On 30/10/2012 08:21, Rich Freeman wrote:
> That might warrant a news item. Sure, they're ~arch, but they're not
> going to know about this unless somebody tells them.
Is it just my impression or did you just volunteer? ;)
--
Diego Elio Pettenò — Flameeyes
flamee...@flameeyes.eu — http://blog.fl
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 10:44 AM, Diego Elio Pettenò
wrote:
> On 30/10/2012 00:22, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>> reminder: plan on landing this week. glibc-2.17 is in the process of shaking
>> out upstream.
>
> *shrug* we've got the warning so it's fair for it to land. I recommend
> people who're usin
On 30/10/2012 00:22, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> reminder: plan on landing this week. glibc-2.17 is in the process of shaking
> out upstream.
*shrug* we've got the warning so it's fair for it to land. I recommend
people who're using ~arch to mask it on their systems for a short while
though, as we s
On Tuesday 02 October 2012 15:53:41 Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Friday 17 August 2012 23:31:36 Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > with glibc-2.15 gone stable, it's time to get 2.16 in the pipe. the big
> > issues have been sorted out already. there's a few packages still known
> > to build fail, but they'v
On Friday 17 August 2012 23:31:36 Mike Frysinger wrote:
> with glibc-2.15 gone stable, it's time to get 2.16 in the pipe. the big
> issues have been sorted out already. there's a few packages still known to
> build fail, but they've had quite some time to sort their stuff out, so i
> don't see de
On Monday 20 August 2012 10:54:03 Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 10:43 AM, Alec Warner wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 4:27 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> >> I agree with your point. I'm fine with setting deadlines and such,
> >> but my main concern is that the first deadline should
On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 10:43 AM, Alec Warner wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 4:27 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
>> I agree with your point. I'm fine with setting deadlines and such,
>> but my main concern is that the first deadline shouldn't be two days
>> after it is announced.
>
> The tracker has
On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 4:27 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 10:14 AM, Alec Warner wrote:
>>
>> I think part of Mike's point is that time and time again has proven
>> that the way to a mans heart^H^H^H^H to get things fixed is to break
>> them. The aforementioned example of a tr
On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 10:14 AM, Alec Warner wrote:
>
> I think part of Mike's point is that time and time again has proven
> that the way to a mans heart^H^H^H^H to get things fixed is to break
> them. The aforementioned example of a tracker open for months with no
> progress is an example of ha
On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 1:09 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 11:07 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>> On Sunday 19 August 2012 04:41:17 Luca Barbato wrote:
>>> On 8/18/12 5:31 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>>> > i'll probably land it later this weekend/monday.
>>>
>>> Would be nice having
On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 11:07 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Sunday 19 August 2012 04:41:17 Luca Barbato wrote:
>> On 8/18/12 5:31 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>> > i'll probably land it later this weekend/monday.
>>
>> Would be nice having a list of bugs open so people might have a look and
>> see i
On 19/08/2012 20:07, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> gnutls is not valid and i will not wait for it. boost i'll give the
> maintainer time to resolve as the patch to boost-1.49 can be made to work,
> but
> it's not that great, and there are already plans on moving boost-1.50 to
> unstable which is all
On Sunday 19 August 2012 04:41:17 Luca Barbato wrote:
> On 8/18/12 5:31 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > i'll probably land it later this weekend/monday.
>
> Would be nice having a list of bugs open so people might have a look and
> see if there is something big left.
we've been making trackers for
On 8/18/12 5:31 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
i'll probably land it later this weekend/monday.
Would be nice having a list of bugs open so people might have a look and
see if there is something big left.
boost and gnutls seem big enough already to spend some time to get those
fixed before unlea
On Sat, 18 Aug 2012 12:00:17 -0400
Mike Frysinger wrote:
> *yawn* such a drama queen.
>
> i never said "i am going to do this everyone else be damned". i did
> say "i will probably do this soon". but that is why i posted to
> gentoo-dev in the first place -- to get feedback from others.
>
> g
*yawn* such a drama queen.
i never said "i am going to do this everyone else be damned". i did say "i
will probably do this soon". but that is why i posted to gentoo-dev in the
first place -- to get feedback from others.
gnutls breakage: not relevant. you're causing that breakage by not addi
On Sat, Aug 18, 2012 at 8:42 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> yes, the patch here is trivial. it removes 1 line of unused code and has
> fixed
> a lot of other packages. deflecting the argument to a flawed system of your
> own
> creation doesn't change it. if you're worried about gnutls breakage,
On Saturday 18 August 2012 02:01:12 Diego Elio Pettenò wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 10:44 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > there's a trivial patch needed to make 1.49 work. forcing people to use
> > 1.50 is purely the boost's maintainers choice.
>
> [...]
>
> > there's a trivial patch long bee
On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 10:50 PM, Tiziano Müller wrote:
> I'm already working on some of the boost-1.49/50 breakages and 1.51 is
> already in the pipeline, so 1.50 has to leave p.mask in a month or so
> anyway.
Thanks, at least somebody's doing something to help.
By the way I forgot to say in my
On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 10:44 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> there's a trivial patch needed to make 1.49 work. forcing people to use 1.50
> is purely the boost's maintainers choice.
[...]
> there's a trivial patch long been available that you've refused to merge. so
> any errors here are of your
Am Samstag, den 18.08.2012, 01:44 -0400 schrieb Mike Frysinger:
> On Saturday 18 August 2012 01:16:29 Diego Elio Pettenò wrote:
> > - everything depending on boost (current 1.49 won't work, you need
> > 1.50, and quite a few things break with 1.50);
>
> there's a trivial patch needed to make 1.49
On Saturday 18 August 2012 01:16:29 Diego Elio Pettenò wrote:
> - everything depending on boost (current 1.49 won't work, you need
> 1.50, and quite a few things break with 1.50);
there's a trivial patch needed to make 1.49 work. forcing people to use 1.50
is purely the boost's maintainers choi
On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 8:31 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> there's a few packages still known to
> build fail, but they've had quite some time to sort their stuff out, so i
> don't
> see delaying further making a difference there.
So you're saying you're fine to break:
- everything depending on
with glibc-2.15 gone stable, it's time to get 2.16 in the pipe. the big
issues have been sorted out already. there's a few packages still known to
build fail, but they've had quite some time to sort their stuff out, so i don't
see delaying further making a difference there. if anything, they'
24 matches
Mail list logo
