On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 14:36, Diego Elio Pettenò wrote:
> Remember that for *all* QA masking, the rule is simple
Could you point me to the Q/A policies and rules? I'm curious now,
seeing this intense discussion about what's right for Q/A, what the
official Q/A docs say.
--
Jacob
"For
The attached list notes all of the packages that were added or removed
from the tree, for the week ending 2011-02-13 23h59 UTC.
Removals:
net-misc/asterisk-app_nv_faxdetect 2011-02-10 11:21:15 scarabeus
app-misc/mved 2011-02-10 11:24:42 scarabeus
x11-misc/tra
On Sunday, February 13, 2011 15:16:58 Diego Elio Pettenò wrote:
> Il giorno dom, 13/02/2011 alle 14.22 -0500, Mike Frysinger ha scritto:
> > thus it's a lot more sane in the long term to assume that packages
> > support the latest rather than patching everyone (and being forced to
> > carry those c
Il giorno dom, 13/02/2011 alle 22.05 +0100, Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar
Arahesis ha scritto:
> Stabilization of Python 2.7.* will begin on 2011-03-13.
Are you expecting all the testsuites currently failing with 2.7 to be
fixed by that date? I'm pretty sure there are still a few around for
which th
On 13-02-2011 21:10:23 +0100, Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis wrote:
> > Is there any resource you can point me to where it explains more
> > carefully why and when this has changed?
>
> PMS
> 5.2.4 make.defaults
> 5.3.1 Incremental Variables
Ok, I clearly had missed that. A long time ago I
On Sun, 13 Feb 2011 21:00:31 +0100
Pacho Ramos wrote:
> If rest of gnome team agrees, I think we could go with, but I still
> fail to see what is the "technical" problem on allowing CAMERAS="*"
> to be used :-|
'cameras_*' isn't a valid use flag name, so the package mangler can't
just pass the *
Il giorno dom, 13/02/2011 alle 14.22 -0500, Mike Frysinger ha scritto:
>
> thus it's a lot more sane in the long term to assume that packages
> support the
> latest rather than patching everyone (and being forced to carry those
> custom
> patches indefinitely) to set the ceiling at the last "kno
On Sun, 2011-02-13 at 14:00 -0600, Matthew Summers wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 13, 2011 at 1:34 PM, Ciaran McCreesh
> wrote:
> > Why not specify all the CAMERAS you know about as being on by default in
> > the profile? Users who care enough can override this with an explicit
> > subset.
> > --
> > Ciaran
2011-02-13 20:43:12 Fabian Groffen napisał(a):
> On 13-02-2011 16:53:40 +, Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis wrote:
> > arfrever11/02/13 16:53:40
> >
> > Modified: make.defaults
> > Log:
> > Don't include ${USE} in the first assignment to USE in make.defaults
> > files to avoid incorr
On Sun, Feb 13, 2011 at 1:34 PM, Ciaran McCreesh
wrote:
> Why not specify all the CAMERAS you know about as being on by default in
> the profile? Users who care enough can override this with an explicit
> subset.
> --
> Ciaran McCreesh
This is how ALSA_CARDS and LCD_DEVICES are handled now. Its l
On Sun, 2011-02-13 at 19:34 +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Sun, 13 Feb 2011 20:31:23 +0100
> Pacho Ramos wrote:
> > Wouldn't be any shorter way to build all CAMERAS? We don't want to
> > default to enabling all, with the new way of handling this, if CAMERAS
> > is not set or is empty, nothing
On 13-02-2011 16:53:40 +, Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis wrote:
> arfrever11/02/13 16:53:40
>
> Modified: make.defaults
> Log:
> Don't include ${USE} in the first assignment to USE in make.defaults files
> to avoid incorrect interactions between enabled and disabled flags in
> dif
On Sun, 13 Feb 2011 20:31:23 +0100
Pacho Ramos wrote:
> Wouldn't be any shorter way to build all CAMERAS? We don't want to
> default to enabling all, with the new way of handling this, if CAMERAS
> is not set or is empty, nothing will be built but, if CAMERAS="*"
> shouldn't be used, what should w
On Sun, 2011-02-13 at 17:09 +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Sun, 13 Feb 2011 18:03:41 +0100
> Pacho Ramos wrote:
> > Please see attached news item for reviewing as part of the fix for
> > http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=346491
>
> CAMERAS=* shouldn't be legal. Since the strict IUSE stuf
On Saturday, February 12, 2011 21:37:29 Diego Elio Pettenò wrote:
> Il giorno sab, 12/02/2011 alle 18.21 -0500, Mike Frysinger ha scritto:
> > patching packages in the tree is a huge hassle,
> > you add hassle to end users who d/l random packages and try to build
> > things
> > themselves, and you
El dom, 13-02-2011 a las 17:09 +, Ciaran McCreesh escribió:
> On Sun, 13 Feb 2011 18:03:41 +0100
> Pacho Ramos wrote:
> > Please see attached news item for reviewing as part of the fix for
> > http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=346491
>
> CAMERAS=* shouldn't be legal. Since the strict IUS
On Sun, 13 Feb 2011 18:03:41 +0100
Pacho Ramos wrote:
> Please see attached news item for reviewing as part of the fix for
> http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=346491
CAMERAS=* shouldn't be legal. Since the strict IUSE stuff was dropped
from EAPI 4, and since IUSE isn't complete in any EAPI,
Hello
Please see attached news item for reviewing as part of the fix for
http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=346491
Thanks
Title: Change on CAMERAS handling in libgphoto2-2.4.10
Author: Pacho Ramos
Content-Type: text/plain
Posted: 2011-02-13
Revision: 1
News-Item-Format: 1.0
Display-If-Insta
18 matches
Mail list logo
