24.03.2013 13:15, Róbert Čerňanský пишет:
And that is why I now appeal to users:
_Do not report bugs to Gentoo unless a package is completely broken._
Because what you will get in return? Package removed.
If package is broken, upstream is dead/unresponsive and nobody wants or
can fix it
On Sun, 24 Mar 2013 19:40:07 -0400
Rich Freeman ri...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 3:24 PM, Ian Stakenvicius a...@gentoo.org
wrote:
The number of open bugs doesn't really matter, it's what those bugs
are that matters -- security bugs, sure, are of a higher priority
and can be
On Mon, 25 Mar 2013 08:23:31 +0800
Patrick Lauer patr...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 03/24/2013 09:40 PM, Peter Stuge wrote:
Markos Chandras wrote:
The masks are sort of announcements as you have 30 days to revert
that decision.
You don't seem to recognize the quite significant psychological
On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 4:40 PM, Rich Freeman ri...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 3:24 PM, Ian Stakenvicius a...@gentoo.org wrote:
The number of open bugs doesn't really matter, it's what those bugs
are that matters -- security bugs, sure, are of a higher priority and
can be fairly
On 24 March 2013 22:48, Markos Chandras hwoar...@gentoo.org wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 03/24/2013 12:40 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 8:31 AM, Markos Chandras
hwoar...@gentoo.org wrote:
I don't mind adding that link to every package mask. Do
On Sat, 23 Mar 2013 16:13:07 -0400
James Cloos cl...@jhcloos.com wrote:
MC == Markos Chandras hwoar...@gentoo.org writes:
MC The package is going away unless someone fixes the bugs and
MC properly maintains the package
Again, that is an irresponsible mistake. It is better to just leave
On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 5:40 PM, James Cloos cl...@jhcloos.com wrote:
RF == Rich Freeman ri...@gentoo.org writes:
RF Is this package working in the typical case? That is, when you aren't
RF intentionally trying to buffer-overflow it or otherwise break it?
I haven't found an image file which
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 03/24/2013 09:15 AM, Róbert Čerňanský wrote:
On Sat, 23 Mar 2013 16:13:07 -0400 James Cloos cl...@jhcloos.com
wrote:
MC == Markos Chandras hwoar...@gentoo.org writes:
MC The package is going away unless someone fixes the bugs and
MC
On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 6:43 AM, Markos Chandras hwoar...@gentoo.org wrote:
So per https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=462366#c4, the package
now has a new maintainer so it will not be removed.
See? This is what I call a good solution instead of going around and
constantly saying Ohhh bad
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 03/24/2013 11:22 AM, Rich Freeman wrote:
Markos - I'm not sure what can be done to try to better flush out
user interest in taking care of packages that are on the verge of
death. I'd suggest announcing pending removals before masking them,
On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 8:11 AM, Markos Chandras hwoar...@gentoo.org wrote:
The process for rescuing a package is documented here[1] and
it takes about 15'' of google searching to find it.
I think that something a bit more elaborate with links to the relevant
pages (proxy-maint, etc) that is
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 03/24/2013 12:18 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 8:11 AM, Markos Chandras
hwoar...@gentoo.org wrote:
The process for rescuing a package is documented here[1] and it
takes about 15'' of google searching to find it.
I think
On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 8:31 AM, Markos Chandras hwoar...@gentoo.org wrote:
I don't mind adding that link to every package mask. Do note thought
that this is not the only way for a package to be rescued (assuming it
can be rescued). Providing fixes without becoming the maintainer is
also a
On Sat, 23 Mar 2013 17:40:37 -0400
James Cloos cl...@jhcloos.com wrote:
RF == Rich Freeman ri...@gentoo.org writes:
RF Is this package working in the typical case? That is, when you aren't
RF intentionally trying to buffer-overflow it or otherwise break it?
I haven't found an image file
Alec Warner wrote:
MC The package is going away unless someone fixes the bugs and
MC properly maintains the package
Again, that is an irresponsible mistake. It is better to just leave it
as is than to kick it. Dropping important packages can only harm the
community and is never
On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 9:24 AM, Peter Stuge pe...@stuge.se wrote:
I find the become-a-dev threshold significant so yes, something stops it..
So, my personal feeling is that /some/ packages get pulled a little
earlier than strictly necessary. However, the fact is that when a
package gets
Markos Chandras wrote:
The masks are sort of announcements as you have 30 days to revert that
decision.
You don't seem to recognize the quite significant psychological
impact of you having already made the decision, compared to, say,
having an actually inclusive package removal process.
On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 9:40 AM, Peter Stuge pe...@stuge.se wrote:
You don't seem to recognize the quite significant psychological
impact of you having already made the decision, compared to, say,
having an actually inclusive package removal process.
I was going to post something along these
Rich Freeman wrote:
something is bound to break for good sooner or later if things don't change.
Certainly.
But consider the chain of events:
* user is happily using outdated, but working, software without
knowing how behind the times upstream really is, because it works
* gentoo masks and
On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 9:52 AM, Peter Stuge pe...@stuge.se wrote:
A per-ebuild bug metric would be cool. A kind of health indicator
for individual ebuilds, alerting users when some of our installed
ebuilds go yellow, so that we have perhaps on the order of six
months before the package goes
On 24/03/2013 15:40, Peter Stuge wrote:
Markos Chandras wrote:
The masks are sort of announcements as you have 30 days to revert that
decision.
You don't seem to recognize the quite significant psychological
impact of you having already made the decision, compared to, say,
having an
Rich Freeman wrote:
A per-ebuild bug metric would be cool. A kind of health indicator
for individual ebuilds, alerting users when some of our installed
ebuilds go yellow, so that we have perhaps on the order of six
months before the package goes red, at which point it would be fine
to
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 03/24/2013 12:40 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 8:31 AM, Markos Chandras
hwoar...@gentoo.org wrote:
I don't mind adding that link to every package mask. Do note
thought that this is not the only way for a package to be
Alan McKinnon wrote:
Masking already accomplishes everything you propose, which is to
communicate there is something wrong with this package and it is in
danger of leaving the tree. To get it out of this state, you need to
take action.
I disagree strongly that this is what masking
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 03/24/2013 01:52 PM, Peter Stuge wrote:
Users who want to fix the problem need to get involved upstream,
there is no disagreement about that, but users who have already
gotten a package masked by the powers that be are vastly less
Markos Chandras wrote:
A per-ebuild bug metric would be cool. A kind of health indicator
for individual ebuilds, alerting users when some of our installed
ebuilds go yellow, so that we have perhaps on the order of six
months before the package goes red, at which point it would be
fine
On Sun, 24 Mar 2013 08:40:17 -0400
Rich Freeman ri...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 8:31 AM, Markos Chandras
hwoar...@gentoo.org wrote:
I don't mind adding that link to every package mask. Do note thought
that this is not the only way for a package to be rescued (assuming
it
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 24/03/13 11:19 AM, Peter Stuge wrote:
Markos Chandras wrote:
A per-ebuild bug metric would be cool. A kind of health
indicator for individual ebuilds, alerting users when some of
our installed ebuilds go yellow, so that we have perhaps on the
On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 3:24 PM, Ian Stakenvicius a...@gentoo.org wrote:
The number of open bugs doesn't really matter, it's what those bugs
are that matters -- security bugs, sure, are of a higher priority and
can be fairly easily detected in bugzilla.
Well, our current treecleaner policy
On 03/24/2013 09:40 PM, Peter Stuge wrote:
Markos Chandras wrote:
The masks are sort of announcements as you have 30 days to revert that
decision.
You don't seem to recognize the quite significant psychological
impact of you having already made the decision, compared to, say,
having an
On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 8:23 PM, Patrick Lauer patr...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 03/24/2013 09:40 PM, Peter Stuge wrote:
Markos Chandras wrote:
The masks are sort of announcements as you have 30 days to revert that
decision.
You don't seem to recognize the quite significant psychological
impact
MC == Markos Chandras hwoar...@gentoo.org writes:
MC # Removal in 30 days
MC app-text/cuneiform
That one should not go. There are not enough quality ocr engines
available, Gentoo needs to keep all of them.
And a couple of bugs is never a sufficient reason to kick a package.
-JimC
--
James
On 23 March 2013 19:52, James Cloos cl...@jhcloos.com wrote:
MC == Markos Chandras hwoar...@gentoo.org writes:
MC # Removal in 30 days
MC app-text/cuneiform
That one should not go. There are not enough quality ocr engines
available, Gentoo needs to keep all of them.
And a couple of bugs
MC == Markos Chandras hwoar...@gentoo.org writes:
MC Please do not reply to gentoo-dev-announce.
I didn't. I explicitly replied to the message in gentoo-dev. If doing
that resulted in a cc to announce that means there was no reply-to
header in the message posted to dev. Had there been a
On 23 March 2013 20:13, James Cloos cl...@jhcloos.com wrote:
Again, that is an irresponsible mistake. It is better to just leave it
as is than to kick it. Dropping important packages can only harm the
community and is never welcome.
You are not listening to what I am saying so I'll stop
On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 4:13 PM, James Cloos cl...@jhcloos.com wrote:
Again, that is an irresponsible mistake. It is better to just leave it
as is than to kick it. Dropping important packages can only harm the
community and is never welcome.
Is this package working in the typical case? That
On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 1:13 PM, James Cloos cl...@jhcloos.com wrote:
MC == Markos Chandras hwoar...@gentoo.org writes:
MC Please do not reply to gentoo-dev-announce.
I didn't. I explicitly replied to the message in gentoo-dev. If doing
that resulted in a cc to announce that means there
RF == Rich Freeman ri...@gentoo.org writes:
RF Is this package working in the typical case? That is, when you aren't
RF intentionally trying to buffer-overflow it or otherwise break it?
I haven't found an image file which causes it to crash.
-JimC
--
James Cloos cl...@jhcloos.com
38 matches
Mail list logo
