On Sat, 26 Jun 2010 21:57:33 +0200
Enrico Weigelt wrote:
> > > #2 One point i don't agree is the "dont add -Werror" rule. actually,
> > > i'm thinking of making -Wall and -Werror mandatory. if some
> > > package doenst build fine, it's simply broken. period.
> >
> > Uhm. No. Certain compilers wi
On 06/26/2010 11:12 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Sat, 26 Jun 2010 21:57:33 +0200
Enrico Weigelt wrote:
Uhm. No. Certain compilers will give you warnings for f(g(a), g(b))
if you -Wall.
Warn on what exactly ?
That f's arguments are evaluated in an unspecified order.
Which compilers do tha
On Sat, 2010-06-26 at 21:46 +0200, Enrico Weigelt wrote:
> BTW: if upstream has an proper VCS and an canonical tagging
> scheme, they don't actually have to create release tarballs,
> just hack up a little script which creates them on-the-fly
> from an canonical URL scheme (eg. oss-qm does exactl
On Sunday 13 December 2009 22:44:05 Daniel Black wrote:
> Recently this got produced as a draft license for parties distributing
> CAcert's root certificate(s) (like us).
>
> https://svn.cacert.org/CAcert/Policies/Agreements/3PVDisclaimerAndLicence.h
> tml
>
> This is still in draft hasn't been d
On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 1:29 AM, Ciaran McCreesh
wrote:
> On Sat, 26 Jun 2010 21:46:39 +0200
> Enrico Weigelt wrote:
>> BTW: if upstream has an proper VCS and an canonical tagging
>> scheme, they don't actually have to create release tarballs,
>> just hack up a little script which creates them on
On Sat, 26 Jun 2010 22:09:09 +0200
Enrico Weigelt wrote:
> Well, with git this works. (I'll yet have to run some automatic
> stress tests, but at all my manual tests worked really fine).
You assume that, given the same input and program options, a
compression program will always produce the same
* Krzysztof Pawlik schrieb:
> > Down that path lies madness. There's no guarantee that you'll get the
> > same tarball if you request the same URL twice in a row, particularly
> > if you're using one of those new-fangled new compression schemes.
>
> I agree with Ciaran here, to add one more thin
* Ciaran McCreesh schrieb:
> On Sat, 26 Jun 2010 21:46:39 +0200
> Enrico Weigelt wrote:
> > BTW: if upstream has an proper VCS and an canonical tagging
> > scheme, they don't actually have to create release tarballs,
> > just hack up a little script which creates them on-the-fly
> > from an cano
On Sat, 26 Jun 2010 21:57:33 +0200
Enrico Weigelt wrote:
> > Uhm. No. Certain compilers will give you warnings for f(g(a), g(b))
> > if you -Wall.
>
> Warn on what exactly ?
That f's arguments are evaluated in an unspecified order.
> Which compilers do that ?
For all you know, gcc 4.7.
New gc
On 06/26/10 20:59, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Sat, 26 Jun 2010 21:46:39 +0200
> Enrico Weigelt wrote:
>> BTW: if upstream has an proper VCS and an canonical tagging
>> scheme, they don't actually have to create release tarballs,
>> just hack up a little script which creates them on-the-fly
>> fr
* Ciaran McCreesh schrieb:
> On Sat, 26 Jun 2010 21:39:15 +0200
> Enrico Weigelt wrote:
> > #2 One point i don't agree is the "dont add -Werror" rule. actually,
> > i'm thinking of making -Wall and -Werror mandatory. if some
> > package doenst build fine, it's simply broken. period.
>
> Uhm. No.
On Sat, 26 Jun 2010 21:46:39 +0200
Enrico Weigelt wrote:
> BTW: if upstream has an proper VCS and an canonical tagging
> scheme, they don't actually have to create release tarballs,
> just hack up a little script which creates them on-the-fly
> from an canonical URL scheme (eg. oss-qm does exactl
On 06/26/2010 10:39 PM, Enrico Weigelt wrote:
* Petteri Räty schrieb:
There should be useful stuff here:
http://video.fosdem.org/2010/devrooms/distributions/How_to_be_a_good_upstream.ogv
[...[
#2 One point i don't agree is the "dont add -Werror" rule. actually,
i'm thinking of making -Wall a
* Krzysztof Pawlik schrieb:
> > Hmm, this document suggests something, I just forgot to prohibit:
> >
> > "Release the source archives along with whatever binary archives you may
> > have."
> > ^
>
> You intend to "prohibit" relea
On Sat, 26 Jun 2010 21:39:15 +0200
Enrico Weigelt wrote:
> #2 One point i don't agree is the "dont add -Werror" rule. actually,
> i'm thinking of making -Wall and -Werror mandatory. if some
> package doenst build fine, it's simply broken. period.
Uhm. No. Certain compilers will give you warnings
* Petteri Räty schrieb:
> There should be useful stuff here:
> http://video.fosdem.org/2010/devrooms/distributions/How_to_be_a_good_upstream.ogv
#1 he says nothing about that - if upstream has a VCS (and properly
uses it ;-o) - the distros should use it, so eg. set their branches
ontop the ups
On 06/26/10 19:51, Enrico Weigelt wrote:
> * Krzysztof Pawlik schrieb:
>
>> Take a look at this page:
>> http://overlays.gentoo.org/proj/java/wiki/How_to_be_a_good_upstream - it is
>> Java
>> specific mostly, but some general points can be reused :)
>
> Hmm, this document suggests something, I
* Alistair Bush schrieb:
> Is this language specific?
I'll try to separate it into generic and language specific
rules step by step (same for various build systems, etc).
> would you be interested in comments about java, ruby, python,
> etc, etc, etc or are you only interested in good old C
* Krzysztof Pawlik schrieb:
> Take a look at this page:
> http://overlays.gentoo.org/proj/java/wiki/How_to_be_a_good_upstream - it is
> Java
> specific mostly, but some general points can be reused :)
Hmm, this document suggests something, I just forgot to prohibit:
"Release the source archive
# Samuli Suominen (26 Jun 2010)
# Vulnerable and now unused xulrunner-bin, support was dropped from
acroread.
#
# Masked for removal in 30 days, bug 324953.
net-libs/xulrunner-bin
Mask for source based xulrunner:1.8 soon to follow...
# Diego E. Pettenò (26 Jun 2010)
# on behalf of QA team
#
# Fails to build since at least June 2009 (bug #274332). No
# activity since initial import in November 2008.
#
# Removal on 2010-08-25
app-i18n/adaptit
# Diego E. Pettenò (26 Jun 2010)
# on behalf of QA team
#
# Debian-related package; no maintainer; no ebuild activity
# since 2005. Broken install phase as per bug #294975.
#
# Removal on 2010-08-25
dev-util/pbuilder
On Sat, Jun 26, 2010 at 11:35:29AM +0300, Samuli Suominen wrote:
> nothing usable left in tree.
>
> # Samuli Suominen (26 Jun 2010)
> # Masked for QA
> #
> # Fails to compile with stable xulrunner, see bug 317275
> # Fails to compile with GTK+-2.20, see bug 325661
> # Ignores LDFLAGS, see bug 268
nothing usable left in tree.
# Samuli Suominen (26 Jun 2010)
# Masked for QA
#
# Fails to compile with stable xulrunner, see bug 317275
# Fails to compile with GTK+-2.20, see bug 325661
# Ignores LDFLAGS, see bug 268491
# Current stable is using vulnerable xulrunner, see bug 324953
#
# Removal i
24 matches
Mail list logo
