On 12/07/17 16:06, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Jul 2017 15:49:14 +1000
> "Sam Jorna (wraeth)" wrote:
>>
>> I have trouble remembering what I ate for dinner last night, let alone
>> what I may or may not have merged a week, month or year ago, or what
>> options I used when merging it
On Wed, 12 Jul 2017 15:49:14 +1000
"Sam Jorna (wraeth)" wrote:
>
> I have trouble remembering what I ate for dinner last night, let alone
> what I may or may not have merged a week, month or year ago, or what
> options I used when merging it.
And if you used --oneshot, it is also saying you are n
On 12/07/17 15:36, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Jul 2017 15:19:32 +1000
> "Sam Jorna (wraeth)" wrote:
>
>> On 12/07/17 15:14, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote:
>>> Is it in system?
>>> Is it in a set?
>>> Is it in world?
>>> If no to all, its a dep, warn!
>>
>> All this says is whethe
On Wed, 12 Jul 2017 15:19:32 +1000
"Sam Jorna (wraeth)" wrote:
> On 12/07/17 15:14, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote:
> > Is it in system?
> > Is it in a set?
> > Is it in world?
> > If no to all, its a dep, warn!
>
> All this says is whether the package was explicitly installed and
> recorded in
On 12/07/17 15:14, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote:
> Is it in system?
> Is it in a set?
> Is it in world?
> If no to all, its a dep, warn!
All this says is whether the package was explicitly installed and
recorded in world, or is a member of @system. The target package may or
may not be a dependency
On Wed, 12 Jul 2017 15:00:30 +1000
"Sam Jorna (wraeth)" wrote:
>
> My point was that --unmerge is not intended to be dependency-aware.
> --depclean is. As far as I can tell, that is the point others have
> been trying to make as well, when pointing out the differences
> between -c and -C.
Sure b
On 12/07/17 14:43, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote:
>>> It is not the same as -C, which is remove a package directly.
>>>
>>> --unmerge (-C)
>> Correct, --unmerge will remove a package without considering
>> dependencies (give or take a few special cases). It is usually (or, at
>> least, should gen
On Wed, 12 Jul 2017 14:17:30 +1000
"Sam Jorna (wraeth)" wrote:
>
> --depclean is doing exactly what it is supposed to. If called with no
Problem is I was talking about removing packages directly. It served no
purpose in this discussion.
Since I use --depclean, not -c. I was assuming -c was unmer
On 12/07/17 10:05, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote:
> I should have caught that sooner. -c does not remove a package, it just
> removes its deps.
>
> -c == --depclean.
--depclean is doing exactly what it is supposed to. If called with no
arguments, it searches for any unneeded dependencies and remov
On Wed, 12 Jul 2017 00:00:24 -0400
"William L. Thomson Jr." wrote:
> Again I do much of this via ansible and profiles. I am not even using
> a world file, or sets even. I did use sets before my custom profiles.
> Did I always use -1 for the past over a decade no? Should all users
> have to in ord
On Wed, 12 Jul 2017 04:43:41 +0100
"M. J. Everitt" wrote:
>
> Of course, you can do what Poettering did, and write your own solution
> .. or fork portage to do things the way -you- want .. but don't
> reinvent the wheel for the rest of us .. that's what Choice and
> Gentoo is all about ...
Its
On Tue, 11 Jul 2017 23:22:12 -0400
"Walter Dnes" wrote:
>
> Step back for a minute, and relax. There is a reason you're getting
> blowback. You're asking for changes that would affect everybody else.
> This is similar in principle to what Lennart Poettering did, and
> you're getting the same
On 12/07/17 04:22, Walter Dnes wrote:
>
> Step back for a minute, and relax. There is a reason you're getting
> blowback. You're asking for changes that would affect everybody else.
> This is similar in principle to what Lennart Poettering did, and you're
> getting the same reaction he got. I
On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 04:57:21PM -0400, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote
> On Tue, 11 Jul 2017 13:27:57 -0700
> Daniel Campbell wrote:
>
> > Portage's fault. If you don't want a package added to a set or world,
> > you'll need to use the -1 (--oneshot) option.
>
> Did you even read above? I clearl
On Sat, 8 Jul 2017 18:20:54 -0400
"William L. Thomson Jr." wrote:
> For anyone interested in such, I opened a feature request bug for
> allowing use of sets in profile packages.
>
> https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=624300
>
Subsequent bugs from the discussion
portage should not add sy
On Tue, 11 Jul 2017 14:32:27 -0700
Daniel Campbell wrote:
>
> I understand where you're coming from, I just thought to give a few
> tips to make life a bit easier for you since it works out pretty well
> for myself. I think your idea has merit, just unsure of where the
> functionality goes, since
On 12/07/17 03:16, William Hubbs wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 11:47:32PM +1000, Michael Palimaka wrote:
>> On 07/11/2017 11:06 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 8:59 AM, Michael Palimaka
>>> wrote:
On 07/11/2017 09:29 AM, Andrew Savchenko wrote:
>
> Even if such
Ühel kenal päeval, K, 12.07.2017 kell 00:13, kirjutas Thomas
Deutschmann:
> Let's try Debian's testing
> approach and move packages to ARCH in time and don't wait for some
> magical appearing bug reports because someone really tested a package
> in
> ~ARCH. Severe problems will be reported anyways.
On 07/12/2017 12:13 AM, Thomas Deutschmann wrote:
> Question is what's more a problem: Having an outdated stable package
> because nobody cared about stabilizing a new version (in most cases this
> will end with a rushed stabilization once a security bug was fixed in
> the package) or move a packag
>>> Anecdotal evidence against, currently gnupg 2.1.21 scdaemon bug will
>>> happily sign a third party public keyblock's UID using signature subkey
>>> on smartcard, which results in useless signature that doesn't have any
>>> effect, but the application builds fine.
>>>
>>> This means gnupg 2.1.2
On 07/11/2017 01:57 PM, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Jul 2017 13:27:57 -0700
> Daniel Campbell wrote:
>
>> On 07/10/2017 04:37 PM, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote:
>>> On Mon, 10 Jul 2017 19:22:47 -0400
>>
>>> A rule for portage could be;
>>>
>>> - If the package is not in world and a
On 07/11/2017 04:21 PM, Michael Palimaka wrote:
> On 07/12/2017 12:15 AM, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote:
>> On 07/11/2017 04:13 PM, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote:
>>> On 07/11/2017 03:47 PM, Michael Palimaka wrote:
The main risk of breakage of a package moving from testing to
stable is always
On Tue, 11 Jul 2017 13:27:57 -0700
Daniel Campbell wrote:
> On 07/10/2017 04:37 PM, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote:
> > On Mon, 10 Jul 2017 19:22:47 -0400
>
> > A rule for portage could be;
> >
> > - If the package is not in world and already installed. Do not add
> > the package to world. If you
On 07/11/2017 01:27 PM, Daniel Campbell wrote:
> On 07/10/2017 04:37 PM, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote:
>> On Mon, 10 Jul 2017 19:22:47 -0400
>> "William L. Thomson Jr." wrote:
>>>
>>> That part does not require it to resolve deps. Just check world file,
>>> assuming its correct. Though could be th
On 07/10/2017 04:37 PM, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Jul 2017 19:22:47 -0400
> "William L. Thomson Jr." wrote:
>>
>> That part does not require it to resolve deps. Just check world file,
>> assuming its correct. Though could be thrown off if say gcc, or
>> another was in the world fi
On 07/10/2017 10:22 AM, Agostino Sarubbo wrote:
> Hi all.
>
> every time that I attach my tmux session to see what happens on irc, I always
> see the same discussion about the 'minor' arches status.
> Since I joined gentoo(2011) I worked on all arches except hppa, I put more
> effort in amd64 an
On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 11:47:32PM +1000, Michael Palimaka wrote:
> On 07/11/2017 11:06 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 8:59 AM, Michael Palimaka
> > wrote:
> >> On 07/11/2017 09:29 AM, Andrew Savchenko wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Even if such stabilization is allowed, there are unansw
On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 10:35 AM, Michael Palimaka
wrote:
> On 07/12/2017 12:25 AM, James Le Cuirot wrote:
>> On Tue, 11 Jul 2017 16:15:51 +0200
>> Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote:
>>
>>> On 07/11/2017 04:13 PM, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote:
On 07/11/2017 03:47 PM, Michael Palimaka wrote:
> T
On 07/12/2017 12:25 AM, James Le Cuirot wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Jul 2017 16:15:51 +0200
> Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote:
>
>> On 07/11/2017 04:13 PM, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote:
>>> On 07/11/2017 03:47 PM, Michael Palimaka wrote:
The main risk of breakage of a package moving from testing to
>>>
On Tue, 11 Jul 2017 16:15:51 +0200
Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote:
> On 07/11/2017 04:13 PM, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote:
> > On 07/11/2017 03:47 PM, Michael Palimaka wrote:
> >> The main risk of breakage of a package moving from testing to
> >> stable is always at build time anyway.
> >
> > ci
On 07/12/2017 12:15 AM, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote:
> On 07/11/2017 04:13 PM, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote:
>> On 07/11/2017 03:47 PM, Michael Palimaka wrote:
>>> The main risk of breakage of a package moving from testing to
>>> stable is always at build time anyway.
>>
>> citation needed
>>
>
> A
On 07/12/2017 12:13 AM, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote:
> On 07/11/2017 03:47 PM, Michael Palimaka wrote:
>> The main risk of breakage of a package moving from testing to
>> stable is always at build time anyway.
>
> citation needed
>
Based on my experience doing package testing in stabilisation wo
On 07/11/2017 04:13 PM, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote:
> On 07/11/2017 03:47 PM, Michael Palimaka wrote:
>> The main risk of breakage of a package moving from testing to
>> stable is always at build time anyway.
>
> citation needed
>
Anecdotal evidence against, currently gnupg 2.1.21 scdaemon bug
On 07/11/2017 03:47 PM, Michael Palimaka wrote:
> The main risk of breakage of a package moving from testing to
> stable is always at build time anyway.
citation needed
--
Kristian Fiskerstrand
OpenPGP keyblock reachable at hkp://pool.sks-keyservers.net
fpr:94CB AFDD 3034 5109 5618 35AA 0B7F 8B6
On 07/11/2017 11:06 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 8:59 AM, Michael Palimaka
> wrote:
>> On 07/11/2017 09:29 AM, Andrew Savchenko wrote:
>>>
>>> Even if such stabilization is allowed, there are unanswered
>>> questions here:
>>> - is following seciton 4.1 from wg recommendation
Am 11.07.2017 um 15:21 schrieb Igor Savlook:
> On Tue, 2017-07-11 at 07:28 +0200, Thomas - LordVan - Raschbacher
> wrote:
>> Hi.
>>
>> I decided to either give up maintainership of spambayes (not that
>> there
>> were any releases in the last 5+ years anyway).
>>
>> Anyone interested? if not I'll c
On Tue, 2017-07-11 at 07:28 +0200, Thomas - LordVan - Raschbacher
wrote:
> Hi.
>
> I decided to either give up maintainership of spambayes (not that
> there
> were any releases in the last 5+ years anyway).
>
> Anyone interested? if not I'll change it to maintainer-needed (or
> maybe
> just treec
On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 8:59 AM, Michael Palimaka wrote:
> On 07/11/2017 09:29 AM, Andrew Savchenko wrote:
>>
>> Even if such stabilization is allowed, there are unanswered
>> questions here:
>> - is following seciton 4.1 from wg recommendations is sufficient?
>> - should developer test each stabi
On 07/11/2017 09:29 AM, Andrew Savchenko wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Jul 2017 22:17:34 +0200 Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote:
>> On 07/10/2017 10:02 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 3:57 PM, Andrew Savchenko
>>> wrote:
On Mon, 10 Jul 2017 13:49:40 -0400 Rich Freeman wrote:
>
On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 7:54 PM, Andrew Savchenko wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Jul 2017 16:27:54 -0400 Rich Freeman wrote:
>> On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 4:05 PM, M. J. Everitt wrote:
>> > This is why stabilisation, if not for individual package maintainers on
>> > amd64, has become a joke, save for Ago's eff
Thanks all for the 'appreciation'.
I'd like to remember that I'm not going away nor I'm retiring, I will just
avoid to touch stabilizations, unless the stable package is part of my
interest.
I'd like also to reminder that in the past I monitored the bugs via the
bugzilla UI, and in the recent
El lun, 10-07-2017 a las 11:55 -0500, William Hubbs escribió:
> On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 01:04:10PM +0200, Pacho Ramos wrote:
> > Hello
> >
> > Looking to the list of packages still not supporting python 3.5:
> > https://qa-reports.gentoo.org/output/gpyutils/34-to-35.txt
> >
> > and considering th
> On Mon, 10 Jul 2017, William L Thomson wrote:
> Stop getting lost in the weeds
> You all are making this about -c vs -C. I am not talking about that!
> LET ME CLARIFY
> [...] SHOULD [...] PERIOD. NOTHING [...]
> So PLEASE stop with that!
Right. Please stop shouting in the gentoo-
On Mon, 10 Jul 2017 19:22:20 +0200 Agostino Sarubbo wrote:
>Hi all.
>
>every time that I attach my tmux session to see what happens on irc, I
>always see the same discussion about the 'minor' arches status.
>Since I joined gentoo(2011) I worked on all arches except hppa, I put
>more effort in amd6
44 matches
Mail list logo
