On 5/4/06, Bart Braem [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What makes us think we can not trust the KDE devs?
1. bugs.gentoo.org
2. bugs.kde.org
I personally have been running KDE 3.5 since the RC days...when you
actually had to add it to package.unmask. And *yes*, it has had more
than it's share of
On 5/5/06, Philip Webb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
060504 Chris Gianelloni wrote:
If we followed others blindly, as so many users suggest,
then we would have stabilized KDE 3.5 ages ago,
and every single one of you KDE users would be complaining
about how our QA sucks because KDE doesn't
On Thu, 04 May 2006 16:29:56 -0700
Michael Kirkland [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This leads to people trying to maintain a
frankenstinian /etc/portage/package.keywords file, constantly adding
to it and never knowing when things can be removed from it.
If you use specific versions in the
060504 Chris Gianelloni wrote:
If we followed others blindly, as so many users suggest,
then we would have stabilized KDE 3.5 ages ago,
and every single one of you KDE users would be complaining
about how our QA sucks because KDE doesn't compile
or breaks badly in so many places.
This is
060505 Jakub Moc wrote:
Philip Webb wrote:
060504 Chris Gianelloni wrote:
If we followed others blindly, as so many users suggest,
then we would have stabilized KDE 3.5 ages ago,
and every single one of you KDE users would be complaining
about how our QA sucks because KDE doesn't compile
or
Philip Webb wrote:
But yeah, you know better, no problems whatsoever. :P
Yes, I know better: I haven't had any problems with any of the KDE packages
which I have installed with versions 3.5.0 3.5.1 3.5.2 .
It's time the developers started listening to users in this area:
we really do
On 05/05/06, Jakub Moc [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Philip Webb wrote:
060504 Chris Gianelloni wrote:
If we followed others blindly, as so many users suggest,
then we would have stabilized KDE 3.5 ages ago,
and every single one of you KDE users would be complaining
about how our QA sucks
On Friday 05 May 2006 01:11, Jakub Moc wrote:
Philip Webb wrote:
But yeah, you know better, no problems whatsoever. :P
Yes, I know better: I haven't had any problems with any of the KDE
packages which I have installed with versions 3.5.0 3.5.1 3.5.2 .
It's time the developers started
On Friday 05 May 2006 08:32, Kevin F. Quinn (Gentoo) wrote:
If you use specific versions in the package.keywords file (i.e. do
=category/package-version-revision ~arch instead of
category/package ~arch, this doesn't happen.
Hardcoding specific ~arch versions or revisions unless absolutely
On Thu, 04 May 2006 16:29:56 -0700
Michael Kirkland [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I would suggest opening a middle ground tag, where things can be
moved to from ~arch when they work for reasonable configuration
values, but still have open bugs for some people.
More work for devs, yay!/sarcasm
On Fri, 5 May 2006 13:20:09 +0200
Carsten Lohrke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Friday 05 May 2006 08:32, Kevin F. Quinn (Gentoo) wrote:
If you use specific versions in the package.keywords file (i.e. do
=category/package-version-revision ~arch instead of
category/package ~arch, this doesn't
On Friday 05 May 2006 15:23, Kevin F. Quinn (Gentoo) wrote:
I disagree. Your argument is for not using ~arch at all, rather
than an argument against keeping control of what you have from ~arch.
No. My argument is that category/ebuild is much better than
=category/ebuild-x*. If and only if
On Fri, 5 May 2006 16:38:57 +0200
Carsten Lohrke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Friday 05 May 2006 15:23, Kevin F. Quinn (Gentoo) wrote:
I disagree. Your argument is for not using ~arch at all, rather
than an argument against keeping control of what you have from
~arch.
No. My argument is
On Fri, 2006-05-05 at 15:23 +0200, Kevin F. Quinn (Gentoo) wrote:
In practice, I tend to do:
=category/package-version* ~arch
~category/package-version ~arch
*grin*
--
Chris Gianelloni
Release Engineering - Strategic Lead
x86 Architecture Team
Games - Developer
Gentoo Linux
signature.asc
On Friday 05 May 2006 20:37, Kevin F. Quinn (Gentoo) wrote:
First, I'll get the security updates when (1) the relevant updated
package goes stable, which is usually pretty quickly, or (2)
notification is made in gentoo-announce (which must be the correct
place to get such notifications).
That
On Friday 05 May 2006 02:14, Philip Webb wrote:
060504 Chris Gianelloni wrote:
If we followed others blindly, as so many users suggest,
then we would have stabilized KDE 3.5 ages ago,
and every single one of you KDE users would be complaining
about how our QA sucks because KDE doesn't
Philip Webb wrote:
My solution is a line in .bashrc :
'alias emergeu='ACCEPT_KEYWORDS=~x86 emerge' ,
Don't do that. Try to do a search on why is ACCEPT_KEYWORDS emerge bad.
which allows me to emerge a testing version on a specific occasion.
The package.keywords alternative is silly,
as
All,If I might weigh in at this late stage:How did we end up here in the first place? Isn't the point of ~arch that we can put stuff here that might WELL be unstable? Sure, we'll get lots of I set my ACCEPT_KEYWORDS to ~arch and now my system is broken, messages, but if people are going to try
I think that sums up some good answers to my questions, too.Jeff.On 04/05/06, Chris Gianelloni [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:On Thu, 2006-05-04 at 13:48 +0200, Bart Braem wrote: Does compiling KDE introduce so many bugs? I mean, let's be serious, all
other distributions have a stable 3.5.x now. Don't
On Thursday 04 May 2006 14:21, Jeff Rollin wrote:
All,
If I might weigh in at this late stage:
How did we end up here in the first place? Isn't the point of ~arch
that we can put stuff here that might WELL be unstable? Sure, we'll get
lots of I set my ACCEPT_KEYWORDS to ~arch and now my
I'm just an user here, but I'd like to ask a simple question:
For Gnome 2.14 there is a tracker bug on b.g.o [1]. I think this is
really usefull for users like me who want to know the status of this
release at any time (and I hope this is useful for devs too :)). Why
such a tracker doesn't exist
Paul,
That cleared it up for me, thanks
Jeff.On 04/05/06, Paul de Vrieze [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Actually the testing keywords are not for unstable packages. If somethingis unstable it must be masked. If we however want to test our packagingwe put it in ~arch. If something is in ~arch that
On Thursday 04 May 2006 05:21, Jeff Rollin wrote:
All,
If I might weigh in at this late stage:
How did we end up here in the first place? Isn't the point of ~arch that we
can put stuff here that might WELL be unstable? Sure, we'll get lots of I
set my ACCEPT_KEYWORDS to ~arch and now my
I think the problem is that Gentoo is falling into the same sandtrap the
Debian project has been mired in forever. arch and ~arch are polarizinginto stable, but horribly out of date, and maybe it will work.This leads to people trying to maintain a
frankenstinian /etc/portage/package.keywords file,
24 matches
Mail list logo
