-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 10/11/11 06:22, Matt Turner wrote:
On Sun, Oct 9, 2011 at 11:22 AM, Markos Chandras
hwoar...@gentoo.org wrote:
I am not in QA fwiw just trying to keep a basic QA level in
portage tree.
Wait, what? If you're not even in QA, then who are you
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 10/11/11 04:00, Ryan Hill wrote:
On Sat, 08 Oct 2011 18:33:15 +0300 Samuli Suominen
ssuomi...@gentoo.org wrote:
It's not like fastened lastriting hasn't happened before. I
question your motives in picking this particular one. It's not
like
On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 12:37 PM, Markos Chandras hwoar...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 10/11/11 06:22, Matt Turner wrote:
On Sun, Oct 9, 2011 at 11:22 AM, Markos Chandras
hwoar...@gentoo.org wrote:
I am not in QA fwiw just trying to keep a basic QA level in
portage tree.
Wait, what? If you're not
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 10/11/11 05:36, Alec Warner wrote:
3) Maintainers (and upstreams) are not always responsive. The bug
was opened in February and wasn't really worked on until recently.
It is a bit of surprise all this talking for a bug that went
unattended
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 10/11/11 08:21, Nirbheek Chauhan wrote:
On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 12:37 PM, Markos Chandras
hwoar...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 10/11/11 06:22, Matt Turner wrote:
On Sun, Oct 9, 2011 at 11:22 AM, Markos Chandras
hwoar...@gentoo.org wrote:
I am not
В Втр, 11/10/2011 в 08:09 +0100, Markos Chandras пишет:
Isn't this the same situation with gcc stabilizations?
No. As was pointed many times, there was (and still is) no clear
stabilization path announced. But there is some work behind scene and
pressing dates with absolutely no need. If you
Markos Chandras posted on Tue, 11 Oct 2011 08:09:21 +0100 as excerpted:
On 10/11/11 04:00, Ryan Hill wrote:
Then stop trying to remove packages that have an active maintainer.
I could have sworn that was written down somewhere.
Isn't this the same situation with gcc stabilizations? Once
Markos Chandras schrieb:
3) Maintainers (and upstreams) are not always responsive. The bug
was opened in February and wasn't really worked on until recently.
It is a bit of surprise all this talking for a bug that went
unattended for 9 months isn't it? O:) It is like people want open bugs
and
2011/10/11 Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn chith...@gentoo.org:
There was no indication 9 months ago that this bug is so bad that the
package would be removed if not fixed. Masking the package is ok if it
is totally broken or violates policy. Removal when the maintainer is
explicitly against it
On 10/11/2011 08:38 AM, Peter Volkov wrote:
В Вск, 09/10/2011 в 22:28 +, Duncan пишет:
Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn posted on Sun, 09 Oct 2011 18:37:59 +0200 as
excerpted:
Duncan schrieb:
Libpng isn't held up that way, while the package still gets its 30 day
masking last-rites. No
On 10/11/2011 07:10 PM, Samuli Suominen wrote:
On 10/11/2011 08:38 AM, Peter Volkov wrote:
В Вск, 09/10/2011 в 22:28 +, Duncan пишет:
Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn posted on Sun, 09 Oct 2011 18:37:59 +0200 as
excerpted:
Duncan schrieb:
Libpng isn't held up that way, while the package
On Tue, 11 Oct 2011 19:10:01 +0300
Samuli Suominen ssuomi...@gentoo.org wrote:
so no, you don't get to use this as anykind of weapon against me or
anyone else involved.
I thought the idea was to fix the problem in whatever way best serves
the needs of Gentoo's users, not to engage in warfare.
On 10/11/2011 07:28 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Tue, 11 Oct 2011 19:10:01 +0300
Samuli Suominen ssuomi...@gentoo.org wrote:
so no, you don't get to use this as anykind of weapon against me or
anyone else involved.
I thought the idea was to fix the problem in whatever way best serves
the
On 10/11/2011 08:38 AM, Peter Volkov wrote:
В Вск, 09/10/2011 в 22:28 +, Duncan пишет:
Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn posted on Sun, 09 Oct 2011 18:37:59 +0200 as
excerpted:
Duncan schrieb:
Libpng isn't held up that way, while the package still gets its 30 day
masking last-rites. No
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 10/11/11 14:57, Rich Freeman wrote:
Finally, when you are taking action in some role (QA, whatever),
make a note of it so that people know in what capacity you are
acting and what project head to escalate to. If you can't say that
I'm doing
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 10/11/11 14:57, Rich Freeman wrote:
2011/10/11 Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn chith...@gentoo.org:
The previous e-mail was not a direct response to you but I picked it
at random so I can reply to @all since I sent the entire thread to
/dev/null
On 10/11/2011 07:49 PM, Fabian Groffen (grobian) wrote:
grobian 11/10/11 16:49:18
Modified: ChangeLog chrpath-0.13-r2.ebuild
Log:
Revert ssuominen's changes that were totally uncalled for and most
importantly broke the installation of this package on the main
On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 12:52 PM, Markos Chandras hwoar...@gentoo.org wrote:
Seems like none of you ever bothered to read the bug about pngcrush
and what was discussed there.
I read the entire discussion before making a single post - it would be
irresponsible not to. Now, I can't say that I
On 11-10-2011 19:59:13 +0300, Samuli Suominen wrote:
So I've missed one ${EPREFIX} for docdir= ? How about just fixing that,
and not crapping all over the package?
How about first asking the maintainer before you completely rewrite an
ebuild? I'm not innocent on this topic either (ask Diego
On 10/11/2011 08:05 PM, Fabian Groffen wrote:
On 11-10-2011 19:59:13 +0300, Samuli Suominen wrote:
So I've missed one ${EPREFIX} for docdir= ? How about just fixing that,
and not crapping all over the package?
How about first asking the maintainer before you completely rewrite an
ebuild?
On 11-10-2011 21:01:40 +0300, Samuli Suominen wrote:
On 10/11/2011 08:05 PM, Fabian Groffen wrote:
On 11-10-2011 19:59:13 +0300, Samuli Suominen wrote:
So I've missed one ${EPREFIX} for docdir= ? How about just fixing that,
and not crapping all over the package?
How about first asking
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 10/11/11 18:34, Rich Freeman wrote:
On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 12:52 PM, Markos Chandras
hwoar...@gentoo.org wrote:
I understand your points but given the fact that we have no active QA
team to pick up the mess whenever needed (Diego can't do
On 10/11/2011 09:13 PM, Fabian Groffen wrote:
On 11-10-2011 21:01:40 +0300, Samuli Suominen wrote:
On 10/11/2011 08:05 PM, Fabian Groffen wrote:
On 11-10-2011 19:59:13 +0300, Samuli Suominen wrote:
So I've missed one ${EPREFIX} for docdir= ? How about just fixing that,
and not crapping all
On 11-10-2011 21:34:22 +0300, Samuli Suominen wrote:
Thanks, the end result of installed files look now OK. Care to reopen
the stabilization bug? The changes are trivial.
Shall we stick to the policy and wait 30 days without bugs first?
I just hope nobody will take an example of the ebuild
Hi,
Today I have found that build dependencies are left in the system but
won't be upgraded when running emerge -vauD1 world.
This can be inconvenient since security issues fixed in those left over
packages won't be applied properly.
So, is there any reason for this behaviour? Shouldn't build
On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 2:34 PM, Samuli Suominen ssuomi...@gentoo.org wrote:
I just hope nobody will take an example of the ebuild with code
duplication (multiple epatch calls), overquoting, redudant use of find
when rm is more than enough, ...
I haven't looked, but if we don't already, a
On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 3:07 AM, Markos Chandras hwoar...@gentoo.org wrote:
Wait, what? If you're not even in QA, then who are you to start
masking other people's packages?
It seems you don't even bother to read the masking message or my
comments on the bug. I said Talk to QA and CC me if you
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 10/11/11 19:50, Francisco Blas Izquierdo Riera (klondike) wrote:
Hi,
Today I have found that build dependencies are left in the system
but won't be upgraded when running emerge -vauD1 world. This can be
inconvenient since security issues
El 11/10/11 20:55, Markos Chandras escribió:
On 10/11/11 19:50, Francisco Blas Izquierdo Riera (klondike) wrote:
Hi,
Today I have found that build dependencies are left in the system
but won't be upgraded when running emerge -vauD1 world. This can be
inconvenient since security issues
On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 12:23 PM, Francisco Blas Izquierdo Riera
(klondike) klond...@gentoo.org wrote:
El 11/10/11 20:55, Markos Chandras escribió:
On 10/11/11 19:50, Francisco Blas Izquierdo Riera (klondike) wrote:
Hi,
Today I have found that build dependencies are left in the system
but
On 10/11/2011 09:46 PM, Fabian Groffen wrote:
On 11-10-2011 21:34:22 +0300, Samuli Suominen wrote:
Thanks, the end result of installed files look now OK. Care to reopen
the stabilization bug? The changes are trivial.
Shall we stick to the policy and wait 30 days without bugs first?
OK, no
On Tue, 11 Oct 2011 14:50:30 -0400
Matt Turner matts...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 2:34 PM, Samuli Suominen
ssuomi...@gentoo.org wrote:
I just hope nobody will take an example of the ebuild with code
duplication (multiple epatch calls), overquoting, redudant use of
find
On 11-10-2011 22:38:10 +0300, Samuli Suominen wrote:
This document should be fixed. Any comments about the patches belong to
header of those patches, available for possible upstreams as well.
Doesn't belong to ebuilds.
The devmanual doesn't suggest this is the way to go, does it?
So it very
On Tue, 11 Oct 2011 12:36:15 -0700
Alec Warner anta...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 12:23 PM, Francisco Blas Izquierdo Riera
(klondike) klond...@gentoo.org wrote:
El 11/10/11 20:55, Markos Chandras escribió:
On 10/11/11 19:50, Francisco Blas Izquierdo Riera (klondike) wrote:
On 10/11/2011 10:49 PM, Fabian Groffen wrote:
On 11-10-2011 22:38:10 +0300, Samuli Suominen wrote:
This document should be fixed. Any comments about the patches belong to
header of those patches, available for possible upstreams as well.
Doesn't belong to ebuilds.
The devmanual doesn't
On Dienstag 11 Oktober 2011 20:23:13 Markos Chandras wrote:
On 10/11/11 18:34, Rich Freeman wrote:
On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 12:52 PM, Markos Chandras
hwoar...@gentoo.org wrote:
I understand your points but given the fact that we have no active QA
team to pick up the mess whenever needed
On 11-10-2011 23:00:19 +0300, Samuli Suominen wrote:
The devmanual doesn't suggest this is the way to go, does it?
No, but it should.
different topic
--
Fabian Groffen
Gentoo on a different level
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
El 11/10/11 21:36, Alec Warner escribió:
On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 12:23 PM, Francisco Blas Izquierdo Riera
(klondike) klond...@gentoo.org wrote:
El 11/10/11 20:55, Markos Chandras escribió:
On 10/11/11 19:50, Francisco Blas Izquierdo Riera (klondike) wrote:
Hi,
Today I have found that build
On 10/11/2011 11:04 PM, Fabian Groffen wrote:
On 11-10-2011 23:00:19 +0300, Samuli Suominen wrote:
The devmanual doesn't suggest this is the way to go, does it?
No, but it should.
different topic
still on the same one.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 10/11/11 21:01, Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
On Dienstag 11 Oktober 2011 20:23:13 Markos Chandras wrote:
On 10/11/11 18:34, Rich Freeman wrote:
On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 12:52 PM, Markos Chandras
hwoar...@gentoo.org wrote:
I understand your
On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 2:50 PM, Francisco Blas Izquierdo Riera
(klondike) klond...@gentoo.org wrote:
So, is there any reason for this behaviour? Shouldn't build dependencies
either be cleaned with --depclean after building or be upgraded to avoid
possible issues?
I agree: with-bdeps should
On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 1:29 PM, Markos Chandras hwoar...@gentoo.org wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 10/11/11 21:01, Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
On Dienstag 11 Oktober 2011 20:23:13 Markos Chandras wrote:
On 10/11/11 18:34, Rich Freeman wrote:
On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at
On Tue, 11 Oct 2011 17:52:42 +0100
Markos Chandras hwoar...@gentoo.org wrote:
Seems like none of you ever bothered to read the bug about pngcrush
and what was discussed there. It is getting a little bit of a habit to
escalate minor problems to flames in Gentoo. So feel free to
write/say/do
Mike Gilbert posted on Tue, 11 Oct 2011 17:04:02 -0400 as excerpted:
On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 2:50 PM, Francisco Blas Izquierdo Riera
(klondike) klond...@gentoo.org wrote:
So, is there any reason for this behaviour? Shouldn't build
dependencies either be cleaned with --depclean after building
On Tue, 11 Oct 2011 08:09:21 +0100
Markos Chandras hwoar...@gentoo.org wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 10/11/11 04:00, Ryan Hill wrote:
On Sat, 08 Oct 2011 18:33:15 +0300 Samuli Suominen
ssuomi...@gentoo.org wrote:
It's not like fastened lastriting hasn't
On Tue, 11 Oct 2011 19:41:21 -0600
Ryan Hill dirtye...@gentoo.org wrote:
Isn't this the same situation with gcc stabilizations? Once the
timeframe for fixing broken packages with e.g gcc-4.5 is passed, the
remaining broken packages will be gone.
Absolutely not. They aren't even masked.
On 10/11/2011 11:50 AM, Francisco Blas Izquierdo Riera (klondike) wrote:
Hi,
Today I have found that build dependencies are left in the system but
won't be upgraded when running emerge -vauD1 world.
This can be inconvenient since security issues fixed in those left over
packages won't be
Michał Górny wrote:
I don't think that passing multiple files to epatch actually improves
readability. Simple example:
# bug #123456, foo, bar
epatch ${FILESDIR}/${P}-foo.patch
# bug #234567, baz bazinga blah blah
epatch ${FILESDIR}/${P}-baz.patch
With multiple arguments, you can't put
Hi all
Recently, there was a firestorm on the gentoo-user list over the idea
that udev would eventually require /usr to be on the same physical
parition as /, or else use initramfs, which is its own can of worms. I'm
not a programmer, let alone a developer. Rather than merely ranting, I
went
On 10/11/2011 02:04 PM, Mike Gilbert wrote:
On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 2:50 PM, Francisco Blas Izquierdo Riera
(klondike) klond...@gentoo.org wrote:
So, is there any reason for this behaviour? Shouldn't build dependencies
either be cleaned with --depclean after building or be upgraded to avoid
On 10/11/2011 12:56 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
Or go with a saner defaults...
So, are any of the following sane?
1) Pull in updates for packages even though those packages won't be used
for anything.
2) Pull in build-time dependencies for packages that are already built,
even though no portage
On 10/11/2011 09:40 PM, Walter Dnes wrote:
Hi all
Recently, there was a firestorm on the gentoo-user list over the idea
that udev would eventually require /usr to be on the same physical
parition as /, or else use initramfs, which is its own can of worms. I'm
not a programmer, let alone a
On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 12:40:23AM -0400, Walter Dnes wrote:
Hi all
Recently, there was a firestorm on the gentoo-user list over the idea
that udev would eventually require /usr to be on the same physical
parition as /, or else use initramfs, which is its own can of worms. I'm
not a
On 10/12/2011 12:54 AM, Zac Medico wrote:
On 10/11/2011 12:56 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
Or go with a saner defaults...
So, are any of the following sane?
1) Pull in updates for packages even though those packages won't be used
for anything.
Francisco raised a possibly valid point in his
On 10/11/2011 10:28 PM, Mike Gilbert wrote:
On 10/12/2011 12:54 AM, Zac Medico wrote:
On 10/11/2011 12:56 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
Or go with a saner defaults...
So, are any of the following sane?
1) Pull in updates for packages even though those packages won't be used
for anything.
Zac Medico zmed...@gentoo.org writes:
On 10/11/2011 10:28 PM, Mike Gilbert wrote:
Francisco raised a possibly valid point in his original message: though
packages may not be currently used for anything, but they could contain
un-patched security flaws.
If they contain something that's
On 10/11/2011 12:11 AM, Fabian Groffen wrote:
On 11-10-2011 00:50:54 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
If people use strip from the elfutils package, take advantage of some of
its neat features (like splitting + stripping in one step).
+# See if we're using GNU binutils or elfutils for stripping
On Tuesday 11 October 2011 03:11:03 Fabian Groffen wrote:
On 11-10-2011 00:50:54 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
If people use strip from the elfutils package, take advantage of some of
its neat features (like splitting + stripping in one step).
+# See if we're using GNU binutils or
On 11-10-2011 10:18:16 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
For the sake of it, can we try to detect GNU binutils here? Our
profiles restrict strip, so no immediate problem here if not.
adding detection here will fix most, but i don't think all, of your troubles
the code still unconditionally
59 matches
Mail list logo
