060505 Diego 'Flameeyes' Petten? wrote:
> Although modular, KDE 3.5 has to go stable _at once_
> and if KMail is totally broken or has major feature loss, we can't.
I've seen this stated before, but why does it have to be "_at once_" ?
Many packages have > 1 stable version available,
so users mi
On Thursday 04 May 2006 19:09, Daniel Goller wrote:
> ./games-emulation/mupen64-riceplugin
> ./games-emulation/mupen64-glide64
> ./games-emulation/mupen64-glN64
> ./games-emulation/mupen64-blight-tr64gl
> ./games-emulation/mupen64-blight-input
> ./games-emulation/mupen64-jttl_sound
> ./games-emulat
Philip Webb wrote:
> My solution is a line in .bashrc :
> 'alias emergeu='ACCEPT_KEYWORDS="~x86" emerge' ,
Don't do that. Try to do a search on "why is ACCEPT_KEYWORDS emerge bad".
> which allows me to emerge a testing version on a specific occasion.
> The package.keywords alternative is sil
On Friday 05 May 2006 02:14, Philip Webb wrote:
> 060504 Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> > If we followed others blindly, as so many users suggest,
> > then we would have stabilized KDE 3.5 ages ago,
> > and every single one of you KDE users would be complaining
> > about how our QA sucks because KDE doe
On Friday 05 May 2006 20:37, Kevin F. Quinn (Gentoo) wrote:
> First, I'll get the security updates when (1) the relevant updated
> package goes stable, which is usually pretty quickly, or (2)
> notification is made in gentoo-announce (which must be the correct
> place to get such notifications).
T
On Fri, 2006-05-05 at 15:23 +0200, Kevin F. Quinn (Gentoo) wrote:
> In practice, I tend to do:
>
> =category/package-version* ~arch
~category/package-version ~arch
*grin*
--
Chris Gianelloni
Release Engineering - Strategic Lead
x86 Architecture Team
Games - Developer
Gentoo Linux
signature.a
On Fri, 5 May 2006 16:38:57 +0200
Carsten Lohrke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Friday 05 May 2006 15:23, Kevin F. Quinn (Gentoo) wrote:
> > I disagree. Your argument is for not using ~arch at all, rather
> > than an argument against keeping control of what you have from
> > ~arch.
>
> No. My a
On Friday 05 May 2006 15:23, Kevin F. Quinn (Gentoo) wrote:
> I disagree. Your argument is for not using ~arch at all, rather
> than an argument against keeping control of what you have from ~arch.
No. My argument is that category/ebuild is much better than
=category/ebuild-x*. If and only if th
On Fri, 5 May 2006 13:20:09 +0200
Carsten Lohrke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Friday 05 May 2006 08:32, Kevin F. Quinn (Gentoo) wrote:
> > If you use specific versions in the package.keywords file (i.e. do
> > "=category/package-version-revision ~arch" instead of
> > "category/package ~arch", t
On Thu, 04 May 2006 16:29:56 -0700
Michael Kirkland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I would suggest opening a middle ground tag, where things can be
> moved to from "~arch" when they work for reasonable configuration
> values, but still have open bugs for some people.
More work for devs, yay!
Mariu
Carsten Lohrke wrote:
>> KDE 3.5.2: 1.5 months (I know our devs get prereleases, so we had this
>> time)
>
> Still open issues, some upstream, some Gentoo related. Also the KDE team
> lost members the last months and is unfortunately not that active since a
> while. All the whining leaves me with
Bart Braem posted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, excerpted below, on Fri,
05 May 2006 10:43:28 +0200:
> Donnie Berkholz wrote:
>
>> Bart Braem wrote:
>>> Xorg 7: 5 months
>>
>> Can't stabilize till portage 2.1 is stable. Doesn't matter how many open
>> bugs we've got, or how well it works.
>>
> Thanks f
Caleb Tennis wrote:
> Get involved. It's the only way you will truly understand the magnitude
> of a project like Gentoo. KDE is a very small slice of the whole thing,
> and yet it still requires a LOT of time. We're always looking for help.
> If you need a place to start, pick out a bug report
On Friday 05 May 2006 08:32, Kevin F. Quinn (Gentoo) wrote:
> If you use specific versions in the package.keywords file (i.e. do
> "=category/package-version-revision ~arch" instead of
> "category/package ~arch", this doesn't happen.
Hardcoding specific ~arch versions or revisions unless absolutel
On Friday 05 May 2006 09:20, Bart Braem wrote:
> Firefox 1.5: 5 months (the entire world uses it now, in stable)
Still has open at least one open vulnerability I know of, still has memory
management problems afaik. Despite that it's stable on some architectures. We
have exactly one active dev wo
Philip Webb posted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, excerpted below,
on Fri, 05 May 2006 03:37:06 -0400:
> That's very much my own impression. I am now using ~x86 versions of Vim
> Vim-core Gvim Cdargs Openoffice Eix Euses Gqview Gwenview Portage Firefox
> Galeon Htop KDE -- all of which which I use regular
> I understand you don't care about how many users you have, Gentoo is not a
> bussiness. But if I try to convince users about the current situation that
> is hard. I can't explain this, I really can't. My only answer is "put it
> in /etc/portage/package.keywords". But that one is growing very fas
Jeff Rollin posted
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, excerpted
below, on Fri, 05 May 2006 06:28:53 +0100:
> Or maybe we could move to a fixed release cycle. Debian uses 18 (?)
> months, but maybe a 3- or 6-month release cycle would suit us better
Actually, Gentoo already has that, altho the period is still g
On Fri, May 5, 2006 at 10:02:10 +0200, Daniel Goller wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> The following packages require a new maintainer, some might just be
> absorbed into their herds w/o a direct maintainer leaving them to the
> teams maintaining those herds, others mi
On Friday 05 May 2006 09:20, Bart Braem wrote:
> KDE 3.5.2: 1.5 months (I know our devs get prereleases, so we had this
> time)
Now I think we really explained that well enough, we're working to mark it
stable as soon as we can.
*We don't care if you wanted it stable yesterday, it will be stable
On Friday 05 May 2006 01:11, Jakub Moc wrote:
> Philip Webb wrote:
> >> But yeah, you know better, no problems whatsoever. :P
> >
> > Yes, I know better: I haven't had any problems with any of the KDE
> > packages which I have installed with versions 3.5.0 3.5.1 3.5.2 .
> > It's time the developers
On Fri, 2006-05-05 at 09:20 +0200, Bart Braem wrote:
> > That way, people who prefer stability over the latest features can run
> > "arch", and everyone who bitches about packages being out of date can run
> > the middle tag, and "~arch" can be kept for testing.
>
> I really, really agree here. I
Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> Bart Braem wrote:
>> Xorg 7: 5 months
>
> Can't stabilize till portage 2.1 is stable. Doesn't matter how many open
> bugs we've got, or how well it works.
>
Thanks for the explanation. Not that I really like it but I understand that
portage 2.1 is a large upgrade...
Bar
Bart Braem wrote:
> Xorg 7: 5 months
Can't stabilize till portage 2.1 is stable. Doesn't matter how many open
bugs we've got, or how well it works.
Thanks,
Donnie
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
On 05/05/06, Jakub Moc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Philip Webb wrote:
> 060504 Chris Gianelloni wrote:
>> If we followed others blindly, as so many users suggest,
>> then we would have stabilized KDE 3.5 ages ago,
>> and every single one of you KDE users would be complaining
>> about how our QA su
Philip Webb wrote:
>> But yeah, you know better, no problems whatsoever. :P
>
> Yes, I know better: I haven't had any problems with any of the KDE packages
> which I have installed with versions 3.5.0 3.5.1 3.5.2 .
> It's time the developers started listening to users in this area:
> we really do
On Fri, May 05, 2006 at 09:20:08AM +0200, Bart Braem wrote:
> Michael Kirkland wrote:
>
> > I think the problem is that Gentoo is falling into the same sandtrap the
> > Debian project has been mired in forever. "arch" and "~arch" are
> > polarizing into "stable, but horribly out of date", and "may
On Thu, May 04, 2006 at 06:09:39PM -0500, Daniel Goller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Assuming there are no objections I can take over the following.
> ./app-benchmarks/cpuburn
> ./app-benchmarks/bonnie++
Regards,
John
--
Role:Gentoo Linux Kernel Lead
Gentoo Linux:http://www.gent
Thanks thats what I was looking for.
On Fri, May 05, 2006 at 08:42:31AM +0200, Kevin F. Quinn (Gentoo) wrote:
> On Thu, 4 May 2006 21:20:48 -0500
> spradlim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I have a question that I havn't been able to find that is somewhat
> > related to the following email. I k
060505 Jakub Moc wrote:
> Philip Webb wrote:
>> 060504 Chris Gianelloni wrote:
>>> If we followed others blindly, as so many users suggest,
>>> then we would have stabilized KDE 3.5 ages ago,
>>> and every single one of you KDE users would be complaining
>>> about how our QA sucks because KDE doesn
060504 Michael Kirkland wrote:
> I think the problem is that Gentoo is falling into the same sandtrap
> the Debian project has been mired in forever.
> "arch" and "~arch" are polarizing into "stable, but horribly out of date"
> and "maybe it will work". This leads to people trying to maintain
> a
Philip Webb wrote:
> 060504 Chris Gianelloni wrote:
>> If we followed others blindly, as so many users suggest,
>> then we would have stabilized KDE 3.5 ages ago,
>> and every single one of you KDE users would be complaining
>> about how our QA sucks because KDE doesn't compile
>> or breaks badly i
Michael Kirkland wrote:
> I think the problem is that Gentoo is falling into the same sandtrap the
> Debian project has been mired in forever. "arch" and "~arch" are
> polarizing into "stable, but horribly out of date", and "maybe it will
> work".
>
> This leads to people trying to maintain a
> f
060504 Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> If we followed others blindly, as so many users suggest,
> then we would have stabilized KDE 3.5 ages ago,
> and every single one of you KDE users would be complaining
> about how our QA sucks because KDE doesn't compile
> or breaks badly in so many places.
This is
34 matches
Mail list logo
