On Tue, Nov 03, 2020 at 09:10:01AM +0100, Michał Górny wrote:
> On Tue, 2020-11-03 at 07:13 +0200, Joonas Niilola wrote:
> > I'm suggesting a new QA policy to disallow any "live-ebuild-only
> > packages" being hosted in ::gentoo.
>
> I'm with you on this though I think it should be relaxed to
On 11/5/20 6:03 AM, Alec Warner wrote:
>
>
> The result is that we should remove badly maintained stuff; not create
> more policies.
>
> -A
>
Feel like I'm repeating myself... but such policy would prevent us from
getting into situation like this in the first place, with more CI
coverage
On Wed, Nov 4, 2020 at 7:38 PM Joonas Niilola wrote:
>
>
> On 11/4/20 11:19 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> > Did you consider that somebody could read your email and not actually
> > agree with you?
> Impossible! My suggestion is about keeping the tree clean and to provide
> the best user experience.
On 11/4/20 11:12 PM, Matt Turner wrote:
>
> Is there value in making snapshots of app-portage/no-distcc-env?
>
> I don't really think so, and that's why I didn't do it. Should I reconsider?
>
We havy many similar packages keyworded, like all theme packages. Last
upstream commit was made 1 year
On 11/4/20 11:19 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> Did you consider that somebody could read your email and not actually
> agree with you?
Impossible! My suggestion is about keeping the tree clean and to provide
the best user experience. Who'd disagree with that?!
Sure the methods for achieving that
On Wed, Nov 04, 2020 at 06:24:39PM +, Alexey Sokolov wrote:
> 04.11.2020 19:10, Marty E. Plummer пишет:
> > On Tue, Nov 03, 2020 at 07:13:32AM +0200, Joonas Niilola wrote:
> >> Hey,
> >>
> > <-snip->
> > Just my 2c, One of the major reasons I use gentoo is the ability to use
> > live ebuilds
On Tue, Nov 03, 2020 at 07:13:32AM +0200, Joonas Niilola wrote:
> Hey,
>
<-snip->
Just my 2c, One of the major reasons I use gentoo is the ability to use
live ebuilds relatively easily. One has the equivalent in arch linux in
the form of ${pkgname}-${vcs} aur packages but keeping them up to date
On Wed, Nov 4, 2020 at 3:57 PM Joonas Niilola wrote:
>
> On 11/4/20 10:43 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> >
> > Do you really think that users who just blindly run "emerge
> > --autounmask-write" are going to be both masking and unmasking
> > packages by hand (per your other email)?
> Just by following
On Tue, Nov 3, 2020 at 12:13 AM Joonas Niilola wrote:
> I'm suggesting a new QA policy to disallow any "live-ebuild-only
> packages" being hosted in ::gentoo.
Is there value in making snapshots of app-portage/no-distcc-env?
I don't really think so, and that's why I didn't do it. Should I
On 11/4/20 10:43 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
>
> Do you really think that users who just blindly run "emerge
> --autounmask-write" are going to be both masking and unmasking
> packages by hand (per your other email)?
Just by following wiki...
>
> And how are they any better off if they do? They
On Wed, Nov 4, 2020 at 2:46 PM Joonas Niilola wrote:
>
> On 11/4/20 8:52 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> >
> > 4. If somebody finds one they probably have to add some random
> > overlay to their config, which causes this package to become
> > available, probably along with 47 other packages that can
On 11/4/20 8:52 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
>
> If you remove them from the tree:
If they have an active upstream and/or tagged releases, and the package
builds, I'd much rather keyword than remove them. There's already work
being done towards this,
https://bugs.gentoo.org/752429
On 11/4/20 8:18 PM, Alec Warner wrote:
>
> I disagree. These packages are not installable by default, and must be
> unmasked by users, so this tradeoff is one we expect them to make. Are
> there practical problems that these packages pose to developers? You
> listed a bunch of user problems, but
On Wed, Nov 4, 2020 at 1:39 PM Marty E. Plummer wrote:
>
> On Wed, Nov 04, 2020 at 06:24:39PM +, Alexey Sokolov wrote:
> >
> > What you're describing is live ebuilds, and I agree they are useful.
> > Joonas was talking about packages which have *only* live ebuilds, and no
> > other versions,
04.11.2020 19:10, Marty E. Plummer пишет:
> On Tue, Nov 03, 2020 at 07:13:32AM +0200, Joonas Niilola wrote:
>> Hey,
>>
> <-snip->
> Just my 2c, One of the major reasons I use gentoo is the ability to use
> live ebuilds relatively easily. One has the equivalent in arch linux in
> the form of
On Mon, Nov 2, 2020 at 9:13 PM Joonas Niilola wrote:
> Hey,
>
> I'm suggesting a new QA policy to disallow any "live-ebuild-only
> packages" being hosted in ::gentoo. Rationale being the same as why
> - packages can't have KEYWORDS: They are unpredictable and
> potentially insecure.
On 2020-11-03 Tue 01:28, Joonas Niilola wrote:
> Initially Arfrever suggested the same, I wasn't a fan of it because I
> believe it's much simpler to make this into a pkgcheck/repoman check like
> this.
>
> However with pkgcheck maybe a similar logic can be used as is used with
>
On 11/3/20 10:10 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
I'm with you on this though I think it should be relaxed to disallow
only long term presence of pure live packages. It's fine to add a live
ebuild first for a month or two if you're still working on something
(just like it's fine to add a masked
On Tue, 2020-11-03 at 07:13 +0200, Joonas Niilola wrote:
> I'm suggesting a new QA policy to disallow any "live-ebuild-only
> packages" being hosted in ::gentoo.
I'm with you on this though I think it should be relaxed to disallow
only long term presence of pure live packages. It's fine to add a
19 matches
Mail list logo
