1.3.2006, 11:29:47, Danny van Dyk wrote:
| Where is a coding style problem related to quality of code in general
| and assurance in particular? It's more relevant than you might
think. Screwing up layout like that breaks various QA checking tools
that assume that things are in the
1.3.2006, 13:09:55, Paul de Vrieze wrote:
On Tuesday 28 February 2006 21:20, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
| if [ ${IS_UPGRADE} = 1 ] ; then
| einfo Removing old version ${REMOVE_PKG}
|
| emerge -C ${REMOVE_PKG}
| fi
This code (or an equivalent kludge/hack) does
27.2.2006, 22:33:21, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 21:49:23 +0100 Jakub Moc [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| rhetorical question
| May I ask how is that related to webapp-config?
| /rhetorical question
It is related to Stuart, and hence utterly relevant to the conversation.
Ah,
27.2.2006, 22:32:39, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
I quote the official policy:
http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/devrel/handbook/handbook.xml?part=2chap=1
Occasionally, ebuilds will have conflicting USE flags for
functionality. Checking for them and returning an error is not a
viable solution.
27.2.2006, 22:32:39, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
I quote the official policy:
http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/devrel/handbook/handbook.xml?part=2chap=1
Occasionally, ebuilds will have conflicting USE flags for
functionality. Checking for them and returning an error is not a
viable solution.
28.2.2006, 13:54:36, Stephen P. Becker wrote:
You still haven't posted posted a *single example* of webapp-config
brokeness. You, I'd say you should either back up claims about all the ways
in which webapp-config is broken or apologize to the concerned developers
for false claims.
Still
28.2.2006, 15:00:49, Stephen P. Becker wrote:
What kind of non-interactivity? What's this universal non-interactivity
blurb of yours and ciaranm's about? There's no such thing when it comes to
configuration. If you want automated configuration, then please use
Windows and stop moaning. If
28.2.2006, 15:39:40, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 10:49:13 +0100 Jakub Moc [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| No, that's not a policy document, ebuild policy is documented here:
|
http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/devrel/handbook/handbook.xml?style=printablepart=3chap=1
No, the whole
28.2.2006, 16:29:07, Stephen Bennett wrote:
On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 16:08:05 +0100
Jakub Moc [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
When and where has been the following change discussed and who
approved that?
28.2.2006, 16:42:46, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 16:26:37 +0100 Jakub Moc [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| If you can't do any better, then please apologize for your conduct
| and false claims and shut up... TIA.
Sure I can do better. But you didn't originally ask for better, you
28.2.2006, 17:35:32, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 17:11:58 +0100 Patrick Lauer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| Ok, sorry for being dumb :-)
| What exactly is the issue there? I don't see the issue in setting SLOT
| depending on ... uhm ... some variable. Looks kinda logical at
28.2.2006, 18:09:54, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 18:00:03 +0100 Jakub Moc [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| PVR includes the revision of an ebuild. This means that if a
| revbump is made on a webapp package to fix a critical flaw, users
| will still have the old broken package
28.2.2006, 18:11:57, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 17:02:11 + Renat Lumpau [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| On Tue, Feb 28, 2006 at 04:35:32PM +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
| Ebuilds can't override this either. Read on in the eclass and you'll
| notice that it checks that SLOT
28.2.2006, 18:38:10, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
Sheesh, you'll probably claim that this isn't broken next too:
if [ ${IS_UPGRADE} = 1 ] ; then
einfo Removing old version ${REMOVE_PKG}
emerge -C ${REMOVE_PKG}
fi
No, I won't claim that... I'd rather love to know why
28.2.2006, 19:39:15, Mike Frysinger wrote:
snip ewarn This ebuild overrides the default SLOT behaviour for
webapps ewarn If this package installs files into the htdocs dir, this
is ewarn probably a bug in the ebuild. /snip
Sigh... what kind of QA issue is that?
which part dont you
28.2.2006, 20:59:42, Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Tuesday 28 February 2006 12:51, Renat Lumpau wrote:
On Tue, Feb 28, 2006 at 05:11:57PM +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
And it sticks out a nasty ewarn and says that the ebuild is probably
broken.
Which it _probably_ is. See, this is a numbers
28.2.2006, 21:39:43, Mike Frysinger wrote:
whats your point ? if an ebuild author wants to control the SLOT, then
they should be able to without having an invalid warning issued on the
subject
considering the nature of the warning, it should be trivial to make it into a
proper QA check by
1.3.2006, 1:40:53, Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Tuesday 28 February 2006 19:28, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 18:13:57 -0600 Lance Albertson
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| I should note that if are a Gentoo Developer and have
| problems/concerns/issues with Ciaran's attitude/actions,
28.2.2006, 16:31:26, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 16:17:20 +0100 Paul de Vrieze [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| On Tuesday 28 February 2006 15:52, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
| Yes, it's an utterly trivial problem, but it is a QA violation.
| Getting a complete list is something that
28.2.2006, 16:29:10, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 16:08:05 +0100 Jakub Moc [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| 28.2.2006, 15:39:40, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
| On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 10:49:13 +0100 Jakub Moc [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| wrote:
| | No, that's not a policy document, ebuild policy is
27.2.2006, 21:37:09, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 20:26:10 + Stuart Herbert [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| On Mon, 2006-02-27 at 17:08 +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
| Abuse from people like you whenever someone finally gets brave
| enough to document all the ways in which
21 matches
Mail list logo
