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:
> 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
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.
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
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
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
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 -
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
-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
16 matches
Mail list logo