Alec Warner wrote:
On 3/10/08, Ryan Hill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Jeroen Roovers wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Mar 2008 16:26:19 +0100
> "Wulf C. Krueger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> No, we didn't because the whole thing is p.masked for a reason. It,
>> KDE 4.0.1, is broken crap that should not
Ferris McCormick wrote:
>
> Um, not really --- this is too broad. Some packages are not keyworded
> because no one has ever tried them. We occasionally get keyword
> requests of the form "Please add ~sparc keyword to because I've
> been using it and it works fine" in response to which we do
(Probably off topic? I think Richard said something he didn't intend.)
On Tue, 2008-03-11 at 11:24 -0400, Richard Freeman wrote:
> Alec Warner wrote:
> > On 3/10/08, Ryan Hill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> You're still not getting this. The KDE team did not _want_ these ebuilds
> >> keyworded
Alec Warner wrote:
> On 3/10/08, Ryan Hill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> You're still not getting this. The KDE team did not _want_ these ebuilds
>> keyworded. That's why they _weren't_ keyworded. That's why there was no
>> bug
>> filed, saying "hey we dropped these keywords" because they _di
On 3/10/08, Ryan Hill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Jeroen Roovers wrote:
> > On Mon, 10 Mar 2008 16:26:19 +0100
> > "Wulf C. Krueger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> No, we didn't because the whole thing is p.masked for a reason. It,
> >> KDE 4.0.1, is broken crap that should not yet be re
В Втр, 11/03/2008 в 06:36 +0100, Jeroen Roovers пишет:
> On Mon, 10 Mar 2008 23:04:54 -0600
> Ryan Hill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Just like when you add a new ebuild, you add it with the keywords for
> > architectures you personally have verified to work.
>
> It seems you're confusing pack
Jeroen Roovers wrote:
On Tue, 11 Mar 2008 04:49:38 +0100
Jeroen Roovers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Mon, 10 Mar 2008 16:26:19 +0100
"Wulf C. Krueger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
No, we didn't because the whole thing is p.masked for a reason.
It, KDE 4.0.1, is broken crap that should not yet
Jeroen Roovers wrote:
On Mon, 10 Mar 2008 16:26:19 +0100
"Wulf C. Krueger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
No, we didn't because the whole thing is p.masked for a reason. It,
KDE 4.0.1, is broken crap that should not yet be re-keyworded.
OK then. and I am not going to cross-post this to -dev@, bt
> C. Jer misses keywords because the KDE team did not provide a distinct
> list of packages
Because we didn't even ask for re-keywording. :-)
According to Rej you dropped the hppa keyword without informing him.
That is correct.
The current policy states that you should file a bug in this ca
On 3/10/08, Wulf C. Krueger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > A. KDE team drops arch keywords for KDE 4, since KDE4 is new.
>
>
> Basically, yes.
>
>
> > C. Jer misses keywords because the KDE team did not provide a distinct
> > list of packages
>
>
> Because we didn't even ask for re-keywording. :-
A. KDE team drops arch keywords for KDE 4, since KDE4 is new.
Basically, yes.
C. Jer misses keywords because the KDE team did not provide a distinct
list of packages
Because we didn't even ask for re-keywording. :-)
KDE 4.0.x leaves much to be desired which is why it's p.masked (which
is,
[+gentoo-dev]
I'm just going to jump randomly in here.
Also, moving this back to -dev as it is not a private matter.
The bread and butter of this is what:
A. KDE team drops arch keywords for KDE 4, since KDE4 is new.
B. Jer re-keywords KDE4 on HPPA but doesn't try installing the
software to ma
12 matches
Mail list logo
