Re: [gentoo-dev] tentative x86 arch team glep

On 7/9/2005 3:10:12, Stuart Longland ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > > 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. Quin

Re: [gentoo-dev] tentative x86 arch team glep

Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > 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

Re: [gentoo-dev] tentative x86 arch team glep

Dave Shanker wrote: On 9/6/05, *Martin Schlemmer* <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote: arch - in theory stable ~arch - in theory should work, but needs testing -arch - do not work at all Just out of curiosity, why are there know broken packages in portage? Wha

Re: [gentoo-dev] tentative x86 arch team glep

On Tue, 6 Sep 2005 18:51:51 -0400 Dave Shanker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: | Just out of curiosity, why are there know broken packages in portage? a) Convenience. b) Sadly, unlike some other distributions we don't refuse to package things which won't work on all our tier one archs. -- Ciaran McC

Re: [gentoo-dev] tentative x86 arch team glep

On 9/6/05, Martin Schlemmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: arch  - in theory stable~arch - in theory should work, but needs testing-arch - do not work at all Just out of curiosity, why are there know broken packages in portage? Wouldn't -arch packages best be handled outside of the official portage t

Re: [gentoo-dev] tentative x86 arch team glep

Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 17:41:35 -0400 warnera6 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: | Speaking of flexabilty, are there tools out there to perform look-ups | into p.masks to figure out why things are masked? emerge -pv emerge -pv would be a cludge for what many are after. If I wa

Re: [gentoo-dev] tentative x86 arch team glep

On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 17:41:35 -0400 warnera6 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: | Speaking of flexabilty, are there tools out there to perform look-ups | into p.masks to figure out why things are masked? emerge -pv -- Ciaran McCreesh : Gentoo Developer (Vim, Shell tools, Fluxbox, Cron) Mail:

Re: [gentoo-dev] tentative x86 arch team glep

On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 17:46:40 -0400 "Stephen P. Becker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: | This is true, however it requires users to possibly make a gazillion | entries in their /etc/portage/package.unmask if they want to use a | lot of what are considered truly unstable packages. There are dozens of s

Re: [gentoo-dev] tentative x86 arch team glep

On Tue, 2005-09-06 at 22:31 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 23:19:43 +0200 Martin Schlemmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > | What about !arch or something (to connect with the one reply to the > | summary thread) to really indicate unstable on that arch? Should > | cover those

Re: [gentoo-dev] tentative x86 arch team glep

Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 23:19:43 +0200 Martin Schlemmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: | What about !arch or something (to connect with the one reply to the | summary thread) to really indicate unstable on that arch? Should | cover those things that sorda work on the arch, but you

Re: [gentoo-dev] tentative x86 arch team glep

Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 23:19:43 +0200 Martin Schlemmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: | What about !arch or something (to connect with the one reply to the | summary thread) to really indicate unstable on that arch? Should | cover those things that sorda work on the arch, but you

Re: [gentoo-dev] tentative x86 arch team glep

On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 23:19:43 +0200 Martin Schlemmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: | What about !arch or something (to connect with the one reply to the | summary thread) to really indicate unstable on that arch? Should | cover those things that sorda work on the arch, but you rather want | developers

Re: [gentoo-dev] tentative x86 arch team glep

On Tue, 2005-09-06 at 20:47 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 12:35:31 -0700 Donnie Berkholz > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > | Chris Gianelloni wrote: > | > You'd have a really long list of maintenance architectures for me. > | > Like I said, I don't use a single machine. The idea

Re: [gentoo-dev] [Summary] tentative x86 arch team glep

Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 18:03:37 +0100 Ed W <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: | As an "outsider" reading that summary the message *I* read is that | there is some strain over fitting the development model into | "stable", "~", and "package.mask". I think I see people basically | sa

Re: [gentoo-dev] tentative x86 arch team glep

On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 12:35:31 -0700 Donnie Berkholz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: | Chris Gianelloni wrote: | > You'd have a really long list of maintenance architectures for me. | > Like I said, I don't use a single machine. The idea of *any* | > architecture being my "primary" one just doesn't reall

Re: [gentoo-dev] tentative x86 arch team glep

Chris Gianelloni wrote: On Tue, 2005-09-06 at 12:25 -0400, Luis F. Araujo wrote: Chris Gianelloni wrote: On Sun, 2005-09-04 at 22:46 +0200, Simon Stelling wrote: Stuart Herbert wrote: I've no personal problem with arch teams sometimes needing to do their own th

Re: [gentoo-dev] tentative x86 arch team glep

Chris Gianelloni wrote: You'd have a really long list of maintenance architectures for me. Like I said, I don't use a single machine. The idea of *any* architecture being my "primary" one just doesn't really fit. There's also the simple fact that it doesn't matter *at all* what the maintainer

Re: [gentoo-dev] tentative x86 arch team glep

On Tue, 2005-09-06 at 17:22 +0200, Sven Vermeulen wrote: > On Sun, Sep 04, 2005 at 10:39:44PM +0100, Stuart Herbert wrote: > > At the moment, the only way for a package maintainer to mark a package > > stable is to mark it stable on a "real" arch. Creating the "maintainer" > > arch solves this ver

Re: [gentoo-dev] tentative x86 arch team glep

On Tue, 2005-09-06 at 12:25 -0400, Luis F. Araujo wrote: > Chris Gianelloni wrote: > > >On Sun, 2005-09-04 at 22:46 +0200, Simon Stelling wrote: > > > > > >>Stuart Herbert wrote: > >> > >> > >>>I've no personal problem with arch teams sometimes needing to do their > >>>own thing, provided it

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Fixing the TERM mess

Joe Wells wrote: > The best solution to this that I can think of is to extend OpenSSH > with the capability to copy terminfo information to ~/.terminfo on the > remote system. IMHO automated overwriting files in $HOME on every login is a *very* bad thing. And if you wanted to remove those "-via-ss

Re: [gentoo-dev] tentative x86 arch team glep

On Tuesday 06 September 2005 19:11, Joshua Baergen wrote: > Sven Vermeulen wrote: > > MAINTENANCE="~x86" # Maintainer uses x86, package not deemed stable > > I would even suggest not indicating maintainer arch at all. If ATs are > going to be responsible for keywording we should blackbox the pro

Re: [gentoo-dev] tentative x86 arch team glep

On Tuesday 06 September 2005 16:28, Chris Gianelloni wrote: > I still think that the concept of a "maintainer arch" is completely > broken anyway. I like the idea of adding something like a "maint" > KEYWORD, or something similar to mark that the ebuild is considered > "stable" material by the mai

Re: [gentoo-dev] [Summary] tentative x86 arch team glep

On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 18:03:37 +0100 Ed W <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: | As an "outsider" reading that summary the message *I* read is that | there is some strain over fitting the development model into | "stable", "~", and "package.mask". I think I see people basically | saying that they have differi

Re: [gentoo-dev] tentative x86 arch team glep

Sven Vermeulen wrote: MAINTENANCE="~x86" # Maintainer uses x86, package not deemed stable I would even suggest not indicating maintainer arch at all. If ATs are going to be responsible for keywording we should blackbox the process to ward off assumptions and laziness. Whether the mai

Re: [gentoo-dev] tentative x86 arch team glep

On Tue, 6 Sep 2005 17:22:09 +0200 Sven Vermeulen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: | On Sun, Sep 04, 2005 at 10:39:44PM +0100, Stuart Herbert wrote: | > At the moment, the only way for a package maintainer to mark a | > package stable is to mark it stable on a "real" arch. Creating the | > "maintainer" a

Re: [gentoo-dev] [Summary] tentative x86 arch team glep

As an "outsider" reading that summary the message *I* read is that there is some strain over fitting the development model into "stable", "~", and "package.mask". I think I see people basically saying that they have differing views over what qualifies for each level? Perhaps part of the solut

Re: [gentoo-dev] tentative x86 arch team glep

On Sun, Sep 04, 2005 at 10:39:44PM +0100, Stuart Herbert wrote: > At the moment, the only way for a package maintainer to mark a package > stable is to mark it stable on a "real" arch. Creating the "maintainer" > arch solves this very problem. Yes, but please don't call it the "maintainer" arch.

Re: [gentoo-dev] tentative x86 arch team glep

Chris Gianelloni wrote: On Sun, 2005-09-04 at 22:46 +0200, Simon Stelling wrote: Stuart Herbert wrote: I've no personal problem with arch teams sometimes needing to do their own thing, provided it's confined to a specific class of package. Outside of the core packages required to boot

Re: [gentoo-dev] tentative x86 arch team glep

On Sun, 2005-09-04 at 22:46 +0200, Simon Stelling wrote: > Stuart Herbert wrote: > > I've no personal problem with arch teams sometimes needing to do their > > own thing, provided it's confined to a specific class of package. > > Outside of the core packages required to boot & maintain a platform,

Re: [gentoo-dev] [Summary] tentative x86 arch team glep

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Chris White wrote: [snip] | * Although x86 arch recruitment is currently underway, I suspect that |we will need notably more devs to be x86 arch devs than we currently |have signed up. (I don't know how many arch devs amd64 have, but I |

Re: [gentoo-dev] 2005.1 profile gives devfs as virtual

On Tuesday 06 September 2005 17:33, Philip Webb wrote: > Sorry, but that's neither adequate nor polite as a response You've rattled me enough that I only responded to this part. > to the genuine problem which I raised as the original poster. It wasn't a response to the original poster. It was on

Re: [gentoo-dev] 2005.1 profile gives devfs as virtual

On Tuesday 06 September 2005 17:33, Philip Webb wrote: > Sorry, but that's neither adequate nor polite as a response > to the genuine problem which I raised as the original poster. > The answer to your question should be clear from the rest of my message > -- the present warning is misleading, as e

[gentoo-dev] [Summary] tentative x86 arch team glep

Yet another thread that's getting horrificly long, here comes your summary folks: Introduction An email was sent by Grant Goodyear containing a GLEP for the official x86 arch team establishment [1]. Discussions Ciaran McCreesh requested more information on exactly what the line: There will

Re: [gentoo-dev] GNOME 2.12 Release Candidate Testing

On Sun, 4 Sep 2005 00:45:00 + (UTC) "John N. Laliberte" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > If you would like to help us find bugs in this release, please unmask > all packages located in the GNOME 2.12 section of package.mask. > Also, these need to be placed in package.keywords. I've posted > pack

Re[2]: [gentoo-dev] tentative x86 arch team glep

5.9.2005, 22:09:28, Stuart Herbert wrote: > I kept PHP5 masked for those 14 months, and (as Jakub and others can > confirm) most of the feedback has been limited to "unmask that > puppy" (sometimes put in stronger terms ;-) There were some bugs from > users who had found issues, but not many. W

Re: [gentoo-dev] [summary] combining x86 and amd64

On Fri, 2005-09-02 at 18:32 +0900, Chris White wrote: > Ok, say yah, this thread is to long, so I decided, "Hey, let's make a > summary of the main important points". That way everyone doesn't have to > read threads that are longer than the combined code of portage. [snip] > Hopefully this m

Re: [gentoo-dev] 2005.1 profile gives devfs as virtual

050906 Jason Stubbs wrote: > 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-v