On Mon, 24 Jan 2011 13:31:20 +0100, Christian Faulhammer wrote:
Hi,
over the course of the years the x86 (and other architectures as
well)
has given away permissions to maintainers/teams to mark packages
stable themselves. As there never was a definitive list what
exceptions exist, I
On Thu, 27 Jan 2011 10:19:51 -0600
Jeremy Olexa darks...@gentoo.org wrote:
Probably OT, sorry. Isn't it time we gained this concept of noarch
for packages that only install text files or packages that don't
compile anything...
No, since there's no such thing as an app that's guaranteed to
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Dne 27.1.2011 17:30, Ciaran McCreesh napsal(a):
On Thu, 27 Jan 2011 10:19:51 -0600
Jeremy Olexa darks...@gentoo.org wrote:
Probably OT, sorry. Isn't it time we gained this concept of noarch
for packages that only install text files or packages
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Thu, 27 Jan 2011 17:48:54 +0100
Tomáš Chvátal scarab...@gentoo.org wrote:
Dne 27.1.2011 17:30, Ciaran McCreesh napsal(a):
On Thu, 27 Jan 2011 10:19:51 -0600
Jeremy Olexa darks...@gentoo.org wrote:
Probably OT, sorry. Isn't it time we gained
Hi,
The accessibility team has permission to mark some app-accessibility
packages stable because they require specialized hardware:
app-accessibility/brltty
app-accessibility/speakup (this one will become moot when linux 2.6.37
goes stable)
Just to clarify, we are talking only about the x86
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Ok bad example on the posix-sh file. But anyway even you can check what
stuff the thing does and decide upon it. Anyway even tho you nitpick on
something you don't need to.
There is at minimal the binary files example where you just place them
Hi,
William Hubbs willi...@gentoo.org:
Just to clarify, we are talking only about the x86 architecture right?
At the moment yes. On the exceptions page I linked there are some
conditions under which you can stabilise yourself after permission is
granted:
* The prerequisites of stabilisation
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Thu, 27 Jan 2011 18:07:30 +0100
Tomáš Chvátal scarab...@gentoo.org wrote:
Ok bad example on the posix-sh file. But anyway even you can check
what stuff the thing does and decide upon it. Anyway even tho you
nitpick on something you don't need
On 01/27/2011 05:30 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
No, since there's no such thing as an app that's guaranteed to be
portable.
What about app-doc/php-doc? Yeah, single use case. But I feel stupid
requesting keywords for it. It's all text.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Dne 27.1.2011 18:16, Ciaran McCreesh napsal(a):
On Thu, 27 Jan 2011 18:07:30 +0100
Tomáa Chvátal scarab...@gentoo.org wrote:
Ok bad example on the posix-sh file. But anyway even you can check
what stuff the thing does and decide upon it. Anyway
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Thu, 27 Jan 2011 18:59:53 +0100
Tomáš Chvátal scarab...@gentoo.org wrote:
If depgraph is to be found broken for such architecture it is
shadowed (or treated as without keywords, whatever we find to like in
our implementation in package manager)
On 01/27/2011 06:59 PM, Tomáš Chvátal wrote:
Adding ebuilds with noarch keyword must be preceded with:
All ebuilds seeking to have this feature implemented must be discussed
on #gentoo-dev mailing list and proven not having portability issues.
So instead of opening a bug for all arches, I post
Tomáš Chvátal posted on Thu, 27 Jan 2011 18:59:53 +0100 as excerpted:
If ebuild contains ~noarch in KEYWORDS it is not permitted to contain
anything else.
/If/ we're going to go this route, at least noarch plus -arch, so archs
can at least opt-out.
--
Duncan - List replies preferred. No
On Thu, 27 Jan 2011 18:27:57 + (UTC)
Duncan 1i5t5.dun...@cox.net wrote:
Tomáš Chvátal posted on Thu, 27 Jan 2011 18:59:53 +0100 as excerpted:
If ebuild contains ~noarch in KEYWORDS it is not permitted to
contain anything else.
/If/ we're going to go this route, at least noarch plus
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Dne 27.1.2011 19:09, Matti Bickel napsal(a):
On 01/27/2011 06:59 PM, Tomáš Chvátal wrote:
Adding ebuilds with noarch keyword must be preceded with:
All ebuilds seeking to have this feature implemented must be discussed
on #gentoo-dev mailing list
Ciaran McCreesh posted on Thu, 27 Jan 2011 18:36:59 + as excerpted:
On Thu, 27 Jan 2011 18:27:57 + (UTC)
Duncan 1i5t5.dun...@cox.net wrote:
Tomáš Chvátal posted on Thu, 27 Jan 2011 18:59:53 +0100 as excerpted:
If ebuild contains ~noarch in KEYWORDS it is not permitted to contain
On 01/27/2011 07:42 PM, Tomáš Chvátal wrote:
Only to gain the ~allarch. When it gains it gets tested by arch member
of any team and stabled. Verstanden? :)
Yep, I think I did. But what if introduce, say, a non-portable find
command into a new revision that breaks on some arches. I'll carry over
On Thu, 27 Jan 2011 16:30:12 +
Ciaran McCreesh ciaran.mccre...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Thu, 27 Jan 2011 10:19:51 -0600
Jeremy Olexa darks...@gentoo.org wrote:
Probably OT, sorry. Isn't it time we gained this concept of noarch
for packages that only install text files or packages
Hi,
Mike Frysinger vap...@gentoo.org:
On Monday, January 24, 2011 07:31:20 Christian Faulhammer wrote:
over the course of the years the x86 (and other architectures as
well) has given away permissions to maintainers/teams to mark
packages stable themselves. As there never was a
Hi,
Markos Chandras hwoar...@gentoo.org:
I think it would be better if we kept a single list instead of
compiling a separate list for every arch.
Mike's proposal sounds like the ideal solution. If one wants we can
autogenerate a list. For now I will collect it manually and move it
over once
On Monday, January 24, 2011 07:31:20 Christian Faulhammer wrote:
over the course of the years the x86 (and other architectures as well)
has given away permissions to maintainers/teams to mark packages
stable themselves. As there never was a definitive list what
exceptions exist, I compiled a
Le 24/01/2011 13:31, Christian Faulhammer a écrit :
Hi,
over the course of the years the x86 (and other architectures as well)
has given away permissions to maintainers/teams to mark packages
stable themselves. As there never was a definitive list what
exceptions exist, I compiled a list
On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 01:31:20PM +0100, Christian Faulhammer wrote:
Hi,
over the course of the years the x86 (and other architectures as well)
has given away permissions to maintainers/teams to mark packages
stable themselves. As there never was a definitive list what
exceptions exist, I
On 01/24/2011 07:31 AM, Christian Faulhammer wrote:
Hi,
over the course of the years the x86 (and other architectures as well)
has given away permissions to maintainers/teams to mark packages
stable themselves. As there never was a definitive list what
exceptions exist, I compiled a list of
24 matches
Mail list logo
