Re: [gentoo-dev] Making more repoman checks fatal

On 16 Feb 2015 11:45, Rafael Goncalves Martins wrote: > 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 t

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in dev-python/watchdog: watchdog-0.8.3.ebuild ChangeLog

On 18 Feb 2015 23:10, Mike Gilbert wrote: > On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 7:08 PM, Patrick Lauer wrote: > > On Wednesday 18 February 2015 18:43:59 hasufell wrote: > >> Is there a communication problem? > >> > >> I don't remember getting either: > >> * a bug report > >> * a ping > >> * a review request >

[gentoo-dev] Last rites: games-board/kaya

# Michael Palimaka (19 Feb 2015) # Doesn't work with current version of ruby. Dead upstream. # Masked for removal in 30 days. games-board/kaya

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in dev-python/watchdog: watchdog-0.8.3.ebuild ChangeLog

On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 7:08 PM, Patrick Lauer wrote: > On Wednesday 18 February 2015 18:43:59 hasufell wrote: >> Is there a communication problem? >> >> I don't remember getting either: >> * a bug report >> * a ping >> * a review request >> >> Did I miss something? > > Yes. > > Why is this packag

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in dev-python/watchdog: watchdog-0.8.3.ebuild ChangeLog

On Thursday 19 February 2015 00:48:18 hasufell wrote: > Patrick Lauer: > > Why is this package metadata missing the python herd for no reason? > > Because the python herd doesn't currently maintain the package, nor did > they ask me to be co-maintainers. > So you put a python package in the dev-

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in dev-python/watchdog: watchdog-0.8.3.ebuild ChangeLog

Patrick Lauer: > > Why is this package metadata missing the python herd for no reason? > Because the python herd doesn't currently maintain the package, nor did they ask me to be co-maintainers. > Also > Why are you pretending to own packages when we're supposed to be working > together as a c

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in dev-python/watchdog: watchdog-0.8.3.ebuild ChangeLog

On Wednesday 18 February 2015 18:43:59 hasufell wrote: > Is there a communication problem? > > I don't remember getting either: > * a bug report > * a ping > * a review request > > Did I miss something? Yes. Why is this package metadata missing the python herd for no reason? Also Why are you

Re: [gentoo-dev] arm64 update

On 02/18/15 15:32, C Bergström wrote: On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 3:27 AM, Tom Gall wrote: So first, for those interested in cheap arm64 hardware, the first 96 board is going to start shipping in March for ~$129. The HiKey board is an 8 way 64 bit ARM board with 8 A53 cores. (No A57s bummer!) Onl

Re: [gentoo-dev] arm64 update

> On Feb 18, 2015, at 2:32 PM, C Bergström wrote: > > > > On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 3:27 AM, Tom Gall > wrote: > So first, for those interested in cheap arm64 hardware, the first 96 board is > going to start shipping in March for ~$129. The HiKey board is an 8 way 64

[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in eclass: fcaps.eclass

Dnia 2015-02-18, o godz. 16:11:53 "Mike Frysinger (vapier)" napisał(a): > vapier 15/02/18 16:11:53 > > Modified: fcaps.eclass > Log: > clarify USE=filecaps intention #540430 > > Revision ChangesPath > 1.11 eclass/fcaps.eclass Please commit the missin

Re: [gentoo-dev] arm64 update

On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 3:27 AM, Tom Gall wrote: > So first, for those interested in cheap arm64 hardware, the first 96 board > is going to start shipping in March for ~$129. The HiKey board is an 8 way > 64 bit ARM board with 8 A53 cores. (No A57s bummer!) Only had a gig of > memory on the boar

[gentoo-dev] arm64 update

So first, for those interested in cheap arm64 hardware, the first 96 board is going to start shipping in March for ~$129. The HiKey board is an 8 way 64 bit ARM board with 8 A53 cores. (No A57s bummer!) Only had a gig of memory on the board but it’s not a bad device. I’ve had one for about 2-3

[gentoo-dev] Mailing list for ebuild review

The topic of a review workflow comes up frequently, but Gitlab, Gerrit, etc. are blocked on a host of other problems that may never be resolved. It would still be nice to be able to request reviews somewhere, and for ebuilds, a mailing list combined with a threaded MUA works fine. Would anyone els

[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in dev-python/watchdog: watchdog-0.8.3.ebuild ChangeLog

Is there a communication problem? I don't remember getting either: * a bug report * a ping * a review request Did I miss something? Justin Lecher (jlec): > jlec15/02/17 13:39:15 > > Modified: ChangeLog > Added:watchdog-0.8.3.ebuild > Log: > Version B

Re: [gentoo-dev] Making more repoman checks fatal

Patrick Lauer: > "ebuild.badheader", That would break repoman for the majority of overlays. You don't really expect overlay maintainers to follow gentoo copyright, do you? Really... before repoman is fixed, none of this will happen (or people will just run a hacked repoman version).

Re: [gentoo-dev] ebuild copyright assignment

On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 9:07 AM, Peter Stuge wrote: > Rich Freeman wrote: >> >> The only things devs need to do with respect to copyright is follow >> the law > > Ah, but which law? I understand that law in e.g. Germany does not > permit non-natural persons to own copyright. The public domain > co

[gentoo-dev] Re: [PATCH] qmake-utils.eclass: add qt{4,5}_get_bindir helper functions

On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 12:58 PM, Ben de Groot wrote: > The attached patch proposes two helper functions to be added to > qmake-utils.eclass. These functions echo the correct directory where > qt binaries such as moc and lrelease are located. They can be used in > ebuilds when such binaries need t

Re: [gentoo-dev] ebuild copyright assignment

Rich Freeman wrote: > >> This is part of the set of topics which we > >> cover outside the scope of the quizzes. > > > > A brief comment from reality is that this legal problem is quit > > likely a significant hurdle for many potential developers - as for me. > > > > If you want contributing to be

Re: [gentoo-dev] ebuild copyright assignment

On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 7:28 AM, Peter Stuge wrote: > Justin (jlec) wrote: >> This is part of the set of topics which we >> cover outside the scope of the quizzes. > > A brief comment from reality is that this legal problem is quit > likely a significant hurdle for many potential developers - as f

Re: [gentoo-dev] ebuild copyright assignment

Justin (jlec) wrote: > This is part of the set of topics which we > cover outside the scope of the quizzes. A brief comment from reality is that this legal problem is quit likely a significant hurdle for many potential developers - as for me. If you want contributing to be easy, overhead like thi

[gentoo-dev] [PATCH] qmake-utils.eclass: add qt{4,5}_get_bindir helper functions

The attached patch proposes two helper functions to be added to qmake-utils.eclass. These functions echo the correct directory where qt binaries such as moc and lrelease are located. They can be used in ebuilds when such binaries need to be called directly. (Ebuilds should not rely on qtchooser for

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: About reducing or even removing stable tree for some arches

El mié, 18-02-2015 a las 03:11 +, Duncan escribió: > Pacho Ramos posted on Mon, 16 Feb 2015 14:34:50 +0100 as excerpted: > > > 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 key

Re: [gentoo-dev] ebuild copyright assignment

On 18/02/15 09:48, Jeroen Roovers wrote: > On Wed, 18 Feb 2015 09:34:21 +0100 > "Justin (jlec)" wrote: > >> At the end of the review session we ask the recruits to fix an ebuild >> which has numerous technical and, as mentioned, legal aspects to take >> care of. > > That's a novelty I wasn't awa

Re: [gentoo-dev] ebuild copyright assignment

On Wed, 18 Feb 2015 09:34:21 +0100 "Justin (jlec)" wrote: > At the end of the review session we ask the recruits to fix an ebuild > which has numerous technical and, as mentioned, legal aspects to take > care of. That's a novelty I wasn't aware of, then. The technical practicalities of copyright

Re: [gentoo-dev] ebuild copyright assignment

On 18/02/15 09:12, Jeroen Roovers wrote: > On Wed, 18 Feb 2015 08:48:19 +0100 > "Justin (jlec)" wrote: > >> On 18/02/15 08:40, Jeroen Roovers wrote: >>> I seem to recall the developer quizzes may have had (or indeed >>> requested) some more information on this matter. >> >> The test ebuild focuse

Re: [gentoo-dev] ebuild copyright assignment

On Wed, 18 Feb 2015 08:48:19 +0100 "Justin (jlec)" wrote: > On 18/02/15 08:40, Jeroen Roovers wrote: > > I seem to recall the developer quizzes may have had (or indeed > > requested) some more information on this matter. > > The test ebuild focuses on this topic. What is that? jer