Hi Erol,
the model which was used back in oi-build/illumos-userland times wasn't that
bureaucratic. In short, you posted a change set, people reviewed it and
LGTM-ied it. If your received 3 LGTMs, you package was added to the source
tree. The only problem with this was that from certain time
Thank you for your hard work :)
On 9 July 2013 18:41, ken mays maybird1...@yahoo.com wrote:
Hello,
In order for OI-hipster (oi_151a8) work to natively evolve for LibreOffice
4.0.4, the archival tools in /hipster
require recent updates to comply:
1. Zip 3.0
2. Unzip 6.0
Then bump to:
Hi,
I can speak only for myself, but I think its too early to try this. In
my view hipster is currently
only a developer effort. Too many core packages (automake, libtool,
glib) still need to be updated
to build some newer software. Even that ruby 1.8.7 update is End of
Life now. Further many
While not a contributor of code atm :(, I suggested something a system when
OI started, which was sort of agreed to by some people at the time ...
1) stable repository, guarded rigorously by people who do not allow
anything in unless it's been signed and sealed as core and stable,
seriously if
Hello all again.
Now I have (it seems) working imagemagick update :
https://github.com/pyhalov/oi-userland/compare/imagemagick
However, it can break a lot, because imagemagick library names, so
numbers and so on changed. So it seems to integrate it we need to
rebuild all dependent packages
On Wed, 10 Jul 2013, Alexander Pyhalov wrote:
Hello all again.
Now I have (it seems) working imagemagick update :
https://github.com/pyhalov/oi-userland/compare/imagemagick
However, it can break a lot, because imagemagick library names, so numbers
and so on changed. So it seems to integrate
I'm a bit confused.
$ pkg search -Hr 'depend::image/imagemagick' | awk '{ print $4; }' |
cut -d @ -f 1 | sort | uniq
pkg:/desktop/xscreensaver/hacks/rss-glx
pkg:/redistributable
pkg:/SUNWimagick
Don't we have anything in repository except one scrensaver that requires
imagemagick ???
Good evening folks,
thanks for your feedbacks so far, here's the summary clustered in some way:
1.0 - Release Engineering:
1.1- should not be bureaucratic, i.e. rather an internal agreement
(Alex)
1.2- the process of pushing updates to /dev or /stable repos is
undefined (Alex)
1.3-
Hi Erol,
On Jul 10, 2013, at 11:50 PM, Erol Zavidic ero...@gmail.com wrote:
Good evening folks,
thanks for your feedbacks so far, here's the summary clustered in some way:
1.0 - Release Engineering:
1.1- should not be bureaucratic, i.e. rather an internal agreement (Alex)
I support
