On Thu, 02 Mar 2006 00:54:25 +
Duncan Coutts [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 2006-03-02 at 00:41 +, Roy Marples wrote:
For the non technically minded folks whats the difference between
-fno-stack-protector and -fno-stack-protector-all?
[...]
It was explained to me like this:
Hi Mark,
This draft seems to be effectively the same as the last one.
On 3/2/06, Mark Loeser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* The QA team's purpose is to provide cross-team assistance in keeping
the tree in a good state. This is done primarily by finding and pointing
out issues to maintainers
On Thursday 02 March 2006 03:53, Mark Loeser wrote:
Here is my updated version after some feedback from people:
* The QA team's purpose is to provide cross-team assistance in keeping
the tree in a good state. This is done primarily by finding and
pointing out issues to maintainers and,
On Wed, 2006-03-01 at 19:28 -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Wednesday 01 March 2006 04:17, Mike Frysinger wrote:
If you have something you'd wish for us to chat about, maybe even
vote on, let us know ! Simply reply to this e-mail for the whole
Gentoo dev list to see.
so, GLEP44 is up
On Thu, 2006-03-02 at 09:01 +, Stuart Herbert wrote:
[snip]
* There's nothing in this policy about end users. If this QA team is
not *focused* on delivering benefit to end users, then (as has
happened this week) it becomes a self-serving team, focused instead on
what can only be described
Paul de Vrieze [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
* Just because breaking policy breaks a QA tool, but is guaranteed to
never break itself (formatting policy, like space vs. tab etc.) does not
increase the severity of the breakage.
I had hoped something like this would have just been understood to
On Thursday 02 March 2006 14:09, Mark Loeser wrote:
Paul de Vrieze [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
* Just because breaking policy breaks a QA tool, but is guaranteed to
never break itself (formatting policy, like space vs. tab etc.)
does not increase the severity of the breakage.
I had hoped
On Thu, 2 Mar 2006 11:35:12 +0100 Paul de Vrieze [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| * Just because breaking policy breaks a QA tool, but is guaranteed to
| never break itself (formatting policy, like space vs. tab etc.)
| does not increase the severity of the breakage.
I'd argue against this one. See,
Duncan wrote:
Seeing this news makes me very sad, as ferringb was a name I had
associated with trust and integrity of opinion and developer skills.
It's certainly a loss for Gentoo, and as Gentoo is now a part of me, a
loss I'll feel personally, as well, but unfortunately, those times do come.
Lance Albertson [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
I'd argue against this one. See, it's possible to deliberately
circumvent some of repoman's checks by doing weird whitespace and syntax
trickery. There's also no way to fix repoman short of writing a fully
functional bash
Brian,
you'll be missed... can you at least pop by once and i while? always
enjoyed humping you...
/me 's list off biatchus is reducing...
good luck in the future mate, may you conquer your fears and reach your
dreams... don't forget Ne humanus crede
--
Defer no time, delays have dangerous
On Thu, 02 Mar 2006 11:35:34 -0600 Lance Albertson
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| QA shouldn't have to depend on the tools you use.
Sure. However, the tree is far too large to check manually for many
things. If we were to do the Sekrit Tool's IUSE check manually, for
example, we'd still be in
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Thu, 02 Mar 2006 11:35:34 -0600 Lance Albertson
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| QA shouldn't have to depend on the tools you use.
Sure. However, the tree is far too large to check manually for many
things. If we were to do the Sekrit Tool's IUSE check manually, for
On Thu, 02 Mar 2006 19:09:28 +0100 Simon Stelling [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
| On Thu, 02 Mar 2006 11:35:34 -0600 Lance Albertson
| [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| | QA shouldn't have to depend on the tools you use.
|
| Sure. However, the tree is far too large to check
Ciaran McCreesh [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
It's a heck of a lot easier to do if you assume that developers will
use sane syntax. Where developers don't use sane syntax, the only way
to deal with it is to check it by hand. We don't have enough developers
to do that.
I don't see where anyone is
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Thu, 02 Mar 2006 19:09:28 +0100 Simon Stelling [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
| On Thu, 02 Mar 2006 11:35:34 -0600 Lance Albertson
| [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| | QA shouldn't have to depend on the tools you use.
|
| Sure. However, the tree
On Thu, 02 Mar 2006 13:15:48 -0600 Lance Albertson
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| It should be a basic thing to expect the QA tool knows how to bail out
| correctly and resume looking for more important critical issues.
Sure. But what if more important critical issues are being masked by
weird
On Thursday 02 March 2006 17:45, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Thu, 2 Mar 2006 11:35:12 +0100 Paul de Vrieze [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| * Just because breaking policy breaks a QA tool, but is guaranteed to
| never break itself (formatting policy, like space vs. tab etc.)
| does not increase
Am Sonntag, den 26.02.2006, 21:25 -0800 schrieb Donnie Berkholz:
[...]
You might want to talk to the maintainer and herd, not all of us. Or
even file a bug for updates -- some people are very busy and just don't
notice there's a new version.
Tried to talk to the maintainer, no answer for days.
On Thu, 2 Mar 2006 21:10:02 +0100 Paul de Vrieze [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| I'm also convinced that deliberate circumvention is easy to detect.
In that case, please provide a list of cases where !arch? flags are
being used to circumvent repoman warnings, where the correct solution
would be to use
On Thursday 02 March 2006 19:28, Mark Loeser wrote:
Ciaran McCreesh [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
It's a heck of a lot easier to do if you assume that developers will
use sane syntax. Where developers don't use sane syntax, the only way
to deal with it is to check it by hand. We don't have enough
On Thu, 2006-02-03 at 21:14 +0100, Lars Strojny wrote:
Am Sonntag, den 26.02.2006, 21:25 -0800 schrieb Donnie Berkholz:
[...]
You might want to talk to the maintainer and herd, not all of us. Or
even file a bug for updates -- some people are very busy and just don't
notice there's a new
On 02-03-2006 20:19:19 +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Thu, 2 Mar 2006 21:10:02 +0100 Paul de Vrieze [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| I'm also convinced that deliberate circumvention is easy to detect.
In that case, please provide a list of cases where !arch? flags are
being used to circumvent
On Thursday 02 March 2006 21:19, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Thu, 2 Mar 2006 21:10:02 +0100 Paul de Vrieze [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| I'm also convinced that deliberate circumvention is easy to detect.
In that case, please provide a list of cases where !arch? flags are
being used to
On Thu, 2 Mar 2006 21:29:30 +0100 Grobian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| On 02-03-2006 20:19:19 +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
| On Thu, 2 Mar 2006 21:10:02 +0100 Paul de Vrieze [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| wrote:
| | I'm also convinced that deliberate circumvention is easy to
| | detect.
|
| In that
On Thu, 2 Mar 2006 21:38:33 +0100 Paul de Vrieze [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| Then explain people that doing this is not the way.
Have done, repeatedly, as have many others.
| And is it really a qualityissue? In all cases? There must be cases
| where the problem is package + arch + useflag
Stuart Herbert [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Hi Mark,
This draft seems to be effectively the same as the last one.
I'm sorry, but personally I don't see how this draft is substantially
different from the one posted originally. It looks like you've
decided not to address the points I raised
On Thursday 02 March 2006 21:51, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Thu, 2 Mar 2006 21:38:33 +0100 Paul de Vrieze [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| Then explain people that doing this is not the way.
Have done, repeatedly, as have many others.
| And is it really a qualityissue? In all cases? There must be
On Thu, 2006-03-02 at 20:49 +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
Now, you've heard that dropping keywords is bad. But you have a clever
idea, and make the dep alsa? ( !sparc? ( alsa libraries ) ). This gets
past repoman just fine.
STOP As any arch can tell you, that's never stopped me - *IF* you do
On Thu, 02 Mar 2006 16:19:58 -0500 Michael Cummings
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| On Thu, 2006-03-02 at 20:49 +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
| Now, you've heard that dropping keywords is bad. But you have a
| clever idea, and make the dep alsa? ( !sparc? ( alsa libraries ) ).
| This gets past
Lars Strojny wrote:
Am Sonntag, den 26.02.2006, 21:25 -0800 schrieb Donnie Berkholz:
[...]
You might want to talk to the maintainer and herd, not all of us. Or
even file a bug for updates -- some people are very busy and just don't
notice there's a new version.
Tried to talk to the
On Thursday 02 March 2006 16:19, Michael Cummings wrote:
On Thu, 2006-03-02 at 20:49 +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
Now, you've heard that dropping keywords is bad. But you have a clever
idea, and make the dep alsa? ( !sparc? ( alsa libraries ) ). This gets
past repoman just fine.
STOP As
On Thursday 02 March 2006 04:01, Stuart Herbert wrote:
* There is no proposal for a process to formulate, and gain wide
approval for new QA standards. This week, there's been an example of
the QA team documenting a QA standard *after* a bug was raised about a
QA violation ... and then that
On Wednesday 01 March 2006 21:53, Mark Loeser wrote:
Here is my updated version after some feedback from people:
* In case of emergency, or if package maintainers refuse to cooperate,
the QA team may take action themselves to fix the problem.
* The QA team may also offer to fix obvious
Mike Frysinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
one thing i dont think we give enough emphasis to is that our tools arent
perfect ... sometimes we utilize QA violations to work around portage
limitations ... if you want to see some really sweet hacks, review any of the
toolchain related ebuilds and
On Wed, Mar 01, 2006 at 08:15:19PM -0800, Brian wrote:
On Wed, 2006-01-03 at 17:39 -0800, Brian Harring wrote:
emerge bzr
bzr get http://gentooexperimental.org/~ferringb/bzr/saviour
cd saviour
bzr pull
...roughly. ;)
a little too rough :)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ~ $ bzr get
Hi,
Brian wrote on Thursday the 2nd of March 2006:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ~ $ bzr get
http://gentooexperimental.org/~ferringb/bzr/saviour
bzr: ERROR: urllib2.HTTPError: HTTP Error 403: Forbidden
at /usr/lib/python2.4/urllib2.py line 480
in http_error_default
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ~ $
After
On Thu, Mar 02, 2006 at 06:54:45PM +0100, Michael Schilling wrote:
Hi,
Brian wrote on Thursday the 2nd of March 2006:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ~ $ bzr get
http://gentooexperimental.org/~ferringb/bzr/saviour
bzr: ERROR: urllib2.HTTPError: HTTP Error 403: Forbidden
at
Brian Harring wrote:
I switched over to bzr about 2 months back; svn doesn't allow for
offline committing, nor does gentoo's vcs allow for anon*... bzr
natively allows for those capabilities, so that's what I'm using. :)
http://gentooexperimental.org/~ferringb/bzr/saviour
Is where I'll be
Marius Mauch wrote:
Does that mean we should drop the SVN branch?
Marius
I've already removed it from the documentation and added links to
Brian's current work on ge.org. As far as the actual repo, I think
keeping it around a bit longer might be beneficial, but who knows.
On Thu, Mar 02, 2006 at 10:44:58PM +0200, Marius Mauch wrote:
Brian Harring wrote:
On 2/28/06, *Michael Schilling* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
- Is one of these svn-web-repository up to date?
*
41 matches
Mail list logo
