On Thu, 23 May 2013 05:30:25 + (UTC)
Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote:
> That's the point. It *IS* possible to use INSTALL_MASK sanely,
> without something breaking.
Nobody said it isn't, I agree hacks can be used without breaking
things; the point is that that doesn't make it a good idea
On Wed, 22 May 2013 16:39:25 -0500
Daniel Campbell wrote:
> I'm curious as to why you consider users who want to save disk space
> (openrc or systemd, or other packages, it doesn't matter) as
> fundamentalists.
I'd call them using other words but I didn't want to be that inpolite.
Seriously, the
On Wed, 22 May 2013 17:21:40 +0200
Luca Barbato wrote:
> On 05/21/2013 09:03 AM, Alan McKinnon wrote:
> > On 21/05/2013 05:03, Daniel Campbell wrote:
> >> That's missing the point. If you don't run systemd, having unit files is
> >> pointless. Thankfully there's INSTALL_MASK and whatnot, but that
Jeroen Roovers posted on Wed, 22 May 2013 17:21:46 +0200 as excerpted:
> On Tue, 21 May 2013 00:46:22 + (UTC)
> Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote:
>> As a user, I've understood:
>>
>> * Severity is something the user/filer can use.
>
> So when Chromium doesn't compile on your machine, you
On 22/05/2013 23:39, Daniel Campbell wrote:
> I do not consider Gentoo to be only about my own choices, but as a user,
> who else's choices am I going to consider when I administer my system?
> I'm happy for any new choices as long as they don't step on mine. I
> think that's fair.
Your choices ar
Ciaran McCreesh posted on Wed, 22 May 2013 16:24:05 +0100 as excerpted:
> On Tue, 21 May 2013 21:37:25 + (UTC)
> Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote:
>> Ciaran McCreesh posted on Tue, 21 May 2013 14:50:04 +0100 as
>> excerpted:
>> > On Tue, 21 May 2013 04:45:12 + (UTC)
>> > Duncan <1i5t5.d
On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 11:42:08AM -0700, Zac Medico wrote
> It will require portage to be able to predict where the units are
> installed, and also be able to avoid accidentally wiping out anything
> else that may be installed nearby. The prediction issue also comes up in
> this bug which requ
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 05/22/2013 09:11 AM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
> On 21/05/13 11:46 PM, Rick "Zero_Chaos" Farina wrote:
>
>> I do, however, completely agree that there should be some way to
>> leave the bug open and state that it will be stabled later. Would
>> a co
On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 9:39 PM, Daniel Campbell wrote:
> On 05/20/2013 10:34 PM, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
>> On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 3:03 AM, Daniel Campbell wrote:
>>> On 05/19/2013 01:05 PM, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
On Sun, May 19, 2013 at 9:34 AM, Peter Stuge wrote:
> J. Roeleve
On 05/20/2013 10:34 PM, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
> On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 3:03 AM, Daniel Campbell wrote:
>> On 05/19/2013 01:05 PM, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
>>> On Sun, May 19, 2013 at 9:34 AM, Peter Stuge wrote:
J. Roeleveld wrote:
> I don't see how this will avoid the issue of a
On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 2:42 PM, Zac Medico wrote:
> On 05/22/2013 08:21 AM, Luca Barbato wrote:
>>
>> check the FEATURES variable and be surprise =) (from man make.conf)
>>
>>nodoc Do not install doc files (/usr/share/doc).
>>
>>noinfo Do not install info pages.
>
On 05/22/2013 08:21 AM, Luca Barbato wrote:
check the FEATURES variable and be surprise =) (from man make.conf)
nodoc Do not install doc files (/usr/share/doc).
noinfo Do not install info pages.
noman Do not install manpages.
Adding a nounits nor
On Wed, 22 May 2013 17:03:21 +0200
Jeroen Roovers wrote:
> On Mon, 20 May 2013 17:29:43 +0200
> Tom Wijsman wrote:
> > > Also, your script does not set the STABLEREQ keyword. People are
> > > having to hunt down your robo-stabilisation requests and add it
> > > themselves. You should just do it
On Wed, 22 May 2013 19:18:41 +1000
Michael Palimaka wrote:
> A newer version of a package is usually considered to be better in
> some way, hence it is an enhancement.
Unless it's a Blocker, of course. :)
> According to the bug-wrangler's own docs[1]: "A stabilisation request
> should be handl
On Tue, 21 May 2013 18:57:20 -0600
Ryan Hill wrote:
> Huh? The severity of the bug is it's an enhancement.
The point I was making is we could improve things by a fair margin. If
all stabilisation bugs had a Severity that actually reflected the
severity, then I'd pay attention to it. Right now o
On Tue, 21 May 2013 21:37:25 + (UTC)
Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote:
> Ciaran McCreesh posted on Tue, 21 May 2013 14:50:04 +0100 as
> excerpted:
> > On Tue, 21 May 2013 04:45:12 + (UTC)
> > Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote:
> >> But the point you're missing is that INSTALL_MASK is N
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 22/05/13 11:14 AM, Michael Mol wrote:
> On 05/22/2013 11:00 AM, Jeroen Roovers wrote:
>> On Wed, 22 May 2013 08:53:06 -0400 Ian Stakenvicius
>> wrote:
>>
>>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256
>>>
>>> On 21/05/13 07:43 PM, Thomas S
On Tue, 21 May 2013 00:46:22 + (UTC)
Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote:
> As a user, I've understood:
>
> * Severity is something the user/filer can use.
So when Chromium doesn't compile on your machine, you set it as a
Blocker, and then it gets reverted to Normal because it works fine for
On 05/21/2013 09:03 AM, Alan McKinnon wrote:
> On 21/05/2013 05:03, Daniel Campbell wrote:
>> That's missing the point. If you don't run systemd, having unit files is
>> pointless. Thankfully there's INSTALL_MASK and whatnot, but that seems
>> like a hack instead of something more robust. Why inclu
On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 4:46 AM, Tom Wijsman wrote:
> The amount of users misusing a knife or hammer is much lower than the
> amount of users misusing INSTALL_MASK.
Agreed. A typical user would almost never need to use INSTALL_MASK.
If they're using it, they're probably doing something wrong.
I
On 05/22/2013 11:00 AM, Jeroen Roovers wrote:
> On Wed, 22 May 2013 08:53:06 -0400
> Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
>
>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>> Hash: SHA256
>>
>> On 21/05/13 07:43 PM, Thomas Sachau wrote:
>>> [ Snip reasons for why opt-out is bad ]
>> So why don't we add something to pack
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 22/05/13 10:51 AM, Jeroen Roovers wrote:
> On Wed, 22 May 2013 09:03:43 -0400 Ian Stakenvicius
> wrote:
>
>>> And the circle is closed since we started with the correlation
>>> "no answer to stable bug in 30 days" => "package unmantained"
>>> ;-
On Mon, 20 May 2013 17:29:43 +0200
Tom Wijsman wrote:
> > Also, your script does not set the STABLEREQ keyword. People are
> > having to hunt down your robo-stabilisation requests and add it
> > themselves. You should just do it yourself or turn your script off.
>
> Maintainer(s) and arch team me
On Wed, 22 May 2013 08:53:06 -0400
Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA256
>
> On 21/05/13 07:43 PM, Thomas Sachau wrote:
> > [ Snip reasons for why opt-out is bad ]
>
> So why don't we add something to package metadata, to indicate that a
> package is OK to
On Wed, 22 May 2013 19:18:41 +1000
Michael Palimaka wrote:
> > Yet the base system lead went and apply it to any stabilization
> > bug; as both him and Jer (the bug wrangling lead) do it this way,
> > I'll be doing it as well. Let's not be inconsistent with our leads
> > unless there is a wide de
On Wed, 22 May 2013 09:03:43 -0400
Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
> > And the circle is closed since we started with the correlation "no
> > answer to stable bug in 30 days" => "package unmantained" ;-)
> >
>
> This could actually work
Then we'd get the Ubuntu/Launchpad situation, where several
On Tue, 21 May 2013 15:32:25 +0200
Thomas Sachau wrote:
> Automagic stabilization is a bad idea.
I agree. "Maintainer timeout" is not a valid reason to go
ahead with stabilisation. If you really want to push forward, you
should be required to do more research as bug reporter.
> And just because
On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 5:22 AM, viv...@gmail.com wrote:
> On 05/21/13 23:38, Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
>> Am Dienstag, 21. Mai 2013, 15:38:44 schrieb Thomas Sachau:
>>> And if a maintainer is not responding within 30 days, you can ping him
>>> or, without a response, try to get a different mainta
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 21/05/13 11:46 PM, Rick "Zero_Chaos" Farina wrote:
>
> I do, however, completely agree that there should be some way to
> leave the bug open and state that it will be stabled later. Would
> a comment trigger this in the script? That seems semi-
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 22/05/13 07:16 AM, viv...@gmail.com wrote:
> On 05/22/13 13:06, Michael Palimaka wrote:
>> On 22/05/2013 20:41, Thomas Sachau wrote:
>>> Michael Palimaka schrieb:
On 22/05/2013 20:07, viv...@gmail.com wrote:
> On 05/22/13 11:43, Michael P
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 22/05/13 06:07 AM, viv...@gmail.com wrote:
> On 05/22/13 11:43, Michael Palimaka wrote:
>> On 22/05/2013 19:22, viv...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On 05/21/13 23:38, Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
Am Dienstag, 21. Mai 2013, 15:38:44 schrieb Thomas Sachau
On 05/22/2013 08:53 AM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
> On 21/05/13 07:43 PM, Thomas Sachau wrote:
> > [ Snip reasons for why opt-out is bad ]
>
> So why don't we add something to package metadata, to indicate that a
> package is OK to be considered for auto-stabilization?? It lets
> everyone opt-in, an
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 21/05/13 07:43 PM, Thomas Sachau wrote:
> [ Snip reasons for why opt-out is bad ]
So why don't we add something to package metadata, to indicate that a
package is OK to be considered for auto-stabilization?? It lets
everyone opt-in, and we still
On Wed, 22 May 2013 21:07:45 +1000
Michael Palimaka wrote:
> Is a stabilisation an enhancement per se? If all stabilisations
> are enhancements, then why isn't Severity set to Normal instead?
> (What is an enhanced severity to begin with, Mozilla?)
> >>
> >>> Why are they enhanceme
On 05/22/13 13:06, Michael Palimaka wrote:
> On 22/05/2013 20:41, Thomas Sachau wrote:
>> Michael Palimaka schrieb:
>>> On 22/05/2013 20:07, viv...@gmail.com wrote:
On 05/22/13 11:43, Michael Palimaka wrote:
> On 22/05/2013 19:22, viv...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On 05/21/13 23:38, Andreas K
On 22/05/2013 21:00, Tom Wijsman wrote:
On Wed, 22 May 2013 11:07:26 +0200
Ulrich Mueller wrote:
Is a stabilisation an enhancement per se? If all stabilisations
are enhancements, then why isn't Severity set to Normal instead?
(What is an enhanced severity to begin with, Mozilla?)
Why are th
On 22/05/2013 20:41, Thomas Sachau wrote:
Michael Palimaka schrieb:
On 22/05/2013 20:07, viv...@gmail.com wrote:
On 05/22/13 11:43, Michael Palimaka wrote:
On 22/05/2013 19:22, viv...@gmail.com wrote:
On 05/21/13 23:38, Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
Am Dienstag, 21. Mai 2013, 15:38:44 schrieb Th
On Wed, 22 May 2013 11:07:26 +0200
Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> > > Is a stabilisation an enhancement per se? If all stabilisations
> > > are enhancements, then why isn't Severity set to Normal instead?
> > > (What is an enhanced severity to begin with, Mozilla?)
>
> > Why are they enhancements? The
Michael Palimaka schrieb:
> On 22/05/2013 20:07, viv...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On 05/22/13 11:43, Michael Palimaka wrote:
>>> On 22/05/2013 19:22, viv...@gmail.com wrote:
On 05/21/13 23:38, Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
> Am Dienstag, 21. Mai 2013, 15:38:44 schrieb Thomas Sachau:
>> And if a
On 22/05/2013 20:07, viv...@gmail.com wrote:
On 05/22/13 11:43, Michael Palimaka wrote:
On 22/05/2013 19:22, viv...@gmail.com wrote:
On 05/21/13 23:38, Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
Am Dienstag, 21. Mai 2013, 15:38:44 schrieb Thomas Sachau:
And if a maintainer is not responding within 30 days, yo
On 05/22/13 11:43, Michael Palimaka wrote:
> On 22/05/2013 19:22, viv...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On 05/21/13 23:38, Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
>>> Am Dienstag, 21. Mai 2013, 15:38:44 schrieb Thomas Sachau:
And if a maintainer is not responding within 30 days, you can ping him
or, without a res
On 22/05/2013 19:22, viv...@gmail.com wrote:
On 05/21/13 23:38, Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
Am Dienstag, 21. Mai 2013, 15:38:44 schrieb Thomas Sachau:
And if a maintainer is not responding within 30 days, you can ping him
or, without a response, try to get a different maintainer. Just assuming
th
On 05/21/13 23:38, Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
> Am Dienstag, 21. Mai 2013, 15:38:44 schrieb Thomas Sachau:
>> And if a maintainer is not responding within 30 days, you can ping him
>> or, without a response, try to get a different maintainer. Just assuming
>> that a stable request is ok without a ma
On 22/05/2013 18:58, Tom Wijsman wrote:
On Tue, 21 May 2013 18:57:20 -0600
Ryan Hill wrote:
Huh? The severity of the bug is it's an enhancement.
Yes stabilizations are enhancements. Always have been.
Why are they enhancements? Them having been this way is not a reason
not to change the pr
> On Wed, 22 May 2013, Tom Wijsman wrote:
> On Tue, 21 May 2013 18:57:20 -0600
> Ryan Hill wrote:
>> Huh? The severity of the bug is it's an enhancement.
>>
>> Yes stabilizations are enhancements. Always have been.
> Why are they enhancements? Them having been this way is not a reason
>
On Tue, 21 May 2013 18:57:20 -0600
Ryan Hill wrote:
> Huh? The severity of the bug is it's an enhancement.
>
> Yes stabilizations are enhancements. Always have been.
Why are they enhancements? Them having been this way is not a reason
not to change the priority and severity fields to make mor
On Wed, 22 May 2013 03:06:05 + (UTC)
Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote:
> And a knife or hammer can be used to murder or commit suicide as
> well; that doesn't mean they're bad tools, it means the user is
> misusing them.
The amount of users misusing a knife or hammer is much lower than the
47 matches
Mail list logo
