130201 Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 10:51 AM, Richard Yao wrote:
>> The actual reason for removal is the following:
>> https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=425298
> I'm perfectly fine with masking/removing packages
> that do not have valid SRC_URIs
> and if somebody wants to h
On 02/02/2013 12:17 AM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 5:54 PM, Diego Elio Pettenò
> wrote:
>> On 01/02/2013 23:52, Rich Freeman wrote:
>>>
>>> For those who are doing the treecleaning, please do yourself a favor
>>> and point out the actual show-stoppers so that you don't have a war
On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 5:54 PM, Diego Elio Pettenò
wrote:
> On 01/02/2013 23:52, Rich Freeman wrote:
>>
>> For those who are doing the treecleaning, please do yourself a favor
>> and point out the actual show-stoppers so that you don't have a war on
>> your hand every time you mask something. :)
On 01/02/2013 23:52, Rich Freeman wrote:
>
> For those who are doing the treecleaning, please do yourself a favor
> and point out the actual show-stoppers so that you don't have a war on
> your hand every time you mask something. :)
Or maybe, you know, stop starting idiotic flamewars on principl
On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 10:51 AM, Richard Yao wrote:
> I suspect that the removal message is inaccurate. The actual reason for
> removal is the following:
>
> https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=425298
>
> If you were to make a webpage for it and host the tarball for people, it
> should be poss
On 01/17/13 13:21, Pacho Ramos wrote:
> # Pacho Ramos
> # Multiple bugs (#449458). No maintained at all and upstream
> # dead. Removal in a month.
> app-portage/epm
Peter Weilbacher has stepped up to maintain this package and I am acting
as his proxy. app-portage/epm-1.40 has been added to the t
El vie, 01-02-2013 a las 17:55 +0800, Ben de Groot escribió:
> On 1 February 2013 02:59, Pacho Ramos wrote:
> > El dom, 27-01-2013 a las 18:47 +0100, Pacho Ramos escribió:
> >> El dom, 27-01-2013 a las 15:00 +0100, Pacho Ramos escribió:
> >> > Currently, when people uses DOC_CONTENTS variable to p
Dne Pá 1. února 2013 18:40:32, Vaeth napsal(a):
> > [...] and if anyone wants to start where we left he
> > can pick out the ebuild from attic and put into his own overlay where
> > it might work for him or even put it back to tree fixed.
>
> And this is exactly what *cannot* be done after a while
On Fri, 1 Feb 2013 09:45:07 -0500
Rich Freeman wrote:
> That seems rather speculative. I'm sure that people look for
> vulnerabilities in unmaintained software - if they didn't then nobody
> would be able to exploit them in the first place (you have to find a
> vulnerability to exploit it). I
[...] and if anyone wants to start where we left he
can pick out the ebuild from attic and put into his own overlay where
it might work for him or even put it back to tree fixed.
And this is exactly what *cannot* be done after a while:
The ebuild is still available by CVS (or maybe git in fut
On 01/02/2013 18:00, Tomáš Chvátal wrote:
> No, they won't get anyone looking over their shoulder unless they
> decide to neglect the bugs as few maintainers did.
> I didn't see a lot forced removals caused by qa, did you?
As far as I can tell, they come down to two:
- webmin; which was saved af
2013/2/1 Rich Freeman :
> On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 8:53 AM, Tomáš Chvátal wrote:
>> If you as developers and users find some package useful you can retake
>> the maintainership (or became proxy-maint) which also expects you to
>> take care of the bugs (QA can prune it even if you take the
>> maintai
If security bugs occur then there's two options -- fix, or remove.
(Or maybe mask with message clearly indicating security issues
or warn about possibly unknown security issues).
I agree. But security bugs are really relevant only for a rather
limited types of packages: Those which are SUID (or
On 02/01/2013 02:36 AM, Vaeth wrote:
>
>>># Upstream is dead and gone.
>>># Masked for removal on 20130302
>>
>> Erm, so this is the _only_ reason - dead upstream?
>
> ++
>
> Please, please, stop removing packages for no reason!
> This happens now way too often:
>
> app-dicts/ispell*
>
On 02/01/2013 07:07 AM, Michael Weber wrote:
> On 02/01/2013 12:20 PM, Diego Elio Pettenò wrote:
>> On 01/02/2013 12:11, Rich Freeman wrote:
>>> I do think it is a loss for Gentoo if we start removing packages
>>> simply because they don't change (which is all a dead upstream means -
>>> it isn't a
On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 8:53 AM, Tomáš Chvátal wrote:
> If you as developers and users find some package useful you can retake
> the maintainership (or became proxy-maint) which also expects you to
> take care of the bugs (QA can prune it even if you take the
> maintainership but ignore failures [e
On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 9:08 AM, Wulf C. Krueger wrote:
>
> In the "dead upstream" case it's unlikely anyone is checking the
> package for security issues in the first place. So neither the Gentoo
> security people will get notice via the usual sources nor will any
> upstream be informed.
That see
No FILESDIR nor T in pkg_* phases please!
--
Fabio Erculiani
Well done!
Binary packages is now broken :-/
>>## SPM: post-install phase
* ERROR: x11-misc/bumblebee-3.0.1-r2 failed (postinst phase):
* README.gentoo wasn't created at src_install!
*
* Call stack:
* ebuild.sh, line 93: Called pkg_postinst
* environment, line 2080: Called re
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Sorry for quoting a lot this time but it's important for understanding
the issue.
On 01.02.2013 15:00, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
> On 01/02/13 08:56 AM, Wulf C. Krueger wrote:
>> On 01.02.2013 14:47, Rich Freeman wrote:
And how will you get to know
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 01/02/13 08:56 AM, Wulf C. Krueger wrote:
> On 01.02.2013 14:47, Rich Freeman wrote:
>>> And how will you get to know about current or future security
>>> issues if nobody (in Gentoo) cares about the package?
>> The same way that you know about s
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 01.02.2013 14:47, Rich Freeman wrote:
>> And how will you get to know about current or future security
>> issues if nobody (in Gentoo) cares about the package?
> The same way that you know about security issues in Firefox or
> Chromium [...] Until
Hello guys,
just to be sure here "Removals are completely up to the maintainer to
decide", with expection of QA removal where the package must be
already broken to get punted.
If you as developers and users find some package useful you can retake
the maintainership (or became proxy-maint) which a
On 2/02/2013 00:36, Wulf C. Krueger wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 01.02.2013 14:26, Rich Freeman wrote:
As long as it builds on 80%+ of systems and has no serious issues
(security in particular) there is no reason to remove a package.
And how will you get to know abo
On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 8:36 AM, Wulf C. Krueger wrote:
>
> And how will you get to know about current or future security issues if
> nobody (in Gentoo) cares about the package?
The same way that you know about security issues in Firefox or
Chromium - somebody reports them. Security bugs still go
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 01.02.2013 14:26, Rich Freeman wrote:
> As long as it builds on 80%+ of systems and has no serious issues
> (security in particular) there is no reason to remove a package.
And how will you get to know about current or future security issues if
no
On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 7:53 AM, Diego Elio Pettenò
wrote:
> I'm not saying that we should remove a package because it has one
> trivial bug not fixed in three months. But when upstream is dead, and
> nobody in Gentoo is caring for it, has half a dozen open bug (trivial or
> not), unsolved or unsol
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 01/02/13 06:20 AM, Diego Elio Pettenò wrote:
> On 01/02/2013 12:11, Rich Freeman wrote:
>> I do think it is a loss for Gentoo if we start removing packages
>> simply because they don't change (which is all a dead upstream
>> means - it isn't alwa
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 01/02/13 05:53 AM, Michael Weber wrote:
> Sunrise commit access is limited to sunrise devs. And I see the
> _rise_ in context of software and devs. I don't say sundown,
..there once was a "sunset" overlay, wasn't there?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE--
On 01/02/2013 13:36, Michael Weber wrote:
> Yeah, but test for /usr/share/doc/${PF} (random to irrelevant),
Which I don't open bugs about any longer.
> $CFLAGS/$LDFLAGS/$AR (enable these miraculous setup),
WTF does "enable these miraculous setup" mean? Seriously.
Also, no I don't test or bother
On 02/01/2013 01:22 PM, Diego Elio Pettenò wrote:
> On 01/02/2013 13:07, Michael Weber wrote:
>> Making up new situations up like cross-dev, Gentoo/Prefix, or jet
>> another cluttered C compiler should not doom working software.
>
> Which would be all fine and dandy
>
>> I agree on your test
On 01/02/2013 13:07, Michael Weber wrote:
> Making up new situations up like cross-dev, Gentoo/Prefix, or jet
> another cluttered C compiler should not doom working software.
Which would be all fine and dandy
> I agree on your testing effort and practice, but compliance with the
> weirdest o
On 02/01/2013 12:20 PM, Diego Elio Pettenò wrote:
> On 01/02/2013 12:11, Rich Freeman wrote:
>> I do think it is a loss for Gentoo if we start removing packages
>> simply because they don't change (which is all a dead upstream means -
>> it isn't always a bad thing).
>
> The problem is that a pack
On Fri, 01 Feb 2013 13:30:04 +0400
Sergey Popov wrote:
> 01.02.2013 12:53, Michael Weber wrote:
> > BENEFIT
> >
> >User can choose whether or not layman -a frozen.
> >
> >Non-trivial ebuilds are preserved.
> >
> >Tarballs are preserved.
> >
> >Nobody gets hurt.
>
> Well, we c
On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 6:20 AM, Diego Elio Pettenò
wrote:
> On 01/02/2013 12:11, Rich Freeman wrote:
>> I do think it is a loss for Gentoo if we start removing packages
>> simply because they don't change (which is all a dead upstream means -
>> it isn't always a bad thing).
>
> The problem is tha
On 01/02/2013 12:11, Rich Freeman wrote:
> I do think it is a loss for Gentoo if we start removing packages
> simply because they don't change (which is all a dead upstream means -
> it isn't always a bad thing).
The problem is that a package that doesn't change _will_ bitrot. Full stop.
Trying t
On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 12:37 AM, Ryan Hill wrote:
>>
>> If we added a "Keyword/Stable Request" component to the "Gentoo Linux"
>> product we could also have it dependent on that, so only bugs in that
>> component would display the flags.
You'd need to include security bugs as well at the very lea
On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 3:21 AM, Alec Warner wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 11:36 PM, Vaeth
> wrote:
>> Please, please, stop removing packages for no reason!
>> This happens now way too often:
>>
>
> If folks do not want to maintain it anymore, then it will be removed.
> Feel free to contribute
On 02/01/2013 10:55 AM, Ben de Groot wrote:
> On 1 February 2013 02:59, Pacho Ramos wrote:
>> El dom, 27-01-2013 a las 18:47 +0100, Pacho Ramos escribió:
>>> El dom, 27-01-2013 a las 15:00 +0100, Pacho Ramos escribió:
Currently, when people uses DOC_CONTENTS variable to place their desired
>>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 02/01/2013 10:35 AM, Dennis Lan (dlan) wrote:> HI Michael:
> I can think of it's almost kind of a staging area, some package
> may be partial broken(or partial functional), but still useful for
> user.
Please see [1] for the proposal of betagard
On 1 February 2013 02:59, Pacho Ramos wrote:
> El dom, 27-01-2013 a las 18:47 +0100, Pacho Ramos escribió:
>> El dom, 27-01-2013 a las 15:00 +0100, Pacho Ramos escribió:
>> > Currently, when people uses DOC_CONTENTS variable to place their desired
>> > messages, they are automatically reformatted
HI Michael:
I can think of it's almost kind of a staging area, some package may be
partial broken(or partial functional),
but still useful for user.
Generally speaking, It should be a good idea! The end users will benefit
a lot.
Also if user show his interests, then he can report bug, sen
01.02.2013 12:53, Michael Weber wrote:
> BENEFIT
>
>User can choose whether or not layman -a frozen.
>
>Non-trivial ebuilds are preserved.
>
>Tarballs are preserved.
>
>Nobody gets hurt.
Well, we can move such software to sunrise, can't we? But proposition of
splitted mirrors m
On 02/01/2013 09:21 AM, Alec Warner wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 11:36 PM, Vaeth
> wrote:
>>
# Upstream is dead and gone.
# Masked for removal on 20130302
>>>
>>>
>>> Erm, so this is the _only_ reason - dead upstream?
>>
> If folks do not want to maintain it anymore, then it wi
On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 11:36 PM, Vaeth
wrote:
>
>>># Upstream is dead and gone.
>>># Masked for removal on 20130302
>>
>>
>> Erm, so this is the _only_ reason - dead upstream?
>
>
> ++
>
> Please, please, stop removing packages for no reason!
> This happens now way too often:
>
> app-dict
45 matches
Mail list logo
