Re: [gentoo-dev] [treecleaner] removals

Steve Dibb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > # Marcelo Goes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (07 Jul 2006) > # Pending removal > # Please migrate to net-wireless/aircrack-ng > net-wireless/aircrack > # net-wireless/aircrack for bug(s) 152806 Use aircrack-ng > net-wireless/aircrack I'm sure it doesn't truly matt

[gentoo-dev] Treecleaneres

By the request of me (treecleaner lead) I'd like to suspend the treecleaner project until such time as we can meet and re-evaluate our poilicy. In the meantime, please don't remove stuff. I'd like to shoot for a meeting on the 17th sometime. Please RSVP via the [EMAIL PROTECTED] alias if tha

[gentoo-dev] [treecleaner] removals

games-server/hlstats - removed per games herd request media-libs/jpeg-mmx - masked by vapier -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Stricter --newuse settings

On Wed, 29 Nov 2006 19:34:57 + (UTC) Duncan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Alec Warner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted [EMAIL PROTECTED], > excerpted below, on Wed, 29 Nov 2006 11:36:53 -0500: > > > Vlastimil Babka wrote: > >> > >> Duncan wrote: > >>> whatever USE flag removal forcing --newuser re

[gentoo-dev] [treecleaner] removals

# Chris Gianelloni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (23 Oct 2006) # Masked pending removal on Nov 23. Use games-fps/tremulous instead. games-fps/quake3-tremulous # Doug Goldstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (25 Oct 2006) # Masked pending removal on 25 Nov 2006. See bug #134621 net-www/netscape-plugger # Donnie Berkh

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: Versioning the tree

Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Wed, 29 Nov 2006 16:01:11 + "Stuart Herbert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: | On 11/29/06, Chris Gianelloni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: | > As of this release, I kept a copy of all of the distfiles for the | > entire release, and can make a DVD of it, on request. This |

[gentoo-dev] eclass cvs should not use -z4 by default

Hi everybody, as i am lazy, i will simply copy and paste the two relevant emails written by me: "using gzip compression level 4 isnt the default of cvs and might generate alot of load on the server. therefore i suggest letting cvs fall back to it's default -z0 It might be useful

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Versioning the tree

On Wed, 2006-11-29 at 20:10 +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > By "didn't see", he means he was so busy participating in his favourite > game of Chris bashing that he didn't get around to reading any of the > relevant material first... Could be, or (as happened here) mails arrived at different time

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Versioning the tree

On Wed, 29 Nov 2006 13:01:37 -0700 "Richard Fish" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: | On 11/29/06, Stuart Herbert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: | > On 11/29/06, Bo Ørsted Andresen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: | > > Maybe you should read the replies you got the first time you made | > > this claim on this list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Versioning the tree

On 11/29/06, Stuart Herbert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Hi, On 11/29/06, Bo Ørsted Andresen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Maybe you should read the replies you got the first time you made this claim > on this list [1]. Many thanks for these links. I didn't see your original email. Wanna add a

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Versioning the tree

Hi, On 11/29/06, Bo Ørsted Andresen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Maybe you should read the replies you got the first time you made this claim on this list [1]. Many thanks for these links. I didn't see your original email. Best regards, Stu -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

[gentoo-dev] Re: Stricter --newuse settings

Alec Warner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted [EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Wed, 29 Nov 2006 11:36:53 -0500: > Vlastimil Babka wrote: >> >> Duncan wrote: >>> whatever USE flag removal forcing --newuser rebuild, when I as a >>> /human/ know it's not needed. >> >> If you're sure you know it's n

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Versioning the tree

Stuart Herbert wrote: Just because we didn't take the time out to stop and make sure you were personally comfortable with the change doesn't mean we didn't prepare for it and announce it. I'm sorry that you've gone with the "I always know best, you're a fucking chump so shut the fuck up" type

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Versioning the tree

On Wednesday 29 November 2006 18:11, Stuart Herbert wrote: > > Except it was announced before we even made the snapshot, > > Sorry, I've looked, but the only announcement I found on gentoo-dev > was posted two days before gcc-4.1 was stabilised [1].  I must have > missed the earlier announcement?

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Versioning the tree

Stuart Herbert wrote: Sorry, I've looked, but the only announcement I found on gentoo-dev was posted two days before gcc-4.1 was stabilised [1]. I must have missed the earlier announcement? Do you just ignore the rest of the thread when responding to individual emails? About 2 hours ago, some

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Versioning the tree

On 11/29/06, Chris Gianelloni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I'm sorry, but how the hell do you know? You are not a member of Release Engineering, and have *NO CLUE* what we do over there. What we release isn't the only thing we do. Then this is a great opportunity to set the record straight, by

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: Versioning the tree

Stuart Herbert wrote: On 11/29/06, Mike Doty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Stuart Herbert wrote: I have a couple of locations where I could store backups, depending on size and projected growth. I suppose it'll have to wait until 2007.0 though so we can actually gage it as opposed to speculating w

[gentoo-dev] [treecleaner] media-video/xmovie, media-gfx/alg removals

media-video/xmovie bug 100848 (masked for almost a year) media-gfx/alg 156623 (upstream request to remove) -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: Versioning the tree

On 11/29/06, Mike Doty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Stuart Herbert wrote: I have a couple of locations where I could store backups, depending on size and projected growth. I suppose it'll have to wait until 2007.0 though so we can actually gage it as opposed to speculating wildly. If anything ha

[gentoo-dev] Last rites: media-libs/libvideogfx and media-video/sampeg3

# Matthias Schwarzott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (29 Nov 2006) # Pending removal Dec 29 2006 # libvideogfx not compiling since years (Bug #69389) # sampeg3 being only package depending on it, no releases # since years, homepage dead (Bug #120563) media-libs/libvideogfx media-video/sampeg3 pgpMUHe9mr29

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: Versioning the tree

Stuart Herbert wrote: [snip] Thank you. Do we have backups in place covering these files? Have we tested the backups to confirm that they actually work? I have a couple of locations where I could store backups, depending on size and projected growth. I suppose it'll have to wait until 2007.0

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Versioning the tree

Chris Gianelloni wrote: > While I truly appreciate your ability to give your opinion, I don't > care. As I said, I am working on this concept as an experiment. It is > being done by Release Engineering. We aren't really *asking* anyone for > their opinion. We're simply stating what we plan on w

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: Versioning the tree

On 11/29/06, Chris Gianelloni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > What are the arrangements should you go under a bus on the way home > from work tonight? You'd like that, wouldn't you? That was _completely_ uncalled for. "go under a bus" is just a phrase that's commonly used here in the UK (because

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: Versioning the tree

On Wed, 29 Nov 2006 16:01:11 + "Stuart Herbert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: | On 11/29/06, Chris Gianelloni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: | > As of this release, I kept a copy of all of the distfiles for the | > entire release, and can make a DVD of it, on request. This | > fulfills our requiremen

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Versioning the tree

On 11/29/06, Andrew Gaffney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: From other developers, most of which were releng members? I get most of mine from users, who are normally kind enough to submit the required patches at the same time. It's stupid to "blame" releng for the stabilization of gcc-4.1.1. We

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: Versioning the tree

Stuart Herbert wrote: On 11/29/06, Chris Gianelloni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: As of this release, I kept a copy of all of the distfiles for the entire release, and can make a DVD of it, on request. This fulfills our requirements with the GPL. What are the arrangements should you go under a b

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: Versioning the tree

On Wed, 2006-11-29 at 16:01 +, Stuart Herbert wrote: > On 11/29/06, Chris Gianelloni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > As of this release, I kept a copy of all of the distfiles for the entire > > release, and can make a DVD of it, on request. This fulfills our > > requirements with the GPL. > >

[gentoo-dev] [treecleaner] removals: media-video/toxine

# Diego Pettenò <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > (18 August 2005) # Toxine needs to be verified with upstream for a few issues. media-video/toxine Se ha ido. Chau. -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Versioning the tree

On Wed, 2006-11-29 at 08:37 +, Stuart Herbert wrote: > On 11/28/06, Andrew Gaffney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > You make it sound like releng doesn't care at all about non-desktop > > packages. > > That wasn't how it was meant. Was simply meant as a statement of > fact. Releng activities

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: Versioning the tree

On 11/29/06, Chris Gianelloni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: As of this release, I kept a copy of all of the distfiles for the entire release, and can make a DVD of it, on request. This fulfills our requirements with the GPL. What are the arrangements should you go under a bus on the way home from

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: Versioning the tree

On Wed, 2006-11-29 at 02:21 -0500, Alec Warner wrote: > The bonus is that we then need to have a fetcher that runs over the main > tree and all supported release trees, and this of course increases > mirror size as we now have distfiles in the tree from a year ago to > support a year old release

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: Versioning the tree

On Wed, 2006-11-29 at 06:37 +, Steve Long wrote: > .. The one > > disadvantage to my design is it needs infra. It needs it's own > > repository and rsync. > > > What does that entail? Would a co-located server suffice? Sure. It would be much better to simply use what we currently have, tho

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Versioning the tree

On Wednesday 29 November 2006 09:37, Stuart Herbert wrote: > > Gcc 4.1.1 wasn't a last minute change. > > I can't agree with you there.  It doesn't matter how many months of > planning and work you guys put into getting gcc-4.1 fit for stable. > If you're doing it off in your own little corner of t

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Stricter --newuse settings

Vlastimil Babka wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Duncan wrote: whatever USE flag removal forcing --newuser rebuild, when I as a /human/ know it's not needed. If you're sure you know it's not needed, just edit /var/db/pkg/$cat/$pkg/{USE,IUSE} to reflect that (i.e. if there

[gentoo-dev] Last rites: media-video/vlms and media-video/vls

# Matthias Schwarzott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (29 Nov 2006) # Pending removal Dec 29 2006 # No longer supported from upstream. # Are all replaced by the app vlc. media-video/vlms media-video/vls -- Matthias Schwarzott Gentoo Developer http://www.gentoo.org pgpPe2UO26loy.pgp Description: PGP signatu

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Versioning the tree

Stuart Herbert wrote: On 11/29/06, Andrew Gaffney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: The 3-4 weeks of releng filing a ton of "doesn't build with gcc-4.1.1" bugs wasn't a big enough clue? :) No. We get those all the time; there's always someone trying out an unsupported release of gcc. From other d

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Versioning the tree

On 11/29/06, Andrew Gaffney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: The 3-4 weeks of releng filing a ton of "doesn't build with gcc-4.1.1" bugs wasn't a big enough clue? :) No. We get those all the time; there's always someone trying out an unsupported release of gcc. Also, the arch teams (or at least th

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Stricter --newuse settings

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Duncan wrote: > whatever USE flag removal forcing --newuser rebuild, when I as a /human/ > know it's not needed. If you're sure you know it's not needed, just edit /var/db/pkg/$cat/$pkg/{USE,IUSE} to reflect that (i.e. if there was arts flag removed a

[gentoo-dev] Re: Stricter --newuse settings

"Diego 'Flameeyes' =?iso-8859-1?q?Petten=F2?=" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted [EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Tue, 28 Nov 2006 19:26:28 +0100: > On Tuesday 28 November 2006 18:40, Caleb Cushing wrote: >> I know that newuse is stricter now. but do my packages really have to >> want to rebuild b

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: Versioning the tree

Steve Long wrote: Chris Gianelloni wrote: From your post we need to add: - strip all USE flags that aren't used from use.mask (per-profile) - strip all packages that aren't available from package.mask (per-profile) What language is the script implemented in? The current script is actually 2

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Versioning the tree

Stuart Herbert wrote: > b) Release trees have a nasty habit of picking up last minute changes > (such as gcc 4.1) to suit the release, not stability. Gcc 4.1.1 wasn't a last minute change. I can't agree with you there. It doesn't matter how many months of planning and work you guys put into g

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Versioning the tree

On 11/28/06, Andrew Gaffney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: You make it sound like releng doesn't care at all about non-desktop packages. That wasn't how it was meant. Was simply meant as a statement of fact. Releng activities are currently exclusively desktop-oriented. Until that changes, releng