On Sat, 5 May 2007 00:17:46 +0100
Ciaran McCreesh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 04 May 2007 17:38:43 -0500
Steev Klimaszewski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
otherwise, yeah, elog does the same thing already...
Experience has shown that news items work in delivering this kind of
information
On Sat, 5 May 2007 00:52:46 +0100
Ciaran McCreesh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 4 May 2007 19:48:19 -0400
Dan Meltzer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That seems like a really bad road to go down.
Would it not be better to extend elog to alert people at the end of
an install as well?
On Fri, May 04, 2007 at 10:49:47PM +0200, Piotr Jaroszy??ski wrote:
Justification: major config format change.
As of Paludis 0.24, the use of '*' to match all packages in the Paludis
configuration files 'use.conf', 'keywords.conf' and 'licenses.conf' is
deprecated in favour of '*/*'. You
It looks like it is not clear enough what kind of news should be called
critical.
If for instance an upgrade from package foo-3.4 to foo-4.0 will cause
the system to break unless specific steps are followed (mysql/gcc), it's
obvious that it's suitable for a news item.
If an upgrade from an
On Sat, 5 May 2007 10:07:41 +0200
Marius Mauch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What experience? So far there have been no news items.
Paludis has had working news items for ages, and we've used them in the
overlay.
The issue about elog messages being one shot things is rather
outdated (at least for
On Sat, 5 May 2007 10:30:40 +0200
Marius Mauch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And given that the GLEP specifically states that news items are not
suposed to replace the usual postinst einfo/elog messages I'm tempted
to call this an abuse of the news framework.
The usual postinst messages are
On Sat, 5 May 2007 13:44:54 +0200
Maurice van der Pot [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It looks like it is not clear enough what kind of news should be
called critical.
It's quite simple. If something is of sufficient interest to users who
would be shown the news item that it is worth them seeing a
Ciaran McCreesh napsal(a):
On Sat, 5 May 2007 10:30:40 +0200
Marius Mauch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And given that the GLEP specifically states that news items are not
suposed to replace the usual postinst einfo/elog messages I'm tempted
to call this an abuse of the news framework.
The
On Sat, 05 May 2007 14:53:47 +0200
Jakub Moc [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
For what situation? Changing * to */* is a bunch of config files (as
far as I've been told, paludis warns about this deprecated syntax
anyway)?
If we are going to abuse critical news reporting feature for such
Ciaran McCreesh napsal(a):
On Sat, 05 May 2007 14:53:47 +0200
Jakub Moc [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
For what situation? Changing * to */* is a bunch of config files (as
far as I've been told, paludis warns about this deprecated syntax
anyway)?
If we are going to abuse critical news reporting
On Sat, 05 May 2007 15:15:55 +0200
Jakub Moc [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Only Paludis users will use the news item. To Paludis users, the
news item is not a triviality or noise. To everyone else it's
irrelevant.
How does it matter exactly whether it's paludis users, gcc users, php
users,
On Sat, 5 May 2007 13:46:32 +0100
Ciaran McCreesh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, 5 May 2007 10:30:40 +0200
Marius Mauch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And given that the GLEP specifically states that news items are not
suposed to replace the usual postinst einfo/elog messages I'm
tempted to
What experience? So far there have been no news items. The issue
about elog messages being one shot things is rather outdated (at least
for portage), and post-merge information is the domain of elog (as
stated in the GLEP).
As Ciaran explained below, the paludis overlay has been using them
Ciaran McCreesh napsal(a):
On Sat, 05 May 2007 15:15:55 +0200
Jakub Moc [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How does it matter exactly whether it's paludis users, gcc users, php
users, apache users or whoever else who will use the news item? Let's
not misuse news framework for stuff that
Er, that's
On Sat, 5 May 2007 15:28:21 +0200
Marius Mauch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, 5 May 2007 13:46:32 +0100
Ciaran McCreesh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, 5 May 2007 10:30:40 +0200
Marius Mauch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And given that the GLEP specifically states that news items are
not
On Sat, 05 May 2007 15:37:36 +0200
Jakub Moc [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That's not what I've been pointing out at all, you've completely
snipped the important part about *unintended* use of this feature.
So, once again - this is not an elog replacement and is not intended
for trivial stuff (see
Stephen P. Becker napsal(a):
For example, a recent news
item in the paludis overlay informed users on how to properly set
everything up for userpriv with paludis-0.22, a description that was far
too detailed for elog, and which I didn't have time to read the very
minute that I installed the
On Sat, 5 May 2007 13:45:47 +0100
Ciaran McCreesh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, 5 May 2007 10:07:41 +0200
Marius Mauch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What experience? So far there have been no news items.
Paludis has had working news items for ages, and we've used them in
the overlay.
The
On Sat, 05 May 2007 15:48:28 +0200
Jakub Moc [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
OK, I'm afraid that GLEP42 is missing the part that critical news
reporting does not replace documentation. You seriously intend to use
this feature for such stuff and force everyone to download this via
rsync?
You
On Sat, 5 May 2007 15:51:25 +0200
Marius Mauch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sorry, but I'd hardly call _your_ experience with paludis overlay
users a reliable indicator that g42 news are superior to elog for
Gentoo at large. Please stop pretending that you're speaking
for/about the majority of our
On Saturday, May 5, 2007 03:23:41 PM Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
[Paludis configuration: * - */*]
Experience and user feedback has shown that in situations like this
users want an accompanying news item even if the application does
output deprecation warnings.
Currently, there are two news item in
On Sat, 5 May 2007 16:05:08 +0200
Wulf C. Krueger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Saturday, May 5, 2007 03:23:41 PM Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
[Paludis configuration: * - */*]
Experience and user feedback has shown that in situations like this
users want an accompanying news item even if the
Ciaran McCreesh napsal(a):
On Sat, 05 May 2007 15:48:28 +0200
Jakub Moc [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
OK, I'm afraid that GLEP42 is missing the part that critical news
reporting does not replace documentation. You seriously intend to use
this feature for such stuff and force everyone to download
On Sat, 05 May 2007 16:15:33 +0200
Jakub Moc [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You seriously intend to use elog across lots of ebuilds rather than
a single news item?
Yeah, I seriously think package documentation belongs to tarballs and
gets installed to /usr/share/docs/${PF} - not to gentoo-x86
On Saturday, May 5, 2007 04:14:25 PM Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
Currently, there are two news item in the Paludis overlay. Unless
earlier ones were removed, those two seem to be a fairly small sample
to deduce anything from.
They were.
How many news items did you issue? (It's probably easier
On Sat, 5 May 2007 16:40:12 +0200
Wulf C. Krueger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Saturday, May 5, 2007 04:14:25 PM Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
Currently, there are two news item in the Paludis overlay. Unless
earlier ones were removed, those two seem to be a fairly small
sample to deduce
To be honest I didn't expect so many comments here and as far as I believe in
your sincerest intentions... err no I don't anymore.
We have got input about this from many users and we have some experience in
dealing with users problems in the past and we really know better what
information
On Sat, 5 May 2007 09:37:17 -0400
Stephen P. Becker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What experience? So far there have been no news items. The issue
about elog messages being one shot things is rather outdated (at
least for portage), and post-merge information is the domain of
elog (as stated in
On Sat, 5 May 2007 17:12:03 +0200
Marius Mauch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
a g42 news item shouldn't be issued for minor syntax
changes in config files that could just as well handled completely
automatically in postinst/CONFIG_PROTECT.
And these changes can't be handled that way, since paludis
Stephen Bennett napsal(a):
On Sat, 5 May 2007 17:12:03 +0200
Marius Mauch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
a g42 news item shouldn't be issued for minor syntax
changes in config files that could just as well handled completely
automatically in postinst/CONFIG_PROTECT.
And these changes can't
On Sat, 05 May 2007 17:34:39 +0200
Jakub Moc [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Stephen Bennett napsal(a):
On Sat, 5 May 2007 17:12:03 +0200
Marius Mauch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
a g42 news item shouldn't be issued for minor syntax
changes in config files that could just as well handled
On Sat, 5 May 2007 16:23:53 +0100
Ciaran McCreesh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, 5 May 2007 17:12:03 +0200
Marius Mauch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(My) Experience has also shown that gentoo-x86/portage users like
the elog features in portage, so stop with those games, they don't
get us
On Sat, 5 May 2007 17:44:46 +0200
Marius Mauch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why did I knew that this argument would come? Maybe because it's your
default reaction to any opposition.
What, providing evidence to the contrary? What more do you want?
--
Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description:
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Sat, 5 May 2007 17:44:46 +0200
Marius Mauch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why did I knew that this argument would come? Maybe because it's your
default reaction to any opposition.
What, providing evidence to the contrary? What more do you want?
This is such a
On Sat, 2007-05-05 at 16:51 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Sat, 5 May 2007 17:44:46 +0200
Marius Mauch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why did I knew that this argument would come? Maybe because it's your
default reaction to any opposition.
What, providing evidence to the contrary? What more
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Sat, 5 May 2007 13:44:54 +0200
Maurice van der Pot [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It looks like it is not clear enough what kind of news should be
called critical.
It's quite simple. If something is of sufficient interest to
On Sat, 05 May 2007 17:08:50 +
Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You're arguing this news item will only be shown to paludis users, but
you're forgetting that paludis users also use many other packages in
the tree. Assume user X has many packages on his system including
On Sat, May 05, 2007 at 06:21:47PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
So the only important question is whether the news items are useful for
the people who will see them. In this case we know the answer is yes.
No one answered my question asked in Message-ID:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] what paludis actually
Have there been news items yet, which mentioned changes in config files, which
did (as far as i understood it) not break the directly next version which is
upgraded too, but just made a bunch of warnings arise that the config file
uses the old format which now is deprecated, telling the user to
Wernfried Haas wrote:
On Sat, May 05, 2007 at 06:21:47PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
So the only important question is whether the news items are useful for
the people who will see them. In this case we know the answer is yes.
No one answered my question asked in Message-ID:
[EMAIL
On Sat, 5 May 2007 19:34:22 +0200
Wernfried Haas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, May 05, 2007 at 06:21:47PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
So the only important question is whether the news items are useful
for the people who will see them. In this case we know the answer
is yes.
No one
On Saturday, May 5, 2007 07:46:47 PM Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
It warns noisily. It doesn't say how to fix it.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]: [WARNING] In program paludis -ip kdelibs:
... When making environment from specification '':
... When loading paludis configuration:
... When reading licenses file
On Sat, May 05, 2007 at 06:46:47PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
It warns noisily.
Then it's not even close to being broken and i don't see the need for
a news item.
It doesn't say how to fix it.
I'm sure that can be arranged even without a news item.
Imho the whole GLEP process is being
On Sat, 5 May 2007 21:18:38 +0200
Wernfried Haas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, May 05, 2007 at 06:46:47PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
It warns noisily.
Then it's not even close to being broken and i don't see the need for
a news item.
You don't use Paludis. Paludis users do see the
On Sat, May 05, 2007 at 08:29:14PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
You don't use Paludis.
Irrelevant to the issue at hand. We're discussing the (ab-)use of the
news system, not my personal choice of package manager.
Paludis users do see the need for a news item.
Not the question if paludis
Ciaran McCreesh napsal(a):
On Sat, 5 May 2007 21:18:38 +0200
Wernfried Haas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, May 05, 2007 at 06:46:47PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
It warns noisily.
Then it's not even close to being broken and i don't see the need for
a news item.
You don't use
On Sat, 5 May 2007 22:00:27 +0200
Wernfried Haas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Paludis users do see the need for a news item.
Not the question if paludis users see the need. Not even the question
if i see the need. The point is that GLEP 42 doesn't.
GLEP 42 is designed to deliver important
On Sat, 05 May 2007 22:03:08 +0200
Jakub Moc [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well, then frankly feed those news to your overlay users
A good number of Paludis users don't use the overlay.
Because the above is clearly stupid - what are you really after here,
may I ask? I guess amne is right here.
Ciaran McCreesh napsal(a):
On Sat, 5 May 2007 22:00:27 +0200
Wernfried Haas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Paludis users do see the need for a news item.
Not the question if paludis users see the need. Not even the question
if i see the need. The point is that GLEP 42 doesn't.
GLEP 42 is
On Sat, 05 May 2007 22:19:27 +0200
Jakub Moc [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ciaran McCreesh napsal(a):
On Sat, 5 May 2007 22:00:27 +0200
Wernfried Haas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Paludis users do see the need for a news item.
Not the question if paludis users see the need. Not even the
question
Ciaran McCreesh napsal(a):
On Sat, 05 May 2007 22:19:27 +0200
Jakub Moc [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ciaran McCreesh napsal(a):
On Sat, 5 May 2007 22:00:27 +0200
Wernfried Haas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Paludis users do see the need for a news item.
Not the question if paludis users see the
On Sat, May 05, 2007 at 09:27:41PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Sat, 05 May 2007 22:19:27 +0200
Jakub Moc [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
OK, is this the 'how stupid this thread can become' contest?
No, it's about delivering the best experience we can to end users. If
you're wanting to find a
On Sat, 05 May 2007 22:37:37 +0200
Jakub Moc [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Erm, not really? This is about proper usage of GLEP42 stuff.
Yes, it is about proper usage of GLEP 42. This news item is one example
of that.
There's nothing critical about your * stuff.
Sure there is. If users aren't
Am Samstag 05 Mai 2007 22:44 schrieb Ciaran McCreesh:
On Sat, 05 May 2007 22:37:37 +0200
Jakub Moc [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Erm, not really? This is about proper usage of GLEP42 stuff.
Yes, it is about proper usage of GLEP 42. This news item is one example
of that.
There's nothing
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Sat, 05 May 2007 22:03:08 +0200
Jakub Moc [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well, then frankly feed those news to your overlay users
A good number of Paludis users don't use the overlay.
Because the above is clearly stupid - what are you really after here,
may I ask? I
Ciaran McCreesh napsal(a):
There's nothing critical about your * stuff.
Sure there is. If users aren't informed about the change in an
appropriate manner, the users get annoyed.
You're trying to sabotage this based upon arguments over wording
technicalities. Where is your evidence that
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Sat, 05 May 2007 22:37:37 +0200
Jakub Moc [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Erm, not really? This is about proper usage of GLEP42 stuff.
Yes, it is about proper usage of GLEP 42. This news item is one example
of that.
There's nothing critical about your * stuff.
Sure
On Sat, May 05, 2007 at 09:54:08PM +0100, George Prowse wrote:
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Sat, 05 May 2007 22:03:08 +0200
Jakub Moc [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well, then frankly feed those news to your overlay users
A good number of Paludis users don't use the overlay.
Because the above is
Piotr Jaroszyński wrote:
Hello,
There was some discussion about forcing/not forcing tests in EAPI-1, but
there
was clearly no compromise. Imho, tests are very important and thus I want to
discuss them a little more, but in more sensible fashion.
Firstly each test can be(not all
On Sat, 05 May 2007 22:56:58 +0200
Jakub Moc [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm not trying to sabotage anything but total misuse of the feature.
Would have the same objections wrt whatever other critical news
that'd constitute completely inappropriate usage of GLEP42 features.
(And I'd expect that
On Sat, May 05, 2007 at 09:44:35PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
There's nothing critical about your * stuff.
Sure there is. If users aren't informed about the change in an
appropriate manner, the users get annoyed.
There's a lot of subjectivity in this sentence... appropriate...
annoyed...
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
All-
After some discussion on #-dev there are some improvements that we can
make on glep 42.
1. Priority levels for news items: If we did this users could decide
what levels of importance to filter out.
2. Standards for news items: Based on the
On Sat, 5 May 2007 16:10:39 -0500
»Q« [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In news:[EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I bet there are other users around, who think a config file format
change that doesnt break anything but produce warnings in the first
place is non-critical.
I'm another
On Sat, 05 May 2007 14:26:48 -0700
Mike Doty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
After some discussion on #-dev there are some improvements that we can
make on glep 42.
Well, if you're going about improving it, start by adding in the
Display-If-Upgrading-From-To: header. It'll be a nuisance to implement,
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Sat, 05 May 2007 14:26:48 -0700
Mike Doty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
After some discussion on #-dev there are some improvements that we can
make on glep 42.
Well, if you're going about improving it, start by adding in
On Sat, May 05, 2007 at 10:26:50PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
Are you a Paludis user who thinks that
Irrelevant, people can think beyond just paludis.
and who knows what news item delivery looks like?
Irrelevant, what it looks like has nothing to do with whether or not it
is critical.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Piotr Jaroszy?ski wrote:
Hello,
Thanks to zmedico we now have support for news items on infra-side and heck
they are ready to use. And we should use them!
Attaching news item for paludis 0.24.
Justification: major config format change.
On Sat, 05 May 2007 14:44:49 -0700
Mike Doty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well, if you're going about improving it, start by adding in the
Display-If-Upgrading-From-To: header. It'll be a nuisance to
implement, but it'll be far more useful than any of the rest of
this.
Your word doesn't
On Sat, 5 May 2007 23:48:31 +0200
Maurice van der Pot [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, May 05, 2007 at 10:26:50PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
Are you a Paludis user who thinks that
Irrelevant, people can think beyond just paludis.
We're discussing a news item that will only be shown to
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
That'll just increase the amount of disagreement about news items
because it'll give people more pointless wording to argue over.
After all, something I agree with.
It's quite simple. If releasing a news item improves the user
experience of affected users more than not
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote:
Piotr Jaroszy?ski wrote:
Hello,
Thanks to zmedico we now have support for news items on infra-side and heck
they are ready to use. And we should use them!
Attaching news item for paludis 0.24.
On Sun, 6 May 2007 00:00:11 +0200
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Paludis will still work, after the upgrade, but it will produce
warnings. So there are no problems at all, it still works just fine.
Paludis producing a warning (as opposed to a lower level notice --
Paludis has different levels for log
Ciaran McCreesh napsal(a):
On Sat, 5 May 2007 23:48:31 +0200
Maurice van der Pot [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, May 05, 2007 at 10:26:50PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
and who knows what news item delivery looks like?
Irrelevant, what it looks like has nothing to do with whether or not
On Sun, 06 May 2007 00:09:37 +0200
Jakub Moc [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ciaran McCreesh napsal(a):
On Sat, 5 May 2007 23:48:31 +0200
Maurice van der Pot [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, May 05, 2007 at 10:26:50PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
and who knows what news item delivery looks
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
Paludis producing a warning (as opposed to a lower level notice --
Paludis has different levels for log notices, of which 'warning' is
the highest) is something that is considered critical enough that the
user should fix it before continuing. Were it not critical, a
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
No, but it affects the impact upon user experience, which is the entire
point of the process. This is, after all, about delivering what's best
for affected users.
No it is not.
It is about wether or not this news item would fit into the current set of
rules, which it
I wrote:
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
This thread is not, however, about Paludis. Please keep future moaning
about Paludis in the appropriate thread.
Perfectly correct, it is about this news item being critical or not.
I were not the one who started to talk about log levels, which is
off-topic.
I picked a random mail to reply to:
The paludis news item has been approved by me, cause I rock, and
commited to the proper location. Assuming the code Zac wrote was
actually tested and is turned on, the news item will hit the tree soon.
Good Day Sirs.
-Alec
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
On Sun, 6 May 2007 00:30:28 +0200
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
No, but it affects the impact upon user experience, which is the
entire point of the process. This is, after all, about delivering
what's best for affected users.
No it is not.
It is about wether or not this
On Sun, 6 May 2007 00:25:20 +0200
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It is critical if your filesystem might be damaged, if there are
security issues of any kind, or if something stops working.
It is critical if it requires manual action by many or the majority of
targetted users.
--
Ciaran McCreesh
On Sat, 5 May 2007 17:27:45 -0500
»Q« [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If you aren't, you won't see the news item.
I saw it when it was posted here.
Because the GLEP 42 process, quite rightly, requires that news items be
posted to -dev for review before they're committed.
It seems important but
The paludis news item has been approved by me, cause I rock, and
commited to the proper location.
Council?
--
Christian Hartmann
http://www.gentoo.org/~ian/
PGP Key:
http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=getsearch=0x2154E5EE692A4865
Key fingerprint = 4544 EC0C BAE4 216F 5981 7F95 2154 E5EE
Christian Hartmann napsal(a):
The paludis news item has been approved by me, cause I rock, and
commited to the proper location.
Council?
+1
This should be put on hold until there's some consent and guidelines on
how this is supposed to be used. The current 100+ emails threads clearly
Hey,
Count me in on this one. I'm taking a sabbatical from university this year,
so I have lots of time to waste.
Plus the linux kernel has since forever been on my to-do list.
Cheers,
Joris (krolden)
On 4/29/07, Daniel Drake [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
I'm looking to find one or more
On Sun, May 06, 2007 at 01:10:48AM +0200, Jakub Moc wrote:
Christian Hartmann napsal(a):
The paludis news item has been approved by me, cause I rock, and
commited to the proper location.
Council?
+1
This should be put on hold until there's some consent and guidelines on
how this
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
There are a couple of upstream packages that are release with p0
suffixes: ntp [1] and dvd95 [2]. Portage currently considers all
packages to have an implicit _p0 suffix, which means that
ntp-4.2.4_p0 ntp-4.2.4-r1. Should we ban the _p0 suffix from
On Sat, 05 May 2007 18:02:30 -0700
Zac Medico [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Should we ban the _p0 suffix from the tree
Possibly, though I don't see a real reason for it.
or should be change the version comparison behavior so that
implicit _p0 is less than explicit _p0?
No.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Sun, 6 May 2007 00:25:20 +0200
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It is critical if your filesystem might be damaged, if there are
security issues of any kind, or if something stops working.
It is critical if it requires manual
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Stephen Bennett wrote:
or should be change the version comparison behavior so that
implicit _p0 is less than explicit _p0?
No.
Let's sure we talking about the same thing when we say implicit
_p0. The patch attached to bug 171259 will make
On Saturday 05 May 2007 5:34:29 pm Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Sat, 05 May 2007 14:26:48 -0700
Mike Doty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
After some discussion on #-dev there are some improvements that we can
make on glep 42.
Well, if you're going about improving it, start by adding in the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Ryan Hill wrote:
Can we qualify each of these into one of your categories? (NB: I
realize there are solutions for each of these examples. I'm pointing
out that not only is the situation not black and white, it often ranges
in the ultra-violet.)
I've tried to divide up the various things being discussed here.
Regarding paludis:
- The syntax change in question affects =paludis-0.24
- The old syntax is still accepted
- A warning message is printed to the console by paludis when
the old (deprecated) syntax is detected
- The
92 matches
Mail list logo
