On 4/25/07, Duncan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Jurek Bartuszek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted [EMAIL PROTECTED],
excerpted below, on Tue, 24 Apr 2007 23:08:49 +0200:
>> Existing _rcX cases can be handled like this:
>>
>> _rc2-rMMDD
So then to cure that we end up with this:
_rc2-rMMDDrr, w
Jurek Bartuszek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted [EMAIL PROTECTED],
excerpted below, on Tue, 24 Apr 2007 23:08:49 +0200:
>> Existing _rcX cases can be handled like this:
>>
>> _rc2-rMMDD
>>
>> Portage will update from _rc2 to a version with revision part > 0.
>
> However, _rc2-rMMDD-r1 wou
Doug Goldstein wrote:
> Donnie Berkholz wrote:
>> Robin H. Johnson wrote:
>>> In my original email, I also suggested this solution, but it seems
>>> that nobody
>>> read it:
>>> ] Alternatively, follow the example of any ebuild that uses a dated
>>> ] patchset, and just have the date of the patchse
Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> Robin H. Johnson wrote:
>> In my original email, I also suggested this solution, but it seems
>> that nobody
>> read it:
>> ] Alternatively, follow the example of any ebuild that uses a dated
>> ] patchset, and just have the date of the patchset in the ebuild, and
>> only
>
On Wed, 2007-04-25 at 00:30 +0200, Danny van Dyk wrote:
> In my eyes it was a policy issue. Tree-wide policies have to pass the
> council in one form or the other. So why shouldn't Council care here?
My argument is not that Council should not care. My question is: what's
the big urgency to rush
On Tue, 2007-04-24 at 19:31 -0400, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> It seems that every time I open my email client, somebody out there is
> trying to say that by the Council using the powers afforded to them that
> somehow they're conspiring to take down Gentoo. Yeah... because that's
> just what the
On Wed, 2007-04-25 at 00:30 +0200, Danny van Dyk wrote:
> I just wonder why several people feel attacked by this decission while
> the affected parties have no problem with it.
There is a growing anti-authority sentiment within the Gentoo developer
community. People want to complain about any de
On Tue, 2007-04-24 at 18:21 -0400, Seemant Kulleen wrote:
> > Seemant: I'd like to continue to discuss the ways of council decission
> > on gentoo-council rather than on gentoo-dev ML. :-)
>
> Happy to do that, in the general case. In this specific case, however,
> it's valid here, because the e
Doug Goldstein wrote:
> Piotr Jaroszyński wrote:
>> There is no need for such a switch, just add new snapshot using the long
>> _rc.
>> Once you do it you will have to keep using it until version bump,
>> e.g. (low to high):
>> 1.0_rc1
>> 1.0_rc000120070101 (newer snapshot of rc1)
>> 1.0_rc012007
Piotr Jaroszyński wrote:
> On Wednesday 25 of April 2007 00:04:35 Jurek Bartuszek wrote:
>> Hmm, is swiching from _rc2 to _rc0002 trouble-free from user's
>> POV too? Wouldn't he be forced to "update" from former to latter then?
>> It's the same version. Or am I missing something?
>
> Ther
Piotr Jaroszyński wrote:
> On Wednesday 25 of April 2007 00:04:35 Jurek Bartuszek wrote:
>> Hmm, is swiching from _rc2 to _rc0002 trouble-free from user's
>> POV too? Wouldn't he be forced to "update" from former to latter then?
>> It's the same version. Or am I missing something?
>
> Ther
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Bjarke Istrup Pedersen wrote:
> So there it is.
> For now you can get the ebuild from java-experimental .
Just to let you know that I just added it to main tree, and it installs
with the gentoo license. You just need to point deskzilla to the
license'
Am Mittwoch, 25. April 2007 schrieb Seemant Kulleen:
> Hi Danny,
>
> > Look at it from my POV. I only knew about the alsa version at
> > first. I knew it was removed already. Then i learned about mplayer.
> > Ok... i can live with that as long as nothing else in there. Then I
> > learned about tran
On Wednesday 25 of April 2007 00:04:35 Jurek Bartuszek wrote:
> Hmm, is swiching from _rc2 to _rc0002 trouble-free from user's
> POV too? Wouldn't he be forced to "update" from former to latter then?
> It's the same version. Or am I missing something?
There is no need for such a switch, ju
Hi Danny,
> Look at it from my POV. I only knew about the alsa version at first.
> I knew it was removed already. Then i learned about mplayer. Ok... i can
> live with that as long as nothing else in there. Then I learned about
> transcode and I asked my fellow Council members to cut it.
I'm no
Stephen Bennett wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 23:42:43 +0200
> Jurek Bartuszek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> And there you have another flaw of this system - how am I supposed to
>> predict if I'll ever need the "extended" _rc versioning in case of
>> that one particular package? I think that mas
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
> # Alistair Bush <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (25 Apr 2007)
> # Masked for removal to junkyard in 30 Days.
> # Package uses generation 1 eclasses and has stale upstream.
> # Contact gentoo-java ml to save this package.
> dev-java/makeme
>
- --
Alistair John
On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 23:42:43 +0200
Jurek Bartuszek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> And there you have another flaw of this system - how am I supposed to
> predict if I'll ever need the "extended" _rc versioning in case of
> that one particular package? I think that massive ebuild renaming is
> defini
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
It was my understanding,
That minor QA violations like this, which affected the sanity of the
tree, were simply added as checks to repoman - which all committing devs
should use. This would (over time) stop new ebuilds of the broken form
appea
On Tue, 2007-04-24 at 13:39 -0700, Ned Ludd wrote:
> You might be overreacting a little here. To bring you up to speed
> vapier actually filed the original bug for this after I first noticed
> one of these atoms creeping into the tree while doing pre release atom
> compare testing for portage-util
> err. foo-0.1_rc2 < foo-0.1_rc000220070313 < foo-0.1_rc000320070512
>
> What I was trying to say is that once you change to the long versions you
> must
> stay with them.
And there you have another flaw of this system - how am I supposed to
predict if I'll ever need the "extended" _rc versioni
Robin H. Johnson wrote:
In my original email, I also suggested this solution, but it seems that nobody
read it:
] Alternatively, follow the example of any ebuild that uses a dated
] patchset, and just have the date of the patchset in the ebuild, and only
] increment $PR singly.
This solution alr
On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 23:20:05 +0200
Piotr Jaroszyński <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tuesday 24 of April 2007 22:47:00 Jurek Bartuszek wrote:
> > Let me see if I have this straight: suppose we have package foo-0.1_rc2
> > released (very outdated) and we're waiting for foo-0.1_rc3. Then example
> >
On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 21:29:37 +0200
Danny van Dyk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The rationale behind this is the following:
>
> * certain combinations of suffixes don't make sense.
That's highly subjective.
> * only recent Portage versions support it.
I wouldn't call portage-2.1 "recent" as it
> that also means doing some funky $P renamings in the ebuild to catch
> upstream _rc3 tarball, but that's probably better than allowing such
> multiple suffixes.
I disagree, multiple suffixes would be much clearer to read. IMHO
renaming _rc3 to _rc0003 is an overkill. Why not simply allow
Am Dienstag, 24. April 2007 schrieb Piotr Jaroszyński:
> foo-0.1_rc2 < foo-0.1_rc000220070313 < foo-0.1_rc3
Leading zeros are ignored (unless in very special cases in the version
spec and since a recent portage version also in the revision part), so
the above is incorrect - generally spoken.
Da
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Wernfried Haas wrote:
> Just a general note to everyone in this thread:
> I haven't had the time to read the posts in this thread, but proctors
> have received complaints about behaviour within. For the time being, i
> would ask all people participatin
On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 21:54:21 +0200
"Fernando J. Pereda" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You mean real Gentoo users that use a Portage version that don't support
> multiple suffixes, right ?
People still using portage 2.0.x have much more serious problems.
Marius
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
On Tuesday 24 of April 2007 23:20:05 Piotr Jaroszyński wrote:
> foo-0.1_rc2 < foo-0.1_rc000220070313 < foo-0.1_rc3
err. foo-0.1_rc2 < foo-0.1_rc000220070313 < foo-0.1_rc000320070512
What I was trying to say is that once you change to the long versions you must
stay with them.
--
Best Regards,
P
On Tuesday 24 of April 2007 22:47:00 Jurek Bartuszek wrote:
> Let me see if I have this straight: suppose we have package foo-0.1_rc2
> released (very outdated) and we're waiting for foo-0.1_rc3. Then example
> of something between those two would be foo-0.1_rc000220070313? Would
> that force porta
Am Dienstag, 24. April 2007 schrieb Jurek Bartuszek:
> > Existing _rcX cases can be handled like this:
> >
> > _rc2-rMMDD
> >
> > Portage will update from _rc2 to a version with revision part > 0.
>
> However, _rc2-rMMDD-r1 would *not* be valid anymore, and I think
> it's quite easy to im
> Existing _rcX cases can be handled like this:
>
> _rc2-rMMDD
>
> Portage will update from _rc2 to a version with revision part > 0.
However, _rc2-rMMDD-r1 would *not* be valid anymore, and I think
it's quite easy to imagine when this additional -r1 would be neccessary.
Regards,
Jure
> > Only a short response, as I'm a bit in a hurry right now. From
> > #gentoo-council earlier:
> >
> > 18:25 <@robbat2> make him covert it to "_rc%04d%04d%02d%02d",$RC,$YEAR,
> > $MONTH,$DAY
>
> Let me see if I have this straight: suppose we have package foo-0.1_rc2
> released (very outdated) and
On Tue, Apr 24, 2007 at 09:54:20PM +0200, Danny van Dyk wrote:
> 18:25 <@robbat2> make him covert it to "_rc%04d%04d%02d%02d",$RC,$YEAR,
> $MONTH,$DAY
In my original email, I also suggested this solution, but it seems that nobody
read it:
] Alternatively, follow the example of any ebuild that uses
Just a general note to everyone in this thread:
I haven't had the time to read the posts in this thread, but proctors
have received complaints about behaviour within. For the time being, i
would ask all people participating to remember the CoC applies here
and act accordingly.
We will review the po
Jurek Bartuszek wrote:
>> Only a short response, as I'm a bit in a hurry right now. From
>> #gentoo-council earlier:
>>
>> 18:25 <@robbat2> make him covert it to "_rc%04d%04d%02d%02d",$RC,$YEAR,
>> $MONTH,$DAY
>>
>
> Let me see if I have this straight: suppose we have package foo-0.1_rc2
> re
Am Dienstag, 24. April 2007 schrieb Jurek Bartuszek:
> > Only a short response, as I'm a bit in a hurry right now. From
> > #gentoo-council earlier:
> >
> > 18:25 <@robbat2> make him covert it to
> > "_rc%04d%04d%02d%02d",$RC,$YEAR, $MONTH,$DAY
>
> Let me see if I have this straight: suppose we hav
> Only a short response, as I'm a bit in a hurry right now. From
> #gentoo-council earlier:
>
> 18:25 <@robbat2> make him covert it to "_rc%04d%04d%02d%02d",$RC,$YEAR,
> $MONTH,$DAY
Let me see if I have this straight: suppose we have package foo-0.1_rc2
released (very outdated) and we're waiting
Bryan Østergaard wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 24, 2007 at 04:00:42PM -0400, Doug Goldstein wrote:
>
>> Bryan Østergaard wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, Apr 24, 2007 at 03:49:44PM -0400, Doug Goldstein wrote:
>>>
>>>
>> Bryan,
>>
>> You and Danny have clearly shown your bias towards paludis take ove
On Tue, 2007-04-24 at 16:00 -0400, Doug Goldstein wrote:
> Bryan Østergaard wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 24, 2007 at 03:49:44PM -0400, Doug Goldstein wrote:
> >
> >> Stephen Bennett wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 15:16:38 -0400
> >>> Doug Goldstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
Danny van Dyk wrote:
> Am Dienstag, 24. April 2007 schrieb Petteri Räty:
>
>> Danny van Dyk kirjoitti:
>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> [CC'ing [EMAIL PROTECTED] as requested by GLEP amendment from March 8th,
>>> 2007]
>>>
>>> A subset of council members decided today that multiple version
>>> suffix
On Tue, Apr 24, 2007 at 04:00:42PM -0400, Doug Goldstein wrote:
> Bryan Østergaard wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 24, 2007 at 03:49:44PM -0400, Doug Goldstein wrote:
> >
> Bryan,
>
> You and Danny have clearly shown your bias towards paludis take over and
> support of Gentoo. It's fairly poor taste to
Am Dienstag, 24. April 2007 schrieb Petteri Räty:
> Danny van Dyk kirjoitti:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > [CC'ing [EMAIL PROTECTED] as requested by GLEP amendment from March 8th,
> > 2007]
> >
> > A subset of council members decided today that multiple version
> > suffixes are illegal in the tree pending fu
Danny van Dyk kirjoitti:
> Hi all,
>
> [CC'ing [EMAIL PROTECTED] as requested by GLEP amendment from March 8th, 2007]
>
> A subset of council members decided today that multiple version suffixes
> are illegal in the tree pending further notice. This decission can be
> appealed at the next Counc
Fernando J. Pereda wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 24, 2007 at 03:49:44PM -0400, Doug Goldstein wrote:
>
>> Stephen Bennett wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 15:16:38 -0400
>>> Doug Goldstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
So apparently as little as 1 council member can make a d
Stephen Bennett wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 15:49:44 -0400
> Doug Goldstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>> Granted I understand it's important for you paludis users since
>> paludis doesn't support that.
>>
>
> It does support that. Check your facts next time before throwing around
> co
Danny van Dyk wrote:
> Am Dienstag, 24. April 2007 schrieb Doug Goldstein:
>
>> Danny van Dyk wrote:
>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> [CC'ing [EMAIL PROTECTED] as requested by GLEP amendment from March 8th,
>>> 2007]
>>>
>>> A subset of council members decided today that multiple version
>>> suffixes
Bryan Østergaard wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 24, 2007 at 03:49:44PM -0400, Doug Goldstein wrote:
>
>> Stephen Bennett wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 15:16:38 -0400
>>> Doug Goldstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
So apparently as little as 1 council member can make a dec
On Tue, Apr 24, 2007 at 03:49:44PM -0400, Doug Goldstein wrote:
> Stephen Bennett wrote:
> > On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 15:16:38 -0400
> > Doug Goldstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >> So apparently as little as 1 council member can make a decision and it
> >> be binding unless appealed to the
On Tue, Apr 24, 2007 at 03:49:44PM -0400, Doug Goldstein wrote:
> Stephen Bennett wrote:
> > On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 15:16:38 -0400
> > Doug Goldstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >> So apparently as little as 1 council member can make a decision and it
> >> be binding unless appealed to the
Stephen Bennett wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 15:16:38 -0400
> Doug Goldstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>> So apparently as little as 1 council member can make a decision and it
>> be binding unless appealed to the entire council at the next meeting.
>>
>
> There were three council memb
Am Dienstag, 24. April 2007 schrieb Fernando J. Pereda:
> On Tue, Apr 24, 2007 at 03:16:38PM -0400, Doug Goldstein wrote:
> > Danny van Dyk wrote:
> > > Hi all,
> > Danny,
> >
> > This wouldn't have to be because you have a vested interest in
> > paludis and paludis does not support this syntax and
Am Dienstag, 24. April 2007 schrieb Steve Dibb:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > [CC'ing [EMAIL PROTECTED] as requested by GLEP amendment from March 8th,
> > 2007]
> >
> > A subset of council members decided today that multiple version
> > suffixes are illegal in the tree pending further notice. This
> > deciss
Am Dienstag, 24. April 2007 schrieb Doug Goldstein:
> Danny van Dyk wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > [CC'ing [EMAIL PROTECTED] as requested by GLEP amendment from March 8th,
> > 2007]
> >
> > A subset of council members decided today that multiple version
> > suffixes are illegal in the tree pending furt
On Tue, Apr 24, 2007 at 01:15:55PM -0600, Steve Dibb wrote:
> > media-viode/mplayer-1.0_rc2_pre20070321-r4
> > media-video/transcode-1.0.3_rc2_p20070310-r1
> MPlayer needs to be fixed, though it's in the same boat as transcode ...
> it's a release candidate plus a patch level.
>
> Multimedia a
On Tue, Apr 24, 2007 at 03:16:38PM -0400, Doug Goldstein wrote:
> Danny van Dyk wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > [CC'ing [EMAIL PROTECTED] as requested by GLEP amendment from March 8th,
> > 2007]
> >
> > A subset of council members decided today that multiple version suffixes
> > are illegal in the tre
On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 15:16:38 -0400
Doug Goldstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So apparently as little as 1 council member can make a decision and it
> be binding unless appealed to the entire council at the next meeting.
There were three council members who happened to be around at the time,
and
> Hi all,
>
> [CC'ing [EMAIL PROTECTED] as requested by GLEP amendment from March 8th, 2007]
>
> A subset of council members decided today that multiple version suffixes
> are illegal in the tree pending further notice. This decission can be
> appealed at the next Council meeting. If there is suffi
Danny van Dyk wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> [CC'ing [EMAIL PROTECTED] as requested by GLEP amendment from March 8th, 2007]
>
> A subset of council members decided today that multiple version suffixes
> are illegal in the tree pending further notice. This decission can be
> appealed at the next Council mee
Am Dienstag, 24. April 2007 schrieb Danny van Dyk:
> Hi all,
>
> [CC'ing [EMAIL PROTECTED] as requested by GLEP amendment from March 8th,
> 2007]
>
> A subset of council members decided today that multiple version
> suffixes are illegal in the tree pending further notice. This
> decission can be ap
Hi all,
[CC'ing [EMAIL PROTECTED] as requested by GLEP amendment from March 8th, 2007]
A subset of council members decided today that multiple version suffixes
are illegal in the tree pending further notice. This decission can be
appealed at the next Council meeting. If there is sufficient publ
On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 23:45:48 +0200
dju` <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> eerror "Your ${package} package has been built without"
> eerror "${func} support, please enable the '${use_flag}' USE flag and"
> eerror "re-emerge ${package}."
> elog "You can enable this USE fla
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Lars Weiler a écrit :
> * dju` <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [07/04/23 23:45 +0200]:
>> # Generate a standard error message for missing USE flags
>> # in existing packages, and die.
>
> I dislike that an emerge process dies when a use-flag is not
> set (okay, i
Christian Faulhammer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> # broken, upstream dead
> app-emacs/tnt
I take that back
V-Li
--
http://www.gentoo.org/
http://www.faulhammer.org/
http://www.gnupg.org/
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
Christian Faulhammer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Hallo,
>
> # Christian Faulhammer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (24 Apr 2007)
> # removal on 24 May 2007
> # broken, upstream dead
> app-emacs/cdi
> app-emacs/tnt
> # they do regular releases, so no live ebuild needed
> app-emacs/erc-cvs
>
> V-Li
>
--
http:/
Petteri Räty wrote:
> It's my please to introduce to you Dawid "cla" Węgliński. A fellow with
> enough weird letters in his name and who hails from Kłodzko, Poland, cla
> is going to start a new artwork project so we are expecting a lot of
> good quality wallpapers etc to follow. At least this time
66 matches
Mail list logo
