle bugs and use it > too. > > "" > virtual/os-headers: 2.6.35 (sys-kernel/linux-headers) > ACCEPT_KEYWORDS="amd

Re: [gentoo-dev] Closing bugs

2010-09-11 Thread Ciaran McCreesh
On Sat, 11 Sep 2010 20:51:56 +0200 justin wrote: > is the following comment an adequate way to close bugs with > RESOLVED/INVALID? If so, I will change the way I handle bugs and use > it too. > > "" > virtual/os-headers: 2.6.35 (sys-kernel/linux-headers) > ACCEPT_KEYWORDS="amd64" > > you mix st

Re: [gentoo-dev] Closing bugs

2010-09-11 Thread Petteri Räty
On 09/11/2010 09:51 PM, justin wrote: > Hi all, > > is the following comment an adequate way to close bugs with > RESOLVED/INVALID? If so, I will change the way I handle bugs and use it too. > > "" > virtual/os-headers: 2.6.35 (sys-kernel/linux-headers) > ACCEPT_KEYWORDS="amd64" > > you mix sta

Re: [gentoo-dev] Closing bugs

2010-09-11 Thread Paweł Hajdan, Jr.
On 9/11/10 11:51 AM, justin wrote: > is the following comment an adequate way to close bugs with > RESOLVED/INVALID? If so, I will change the way I handle bugs and use it too. > > "" > virtual/os-headers: 2.6.35 (sys-kernel/linux-headers) > ACCEPT_KEYWORDS="amd64" > > you mix stable & unstable -

[gentoo-dev] Closing bugs

2010-09-11 Thread justin
Hi all, is the following comment an adequate way to close bugs with RESOLVED/INVALID? If so, I will change the way I handle bugs and use it too. "" virtual/os-headers: 2.6.35 (sys-kernel/linux-headers) ACCEPT_KEYWORDS="amd64" you mix stable & unstable -> your problem "" Cheers Justin signat

Re: [gentoo-dev] Closing bugs on masked packages

2007-07-01 Thread Mart Raudsepp
On P, 2007-07-01 at 12:22 -0600, Ryan Hill wrote: > Hey all, > > just a friendly request: If you do happen to mask a package for > removal, please do not close any bugs against the package on the basis > that it's being removed. There have been several cases where bugs get > closed WONTFIX or IN

Re: [gentoo-dev] Closing bugs on masked packages

2007-07-01 Thread Petteri Räty
Donnie Berkholz kirjoitti: > On Sun, 01 Jul 2007 22:02:28 +0300 > Petteri Räty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Yes. When you click the Keywords link it takes you to a description >> page: https://bugs.gentoo.org/describekeywords.cgi > > Sure, I'm aware of that. But where do I hear about the addition

Re: [gentoo-dev] Closing bugs on masked packages

2007-07-01 Thread Donnie Berkholz
On Sun, 01 Jul 2007 22:02:28 +0300 Petteri Räty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Yes. When you click the Keywords link it takes you to a description > page: https://bugs.gentoo.org/describekeywords.cgi Sure, I'm aware of that. But where do I hear about the addition of new ones? Am I supposed to random

Re: [gentoo-dev] Closing bugs on masked packages

2007-07-01 Thread Petteri Räty
Donnie Berkholz kirjoitti: > On Sun, 01 Jul 2007 21:28:44 +0300 > Petteri Räty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Yeh the PMASKED KEYWORD is for packages waiting removal. > > Is there some place people are supposed to find out about this stuff? > I've seen two random Bugzilla keywords mentioned in here

Re: [gentoo-dev] Closing bugs on masked packages

2007-07-01 Thread Donnie Berkholz
On Sun, 01 Jul 2007 21:28:44 +0300 Petteri Räty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Yeh the PMASKED KEYWORD is for packages waiting removal. Is there some place people are supposed to find out about this stuff? I've seen two random Bugzilla keywords mentioned in here in the past week or so as if they wer

Re: [gentoo-dev] Closing bugs on masked packages

2007-07-01 Thread Petteri Räty
Ryan Hill kirjoitti: > Hey all, > > just a friendly request: If you do happen to mask a package for > removal, please do not close any bugs against the package on the basis > that it's being removed. There have been several cases where bugs get > closed WONTFIX or INVALID, the removal is reverse

[gentoo-dev] Closing bugs on masked packages

2007-07-01 Thread Ryan Hill
Hey all, just a friendly request: If you do happen to mask a package for removal, please do not close any bugs against the package on the basis that it's being removed. There have been several cases where bugs get closed WONTFIX or INVALID, the removal is reversed for whatever reason, and the bu

[gentoo-dev] Closing bugs [was: New Bugzilla HOWTO]

2005-07-08 Thread Nathan L. Adams
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Duncan wrote: > > Well, not blocker , but ... > http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=73181 > This brings up a point that really irks me. In the bug, I believe the dev implies that the reported bug has merit /yet he closes the bug before actually d