-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
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 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
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
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 to start
masking other people's packages?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 10/09/11 02:47, Matt Turner wrote:
On Sat, Oct 8, 2011 at 9:41 PM, Markos Chandras
hwoar...@gentoo.org wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512
On 10/08/11 22:45, Matt Turner wrote:
On Sat, Oct 8, 2011 at 10:20 AM, Markos
On Sun, Oct 9, 2011 at 5:18 AM, Markos Chandras hwoar...@gentoo.org wrote:
Watch your language. This is not your $home playroom
And it's not your mailing list.
I'm sure I'm not the only one that's tired of your Let Me Insert
Myself Into Everything syndrome just because you're on QA. QA's a joke
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 10/09/11 16:15, Matt Turner wrote:
On Sun, Oct 9, 2011 at 5:18 AM, Markos Chandras
hwoar...@gentoo.org wrote:
Watch your language. This is not your $home playroom
And it's not your mailing list.
I'm sure I'm not the only one that's tired
On Sat, Oct 8, 2011 at 4:47 AM, Samuli Suominen ssuomi...@gentoo.org wrote:
# Samuli Suominen ssuomi...@gentoo.org (08 Oct 2011)
# Fails to compile against system libpng15, bug 356127
# Removal in 14 days
14 days?
media-gfx/pngcrush
On 10/08/2011 04:19 PM, Matt Turner wrote:
On Sat, Oct 8, 2011 at 4:47 AM, Samuli Suominen ssuomi...@gentoo.org wrote:
# Samuli Suominen ssuomi...@gentoo.org (08 Oct 2011)
# Fails to compile against system libpng15, bug 356127
# Removal in 14 days
14 days?
approx. 14 days and counting to
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 10/08/2011 02:19 PM, Matt Turner wrote:
On Sat, Oct 8, 2011 at 4:47 AM, Samuli Suominen
ssuomi...@gentoo.org wrote:
# Samuli Suominen ssuomi...@gentoo.org (08 Oct 2011) # Fails to
compile against system libpng15, bug 356127 # Removal in 14
On 08-10-2011 15:20:56 +0100, Markos Chandras wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 10/08/2011 02:19 PM, Matt Turner wrote:
On Sat, Oct 8, 2011 at 4:47 AM, Samuli Suominen
ssuomi...@gentoo.org wrote:
# Samuli Suominen ssuomi...@gentoo.org (08 Oct 2011) # Fails to
On 08-10-2011 15:49:00 +0100, Markos Chandras wrote:
We can't really wait forever for slacking maintainers to fix
their packages. amd64 is almost ready to have libpng-1.5 stable
in the very near future
http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/devrel/handbook/handbook.xml?part=2chap=5#doc_chap8
On Sat, Oct 8, 2011 at 10:20 AM, Markos Chandras hwoar...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 10/08/2011 02:19 PM, Matt Turner wrote:
14 days?
We can't really wait forever for slacking maintainers to fix their
packages. amd64 is almost ready to have libpng-1.5 stable in the very
near future
Didn't we just
On 08-10-2011 11:05:08 -0400, Rich Freeman wrote:
If the extra 16 days will actually accomplish something beyond just
delaying libpng then we can debate the finer points of policy.
However, if we're just arguing policy for its own sake then I don't
see the value. Perhaps a package maintainer
Guys,
the policy makes perfect sense, there are people that sync just
monthly, so they might want to get some headsup why their packages are
going away, and not just remove them.
Thats why the recommended value is 60 days, 30 for urgent cases,
lately we just moved to 30 for everything, but please
On 10/08/2011 06:13 PM, Fabian Groffen wrote:
On 08-10-2011 11:05:08 -0400, Rich Freeman wrote:
If the extra 16 days will actually accomplish something beyond just
delaying libpng then we can debate the finer points of policy.
However, if we're just arguing policy for its own sake then I don't
On 08-10-2011 18:33:15 +0300, Samuli Suominen wrote:
It's not like fastened lastriting hasn't happened before. I question
your motives in picking this particular one. It's not like I expected
cookies for the time I've put into this porting effort, but not this
attack either.
If you feel I'm
On Sat, Oct 8, 2011 at 10:20 AM, Markos Chandras hwoar...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 10/08/2011 02:19 PM, Matt Turner wrote:
On Sat, Oct 8, 2011 at 4:47 AM, Samuli Suominen
ssuomi...@gentoo.org wrote:
# Samuli Suominen ssuomi...@gentoo.org (08 Oct 2011) # Fails to
compile against system libpng15,
On Sat, Oct 8, 2011 at 9:41 PM, Markos Chandras hwoar...@gentoo.org wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 10/08/11 22:45, Matt Turner wrote:
On Sat, Oct 8, 2011 at 10:20 AM, Markos Chandras
hwoar...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 10/08/2011 02:19 PM, Matt Turner wrote:
On Sat,
On Sat, Oct 8, 2011 at 9:41 PM, Markos Chandras hwoar...@gentoo.org wrote:
1) use bundled zlib and libpng14. Doh this is not a fix. It is barely
a workaround. What if a vulnerability is discovered in the bundled
version of libpng in the next months? Will upstream fix it? Highly
unlikely since
21 matches
Mail list logo
