On Sun, 2014-06-29 at 23:01 -0500, William Hubbs wrote:
All,
I am starting a new thread so we don't refer to a specific package, but I
am quoting Rich and hasufell from the previous masking thread.
On Sun, Jun 29, 2014 at 10:04:54AM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote:
On Sun, Jun 29, 2014 at 8:36
Am Montag, 30. Juni 2014, 06:01:53 schrieb William Hubbs:
I'm not saying that we should just randomly throw something into ~arch
without testing it, but ~arch users are running ~arch with the
understanding that their systems will break from time to time and they
are expected to be able to
On 29/06/14 16:49, Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
virtual/perl-Switch
No, stop that right now.
Bug #511874 needs to be actually fixed:
https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=511874
The explanation was closed as a duplicate, which it isn't:
https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=496278
You are
Am Montag, 30. Juni 2014, 10:21:17 schrieb Tony Vroon:
On 29/06/14 16:49, Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
virtual/perl-Switch
No, stop that right now.
Bug #511874 needs to be actually fixed:
https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=511874
The explanation was closed as a duplicate, which it
Rich Freeman: On Sun, Jun 29, 2014 at 8:36 AM, hasufell
hasuf...@gentoo.org wrote:
This is still too vague for me. If it's expected to be short-term, then
it can as well just land in ~arch.
A package that hasn't been tested AT ALL doesn't belong in ~arch.
Huh? That's exactly the place.
On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 12:01 AM, William Hubbs willi...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Sun, Jun 29, 2014 at 10:04:54AM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote:
On Sun, Jun 29, 2014 at 8:36 AM, hasufell hasuf...@gentoo.org wrote:
This is still too vague for me. If it's expected to be short-term, then
it can as
On Mon, 2014-06-30 at 11:29 +, hasufell wrote:
I agree that masking for testing is like having a 3rd branch, but I'm
not convinced that this is a bad thing.
I have to reiterate:
* increases the workload, because we are effectively running 3 branches
* decreases the amount of testing
On Mon, 30 Jun 2014 09:25:27 -0400
Rich Freeman ri...@gentoo.org wrote:
Agree 100%. I'm taking about masking things that HAVEN'T BEEN TESTED
AT ALL. The maintainer knows that they compile, and that is it.
Developers who HAVEN'T [...] TESTED AT ALL and still commit their
changes to the tree
On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 7:29 AM, hasufell hasuf...@gentoo.org wrote:
Huh? That's exactly the place. However, if you mean AT ALL in the
sense that no one ever tried to compile it, then the guy who comitted
should not have commit rights.
I mean in the sense that it has been compiled, but that it
On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 10:15 AM, Jeroen Roovers j...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Mon, 30 Jun 2014 09:25:27 -0400
Rich Freeman ri...@gentoo.org wrote:
Agree 100%. I'm taking about masking things that HAVEN'T BEEN TESTED
AT ALL. The maintainer knows that they compile, and that is it.
Developers
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 30/06/14 04:46 AM, Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
[snip!] * As Fabian pointed out, perl-core/Switch-2.160.0 should
still go stable. Fine with me (but I can't read your minds about
future stabilizations, and the virtual only had ~arch reverse
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 30/06/14 09:25 AM, Rich Freeman wrote:
On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 12:01 AM, William Hubbs
willi...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Sun, Jun 29, 2014 at 10:04:54AM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote:
On Sun, Jun 29, 2014 at 8:36 AM, hasufell hasuf...@gentoo.org
On Mon, 30 Jun 2014 10:37:11 -0400
Rich Freeman ri...@gentoo.org wrote:
You're basically asking for the practice of hard-masks for testing to
be banned.
My original point in the other thread was that masked for testing is
not a valid reason. A reference to an outstanding issue, bug report,
Dnia 2014-06-30, o godz. 11:22:07
Ian Stakenvicius a...@gentoo.org napisał(a):
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 30/06/14 09:25 AM, Rich Freeman wrote:
On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 12:01 AM, William Hubbs
willi...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Sun, Jun 29, 2014 at 10:04:54AM
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 30/06/14 11:36 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
Dnia 2014-06-30, o godz. 11:22:07 Ian Stakenvicius a...@gentoo.org
napisał(a):
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256
On 30/06/14 09:25 AM, Rich Freeman wrote:
On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 12:01
On Mon, 30 Jun 2014 11:40:19 -0400
Ian Stakenvicius a...@gentoo.org wrote:
But... if I unmask it, -everyone- using ~arch will install it and
it'll break all the systems that it doesn't work on, which -could- be
quite a lot at this point. :D
Which is great, because then you have an actual
On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 06:13:45PM +0200, Jeroen Roovers wrote:
On Mon, 30 Jun 2014 11:40:19 -0400
Ian Stakenvicius a...@gentoo.org wrote:
But... if I unmask it, -everyone- using ~arch will install it and
it'll break all the systems that it doesn't work on, which -could- be
quite a lot
All,
Rich Freeman asked, in another thread, for specific examples of old
package.mask entries that just have masked for testing as the
description.
Here is what I found with a quick look through package.mask. These
should be cleaned up by either 1) removing the mask or 2) booting the
affected
On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 12:13 PM, Jeroen Roovers j...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Mon, 30 Jun 2014 11:40:19 -0400
Ian Stakenvicius a...@gentoo.org wrote:
But... if I unmask it, -everyone- using ~arch will install it and
it'll break all the systems that it doesn't work on, which -could- be
quite a
On Mon, 30 Jun 2014 12:40:59 -0400
Rich Freeman ri...@gentoo.org wrote:
I'm perfectly fine with the suggestion of requiring a bug reference
when masking for testing. I think that adds value.
You don't mean a reference to a bug report that merely says masked for
testing or purports to be a
On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 12:32 PM, William Hubbs willi...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 06:13:45PM +0200, Jeroen Roovers wrote:
On Mon, 30 Jun 2014 11:40:19 -0400
Ian Stakenvicius a...@gentoo.org wrote:
But... if I unmask it, -everyone- using ~arch will install it and
it'll
On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 01:07:17PM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote:
On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 12:32 PM, William Hubbs willi...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 06:13:45PM +0200, Jeroen Roovers wrote:
On Mon, 30 Jun 2014 11:40:19 -0400
Ian Stakenvicius a...@gentoo.org wrote:
But... if
On Mon, 30 Jun 2014 02:04:20 -0400
Alexandre Rostovtsev tetrom...@gentoo.org wrote:
I realize that not everybody agrees with me, but I see ~arch as a
semi-stable branch - an internally consistent branch for people who
don't feel like maintaining a horrific mess of keywords and masks in
their
On Mon, 30 Jun 2014 10:12:14 +0200
Andreas K. Huettel dilfri...@gentoo.org wrote:
Masked commit:
* a part of a bigger version bump, i.e. one of many packages that
need to update together
* or something where I *know* that issues preventing normal function
still exist. I.e., I want to be able
On Mon, 30 Jun 2014 10:48:22 -0400
Rich Freeman ri...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 10:15 AM, Jeroen Roovers j...@gentoo.org
wrote:
On Mon, 30 Jun 2014 09:25:27 -0400
Rich Freeman ri...@gentoo.org wrote:
Agree 100%. I'm taking about masking things that HAVEN'T BEEN
TESTED
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Mon, 30 Jun 2014 11:40:19 -0400
Ian Stakenvicius a...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 30/06/14 11:36 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
Dnia 2014-06-30, o godz. 11:22:07 Ian Stakenvicius a...@gentoo.org
napisał(a):
Here's a great example of this --
On Mon, 30 Jun 2014 11:32:35 -0500
William Hubbs willi...@gentoo.org wrote:
As said before, ~arch users know that their systems will break
sometimes, so if the package works for you, unleash it on ~arch. If
someone using a configuration you don't have finds that it breaks, I'm
sure it would
On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 3:11 PM, Tom Wijsman tom...@gentoo.org wrote:
A test of a package to determine whether it appears to be working OK or
whether it destructs your system isn't too much asked for; if it works
it can then be ~arch tested, if it breaks you have a bug # for p.mask.
If
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 30/06/14 03:14 PM, Tom Wijsman wrote:
On Mon, 30 Jun 2014 11:40:19 -0400 Ian Stakenvicius
a...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 30/06/14 11:36 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
Dnia 2014-06-30, o godz. 11:22:07 Ian Stakenvicius
a...@gentoo.org napisał(a):
Hello folks,
I've got a project on my plate to automate and reduce the human error in
adding new VLANs, subnets, addresses, etc. to our production firewall
fleet. Today, we manually make modifications to the following on both
members of the VRRP pair:
* /etc/conf.d/net.ext
* /etc/conf.d/net.int
On 06/30/2014 11:27, Jeroen Roovers wrote:
On Mon, 30 Jun 2014 10:37:11 -0400
Rich Freeman ri...@gentoo.org wrote:
You're basically asking for the practice of hard-masks for testing to
be banned.
My original point in the other thread was that masked for testing is
not a valid reason. A
On 06/30/2014 09:25, Rich Freeman wrote:
On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 12:01 AM, William Hubbs willi...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Sun, Jun 29, 2014 at 10:04:54AM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote:
On Sun, Jun 29, 2014 at 8:36 AM, hasufell hasuf...@gentoo.org wrote:
This is still too vague for me. If it's
On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 12:46:38PM -0700, C.J. Adams-Collier KF7BMP wrote:
Which brings me to the question, does there exist a parser/generator for
the /etc/conf.d/net.* files? If not, would Gentoo like me to contribute
my work on the generator, and would one of you point me to the parser?
On Mon, 30 Jun 2014 15:49:54 -0400
Joshua Kinard ku...@gentoo.org wrote:
So a mask on
=sys-devel/gcc-4.9.0 with the reason of Masked for testing makes
perfect sense, especially since this version of gcc enables strong
stack-protection.
In that case this version of gcc enables strong
On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 12:38 PM, William Hubbs willi...@gentoo.org wrote:
All,
Rich Freeman asked, in another thread, for specific examples of old
package.mask entries that just have masked for testing as the
description.
Here is what I found with a quick look through package.mask. These
On 2014.06.30 05:01, William Hubbs wrote:
All,
I am starting a new thread so we don't refer to a specific package,
but I
am quoting Rich and hasufell from the previous masking thread.
On Sun, Jun 29, 2014 at 10:04:54AM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote:
On Sun, Jun 29, 2014 at 8:36 AM, hasufell
On 2014.06.30 16:40, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
On 30/06/14 11:36 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
[snip]
But... if you unmask it, someone will test it and report whether
it works :P.
But... if I unmask it, -everyone- using ~arch will install it and
it'll break all the systems that it doesn't
On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 04:46:04PM -0400, Mike Gilbert wrote:
On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 12:38 PM, William Hubbs willi...@gentoo.org wrote:
All,
Rich Freeman asked, in another thread, for specific examples of old
package.mask entries that just have masked for testing as the
description.
MG == Mike Gilbert flop...@gentoo.org writes:
MG For example, I think the major reason for the sys-libs/db mask is a
MG weird licensing issue. It's still nice to have it in the tree.
That only applies to db:6.0.
I know debian and ubuntu primarily use 5.3 these days, with the only
issues
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 06/30/2014 11:40 PM, James Cloos wrote:
MG == Mike Gilbert flop...@gentoo.org writes:
I've read that some heavy users of db, such as sks, work better
with 5.3 than they did with older versions. But upgrading needs to
be done with care.
Dnia 2014-06-30, o godz. 17:40:16
James Cloos cl...@jhcloos.com napisał(a):
I've read that some heavy users of db, such as sks, work better with 5.3
than they did with older versions. But upgrading needs to be done with care.
So it should be fine to unmask 5.3 and slowly update reverse
MG == Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org writes:
MG Dnia 2014-06-30, o godz. 17:40:16
MG James Cloos cl...@jhcloos.com napisał(a):
So it should be fine to unmask 5.3 and slowly update reverse
dependencies to depend on 5.3 instead of whichever 4.x they
currently demand.
Unmasking the earlier
On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 03:11:57PM -0500, William Hubbs wrote:
On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 12:46:38PM -0700, C.J. Adams-Collier KF7BMP wrote:
Which brings me to the question, does there exist a parser/generator for
the /etc/conf.d/net.* files? If not, would Gentoo like me to contribute
my work
On Mon, 2014-06-30 at 22:09 +, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 03:11:57PM -0500, William Hubbs wrote:
On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 12:46:38PM -0700, C.J. Adams-Collier KF7BMP wrote:
Which brings me to the question, does there exist a parser/generator for
the
As previously mentioned, we're having to move the CVS Git (and
discontinuing SVN) very soon (possibly as soon as 2014/07/01 00:00 UTC, but
before the end of the week). There will be a followup mail with the exact time,
but it may be on short notice.
Here are the new SSH fingerprints for the
KF == Kristian Fiskerstrand
kristian.fiskerstr...@sumptuouscapital.com writes:
KF I'm not familiar with any large difference.
I only mentioned sks because it is the only heavy user of berk db I
currently run. Most either moved on to other libs or I use w/ pg.
I did get the impression from
On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 3:46 PM, C.J. Adams-Collier KF7BMP
c...@colliertech.org wrote:
I've got a project on my plate to automate and reduce the human error in
adding new VLANs, subnets, addresses, etc. to our production firewall
fleet. Today, we manually make modifications to the following
47 matches
Mail list logo
