On Wed, 13 Jan 2010 02:18:59 +0100
Arnaud Launay wrote:
> I have absolutely no idea how much work it requires, so I won't
> complain if TC says it's too complicated/unpratical/etc.
rm -r * is easy.
> BTW, I have no knowledge of the concept of proxy-maintainer, I'll
> look at it tomorrow, it's 2
On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 22:37:19 + (UTC)
Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote:
> So going with this idea... Isn't the treecleaner masking 30-day at
> present? What about extending that just a bit, to 5 weeks total,
> while reducing the actual masking to 4 weeks, with the extra week a
> wait time
On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 21:51:28 +0100
Tomáš Chvátal wrote:
> > you need to fix your filter then. an "open bug" is not an
> > acceptable reason for masking a package. if you're going to clean
> > a package, you need to research actual reasons to mask & punt.
> > -mike
> Dont be joking,
> Your appro
Le Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 10:37:19PM +, Duncan a écrit:
> FWIW, I feel for the treecleaners. It's a job with little
> thanks and lots of chance to make someone mad at you, but I'm
> glad /someone's/ doing it! =:^)
Yeah. I'm glad each time I see old things getting deleted,
abandoned software and
Richard Freeman posted on Tue, 12 Jan 2010 14:07:38 -0500 as excerpted:
> On 01/12/2010 01:30 PM, Markos Chandras wrote:
>> IMHO ( this is not a treecleaners@ opinion, i m just talking for my
>> self ), announcing and masking a package is a good way to inform and
>> wake up everybody to take care
On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 10:12:52AM +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Jan 2010 15:35:51 -0700
> Denis Dupeyron wrote:
> > I'm a bit surprised by the low amount of discussions this topic has
> > generated.
>
> There's no discussion because Brian refuses to address any comments on
> the pro
Ben de Groot posted on Tue, 12 Jan 2010 21:35:45 +0100 as excerpted:
> 2010/1/12 Markos Chandras :
>> If you feel like it, become a proxy-maintainer and poke a developer to
>> put your ebuilds on tree. Have you ever heard of that ? :)
>
> Proxy-maintainership should be given a MUCH higher profile
On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 06:08:34 + (UTC)
gentoo-dev+h...@lists.gentoo.org wrote:
> Topics (messages 39032 through 39081):
>
> [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] January 2010 meeting date
> 39032 - Mike Frysinger
>
> [gentoo-dev] Non-free software in Gentoo
> 39033 - Richard Free
2010/1/12 Tomáš Chvátal :
> Dont be joking,
[...]
Mmmh? Take a deep breath, a long walk, a large beer, or whatever
works. Because you need it.
Denis.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Dne 12.1.2010 21:33, Mike Frysinger napsal(a):
> On Monday 11 January 2010 22:43:18 Jeremy Olexa wrote:
>> On Mon, 11 Jan 2010 20:36:37 -0500, Richard Freeman wrote:
>>> On 01/11/2010 06:30 PM, Arnaud Launay wrote:
As a newsmaster, I'm a bit conce
2010/1/12 Markos Chandras :
> If you feel like it, become a proxy-maintainer and poke a developer to put
> your ebuilds on tree. Have you ever heard of that ? :)
Proxy-maintainership should be given a MUCH higher profile in Gentoo,
in my opinion. It is a virtually unknown option.
Another thing th
On Monday 11 January 2010 22:43:18 Jeremy Olexa wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Jan 2010 20:36:37 -0500, Richard Freeman wrote:
> > On 01/11/2010 06:30 PM, Arnaud Launay wrote:
> >> As a newsmaster, I'm a bit concerned by this.
> >
> > Yeah, inn seems like a really high-profile package to mask for removal.
> >
On Monday 11 January 2010 20:00:40 Jeroen Roovers wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Jan 2010 17:31:08 -0500 Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On Monday 11 January 2010 16:05:16 Markos Chandras wrote:
> > > # Markos Chandras (11 Jan 2010)
> > > # Fails with -Wl,--as-needed
> > > # bug #182782. Removal in 30 days
> > > n
On Tuesday 12 January 2010 21:40:37 Arnaud Launay wrote:
> Le Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 08:30:26PM +0200, Markos Chandras a écrit:
> > So if you want a package, plz take care of it :)
>
> From a "user" point of view, having submitted ebuilds, patches
> ideas and questions here and there on bugs.go, I m
Le Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 08:30:26PM +0200, Markos Chandras a écrit:
> So if you want a package, plz take care of it :)
From a "user" point of view, having submitted ebuilds, patches
ideas and questions here and there on bugs.go, I must admit I end
up putting up my "contributions" on my local /usr/l
On 01/12/2010 01:30 PM, Markos Chandras wrote:
IMHO ( this is not a treecleaners@ opinion, i m just talking for my
self ), announcing and masking a package is a good way to inform and wake up
everybody to take care of this package if they really really want to stay on
portage.
I agree with the
On Tuesday 12 January 2010 20:21:59 Jeroen Roovers wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 18:32:06 +0200
>
> Markos Chandras wrote:
> > Thanks for saving this package. As Jeremy said, there is absolutely
> > no way to measure the popularity of a package. So if it has no
> > maintainer, and open bugs we hav
On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 18:32:06 +0200
Markos Chandras wrote:
> Thanks for saving this package. As Jeremy said, there is absolutely
> no way to measure the popularity of a package. So if it has no
> maintainer, and open bugs we have to mask it and announce it here. It
> is up to you whether you want
On 01/11/2010 10:43 PM, Jeremy Olexa wrote:
(A general reply, not targeted towards you, Rich)
No prob - my post wasn't really directed personally at anybody.
Speaking on behalf of the treecleaners:
The fact is, some of us have never heard of "inn" and until Gentoo has
some sort of "popularit
On Tuesday 12 January 2010 04:22:05 Jeroen Roovers wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 02:02:14 +0100
>
> Jeroen Roovers wrote:
> > I'm working on getting 2.5.1 in the tree (and fixing a USE=python and
> > some other issues while I'm at it).
>
> net-nntp/inn-2.5.1 is in the tree and fixes many (QA) iss
2010-01-11 11:14:40 Fabian Groffen napisał(a):
> On 11-01-2010 08:29:32 +, Duncan wrote:
> > Fabian Groffen posted on Mon, 11 Jan 2010 08:50:30 +0100 as excerpted:
> >
> > > On 11-01-2010 01:25:45 +0100, Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis wrote:
> > >> > Can you explain the intended use of th
2010-01-11 11:14:11 Maciej Mrozowski napisał(a):
> On Monday 11 of January 2010 01:25:45 Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis
> wrote:
> > 2010-01-10 21:56:01 Fabian Groffen napisał(a):
> > > On 10-01-2010 09:29:28 +0100, Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis wrote:
> > > > I would like to suggest in
2010-01-11 12:04:05 Gilles Dartiguelongue napisał(a):
> It looks like what you really want is a ranged dependencies.
Dependencies specified in PYTHON_DEPEND can be expanded into ranged
dependencies in EAPIs, which support ranged dependencies.
--
Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis
signature.as
On Mon, 11 Jan 2010 15:35:51 -0700
Denis Dupeyron wrote:
> I'm a bit surprised by the low amount of discussions this topic has
> generated.
There's no discussion because Brian refuses to address any comments on
the proposal and just says "we should do it anyway, and if you want it
done properly i
On Fri, Jan 8, 2010 at 2:38 PM, Samuli Suominen wrote:
> since noone seems to care about this package, and it's blocking glibc
> stabilization it will be removed from tree wrt bug 300218
>
> last chance
>
> thanks, Samuli
>
>
Its been saved.
--
Doug Goldstein
25 matches
Mail list logo
