-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 09/23/2013 04:41 PM, Markos Chandras wrote:
> On 09/23/2013 09:31 PM, Alexis Ballier wrote:
>> On Mon, 23 Sep 2013 22:03:49 +0200
>> Agostino Sarubbo wrote:
>>
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> the council has decided[1] to drop m68k, sh, s390 to unstable. If
>>>
On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 2:16 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
> [1]:https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=485046
Hey, that looks familiar... same basic problem exists in bzip2[static]
src_compile:
https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=485690
On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 2:16 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
> [1]:https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=485046
Hey, that looks familiar... same basic problem exists in bzip2[static]
src_compile:
https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=485690
Dnia 2013-09-23, o godz. 13:59:48
Greg Turner napisał(a):
> > What are your thoughts? The patch is sent in reply to this mail.
>
> Just saw your message that you are abandoning this proposal due to
> lack of interest. I think the lack of comments is not particularly
> surprising. How many pe
On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 5:26 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I've thought for a bit and got the conclusion that the best solution
> for quite an irritating syntax of autotools-multilib is to use
> sub-phase functions.
Sorry for the delayed response, but having been playing with this
stuff lately
On 09/23/2013 09:31 PM, Alexis Ballier wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Sep 2013 22:03:49 +0200
> Agostino Sarubbo wrote:
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> the council has decided[1] to drop m68k, sh, s390 to unstable. If
>> someone has something to say about, this is the last opportunity or
>> in few days I will start to ma
On Mon, 23 Sep 2013 22:03:49 +0200
Agostino Sarubbo wrote:
> Hello,
>
> the council has decided[1] to drop m68k, sh, s390 to unstable. If
> someone has something to say about, this is the last opportunity or
> in few days I will start to mark them as ~arch.
is there a need to waste your time on
Am Montag, 23. September 2013, 22:03:49 schrieb Agostino Sarubbo:
> Hello,
>
> the council has decided[1] to drop m68k, sh, s390 to unstable. If someone
> has something to say about, this is the last opportunity or in few days I
> will start to mark them as ~arch.
>
> [1]:
> https://www.gentoo.or
Hello,
the council has decided[1] to drop m68k, sh, s390 to unstable. If someone has
something to say about, this is the last opportunity or in few days I will
start to mark them as ~arch.
[1]: https://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/council/meeting-logs/20130917-summary.txt
--
Agostino Sarubbo
Gentoo
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
# Markos Chandras (23 Sep 2013)
# dead upstream. The microcode is now in the latest
# sys-kernel/linux-firmware. Bug #455208
# Removal in 30 days.
sys-firmware/amd-ucode
- --
Regards,
Markos Chandras - Gentoo Linux Developer
http://dev.gentoo.org
On 09/23/2013 03:07 PM, Alexis Ballier wrote:
>
> we have 'stable', 'dev' and 'exp'; the difference between 'dev' and
> 'exp' is unclear to me. it could be changed so that broken deps in
> 'dev' profiles are a repoman error (without -d) but without stable
> keywords.
>
> Alexis.
>
I believe the
On 09/23/2013 02:46 PM, Alexis Ballier wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Sep 2013 16:25:40 +0300
> Samuli Suominen wrote:
>
>> profiles.desc status is about how repoman is used to scan KEYWORDS,
>> and those arch maintainers with only ~arch keywording use `repoman
>> --include-dev` so changing the status from
> On Mon, 23 Sep 2013, Jack Morgan wrote:
> I can't find any documented details for "unstable keywords" besides
> the man pages listed above.
It is defined in the PMS [1]:
~arch: The package version and the ebuild are believed to work and
do not have any known serious bugs, but more t
On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 01:59:37PM +0200, Ch??-Thanh Christopher Nguy???n wrote:
> Jack Morgan schrieb:
> > I find this confusing and hope to clear it up. According to emerge/portage
> > man pages we have stable keywords (ARCH) and unstable packages (~ARCH) while
> > the handbook[1] says we have st
On Mon, 23 Sep 2013 16:23:35 +0200
Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> > On Mon, 23 Sep 2013, Alexis Ballier wrote:
>
> >> The problem with that is that we don't track the keyword status of
> >> an arch anywhere in profiles, so tools like ekeyword or
> >> ebuild-mode in Emacs have no way of obtaining th
> On Mon, 23 Sep 2013, Alexis Ballier wrote:
>> The problem with that is that we don't track the keyword status of an
>> arch anywhere in profiles, so tools like ekeyword or ebuild-mode in
>> Emacs have no way of obtaining that information (other than hardcoding
>> it).
> we do track it with
On Mon, 23 Sep 2013 15:57:48 +0200
Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> > On Mon, 23 Sep 2013, Samuli Suominen wrote:
>
> > if the entire tree is fine with some arch being at ~ and no
> > dependencies are broken, that could counted as 'stable' too.
> > then setting it from 'dev' to 'stable' will just mak
Michael Palimaka schrieb:
> On 23/09/2013 22:03, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>>
>> Well it should, because ~arch was supposed to mean "candidate for
>> becoming arch".
>>
>
> I tend to agree. I remember someone one saying something like "if it
> will never be a candidate for stable it doesn't belong in
> On Mon, 23 Sep 2013, Samuli Suominen wrote:
> if the entire tree is fine with some arch being at ~ and no dependencies
> are broken, that could counted as 'stable' too.
> then setting it from 'dev' to 'stable' will just make sure nobody breaks
> the perfect record of no dependencies broken
On Mon, 23 Sep 2013 16:25:40 +0300
Samuli Suominen wrote:
> profiles.desc status is about how repoman is used to scan KEYWORDS,
> and those arch maintainers with only ~arch keywording use `repoman
> --include-dev` so changing the status from 'dev' to 'stable' won't
> gain anything scanning wise
On 23/09/13 16:08, Samuli Suominen wrote:
can't believe it was like that for amd64-fbsd and nobody noticed before,
fixed that.
scratch that too. left it at dev.
if the entire tree is fine with some arch being at ~ and no dependencies
are broken, that could counted as 'stable' too.
then setting
On 23/09/13 16:18, Michael Palimaka wrote:
On 23/09/2013 22:52, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
On Mon, 23 Sep 2013, Samuli Suominen wrote:
Because I've seen some commits today for reverting the mentioned
KEYWORDS to ~arch in some ebuilds I'm not sure if everyone is aware that
the arch status is set us
On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 3:18 PM, Michael Palimaka wrote:
>> That's a thing that was never quite clear to me. Should there be
>> a one-to-one correspondence between an arch marked stable in
>> profiles.desc (i.e. having at least one profile labelled as stable
>> there) and the same arch having stab
On 23/09/2013 22:52, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
On Mon, 23 Sep 2013, Samuli Suominen wrote:
Because I've seen some commits today for reverting the mentioned
KEYWORDS to ~arch in some ebuilds I'm not sure if everyone is aware that
the arch status is set using profiles/profiles.desc and as I'm writin
On 23/09/13 16:08, Samuli Suominen wrote:
On 23/09/13 15:52, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
On Mon, 23 Sep 2013, Samuli Suominen wrote:
Because I've seen some commits today for reverting the mentioned
KEYWORDS to ~arch in some ebuilds I'm not sure if everyone is aware that
the arch status is set using
On 23/09/13 15:52, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
On Mon, 23 Sep 2013, Samuli Suominen wrote:
Because I've seen some commits today for reverting the mentioned
KEYWORDS to ~arch in some ebuilds I'm not sure if everyone is aware that
the arch status is set using profiles/profiles.desc and as I'm writing
> On Mon, 23 Sep 2013, Samuli Suominen wrote:
> Because I've seen some commits today for reverting the mentioned
> KEYWORDS to ~arch in some ebuilds I'm not sure if everyone is aware that
> the arch status is set using profiles/profiles.desc and as I'm writing
> this, the mentioned arches a
# ChangeLog for app-misc/emelfm2
# Copyright 1999-2013 Gentoo Foundation; Distributed under the GPL v2
# $Header: /var/cvsroot/gentoo-x86/app-misc/emelfm2/ChangeLog,v 1.56
2013/09/23 09:47:35 ssuominen Exp $
23 Sep 2013; Samuli Suominen
emelfm2-0.8.1.ebuild, emelfm2-0.8.2.ebuild, emelfm2-0.9.
On 23/09/2013 21:34, Samuli Suominen wrote:
[ ... ]
Stealing random mail from this thread.
Because I've seen some commits today for reverting the mentioned
KEYWORDS to ~arch in some ebuilds I'm not sure if everyone is aware that
the arch status is set using profiles/profiles.desc and as I'm wri
On 23/09/2013 22:03, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Mon, 23 Sep 2013 13:59:37 +0200
Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote:
Jack Morgan schrieb:
I find this confusing and hope to clear it up. According to
emerge/portage man pages we have stable keywords (ARCH) and
unstable packages (~ARCH) while the ha
On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 1:59 PM, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn
wrote:
> There is stable and not stable. Whether you call what is not stable
> "unstable" or "testing" does not matter, as Gentoo does not
> differentiate between the two. FWIW, I think that using the word testing
> implies some sort of
On Mon, 23 Sep 2013 13:59:37 +0200
Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote:
> Jack Morgan schrieb:
> > I find this confusing and hope to clear it up. According to
> > emerge/portage man pages we have stable keywords (ARCH) and
> > unstable packages (~ARCH) while the handbook[1] says we have stable
> >
Jack Morgan schrieb:
> I find this confusing and hope to clear it up. According to emerge/portage
> man pages we have stable keywords (ARCH) and unstable packages (~ARCH) while
> the handbook[1] says we have stable keywords (ARCH) and testing keywords
> (~ARCH).
There is stable and not stable. Whe
[ ... ]
Stealing random mail from this thread.
Because I've seen some commits today for reverting the mentioned
KEYWORDS to ~arch in some ebuilds I'm not sure if everyone is aware that
the arch status is set using profiles/profiles.desc and as I'm writing
this, the mentioned arches are still
Dnia 2013-09-22, o godz. 17:17:53
""Paweł Hajdan, Jr."" napisał(a):
> I'd like maintainers of all packages depending on dev-lang/v8 to make
> their packages use bundled v8 copy instead (I can file bugs for that,
> let's discuss here whether it should be done).
>
> For now V8 upstream gives no gu
On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 2:24 AM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
> FYI - Spidermonkey is in the exact same situation -- upstream develops
> with the expectation that projects will embed the code or at best
> bundle the lib. They also completely break API with every major
> version bump (ie, every 6 weeks
36 matches
Mail list logo
