On Fri, Jul 8, 2016 at 2:50 PM, Alec Warner wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, Jul 8, 2016 at 1:21 PM, Philip Webb wrote:
>
>> 160708 William Hubbs wrote:
>> > On Fri, Jul 08, 2016 at 05:56:04PM +0300, Andrew Savchenko wrote:
>> >> IMO the criteria should be whether they work or not,
>> >> not whether upstrea
On Fri, Jul 8, 2016 at 1:21 PM, Philip Webb wrote:
> 160708 William Hubbs wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 08, 2016 at 05:56:04PM +0300, Andrew Savchenko wrote:
> >> IMO the criteria should be whether they work or not,
> >> not whether upstream is more or less active.
> >> If they're blockers on other work
Our bug queue has 97 bugs!
If you have some spare time, please help assign/sort a few bugs.
To view the bug queue, click here: http://bit.ly/m8PQS5
Thanks!
On Fri, 8 Jul 2016 19:17:44 +0300, Andrew Savchenko wrote:
> > Completely aside from the question of criteria for removing stuff from
> > the main tree, it would make a lot of users happy if every package
> > which *is* removed were added to the graveyard overlay.
>
> Good idea, since we have a
160708 William Hubbs wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 08, 2016 at 05:56:04PM +0300, Andrew Savchenko wrote:
>> IMO the criteria should be whether they work or not,
>> not whether upstream is more or less active.
>> If they're blockers on other work, by all means cull them.
>> However, if the biggest problem wi
On Fri, Jul 8, 2016 at 2:51 PM, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn
wrote:
>
> I'm sorry for harping on that topic again, but if we had used grobian's
> initial proposal for git migration[0] - one repository per package, and the
> portage tree would be an aggregation of those - then we could have such a
Rich Freeman schrieb:
On Fri, Jul 8, 2016 at 2:22 PM, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn
wrote:
I think the point of a graveyard repository is that discovering and
extracting deleted ebuilds from git is more cumbersome than from CVS attic.
It would be even better if the graveyard repository preserve
On Fri, Jul 08, 2016 at 07:17:44PM +0300, Andrew Savchenko wrote:
*snip*
> But the problem is that this way overlay will become completely
> broken in terms of both QA and security.
Once it is in an overlay, we don't care about qa or security any longer,
so this isn't a problem just a fact of de
On Fri, Jul 8, 2016 at 2:22 PM, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn
wrote:
> I think the point of a graveyard repository is that discovering and
> extracting deleted ebuilds from git is more cumbersome than from CVS attic.
>
> It would be even better if the graveyard repository preserved the commit
> his
Rich Freeman schrieb:
You say that there are no bugs in those packages. How do you know? You
don't know unless you test it, and no maintainer means nobody is known
to test it regularly. The package can be pretty much completely broken
and we'll not know unless someone tests it.
This sounds lik
On Fri, Jul 08, 2016 at 07:09:04PM +0300, Andrew Savchenko wrote:
> On Fri, 8 Jul 2016 10:01:58 -0500 William Hubbs wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 08, 2016 at 08:10:07AM -0500, james wrote:
> > > On 07/08/2016 05:17 AM, Andrew Savchenko wrote:
> > > > On Thu, 7 Jul 2016 20:30:36 -0400 Anthony G. Basile wro
On 07/08/2016 11:51 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
On Fri, 8 Jul 2016 18:33:35 +0300
Andrew Savchenko wrote:
On Fri, 8 Jul 2016 10:11:45 -0500 William Hubbs wrote:
I'm starting a new thread so this will be a completely separate
discussion.
On Fri, Jul 08, 2016 at 05:56:04PM +0300, Andrew Savchenko
On Fri, Jul 8, 2016 at 12:51 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
>
> Now, there's a significant difference between lastriting unmaintained
> packages at treecleaner's leisure and having a clean tree to work on,
> and having to figure out how many of the packages blocking some global
> change are unmaintained
On Fri, Jul 8, 2016 at 9:02 AM, Andrew Savchenko wrote:
> On Wed, 6 Jul 2016 23:13:55 +0300 Andrew Savchenko wrote:
> > On Wed, 06 Jul 2016 20:23:46 +0900 Aaron Bauman wrote:
> > > What kind of policing would you like to see councilman? Would you
> like to
> > > see me removed from the project,
On 07/08/2016 10:33 AM, Andrew Savchenko wrote:
On Fri, 8 Jul 2016 10:11:45 -0500 William Hubbs wrote:
I'm starting a new thread so this will be a completely separate
discussion.
On Fri, Jul 08, 2016 at 05:56:04PM +0300, Andrew Savchenko wrote:
On Fri, 8 Jul 2016 10:42:14 -0400 Rich Freeman wr
On Fri, 8 Jul 2016 18:33:35 +0300
Andrew Savchenko wrote:
> On Fri, 8 Jul 2016 10:11:45 -0500 William Hubbs wrote:
> > I'm starting a new thread so this will be a completely separate
> > discussion.
> >
> > On Fri, Jul 08, 2016 at 05:56:04PM +0300, Andrew Savchenko wrote:
> > > On Fri, 8 Jul 2
On Fri, 8 Jul 2016 19:09:04 +0300
Andrew Savchenko wrote:
> On Fri, 8 Jul 2016 10:01:58 -0500 William Hubbs wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 08, 2016 at 08:10:07AM -0500, james wrote:
> > > On 07/08/2016 05:17 AM, Andrew Savchenko wrote:
> > > > On Thu, 7 Jul 2016 20:30:36 -0400 Anthony G. Basile wrote
On Fri, 8 Jul 2016 10:55:49 -0500 »Q« wrote:
> On Fri, 8 Jul 2016 10:11:45 -0500
> William Hubbs wrote:
>
> > There is also an overlay for packages that are removed from the
> > official tree [1], and imo that is where old software should go if it
> > doesn't have an active maintainer.
> >
> > I
On Fri, 8 Jul 2016 10:01:58 -0500 William Hubbs wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 08, 2016 at 08:10:07AM -0500, james wrote:
> > On 07/08/2016 05:17 AM, Andrew Savchenko wrote:
> > > On Thu, 7 Jul 2016 20:30:36 -0400 Anthony G. Basile wrote:
> > >> Hi everyone,
> > >>
> > >> I emailed the list some time ago abo
On Wed, 6 Jul 2016 23:13:55 +0300 Andrew Savchenko wrote:
> On Wed, 06 Jul 2016 20:23:46 +0900 Aaron Bauman wrote:
> > What kind of policing would you like to see councilman? Would you like to
> > see me removed from the project, because your precious package was
> > p.masked? You have ignored
On Fri, 8 Jul 2016 10:11:45 -0500
William Hubbs wrote:
> There is also an overlay for packages that are removed from the
> official tree [1], and imo that is where old software should go if it
> doesn't have an active maintainer.
>
> I don't know why we haven't been using this, but using it more
On Fri, 8 Jul 2016 10:11:45 -0500 William Hubbs wrote:
> I'm starting a new thread so this will be a completely separate
> discussion.
>
> On Fri, Jul 08, 2016 at 05:56:04PM +0300, Andrew Savchenko wrote:
> > On Fri, 8 Jul 2016 10:42:14 -0400 Rich Freeman wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jul 8, 2016 at 10:30
On 7/8/16 10:42 AM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 8, 2016 at 10:30 AM, Anthony G. Basile
> wrote:
>>
>> Also there's some debate in IRC about whether or not these packages
>> should be lastrited or dropped to maintainer-needed. These forks are
>> not in good shape upstream, so I think it mak
I'm starting a new thread so this will be a completely separate
discussion.
On Fri, Jul 08, 2016 at 05:56:04PM +0300, Andrew Savchenko wrote:
> On Fri, 8 Jul 2016 10:42:14 -0400 Rich Freeman wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 8, 2016 at 10:30 AM, Anthony G. Basile
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Also there's some de
On Fri, Jul 08, 2016 at 08:10:07AM -0500, james wrote:
> On 07/08/2016 05:17 AM, Andrew Savchenko wrote:
> > On Thu, 7 Jul 2016 20:30:36 -0400 Anthony G. Basile wrote:
> >> Hi everyone,
> >>
> >> I emailed the list some time ago about giving away a bunch of bitcoin
> >> forks to see if anyone was i
On Fri, 8 Jul 2016 10:42:14 -0400 Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 8, 2016 at 10:30 AM, Anthony G. Basile
> wrote:
> >
> > Also there's some debate in IRC about whether or not these packages
> > should be lastrited or dropped to maintainer-needed. These forks are
> > not in good shape upstream,
On Fri, Jul 8, 2016 at 10:30 AM, Anthony G. Basile wrote:
>
> Also there's some debate in IRC about whether or not these packages
> should be lastrited or dropped to maintainer-needed. These forks are
> not in good shape upstream, so I think it makes better sense to
> p.mask/lastrite and then mov
Okay, I'll set the metadata.xml for both net-p2p/litecoin* and
sys-process/nmon to the following:
http://www.gentoo.org/dtd/metadata.dtd";>
marc.p...@sunny-computing.de
Marc Popp
Maintainer. Assign bugs to him
On Fri, 8 Jul 2016 08:10:07 -0500 james wrote:
> On 07/08/2016 05:17 AM, Andrew Savchenko wrote:
> > On Thu, 7 Jul 2016 20:30:36 -0400 Anthony G. Basile wrote:
> >> Hi everyone,
> >>
> >> I emailed the list some time ago about giving away a bunch of bitcoin
> >> forks to see if anyone was intereste
On 07/08/2016 05:17 AM, Andrew Savchenko wrote:
On Thu, 7 Jul 2016 20:30:36 -0400 Anthony G. Basile wrote:
Hi everyone,
I emailed the list some time ago about giving away a bunch of bitcoin
forks to see if anyone was interested in taking them. I didn't get any
feedback so as of tomorrow I'll b
On Thu, 7 Jul 2016 20:30:36 -0400 Anthony G. Basile wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> I emailed the list some time ago about giving away a bunch of bitcoin
> forks to see if anyone was interested in taking them. I didn't get any
> feedback so as of tomorrow I'll be masking the following for removal in
>
31 matches
Mail list logo
