On Sun, 26 Feb 2006 20:26:54 -0500 John J. Foster
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| That's a very true statement, and part of the attraction of Gentoo.
| But your comment about most users (at least of this distro) not
| having the slightest clue what's best for them is totally off base,
| (except,
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
Anyway, part of the point of using a distribution is that it spares you
from having to know what's best for you.
That's a little harsh, Ciaran. I did the linux from scratch thing. Had
a lot of fun with it. Enjoyed being down in the bowels of the linux
system and the
On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 12:33:46 -0500 Dave Nebinger [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| Your statement is probably true for all of the binary distribution
| folks. But I doubt that you'll get many from this crowd that would
| say that we want or expect the gentoo team to know what's best for
| [us].
What,
On Sat, 25 Feb 2006 13:34:28 -0600 Boyd Stephen Smith Jr.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| | ~arch means a package is a candidate for going into arch after
| | further testing, if said testing does not turn up new bugs. This
| | means that both the ebuild *and* the package should be likely
| |
On 2006-02-25 23:16:36 -0600 (Sat, Feb), Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:
So, it's based on the collective opinion of the gentoo developers?
Wouldn't it be better to put that in the hands of the gentoo user?
IMHO it already is. It's called PORTAGE_OVERLAY.
Again, hard to do
On Sunday 26 February 2006 06:16, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:
Again, hard to do automatically. Wheras, if I could just set
ACCEPT_UPSTREAM=BETA I'd get all the betas. Or I could use
package.upstream and but in kde-extra/kaffeine ALPHA and get anything
assigned more than a snapshot number
On Sunday 26 February 2006 11:06, Bo Andresen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
about 'Re: [gentoo-user] What happens with masked packages?':
On Sunday 26 February 2006 06:16, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:
Again, hard to do automatically. Wheras, if I could just set
ACCEPT_UPSTREAM=BETA I'd get all
On Sun, Feb 26, 2006 at 02:40:31PM -0600, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:
At this point, I'd really like to take this theoretical discussion off the
the general user list; I doubt many users will be interested. I haven't
done any coding work on this proposal or even began writing a GLEP, so
On Sun, Feb 26, 2006 at 04:11:08PM +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
Absolutely not. If there's one thing we've established over the years,
it's that the vast majority of our users don't have the slightest clue
what's best for them in terms of package stability.
Excuse me my friend, but I
On Sun, 26 Feb 2006 18:29:52 -0500 John J. Foster
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| On Sun, Feb 26, 2006 at 04:11:08PM +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
| Absolutely not. If there's one thing we've established over the
| years, it's that the vast majority of our users don't have the
| slightest clue
On Sunday 26 February 2006 21:40, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:
How exactly is is you want this to work.
My proposal at this point, would be for an additional restriction on
packages based on a new UPSTREAM variable in the ebuild itself,
ACCEPT_UPSTREAM variable in make.conf / the
On Sunday 26 February 2006 18:15, Bo Andresen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
about 'Re: [gentoo-user] What happens with masked packages?':
On Sunday 26 February 2006 21:40, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:
How exactly is is you want this to work.
My proposal at this point, would
On Mon, Feb 27, 2006 at 12:11:02AM +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Sun, 26 Feb 2006 18:29:52 -0500 John J. Foster
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| On Sun, Feb 26, 2006 at 04:11:08PM +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
| Absolutely not. If there's one thing we've established over the
| years, it's that
On Sunday 26 February 2006 18:57, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:
My proposal at this point, would be for an additional restriction on
packages based on a new UPSTREAM variable in the ebuild itself,
ACCEPT_UPSTREAM variable in make.conf / the environment, and the
package.upstream file in
On Fri, 24 Feb 2006 14:57:43 -0600 Boyd Stephen Smith Jr.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| ~arch means a package is a candidate for going into arch after
| further testing, if said testing does not turn up new bugs. This
| means that both the ebuild *and* the package should be likely to be
| stable.
On Saturday 25 February 2006 12:57, Ciaran McCreesh [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote about 'Re: [gentoo-user] What happens with masked packages?':
On Fri, 24 Feb 2006 14:57:43 -0600 Boyd Stephen Smith Jr.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| ~arch means a package is a candidate for going into arch after
On 2006-02-25 13:34:28 -0600 (Sat, Feb), Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:
So, betas shouldn't ever be ~arch? Or is your definition of stable
broad enough to include betas?
Entirely dependent on the upstream. I've had Vim beta releases in
~arch, for example, because I'm confident in
On Saturday 25 February 2006 17:47, Mariusz Pękala [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
about 'Re: [gentoo-user] What happens with masked packages?':
On 2006-02-25 13:34:28 -0600 (Sat, Feb), Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:
So, betas shouldn't ever be ~arch? Or is your definition of
stable broad enough
On Wed, 22 Feb 2006 16:12:33 -0600 Boyd Stephen Smith Jr.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| From what I understand this is incorrect. package.mask, -*, and the
| ~ARCH (and occasionally, -ARCH) keywords are supposed to indicate
| the /ebuild/'s stability, not the upstream stability.
Not exactly.
Top
February 2006 11:31, Ciaran McCreesh [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote about 'Re: [gentoo-user] What happens with masked packages?':
Top level package.mask means there's something wrong with the upstream
package. Often this is because it's a beta release. It can also be used
for major ebuild changes.
Okay
Hello,
I'm running an amd64 Gentoo (but this is not a specific amd64 question) and
have installed a few ~amd64 masked packages - and some work amzingly well.
So I googled for information as to where I might report success, so that they
might be unmasked, but didn't find that info.
Where - and
Thierry de Coulon wrote:
Where - and how - should I report masked packages that work?
You don't need to report success. There are teams of folks who 'bless'
the packages into unmasked status when they feel they are ready.
Your lack of reporting a bug is an indication that there is nothing
On Wednesday 22 February 2006 21.02, Dave Nebinger wrote:
Thierry de Coulon wrote:
Where - and how - should I report masked packages that work?
You don't need to report success. There are teams of folks who 'bless'
the packages into unmasked status when they feel they are ready.
Your lack
On Wednesday 22 February 2006 13:55, Thierry de Coulon
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote about '[gentoo-user] What happens with masked
packages?':
I'm running an amd64 Gentoo (but this is not a specific amd64 question)
and have installed a few ~amd64 masked packages - and some work amzingly
well.
Glad
Thierry de Coulon wrote:
Thanks. Does not seem to me to be the best solution, though: if a package
is masked, many users won't install it, so what's the absence of bug report
indicating?
You can also file a bug report that a package which you thing is stable is
still masked. In this case a
On Wednesday 22 February 2006 14:38, Thierry de Coulon
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote about 'Re: [gentoo-user] What happens with
masked packages?':
Thanks. Does not seem to me to be the best solution, though: if a
package is masked, many users won't install it, so what's the absence of
bug report
26 matches
Mail list logo
