On Tue, Nov 06, 2012 at 12:02:35AM -0600, William Hubbs wrote:
> In other words, I need testers. So, if you aren't running
> OpenRC-0.11.4,, and you are willing to test for regressions, please
> upgrade and file bugs asap, especially if you find regressions.
Likewise, I'd like to call for testing f
All,
I would like to make OpenRC-0.11.4 the next stable candidate for OpenRC.
We need it before we can stable a newer genkernel, and releng also needs
it stable for the install cds. Because of this, I am interested in
moving it to stable faster than 30 days (I'm thinking more like 14).
In other w
On 11/06/12 05:45, Duncan wrote:
> Diego Elio Pettenò posted on Mon, 05 Nov 2012 07:39:19 -0800 as excerpted:
>
>> On 05/11/2012 07:31, Steven J. Long wrote:
>>> Are you really missing the fact that by testing someone's overlay, the
>>> package would by definition not be in the tree, and you would
On Mon, Nov 05, 2012 at 06:54:45PM -0500, Mike Gilbert wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 6:34 PM, Brian Harring wrote:
> > This isn't quite what I'm asking for. I want y'all to literally
> > document thus:
> >
> > 1) What your finished solution is going to look like. Users control
> > which implem
On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 6:34 PM, Brian Harring wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 05, 2012 at 05:50:24PM -0500, Mike Gilbert wrote:
>> On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 5:25 PM, Brian Harring wrote:
>> > On Mon, Nov 05, 2012 at 01:15:45PM +0100, Micha?? G??rny wrote:
>> >> And in case anyone wondered, the output looks lik
On Mon, Nov 05, 2012 at 05:50:24PM -0500, Mike Gilbert wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 5:25 PM, Brian Harring wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 05, 2012 at 01:15:45PM +0100, Micha?? G??rny wrote:
> >> And in case anyone wondered, the output looks like this:
> >>
> >> * PYTHON_TARGETS <-> USE_PYTHON inconsis
On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 5:25 PM, Brian Harring wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 05, 2012 at 01:15:45PM +0100, Micha?? G??rny wrote:
>> And in case anyone wondered, the output looks like this:
>>
>> * PYTHON_TARGETS <-> USE_PYTHON inconsistency found. This may result
>> * in missing modules when trying to use
On Mon, Nov 05, 2012 at 01:15:45PM +0100, Micha?? G??rny wrote:
> And in case anyone wondered, the output looks like this:
>
> * PYTHON_TARGETS <-> USE_PYTHON inconsistency found. This may result
> * in missing modules when trying to use Python packages. Please ensure
> * that the same implemen
On 05/11/2012 13:45, Duncan wrote:
>
> What about doing overlays, but ONLY one-at-a-time, and ONLY on special-
> request-runs, presumably immediately pre-tree-introduction? Among other
> things that might help for stuff like kde where a whole slew of packages
> are introduced to the tree (and s
Rick \"Zero_Chaos\" Farina posted on Mon, 05 Nov 2012 15:48:22 -0500 as
excerpted:
> A quick grep of the tree:
>
> grep -R "/etc/make.conf" /usr/portage/*/*/*.ebuild
Quick suggestion. Grep for /etc/portage/make.conf as well, and eliminate
the files that show up in both lists. Untested:
grep
Diego Elio Pettenò posted on Mon, 05 Nov 2012 07:39:19 -0800 as excerpted:
> On 05/11/2012 07:31, Steven J. Long wrote:
>> Are you really missing the fact that by testing someone's overlay, the
>> package would by definition not be in the tree, and you wouldn't have
>> to file any bugs at all, jus
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
A quick grep of the tree:
grep -R "/etc/make.conf" /usr/portage/*/*/*.ebuild
Shows many many ebuilds are still referencing /etc/make.conf instead of
the new location which is /etc/portage/make.conf
Even some eclasses are still doing it:
grep -R "/e
On 05/11/2012 09:32, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
> Being hard masked is a little bit stronger than what I had in mind. I
> was thinking, "no known problems, but it hasn't been tested
> thoroughly." Users with a death wish could run it, and it might work.
> That would leave package.mask for known broken
On 05/11/2012 09:15, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
> We have p.mask for that, though, so dev's could get in the habit of
> committing and hard-masking things more, rather than using overlays.
Amen.
That's what I've been saying for the past week or so, and before as well.
Get it in p.mask, so that you'
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 11/05/2012 12:15 PM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
> On 05/11/12 12:00 PM, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
>
>> 1) Over time, unstable has become too stable (I know, I know).
>> People expect things to work, and nobody wants to break working
>> systems by comm
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 05/11/12 12:00 PM, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
>
> 1) Over time, unstable has become too stable (I know, I know).
> People expect things to work, and nobody wants to break working
> systems by committing works-in-progress to ~arch.
>
We have p.mask
On 11/05/2012 10:39 AM, Diego Elio Pettenò wrote:
> On 05/11/2012 07:31, Steven J. Long wrote:
>> Are you really missing the fact that by testing someone's overlay, the
>> package
>> would by definition not be in the tree, and you wouldn't have to file any
>> bugs
>> at all, just (automatically)
On 05/11/2012 07:31, Steven J. Long wrote:
> Are you really missing the fact that by testing someone's overlay, the package
> would by definition not be in the tree, and you wouldn't have to file any bugs
> at all, just (automatically) email the output back to the overlay developer?
Which means I
On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 10:32 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
> On Mon, 5 Nov 2012 10:22:22 -0500
> Mike Gilbert wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 6:59 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
>> > ---
>> > gx86/eclass/python-r1.eclass | 66
>> >
>> > 1 file changed, 66 ins
On Mon, 5 Nov 2012 10:22:22 -0500
Mike Gilbert wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 6:59 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
> > ---
> > gx86/eclass/python-r1.eclass | 66
> >
> > 1 file changed, 66 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/gx86/eclass/python-r1.eclass b/g
On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 6:59 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
> ---
> gx86/eclass/python-r1.eclass | 66
>
> 1 file changed, 66 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/gx86/eclass/python-r1.eclass b/gx86/eclass/python-r1.eclass
> index 0d6ef4c..6d4eb33 100644
> --- a/gx
On Thu, Nov 01, 2012 at 07:32:54PM -0700, Diego Elio Pettenò wrote:
> On 01/11/2012 19:23, Steven J. Long wrote:
> > He's right tho: the topic was "Why doesn't your tinderbox work with
> > overlays?" Your response was to insult Arfrever and not actually answer
> > the point.
>
> _Arfrever himself_
On Mon, 05 Nov 2012 13:43:50 +0100
Gilles Dartiguelongue wrote:
> Le lundi 05 novembre 2012 à 13:15 +0100, Michał Górny a écrit :
> > And in case anyone wondered, the output looks like this:
> >
> > * PYTHON_TARGETS <-> USE_PYTHON inconsistency found. This may result
> > * in missing modules w
Le lundi 05 novembre 2012 à 13:15 +0100, Michał Górny a écrit :
> And in case anyone wondered, the output looks like this:
>
> * PYTHON_TARGETS <-> USE_PYTHON inconsistency found. This may result
> * in missing modules when trying to use Python packages. Please ensure
> * that the same implemen
And in case anyone wondered, the output looks like this:
* PYTHON_TARGETS <-> USE_PYTHON inconsistency found. This may result
* in missing modules when trying to use Python packages. Please ensure
* that the same implementations are listed in both variables.
*
* Implementation python2_5 disa
---
gx86/eclass/python-r1.eclass | 66
1 file changed, 66 insertions(+)
diff --git a/gx86/eclass/python-r1.eclass b/gx86/eclass/python-r1.eclass
index 0d6ef4c..6d4eb33 100644
--- a/gx86/eclass/python-r1.eclass
+++ b/gx86/eclass/python-r1.eclass
@@ -363
26 matches
Mail list logo
