-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On Mon, 12 Oct 2015 23:49:11 +0200
"Andreas K. Huettel" wrote:
> There seems to be some general confusion about specific package SLOTs
> and their meaning, since there can be several naming schemes applied
> and documentation is either non-existent
On Mon, 12 Oct 2015 20:01:15 +0200
hasufell wrote:
> On 10/12/2015 07:49 PM, Alexis Ballier wrote:
> > On Mon, 12 Oct 2015 19:19:33 +0200
> > Julian Ospald wrote:
> >
> >> There seems to be some general confusion about specific package
> >> SLOTs and their meaning, since there can be several na
Am Montag, 12. Oktober 2015, 19:19:33 schrieb Julian Ospald:
> An example use case for media-libs/libpng would be:
>
> For building against. This is the only slot
> that provides headers and command line tools.
> For binary compatibility, provides
> libpng12.so.0. For binary compat
Just a comment before this discussion gets entirely side tracked.
On Mon, Oct 12, 2015, at 11:45 CDT, Ian Delaney wrote:
> [...]
> Users are neither seasoned nor prepared for the type of review put
> upon them by him and mgorny.
My impression is that the reception of the code review on githu
On Mon, 12 Oct 2015 20:01:15 +0200
hasufell wrote:
> On 10/12/2015 07:49 PM, Alexis Ballier wrote:
> > On Mon, 12 Oct 2015 19:19:33 +0200
> > Julian Ospald wrote:
> >
> >> There seems to be some general confusion about specific package
> >> SLOTs and their meaning, since there can be several
On 10/12/2015 07:49 PM, Alexis Ballier wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Oct 2015 19:19:33 +0200
> Julian Ospald wrote:
>
>> There seems to be some general confusion about specific package SLOTs
>> and their meaning, since there can be several naming schemes applied
>> and documentation is either non-existent
On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 1:44 PM, Alec Warner wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 3:58 AM, Rich Freeman wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, Oct 11, 2015 at 11:35 PM, Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote:
>> >
>> > It is, however, worth repeating that in git, commits are entirely
>> > separate from pushes and are
On Mon, 12 Oct 2015 19:19:33 +0200
Julian Ospald wrote:
> There seems to be some general confusion about specific package SLOTs
> and their meaning, since there can be several naming schemes applied
> and documentation is either non-existent or is inside the ebuild via
> comments.
> Because of th
On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 3:58 AM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 11, 2015 at 11:35 PM, Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote:
> >
> > It is, however, worth repeating that in git, commits are entirely
> > separate from pushes and are very (as in, extremely!) cheap, while
> > pushes, particularly i
There seems to be some general confusion about specific package SLOTs
and their meaning, since there can be several naming schemes applied
and documentation is either non-existent or is inside the ebuild via
comments.
Because of that it should be part of metadata.xml.
An example use case for media
The following patch tries to address the lack of slot
documentation, since getting the slots of a dependency
right seems like a common problem.
Things that I was particularly not sure about: the 'subslots'
element. Having a sub-element for 'slot' seemed even more
messy, so I tried to make this as
Taking a random commit to explain a recent-yet-common mistake.
> dev-python/subunit: Add python3.5 support
>
> [...]
>
> dev-python/subunit/subunit-1.1.0-r1.ebuild | 90
> ++
> 1 file changed, 90 insertions(+)
Let's make this clear once and for all: there is no need
On Mon, 12 Oct 2015 13:13:15 +0800
Ian Delaney wrote:
> The main target learners here are keen users. You can take told a
> mistake with the background and status of a dev. They don't. They are
> often intimidated and fearful if gentoo devs. We wonder why.
So how about letting them that if they m
On Mon, 12 Oct 2015 08:19:34 -0700
Matt Turner wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 7:23 AM, hasufell wrote:
> >
> > I'm not a native speaker and people have more than once told you
> > that your language is difficult to understand.
> >
> > So, can you elaborate what your sarcastic (that's how I rea
On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 7:23 AM, hasufell wrote:
> On 10/12/2015 04:12 PM, Ian Delaney wrote:
>> On Mon, 12 Oct 2015 15:47:19 +0200
>> hasufell wrote:
>>
>>> On 10/12/2015 03:29 PM, Ian Delaney wrote:
Not sure how to read this. The whole idea is for provider / client
to communicate
On Mon, 12 Oct 2015 15:53:42 +0200
hasufell wrote:
> On 10/12/2015 03:41 PM, Alexis Ballier wrote:
> >
> > They might have failed to notify it,
>
> I did that 2 hours ago already on this thread. What does that tell
> us ;)
yes, I noticed from there :p
what I meant was rather that it hadn't
On 10/12/2015 04:12 PM, Ian Delaney wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Oct 2015 15:47:19 +0200
> hasufell wrote:
>
>> On 10/12/2015 03:29 PM, Ian Delaney wrote:
>>>
>>> Not sure how to read this. The whole idea is for provider / client
>>> to communicate and negotiate a workable solution. At a glance this
>>> r
On Mon, 12 Oct 2015 15:47:19 +0200
hasufell wrote:
> On 10/12/2015 03:29 PM, Ian Delaney wrote:
> >
> > Not sure how to read this. The whole idea is for provider / client
> > to communicate and negotiate a workable solution. At a glance this
> > reads as the user needs to adapt to the service th
On 10/12/2015 03:51 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> That's why I
> suggested a top-5 list or something like that, which would have weeded
> out false positives and focus more on resolutions and trends than
> individual incidents.
>
https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:Reviewers/Common_issues
On 10/12/2015 03:58 PM, wraeth wrote:
> I don't expect everything to have been within the N^th degree of
> perfection from day one; and I honestly hope the Reviewers project
> finds its feet and benefits the community; I just believe that it's
> first day could have been handled better.
>
We've h
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 12/10/15 22:15, hasufell wrote:
> On 10/12/2015 06:44 AM, wraeth wrote:
>>
>> I am aware of this and that it has been the way for quite some
>> time. However, while it may be the norm in the wider FOSS
>> community, it has not been the norm on t
On 10/12/2015 03:41 PM, Alexis Ballier wrote:
>
> They might have failed to notify it,
I did that 2 hours ago already on this thread. What does that tell us ;)
but I think they've taken into
> account most, if not all, of the problems that had been pointed out:
> https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Pr
On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 9:29 AM, Ian Delaney wrote:
>
> Not sure how to read this. The whole idea is for provider / client to
> communicate and negotiate a workable solution. At a glance this reads
> as the user needs to adapt to the service that the client is offering
> and appease the provider.
On 10/12/2015 03:29 PM, Ian Delaney wrote:
>
> Not sure how to read this. The whole idea is for provider / client to
> communicate and negotiate a workable solution. At a glance this reads
> as the user needs to adapt to the service that the client is offering
> and appease the provider. What's wr
On Mon, 12 Oct 2015 21:29:26 +0800
Ian Delaney wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Oct 2015 13:16:01 +0200
> hasufell wrote:
>
> > On 10/12/2015 06:56 AM, Matt Turner wrote:
> > >
> > > So work with the reviewers to ensure the communication is tactful
> > > and graceful.
> > >
> >
> > That would be appre
On Mon, 12 Oct 2015 13:16:01 +0200
hasufell wrote:
> On 10/12/2015 06:56 AM, Matt Turner wrote:
> >
> > So work with the reviewers to ensure the communication is tactful
> > and graceful.
> >
>
> That would be appreciated. So far, we mostly got people complaining
> (and some setting up sieve f
On 10/12/2015 06:56 AM, Matt Turner wrote:
>
> So work with the reviewers to ensure the communication is tactful and
> graceful.
>
That would be appreciated. So far, we mostly got people complaining (and
some setting up sieve filters to throw all our mails to trash), but not
people offering hel
On 10/12/2015 06:44 AM, wraeth wrote:
>
> I am aware of this and that it has been the way for quite
> some time. However, while it may be the norm in the wider FOSS
> community, it has not been the norm on the gentoo-dev list - certainly
> people will post things specifically for review, or may hi
On Sun, Oct 11, 2015 at 11:35 PM, Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> It is, however, worth repeating that in git, commits are entirely
> separate from pushes and are very (as in, extremely!) cheap, while
> pushes, particularly if properly repoman-checked, are obviously much more
> expensive.
On Sat, 10 Oct 2015, hasufell wrote:
I am a bit confused how this is a bump to "1.2.16". Is just the commit
message wrong or what happened here?
There was a bump in c473e4fcbe3a17d7bc98d3fa1c19624687774165 afais.
And why was BV_X64_MACOS changed?
Sorry for the confusion. When I did it, I haven'
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 12/10/15 15:56, Matt Turner wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 11, 2015 at 9:44 PM, wraeth
> wrote:
>> This education process was implemented in a way that
>> indiscriminately pointed the finger at contributors, developer
>> and user alike, sometimes
>
> I th
Dnia 2015-10-10, o godz. 17:48:15
William Hubbs napisał(a):
> fhs 3.0 was approved in June this year [1] [2].
>
> The piece of it that I want to bring up is the lib and libxx
> directories, both in / and /usr. The way I read the fhs, /lib and
> /usr/lib should hold the files for the default abi
On 10/10/15 14:25, hasufell wrote:
> On 10/10/2015 02:24 PM, Fabian Groffen wrote:
>> On 10-10-2015 14:19:44 +0200, hasufell wrote:
+RDEPEND="
+ !libressl? ( dev-libs/openssl:0 )
+ libressl? ( dev-libs/libressl )
+ sys-libs/zlib
+ net-libs/http-parser
>>> Please order
On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 06:56:27AM +0200, Cor Legemaat wrote:
> Hi:
>
> I created a ebuild with a patch for xf86-input-evdev to try and
> debounce my mouse button. The ebuild is at
> https://github.com/cor-mt/portage-overlay/blob/master/x11-drivers/xf86-input-evdev/xf86-input-evdev-2.9.2-r1.ebu
34 matches
Mail list logo
