On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 8:00 AM, Patrick Lauer wrote:
> Thus I suggest making the following warnings proper errors:
>
> (Taken from current repoman 'qawarnings' set)
>
> "changelog.missing",
> "changelog.notadded",
These two are pretty much irrelevant now that repoman auto-generates
ChangeLog, so
Dnia 2015-02-16, o godz. 10:37:12
William Hubbs napisał(a):
> On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 02:34:50PM +0100, Pacho Ramos wrote:
> > Hello
> >
> > Every day I am hitting tons of blockers stabilizations and keywording
> > requests for alpha, sparc, ia64, ppc and ppc64.
> >
> > Again, I would suggest
On 12/31/2014 06:21 AM, Patrick Lauer (patrick) wrote:
> patrick 14/12/31 05:21:11
>
> Removed: ChangeLog Manifest libusbhp-1.0.2.ebuild
> metadata.xml
> Log:
> QA: Remove package with invalid copyright
>
Both people made an excellent point for enfo
On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 1:32 PM, Andreas K. Huettel
wrote:
>
> Can't we just only require the correct license statement and leave all
> copyright statements as they are in whatever form?
>
Obviously appealing for its simplicity. But, I can see some issues:
1. What if you want to import multipl
On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 10:59 AM, Joshua Kinard wrote:
>
> Keep the core git tree constantly rolling forward, have a dedicated branch get
> cut say, once a year (or less -- Debian is ~18mo?), another group of devs
> works
> on stabilizing that (and periodically cherrypicking from the master branc
On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 02:34:50PM +0100, Pacho Ramos wrote:
> Hello
>
> Every day I am hitting tons of blockers stabilizations and keywording
> requests for alpha, sparc, ia64, ppc and ppc64.
>
> Again, I would suggest to either decrease radically the amount of stable
> packages of some of that
On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 02:34:50PM +0100, Pacho Ramos wrote:
> Hello
>
> Every day I am hitting tons of blockers stabilizations and keywording
> requests for alpha, sparc, ia64, ppc and ppc64.
>
> Again, I would suggest to either decrease radically the amount of stable
> packages of some of that
On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 4:22 PM, Anthony G. Basile wrote:
>> They come from multiple places, for example I am now fighting with
>> getting ipython finally stabilized after months of waiting because the
>> deps hell in python packages (as package A needs package B, B needs C
>> and D maintained by
On 02/16/15 11:05, Pacho Ramos wrote:
El lun, 16-02-2015 a las 10:36 -0500, Anthony G. Basile escribió:
On 02/16/15 08:34, Pacho Ramos wrote:
Hello
Every day I am hitting tons of blockers stabilizations and keywording
requests for alpha, sparc, ia64, ppc and ppc64.
The powerpc team figured we
On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 3:13 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 1:16 AM, Alec Warner wrote:
> > On Sun, Feb 15, 2015 at 8:05 PM, Mike Frysinger
> wrote:
> >> On Wed, Dec 31, 2014 at 12:21 AM, Patrick Lauer (patrick)
> >> wrote:
> >> > patrick 14/12/31 05:21:11
> >> >
> >>
Am Montag 16 Februar 2015, 13:05:54 schrieb Rich Freeman:
> > Another option is remove that header and just state that all the .ebuild
> > are under $license in a simpler way...
>
> As I said in my other email, that might be a simpler way to go. Of
> course, does that make it acceptable to strip
On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 12:50 PM, Luca Barbato wrote:
>
> Can we just have repoman directly fix the entry automatically since in
> itself is nearly-pointless?
>
That would leave the door open to somebody arguing that the line was
changed without their knowledge. Absent some kind of DCO that seem
On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 11:02 AM, Joshua Kinard wrote:
> On 02/16/2015 09:04, Rich Freeman wrote:
>> I do think that moving to a cleaner policy makes a lot of sense. The
>> problem is that doing this sort of thing right potentially involves a
>> lot of work as well. Maybe another approach is to
On 16/02/15 12:58, Mike Frysinger wrote:
On 16 Feb 2015 19:43, Patrick Lauer wrote:
On Monday 16 February 2015 06:13:10 Mike Frysinger wrote:
even then, deleting an ebuild purely due to different copyright is
complete bs. anyone who understands copyright knows the situation in
Gentoo is comple
On Mon, 16 Feb 2015 21:00:16 +0800
Patrick Lauer wrote:
> Right now repoman is relatively permissive - it whines about many
> things, but treats many issues as warning.
> The result is that many ebuilds get committed with 'minor' cosmetic
> issues which then someone more OCD than the original co
El lun, 16-02-2015 a las 10:36 -0500, Anthony G. Basile escribió:
> On 02/16/15 08:34, Pacho Ramos wrote:
> > Hello
> >
> > Every day I am hitting tons of blockers stabilizations and keywording
> > requests for alpha, sparc, ia64, ppc and ppc64.
>
> The powerpc team figured we'd deal with this by
On 02/16/2015 09:04, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 7:44 AM, Joshua Kinard wrote:
>>
>> As far as removing the ebuild goes, that was probably the correct course of
>> action, because we Yanks love to make our legal code as bizzaringly complex
>> as
>> we think we can. Though, the
On 02/16/2015 10:36, Anthony G. Basile wrote:
> On 02/16/15 08:34, Pacho Ramos wrote:
>> Hello
>>
>> Every day I am hitting tons of blockers stabilizations and keywording
>> requests for alpha, sparc, ia64, ppc and ppc64.
>
> The powerpc team figured we'd deal with this by being "lax" about
> keyw
On 02/16/15 08:34, Pacho Ramos wrote:
Hello
Every day I am hitting tons of blockers stabilizations and keywording
requests for alpha, sparc, ia64, ppc and ppc64.
The powerpc team figured we'd deal with this by being "lax" about
keywording/stabilization and catch problems in subsequent bug rep
El lun, 16-02-2015 a las 10:09 -0500, Rich Freeman escribió:
> On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 8:34 AM, Pacho Ramos wrote:
> >
> > The current policy of maintainers dropping keywords after 90 days is
> > simply not applied because it leads up to that maintainer needing to
> > kill himself that keyword and
On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 8:34 AM, Pacho Ramos wrote:
>
> The current policy of maintainers dropping keywords after 90 days is
> simply not applied because it leads up to that maintainer needing to
> kill himself that keyword and ALL the reverse deps keywords
A published script might ease that, esp
On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 7:44 AM, Joshua Kinard wrote:
>
> As far as removing the ebuild goes, that was probably the correct course of
> action, because we Yanks love to make our legal code as bizzaringly complex as
> we think we can. Though, the mistaken code is still in CVS in the Attic --
> doe
On Mon, 16 Feb 2015 21:00:16 +0800 Patrick Lauer wrote:
> Right now repoman is relatively permissive - it whines about many things, but
> treats many issues as warning.
> The result is that many ebuilds get committed with 'minor' cosmetic issues
> which then someone more OCD than the original co
On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 11:19 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On 16 Feb 2015 21:00, Patrick Lauer wrote:
>> Thus I suggest making the following warnings proper errors:
>
> some of these are because they produce false positives. at least these bugs
> probably need to be fixed first:
> https://
Hello
Every day I am hitting tons of blockers stabilizations and keywording
requests for alpha, sparc, ia64, ppc and ppc64.
Again, I would suggest to either decrease radically the amount of stable
packages of some of that arches or even make them testing only.
For reducing their stable tree, my
On 16 Feb 2015 21:00, Patrick Lauer wrote:
> Thus I suggest making the following warnings proper errors:
some of these are because they produce false positives. at least these bugs
probably need to be fixed first:
https://bugs.gentoo.org/405017
https://bugs.gentoo.org/488836
El lun, 16-02-2015 a las 21:00 +0800, Patrick Lauer escribió:
[...]
>
I agree
> Thus I suggest making the following warnings proper errors:
>
> (Taken from current repoman 'qawarnings' set)
>
> "changelog.missing",
> "changelog.notadded",
> "digest.assumed",
> "digest.unused",
> "ebuild.notadded",
> "ebuild.nesteddie",
> "DESCRIPTION.toolong",
> "RESTRICT.invalid",
> "ebui
On Feb 16, 2015 8:01 AM, "Patrick Lauer" wrote:
>
> Right now repoman is relatively permissive - it whines about many things,
but
> treats many issues as warning.
> The result is that many ebuilds get committed with 'minor' cosmetic issues
> which then someone more OCD than the original committer
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 16/02/15 14:02, Alexander Berntsen wrote:
> FWIW: I'm in the "warnings are pointless, either we care about
> something (so make it an error), or we don't (so get rid of it)".
s/\./ camp./
(I accidentally a word...)
- --
Alexander
berna...@gento
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
FWIW: I'm in the "warnings are pointless, either we care about
something (so make it an error), or we don't (so get rid of it)".
- --
Alexander
berna...@gentoo.org
https://secure.plaimi.net/~alexander
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v2
Right now repoman is relatively permissive - it whines about many things, but
treats many issues as warning.
The result is that many ebuilds get committed with 'minor' cosmetic issues
which then someone more OCD than the original committer cleans up, making
pretty much everyone involved more un
On 02/16/2015 07:12, Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
> Am Montag 16 Februar 2015, 07:03:18 schrieb Mike Frysinger:
>> except for two things:
>> * that phrase is meaningless (legally speaking) and has been for a century
>> [1] * the header explicitly stated GPL-2 license
>
> So you want to change a long
On 16 Feb 2015 13:12, Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
> Am Montag 16 Februar 2015, 07:03:18 schrieb Mike Frysinger:
> > except for two things:
> > * that phrase is meaningless (legally speaking) and has been for a century
> > [1] * the header explicitly stated GPL-2 license
>
> So you want to change a
Am Montag 16 Februar 2015, 07:03:18 schrieb Mike Frysinger:
> except for two things:
> * that phrase is meaningless (legally speaking) and has been for a century
> [1] * the header explicitly stated GPL-2 license
So you want to change a longstanding policy rule. Right. How about doing this
like
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 02/16/15 13:53, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote:
> On 02/16/2015 12:44 PM, Markos Chandras wrote:
>
>
>> I too believe that if you are reverting someone's commit you
>> should at least drop him an email to let him know. How else do
>> you expect him
On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 6:46 AM, Pacho Ramos wrote:
> El lun, 16-02-2015 a las 06:39 -0500, Mike Frysinger escribió:
> [...]
>
> Anyway, wouldn't have been much more useful for all to spend the effort
> used in remove the package on simply fixing the header? :/
>
Yeah, let's not bring up the last
On 16 Feb 2015 12:53, Pacho Ramos wrote:
> El lun, 16-02-2015 a las 12:46 +0100, Pacho Ramos escribió:
> > El lun, 16-02-2015 a las 06:39 -0500, Mike Frysinger escribió:
> > [...]
> >
> > Anyway, wouldn't have been much more useful for all to spend the effort
> > used in remove the package on simp
On 16 Feb 2015 19:43, Patrick Lauer wrote:
> On Monday 16 February 2015 06:13:10 Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > even then, deleting an ebuild purely due to different copyright is
> > complete bs. anyone who understands copyright knows the situation in
> > Gentoo is completely unenforceable. we have no
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 02/16/2015 12:44 PM, Markos Chandras wrote:
>
>
> I too believe that if you are reverting someone's commit you should
> at least drop him an email to let him know. How else do you expect
> him to know he did something wrong? I am a bit worried Q
El lun, 16-02-2015 a las 12:46 +0100, Pacho Ramos escribió:
> El lun, 16-02-2015 a las 06:39 -0500, Mike Frysinger escribió:
> [...]
>
> Anyway, wouldn't have been much more useful for all to spend the effort
> used in remove the package on simply fixing the header? :/
>
>
Ah, ok, I guess it's
El lun, 16-02-2015 a las 06:39 -0500, Mike Frysinger escribió:
[...]
Anyway, wouldn't have been much more useful for all to spend the effort
used in remove the package on simply fixing the header? :/
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 02/16/15 13:31, Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
> Am Montag 16 Februar 2015, 06:13:10 schrieb Mike Frysinger:
>
>> even then, deleting an ebuild purely due to different copyright
>> is complete bs.
>
> The requirement for Gentoo copyright in the main
On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 6:31 AM, Andreas K. Huettel
wrote:
> Am Montag 16 Februar 2015, 06:13:10 schrieb Mike Frysinger:
>
>> even then, deleting an ebuild purely due to different copyright is
>> complete bs.
>
> The requirement for Gentoo copyright in the main tree is not optional, but has
> been
On Monday 16 February 2015 06:13:10 Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 1:16 AM, Alec Warner wrote:
> > On Sun, Feb 15, 2015 at 8:05 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> >> On Wed, Dec 31, 2014 at 12:21 AM, Patrick Lauer (patrick)
> >>
> >> wrote:
> >> > patrick 14/12/31 05:21:11
> >> >
On 16 Feb 2015 12:31, Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
> Am Montag 16 Februar 2015, 06:13:10 schrieb Mike Frysinger:
> > even then, deleting an ebuild purely due to different copyright is
> > complete bs.
>
> The requirement for Gentoo copyright in the main tree is not optional, but
> has
> been policy
Am Montag 16 Februar 2015, 06:13:10 schrieb Mike Frysinger:
> even then, deleting an ebuild purely due to different copyright is
> complete bs.
The requirement for Gentoo copyright in the main tree is not optional, but has
been policy for a very long time.
Just because you've been around foreve
> On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 1:16 AM, Alec Warner wrote:
> even then, deleting an ebuild purely due to different copyright is
> complete bs.
No. Tree policy.
--
Andreas K. Huettel
Gentoo Linux developer
perl, office, comrel, council
On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 1:16 AM, Alec Warner wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 15, 2015 at 8:05 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>> On Wed, Dec 31, 2014 at 12:21 AM, Patrick Lauer (patrick)
>> wrote:
>> > patrick 14/12/31 05:21:11
>> >
>> > Removed: ChangeLog Manifest libusbhp-1.0.2.ebuild
>> >
49 matches
Mail list logo
