On Fri, 11 Feb 2011 07:40:53 +0200
Samuli Suominen wrote:
> On 02/10/2011 11:03 PM, Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
> I'm not sure if you understand opensync then, there's 3-4 series in tree
> and mostly not compatible with each other:
> 0.22, 0.36, 0.39 and latest being live .
0.39 is fixed. 0.3
On Fri, 11 Feb 2011 16:24:14 +0100
Diego Elio Pettenò wrote:
> Il giorno ven, 11/02/2011 alle 14.23 +0100, Michael Haubenwallner ha
> scritto:
> >
> > But both that document as well as uncountable lines of source code are
> > rather old.
> > While the source code isn't that large a problem for G
On Friday, February 11, 2011 08:44:04 PM Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Friday, February 11, 2011 18:33:32 Alexis Ballier wrote:
> > On Friday, February 11, 2011 05:07:50 PM Diego Elio Pettenò wrote:
> > > Il giorno ven, 11/02/2011 alle 16.51 -0300, Alexis Ballier ha scritto:
> > > > you are seriously
On Friday, February 11, 2011 18:33:32 Alexis Ballier wrote:
> On Friday, February 11, 2011 05:07:50 PM Diego Elio Pettenò wrote:
> > Il giorno ven, 11/02/2011 alle 16.51 -0300, Alexis Ballier ha scritto:
> > > you are seriously considering patching every single package using
> > > libpng like
> > >
On Friday, February 11, 2011 05:07:50 PM Diego Elio Pettenò wrote:
> Il giorno ven, 11/02/2011 alle 16.51 -0300, Alexis Ballier ha scritto:
> > you are seriously considering patching every single package using
> > libpng like
> > this instead of fixing those that fail??? (and i'm not talking about
Matt Turner posted on Fri, 11 Feb 2011 20:39:04 + as excerpted:
> I'm a little unclear about -lpng vs -lpng15. ssuominen tells me on IRC
> that probably 90% of packages linking with libpng will fail with 1.5.
> These 90% will link with -lpng until a version that supports 1.5 is
> released? The
On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 8:07 PM, Diego Elio Pettenò wrote:
> Il giorno ven, 11/02/2011 alle 16.51 -0300, Alexis Ballier ha scritto:
>>
>> you are seriously considering patching every single package using
>> libpng like
>> this instead of fixing those that fail??? (and i'm not talking about
>> the
On Friday, February 11, 2011 03:53:35 AM Torsten Veller wrote:
> * Samuli Suominen :
> > So I think your own chance is to contact aballier, ask if he still has
> > access (or ask for renewed opinion for the killing)
>
> That was the intention. I cc'ed the bsd team and am still expecting a
> reply.
Il giorno ven, 11/02/2011 alle 16.51 -0300, Alexis Ballier ha scritto:
>
> you are seriously considering patching every single package using
> libpng like
> this instead of fixing those that fail??? (and i'm not talking about
> the fact
> that these patches cannot be upstreamed...)
Why not? We
# Pacho Ramos (11 Feb 2011)
# Upstream dead for a long time, replaced by app-text/evince
# Removal in 30 days.
app-text/ggv
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
On Friday, February 11, 2011 01:49:43 PM Samuli Suominen wrote:
> > 4) What have we learned from libpng 1.2 -> 1.4 upgrade? I'd just like to
> > be better informed.
>
> One way under consideration:
>
> We have been discussing about removing libpng.pc, libpng.so and
> unversioned headers from the
On 02/09/2011 03:11 PM, Zac Medico wrote:
> In order to try to avoid forcing users to micro-manage flags too much,
> it might make sense to avoid REQUIRED_USE whenever it's possible to do a
> build that will almost certainly suit the user's needs. The most common
> case that I can imagine where REQ
# Pacho Ramos (11 Feb 2011)
# Upstream dead since a lot of time, still using gnome-vfs and
# other deprecated stuff, replaced by udisks, udisks-glue,
# udiskie or gvfs. Removal in 30 days.
app-misc/magicdev
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Il giorno ven, 11/02/2011 alle 17.38 +0100, "Paweł Hajdan, Jr." ha
scritto:
> 1) Are we going to have a tinderbox run *before* libpng-1.5 gets keyworded?
Absolutely.
> 2) If the upgrade is non-trivial, i.e. just emerge -uDNa world and
> revdep-rebuild isn't going to fix it, will we have an upgrad
On 02/11/2011 05:38 PM, "Paweł Hajdan, Jr." wrote:
> To ensure good upgrade experience for our users, and learning some
> lessons from previous, um... "disruptive" upgrade (1.2 -> 1.4), I'd have
> some questions:
FWIW: For that upgrade I've not used lafile-fixer or anything like that
on my stable
On 02/11/2011 06:38 PM, "Paweł Hajdan, Jr." wrote:
> I'm not a member of QA team or libpng maintainer, but hopefully I'm not
> going to write something horribly wrong here.
>
> To ensure good upgrade experience for our users, and learning some
> lessons from previous, um... "disruptive" upgrade (1
I'm not a member of QA team or libpng maintainer, but hopefully I'm not
going to write something horribly wrong here.
To ensure good upgrade experience for our users, and learning some
lessons from previous, um... "disruptive" upgrade (1.2 -> 1.4), I'd have
some questions:
1) Are we going to have
On Fri, 11 Feb 2011 10:23:19 +0100
Diego Elio Pettenò wrote:
> Politeness is due where politeness is received. If you keep
> second-guessing QA team, without looking at the packages at all (see
> Samuli's mail) you're not going to receive any.
Sorry, but that violates the devrel Etiquette Policy
On 02/11/2011 05:13 PM, Diego Elio Pettenò wrote:
> Il giorno ven, 11/02/2011 alle 15.37 +0100, Sebastian Pipping ha
> scritto:
>> Portage will propose a downgrade of glibc on emerge-update-world, okay.
>> How bad would that be? Does it cause any other trouble?
>
> And glibc will refuse to downgr
Il giorno ven, 11/02/2011 alle 14.23 +0100, Michael Haubenwallner ha
scritto:
>
> But both that document as well as uncountable lines of source code are
> rather old.
> While the source code isn't that large a problem for Gentoo, existing
> binaries
> without source code still are.
Beside flash w
Il giorno ven, 11/02/2011 alle 15.37 +0100, Sebastian Pipping ha
scritto:
> Portage will propose a downgrade of glibc on emerge-update-world, okay.
> How bad would that be? Does it cause any other trouble?
And glibc will refuse to downgrade unless you hack the ebuild. Now let's
say that the user
On 02/11/2011 01:27 PM, Diego Elio Pettenò wrote:
> It should have been masked _beforehand_, masking it now is going to
> cause more trouble.
Portage will propose a downgrade of glibc on emerge-update-world, okay.
How bad would that be? Does it cause any other trouble?
> Remember: unless you're
On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 1:27 PM, Diego Elio Pettenò wrote:
>
> Il giorno ven, 11/02/2011 alle 13.06 +0100, Sebastian Pipping ha
> scritto:
> >
> > If anyone considers masking glibc 2.13 for now: please take my vote.
>
> It should have been masked _beforehand_, masking it now is going to
> cause mo
On 02/11/2011 11:12 AM, Diego Elio Pettenò wrote:
> Il giorno ven, 11/02/2011 alle 10.55 +0100, Michael Haubenwallner ha
> scritto:
>>
>> what do you think of working around the memcpy troubles with
>> glibc-2.13 by
>> simply redirecting memcpy to memmove within glibc, either
>> unconditionally or
On 02/11/2011 01:20 PM, "Paweł Hajdan, Jr." wrote:
> On 2/11/11 10:55 AM, Michael Haubenwallner wrote:
>> what do you think of working around the memcpy troubles with glibc-2.13 by
>> simply redirecting memcpy to memmove within glibc, either unconditionally or
>> optional/temporary (via USE-flag?)
On 02/11/11 13:26, "Paweł Hajdan, Jr." wrote:
> Just curious, what downgrade method did you use? Just untaring an older
> glibc package?
This is what I did:
0) Log out of X, log in to root console
1) Collect packages emerged after previous update to glibc from
files in PORT_LOGDIR (using s
Il giorno ven, 11/02/2011 alle 13.06 +0100, Sebastian Pipping ha
scritto:
>
> If anyone considers masking glibc 2.13 for now: please take my vote.
It should have been masked _beforehand_, masking it now is going to
cause more trouble.
Remember: unless you're able to rebuild everything that was b
On 2/11/11 1:06 PM, Sebastian Pipping wrote:
> I was abe to downgrade glibc to 2.12.2 and my sound problem [1] is now
> gone again!
Just curious, what downgrade method did you use? Just untaring an older
glibc package?
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
On 2/11/11 10:55 AM, Michael Haubenwallner wrote:
> what do you think of working around the memcpy troubles with glibc-2.13 by
> simply redirecting memcpy to memmove within glibc, either unconditionally or
> optional/temporary (via USE-flag?) until everyone uses memmove where
> necessary?
I'm not
A little update from my side:
I was abe to downgrade glibc to 2.12.2 and my sound problem [1] is now
gone again! If it's not glibc itself, it's one of the packages
re-installed after (again, see [1] for the list).
If anyone considers masking glibc 2.13 for now: please take my vote.
Best,
Se
Diego Elio Pettenò posted on Fri, 11 Feb 2011 10:22:44 +0100 as excerpted:
> Il giorno ven, 11/02/2011 alle 09.50 +0100, Sebastian Pipping ha
> scritto:
>>
>>
>> Can anyone guide me or point me to a guide how to savely do that
>> manually?
>
> There really isn't a safe way as soon as you built
Il giorno ven, 11/02/2011 alle 10.55 +0100, Michael Haubenwallner ha
scritto:
>
> what do you think of working around the memcpy troubles with
> glibc-2.13 by
> simply redirecting memcpy to memmove within glibc, either
> unconditionally or
> optional/temporary (via USE-flag?) until everyone uses m
Il giorno ven, 11/02/2011 alle 09.50 +0100, Sebastian Pipping ha
scritto:
>
>
> Can anyone guide me or point me to a guide how to savely do that
> manually?
There really isn't a safe way as soon as you built anything at all
against the new version.
--
Diego Elio Pettenò — Flameeyes
http://blo
On 02/11/2011 09:50 AM, Sebastian Pipping wrote:
> In relation to bug 354395 [1] I would like to downgrade my glibc back to
> 2.12.2. Portage doesn't allow me to do that:
>
> * Sanity check to keep you from breaking your system:
> * Downgrading glibc is not supported and a sure way to destru
Il giorno ven, 11/02/2011 alle 09.17 +0100, Andreas K. Huettel ha
scritto:
>
> Repeat after me: "Politeness and professional courtesy is an integral
> part of
> our QA team policy."
Politeness is due where politeness is received. If you keep
second-guessing QA team, without looking at the packa
Hello!
In relation to bug 354395 [1] I would like to downgrade my glibc back to
2.12.2. Portage doesn't allow me to do that:
* Sanity check to keep you from breaking your system:
* Downgrading glibc is not supported and a sure way to destruction
* ERROR: sys-libs/glibc-2.12.2 failed (setup
On Thursday 10 February 2011 22:57:41 Diego Elio Pettenò wrote:
[snip]
Repeat after me: "Politeness and professional courtesy is an integral part of
our QA team policy."
--
Andreas K. Huettel
Gentoo Linux developer
dilfri...@gentoo.org
http://www.akhuettel.de/
37 matches
Mail list logo
