В Сбт, 14/08/2010 в 20:06 +0300, Markos Chandras пишет:
> On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 06:26:36PM +0200, Thilo Bangert wrote:
> > > So you want me to force everyone to update the package just to respect
> > > the LDFLAGS.
> >
> > yes. IIRC it has been stated on this list before, that a change which
>
Am 14.08.2010 19:35, schrieb Harald van Dijk:
> On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 06:26:12PM +0200, Thilo Bangert wrote:
>>> So you want me to force everyone to update the package just to respect
>>> the LDFLAGS.
>>
>> yes. IIRC it has been stated on this list before, that a change which
>> changes the resul
Richard Freeman wrote:
On 08/14/2010 02:35 PM, Duncan wrote:
User perspective here...
For LDFLAGS, given the new --as-needed default, I'd prefer the rev-bump.
Yes, it requires a rebuild, but the rebuilds will occur as the bugs are
fixed so it's a few at a time for people who keep reasonably upd
On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 02:46:21PM -0600, Ryan Hill wrote:
> On Sat, 14 Aug 2010 17:00:38 +0300
> Markos Chandras wrote:
>
> > > you don't need to subscribe, there's usually an AUTHORS file with emails
> > > you
> > > can use...
> > As I said, I thought that maintainers was responsible to do it
On Sat, 14 Aug 2010 17:00:38 +0300
Markos Chandras wrote:
> > you don't need to subscribe, there's usually an AUTHORS file with emails
> > you
> > can use...
> As I said, I thought that maintainers was responsible to do it since they
> follow all the bug progress after all. So according to you
On Sat, 14 Aug 2010 19:35:56 +0200
Harald van Dijk wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 06:26:12PM +0200, Thilo Bangert wrote:
> > > So you want me to force everyone to update the package just to respect
> > > the LDFLAGS.
> >
> > yes. IIRC it has been stated on this list before, that a change which
On 08/14/2010 02:35 PM, Duncan wrote:
User perspective here...
For LDFLAGS, given the new --as-needed default, I'd prefer the rev-bump.
Yes, it requires a rebuild, but the rebuilds will occur as the bugs are
fixed so it's a few at a time for people who keep reasonably updated
(every month or mor
Markos Chandras posted on Sat, 14 Aug 2010 20:00:40 +0300 as excerpted:
> Cause I don't like users to compile the same damn package over and over.
> -r1 for docs on ${PF}, -r2 for CFLGAS, -r3 for LDFLAGS, -r4 for ... Is
> that a good reason or not? It is not like I introduce huge patches with
> bu
On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 08:34:13PM +0300, Markos Chandras wrote:
> > > said, commit an actual patch, assigned to QA and if the rest of the
> > > members
> > > agree on that I am willing to change my policy.
> >
> > Now you're just being stubborn. I'm pretty sure your mentor told you "any
> > chan
On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 06:26:12PM +0200, Thilo Bangert wrote:
> > So you want me to force everyone to update the package just to respect
> > the LDFLAGS.
>
> yes. IIRC it has been stated on this list before, that a change which
> changes the resulting binary always needs to be done in a revbump.
On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 08:21:15PM +0300, Alex Alexander wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 08:00:40PM +0300, Markos Chandras wrote:
> > On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 07:16:26PM +0300, Alex Alexander wrote:
> > > Does respecting LDFLAGS change the installed files in any way? yes.
> > > Will users benefit f
On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 08:00:40PM +0300, Markos Chandras wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 07:16:26PM +0300, Alex Alexander wrote:
> > Does respecting LDFLAGS change the installed files in any way? yes.
> > Will users benefit from your change if you don't revbump? No.
> >
> > I think that chain of
On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 06:26:36PM +0200, Thilo Bangert wrote:
> > So you want me to force everyone to update the package just to respect
> > the LDFLAGS.
>
> yes. IIRC it has been stated on this list before, that a change which
> changes the resulting binary always needs to be done in a revbump.
On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 07:16:26PM +0300, Alex Alexander wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 04:47:39PM +0300, Markos Chandras wrote:
> > On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 04:10:13PM +0300, Alex Alexander wrote:
> > > On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 03:50:53PM +0300, Markos Chandras wrote:
> > > > > - If you are not in
> So you want me to force everyone to update the package just to respect
> the LDFLAGS.
yes. IIRC it has been stated on this list before, that a change which
changes the resulting binary always needs to be done in a revbump.
> Why, since until recently, nobody gave a crap about this
> kind of Q
Richard Freeman said:
> On 08/14/2010 10:29 AM, Markos Chandras wrote:
> > So do I. Fixing your package and you don't even bother to send a
> > *ready to go* patch upstream seems like a bit rude to me as well.
> > Perhaps, we do have a complete different point of view in this one.
> > Recent examp
On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 04:47:39PM +0300, Markos Chandras wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 04:10:13PM +0300, Alex Alexander wrote:
> > On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 03:50:53PM +0300, Markos Chandras wrote:
> > > > - If you are not in cc of the gentoo bug nor in the herd alias, please
> > > > cc
> > > >
On 08/14/2010 10:29 AM, Markos Chandras wrote:
So do I. Fixing your package and you don't even bother to send a *ready to go*
patch
upstream seems like a bit rude to me as well. Perhaps, we do have a complete
different point of view in this one.
Recent example is Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn who
On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 05:20:38PM +0300, Alexis Ballier wrote:
> On Saturday 14 August 2010 17:00:38 Markos Chandras wrote:
> [...]
> > > > > - There is absolutely no reference to any patch sent upstream and I
> > > > > have not seen anything on the upstream dev ml.
> > > >
> > > > Thats because
On Saturday 14 August 2010 17:00:38 Markos Chandras wrote:
[...]
> > > > - There is absolutely no reference to any patch sent upstream and I
> > > > have not seen anything on the upstream dev ml.
> > >
> > > Thats because I didn't. I've fixed more than 40 bug wrt LDFLAGS. Do you
> > > expect me to
On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 04:37:04PM +0300, Alexis Ballier wrote:
> On Saturday 14 August 2010 15:50:53 Markos Chandras wrote:
> > On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 03:35:34PM +0300, Alexis Ballier wrote:
> > > On Saturday 07 August 2010 00:21:39 Markos Chandras (hwoarang) wrote:
> > > > hwoarang10/08/06 2
On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 04:10:13PM +0300, Alex Alexander wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 03:50:53PM +0300, Markos Chandras wrote:
> > > - If you are not in cc of the gentoo bug nor in the herd alias, please cc
> > > yourself on the bug.
> > > - Please close the bugs, even the dupes (and apply pre
On Saturday 14 August 2010 15:50:53 Markos Chandras wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 03:35:34PM +0300, Alexis Ballier wrote:
> > On Saturday 07 August 2010 00:21:39 Markos Chandras (hwoarang) wrote:
> > > hwoarang10/08/06 21:21:39
> > >
> > > Modified: ChangeLog
> > > Added:
On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 03:50:53PM +0300, Markos Chandras wrote:
> > - If you are not in cc of the gentoo bug nor in the herd alias, please cc
> > yourself on the bug.
> > - Please close the bugs, even the dupes (and apply previous point to the
> > dupes
> > too).
> > - That way you'll be able t
On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 03:35:34PM +0300, Alexis Ballier wrote:
> On Saturday 07 August 2010 00:21:39 Markos Chandras (hwoarang) wrote:
> > hwoarang10/08/06 21:21:39
> >
> > Modified: ChangeLog
> > Added:mlt-0.5.4-r1.ebuild
> > Log:
> > Respect {C,LD}FLAGS w
On Saturday 07 August 2010 00:21:39 Markos Chandras (hwoarang) wrote:
> hwoarang10/08/06 21:21:39
>
> Modified: ChangeLog
> Added:mlt-0.5.4-r1.ebuild
> Log:
> Respect {C,LD}FLAGS when building shared library. Bug #308873
> (Portage version: 2.2_rc67/cvs/Li
26 matches
Mail list logo
