Jason Stubbs posted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, excerpted
below, on Tue, 06 Sep 2005 08:39:32 +0900:
> On Tuesday 06 September 2005 01:06, Philip Webb wrote:
>> 050905 Jason Stubbs wrote:
>> > it's possible that unmerging slotted packages of the one key
>> > may break your system. How's about not warnin
On Tuesday 06 September 2005 01:06, Philip Webb wrote:
> 050905 Jason Stubbs wrote:
> > it's possible that unmerging slotted packages of the one key
> > may break your system. How's about not warning
> > if there's more than one installed cat/pkg (rather than cat/pkg-ver)
> > satisfying the profile
Brian Harring wrote:
The thing to note is that if you're relying on negation, it's going to
bite you in the ass without efforts. A server subprofile pulling from
a parent that holds desktop cruft will be forced to either
A) reinvent the wheel (maintain their own USE list), as a sizable
chun
It's not so much the case that no-one dares try pmasked pkgs. Taking a
quick trip through the forum will turn up many examples of people who do.
But the longstanding policy with masked pkgs is 'this is unsupported - if
it breaks, don't come to us - use at your own risk'. Right now there are
p
On Mon, 05 Sep 2005 21:09:28 +0100, Stuart Herbert wrote:
> Many *users* look on package.masked packages as being dangerous to
> install, but are much more willing to run ~arch packages. If you mask a
> version of a popular package, you'll get a lot of correspondence asking
> you when you'll unma
On Mon, 05 Sep 2005 12:02:02 -0500, Mike Doty wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> R Hill wrote:
> [snip]
> | How about the ATs cc the maintainer on the bug they file to get the pkg
> | bumped to stable, and giving them a period of time (48 hours? a week?)
> | in which to
On Mon, 2005-09-05 at 22:42 +0200, Simon Stelling wrote:
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > | I'm asking that you assume any support burden that you create. It
> > | only seems fair.
> >
> > Stabling a package which is not in packahe.mask is only a support
> > burden if package maintainers are abusing
On Mon, 05 Sep 2005 21:52:56 +0100 Stuart Herbert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| I've put my point across, but you're determined not to address it
| directly. I guess there's nothing else to say on this topic.
Bah, I'm not changing the subject at all. It's the same issue. Marking
something as stabl
On Mon, 2005-09-05 at 21:34 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> Stabling a package which is not in packahe.mask is only a support
> burden if package maintainers are abusing ~arch.
>
> If you don't agree that it should be stable, don't move it out out of
> package.mask. ~arch is for stable candidates,
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
| I'm asking that you assume any support burden that you create. It
| only seems fair.
Stabling a package which is not in packahe.mask is only a support
burden if package maintainers are abusing ~arch.
I absolutely agree with you, the only point is:
People are abusing
On Mon, 05 Sep 2005 21:16:37 +0100 Stuart Herbert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| On Mon, 2005-09-05 at 20:37 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
| > If the package maintainer doesn't think their package is ready, it
| > should be in package.mask.
|
| I'm not arguing against that. I agree with it. Please
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Michael Hanselmann wrote:
> Hello
>
> The idea isn't too bad, but if you implement it, please do it in a cross
> plattform compatible way, not x86-only.
Well I didn't explain the implementation, but of course I would myself
only add the implementatio
On Mon, 2005-09-05 at 20:37 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> If the package maintainer doesn't think their package is ready, it
> should be in package.mask.
I'm not arguing against that. I agree with it. Please stop trying to
hijack this and divert attention away from my point. I'm asking
nicely
On Sun, 2005-09-04 at 20:12 -0500, Daniel Goller wrote:
> sounds like you suggest to trick ~arch users into testing "unripe"
> ebuilds/bumps/versions by sending it into ~arch to get the testing done while
> someone in a chroot would be much better equipped for doing the testing with?
No.
You'
Hello
> The stuff I removed:
> arch/* except i386 and x86_64
> include/asm-* expect asm-generic, asm-i386 and asm-x86_64
> So I propose we implement a minimal USE flag in the kernel-2 eclass that
> would make the cleaning [...|
The idea isn't too bad, but if you implement it, please do it in a c
On Mon, 05 Sep 2005 20:20:28 +0100 Stuart Herbert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| Still, it'd only be fair for the arch team to assume the support
| burden for the package version if they do this w/out the support of
| the package maintainer.
If the package maintainer doesn't think their package is r
On Sun, 2005-09-04 at 20:09 -0500, Daniel Goller wrote:
> agreed talk/communcation is fine, if the maintainer is only trying to flex
> muscles and does not have a good reason, the arch team ought to be able to do
> what is best for gentoo and not be shot down by a (hm) stubborn(?)
> maintainer,
On Mon, 2005-09-05 at 17:01 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> Doesn't solve the coordination problem.
Agreed. If there's going to be an x86 team, it needs to be a full arch
team, and not some /dev/null that pretends to be one.
Best regards,
Stu
--
Stuart Herbert
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I have a couple of old machines I maintain and emerging and unmerging
kernel sources take a while because there are so many files. Also one
set of gentoo sources takes about 230MB of disk space. By removing stuff
not belonging to x86 I was able to succ
Mike Doty wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Luis F. Araujo wrote:
| Kevin F. Quinn wrote:
|
|> On 5/9/2005 1:29:57, Ciaran McCreesh ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
|>
|>
|>> On Mon, 5 Sep 2005 1:12:54 +0200 "Kevin F. Quinn"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
|>> wrote:
|>> | 3) All packages ne
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Luis F. Araujo wrote:
| Kevin F. Quinn wrote:
|
|> On 5/9/2005 1:29:57, Ciaran McCreesh ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
|>
|>
|>> On Mon, 5 Sep 2005 1:12:54 +0200 "Kevin F. Quinn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
|>> wrote:
|>> | 3) All packages need to be assigned an
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
R Hill wrote:
[snip]
| How about the ATs cc the maintainer on the bug they
| file to get the pkg bumped to stable, and giving them a period of time
| (48 hours? a week?) in which to raise any objections. Of course the AT's
| would still have the powe
Kevin F. Quinn wrote:
On 5/9/2005 1:29:57, Ciaran McCreesh ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
On Mon, 5 Sep 2005 1:12:54 +0200 "Kevin F. Quinn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| 3) All packages need to be assigned an x86 arch team member
|responsible.
Why?
Because if only the x86 arch team ca
050905 Jason Stubbs wrote:
> virtual/editor is a terrible case. :/
> it's possible that unmerging slotted packages of the one key
> may break your system. How's about not warning
> if there's more than one installed cat/pkg (rather than cat/pkg-ver)
> satisfying the profile atom that is being trigg
On Mon, 5 Sep 2005 20:41:54 +0900 Jason Stubbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| Testing of the ebuild rather than of the package, though. This is the
| point where people sometimes get confused.
You can't consider an ebuild stable unless the code it installs is also
reasonably stable.
--
Ciaran McCr
On Mon, 5 Sep 2005 9:44:41 +0200 "Kevin F. Quinn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| On 5/9/2005 1:29:57, Ciaran McCreesh ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
| > On Mon, 5 Sep 2005 1:12:54 +0200 "Kevin F. Quinn"
| > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
| > wrote:
| > | 3) All packages need to be assigned an x86 arch team member
|
On Mon, 5 Sep 2005 11:21:03 +0100 Tom Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| Maybe I'm seeing this all wrong, but the fact is, the number of
| packages that need x86 arch team lovin' are pretty small, despite the
| number of overall keyworded packages being large. I don't think the
| x86 arch team nee
On Tue, Sep 06, 2005 at 12:21:29AM +0900, Georgi Georgiev wrote:
> maillog: 05/09/2005-11:17:47(-0400): Nathan L. Adams types
> > Or how about an xsane flag for GIMP that makes the xsane plugin a
> > dependency. :)
>
> There *is* an xsane flag for GIMP. Well, it's called "scanner" but it
> does w
maillog: 05/09/2005-11:17:47(-0400): Nathan L. Adams types
> Patrick Kursawe wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I am going to add a local USE flag "gimp" to xsane which triggers building
> > of xsane as a plugin for the GIMP.
> >
> > Bye,
> >
> > Patrick
>
> Or how about an xsane flag for GIMP that mak
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Patrick Kursawe wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I am going to add a local USE flag "gimp" to xsane which triggers building
> of xsane as a plugin for the GIMP.
>
> Bye,
>
> Patrick
Or how about an xsane flag for GIMP that makes the xsane plugin a
dependency.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Kevin F. Quinn wrote:
> On 5/9/2005 13:41:54, Jason Stubbs ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>
>>On Monday 05 September 2005 20:21, Simon Stelling wrote:
>>
>>>Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>>>
If it isn't fit to be marked stable, it shouldn't be out of
pac
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Tom Martin wrote:
> I'm not sure I like this. I think it would be too slow. I'd rather have
> a concept of maintainer arch (the reason I still like the old keyword
> ordering, because there was at least *some* idea of maintainer arch. In
> fact, I used
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Kevin F. Quinn wrote:
> Well, it strikes me that most if not all of the organisational questions
> are not relevant to a tester; the only technical question that is
> relevant is 9 (keyword marking), and even that would be reworded for the
> tester per
On 5/9/2005 13:41:54, Jason Stubbs ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Monday 05 September 2005 20:21, Simon Stelling wrote:
> > Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > > If it isn't fit to be marked stable, it shouldn't be out of
> > > package.mask. ~arch means "candidate for going stable after more
> > > testing"
Hi all,
I am going to add a local USE flag "gimp" to xsane which triggers building
of xsane as a plugin for the GIMP.
Bye,
Patrick
pgp0xi5JVz5gL.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Monday 05 September 2005 21:15, pclouds wrote:
> On 9/5/05, Jason Stubbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list would be better for this type
> > of query...
>
> Ok. I'll stop by gentoo-portage-dev next time :)
>
> > Actually, there is a use. Presently, if your overlay
On 9/5/05, Jason Stubbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list would be better for this type of
> query...
Ok. I'll stop by gentoo-portage-dev next time :)
> Actually, there is a use. Presently, if your overlay has foo/bar-1.0 and the
> main tree as foo/bar-1.1 you'll get
maillog: 05/09/2005-06:16:16(-0400): Thomas Dickey types
> On Mon, Sep 05, 2005 at 07:47:17AM +0100, Tavis Ormandy wrote:
> >
> >
> > --On Monday, September 05, 2005 14:41:45 +0900 Georgi Georgiev
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > key sequence works fine with my slang-linked mutt, but it
> > >
On Monday 05 September 2005 20:21, Simon Stelling wrote:
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > If it isn't fit to be marked stable, it shouldn't be out of
> > package.mask. ~arch means "candidate for going stable after more
> > testing", not "might work".
>
> It's a bit of both. When you put a package into
On Monday 05 September 2005 19:39, Jason Stubbs wrote:
> On Monday 05 September 2005 03:24, Mike Williams wrote:
> > On Sunday 04 September 2005 15:11, Philip Webb wrote:
> > > Having gone over to Udev, I went to unmerge Devfs & got a big red
> > > warning. It appears that the 2005.1 profile gives
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
If it isn't fit to be marked stable, it shouldn't be out of
package.mask. ~arch means "candidate for going stable after more
testing", not "might work".
It's a bit of both. When you put a package into ~arch, it's in "testing", so
that says it needs further "testing" sinc
Danny van Dyk wrote:
Paul de Vrieze schrieb:
| I agree with this. It should also be a simple, backwards compatible
| solution. Just don't call it maintainer, but maint or something like
| that ;-)
In case this should really be done, please call it 'stable'...
so we get ~stable? ;)
--
Simon Ste
On Monday 05 September 2005 18:06, pclouds wrote:
> This is an idea. Currently, after an ebuild is merged into system. I
> have no idea where that ebuild comes from. I think we should keep the
> the ebuild's repository signature in /var/db/pkg. When thing's
> broken, i may find out where to find t
On Monday 05 September 2005 05:11, Stuart Herbert wrote:
> I'd be more worried about the impact on users. From a user's point of
> view, x86 is a fast-moving arch, where you can normally find an up to
> date package, and where most of the major packages are actively and well
> maintained by the pa
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Paul de Vrieze schrieb:
| I agree with this. It should also be a simple, backwards compatible
| solution. Just don't call it maintainer, but maint or something like
| that ;-)
In case this should really be done, please call it 'stable'...
Danny
- --
On Monday 05 September 2005 03:24, Mike Williams wrote:
> On Sunday 04 September 2005 15:11, Philip Webb wrote:
> > Having gone over to Udev, I went to unmerge Devfs & got a big red
> > warning. It appears that the 2005.1 profile gives Devfs as a virtual:
> > is this an oversight or is there a reas
On Monday 05 September 2005 04:07, Philip Webb wrote:
> 050904 Andrew Gaffney wrote:
> > Philip Webb wrote:
> >> I actually have
> >> /etc/make.profile -> /usr/portage/profiles/default-linux/x86/2005.1
> >> So when I enter 'emerge -Cp devfsd', why do I get :
> >> "!!! Trying to unmerge package(s
On Mon, Sep 05, 2005 at 01:12:54AM +0200, "Kevin F. Quinn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> We seem to be heading towards a situation where the x86 arch
> team do all marking of stuff stable on x86. This I like.
> Some observations - these may be phrased in the affirmative
> but please take them as o
On Sun, 04 Sep 2005 21:26:37 +0100, Stuart Herbert wrote:
> Why not talk to the package maintainers instead, and convince them that
> you need a different version marking "maint" instead? Why "override"
> (which, tbh, smacks of "we arch teams know best, life would be better
> without package main
On Mon, Sep 05, 2005 at 07:47:17AM +0100, Tavis Ormandy wrote:
>
>
> --On Monday, September 05, 2005 14:41:45 +0900 Georgi Georgiev
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > key sequence works fine with my slang-linked mutt, but it
> > does not with a ncurses-linked mutt. I am aware what Control-S is
> >
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
pclouds wrote:
> This is an idea. Currently, after an ebuild is merged into system. I
> have no idea where that ebuild comes from.
Use emerge:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ~$ emerge -pv resin
These are the packages that I would merge, in order:
Calculating de
This is an idea. Currently, after an ebuild is merged into system. I
have no idea where that ebuild comes from. I think we should keep the
the ebuild's repository signature in /var/db/pkg. When thing's
broken, i may find out where to find the original ebuild and fix it
(is it in official portage t
On Sunday 04 September 2005 23:39, Stuart Herbert wrote:
> Hi Grant,
>
> On Sun, 2005-09-04 at 15:53 -0500, Grant Goodyear wrote:
> > I'm still thinking about the concept of a "maint" option. This
> > question I can answer, however. It's not unheard of for a package
> > with a lot of dependencies
On Sun, 2005-09-04 at 23:19 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Sun, 04 Sep 2005 22:43:20 +0100 Stuart Herbert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> | > The only reason certain arch teams are considered a bottleneck is
> | > because they do real testing. As opposed to x86 or ppc, where
> | > packages which
54 matches
Mail list logo
