On Wed, 20 Dec 2017 08:34:14 -0500
Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 20, 2017 at 4:42 AM, Alexis Ballier
> wrote:
> > On Tue, 19 Dec 2017 16:00:16 -0500
> > "Aaron W. Swenson" wrote:
> >
> >> However, what alternative do we have to throwing the patches up in
> >> a devspace?
> >
> > mirror:
Hi,
mysql project is using https://gitweb.gentoo.org/proj/mysql-extras.git/
(i.e. an own repository) to track patches.
What I like about it:
1) We track patches/changes due to using a VCS.
2) We can fetch directly from gitweb.gentoo.org, i.e. no need to adjust
SRC_URI when changing a patch. Jus
On Wed, Dec 20, 2017 at 4:42 AM, Alexis Ballier wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Dec 2017 16:00:16 -0500
> "Aaron W. Swenson" wrote:
>
>> However, what alternative do we have to throwing the patches up in a
>> devspace?
>
> mirror://gentoo, aka /space/distfiles-local/
>
That isn't a great option. This has b
On Tue, 19 Dec 2017 16:00:16 -0500
"Aaron W. Swenson" wrote:
> On 2017-12-17 14:21, Michał Górny wrote:
> > Total size of 'files' subdirectory of a package should not be
> > larger than 32 KiB. If the package needs more auxiliary files, they
> > should be put into SRC_URI e.g. via tarballs.
>
On Tue, 19 Dec 2017 20:11:04 -0600
R0b0t1 wrote:
> I forgot most files were mirrored. So the infrastructure that is the
> answer to my question is already in place. Consequently, I don't think
> there's any reason to argue against this, unless it ultimately ends up
> being a ton of work to packag
On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 4:14 PM, Elvis Pranskevichus wrote:
> On Tuesday, December 19, 2017 3:44:26 PM EST R0b0t1 wrote:
>> How easy is it to move patches to Gentoo infrastructure if the patches
>> are not provided by upstream? I am slightly uncomfortable with
>> everything being pushed to website
On 2017-12-19 21:44, R0b0t1 wrote:
> How easy is it to move patches to Gentoo infrastructure if the patches
> are not provided by upstream? I am slightly uncomfortable with
> everything being pushed to websites like GitHub by default.
Don't get me wrong but this a *dev* mailing list. Your statemen
On Tuesday, December 19, 2017 3:44:26 PM EST R0b0t1 wrote:
> How easy is it to move patches to Gentoo infrastructure if the patches
> are not provided by upstream? I am slightly uncomfortable with
> everything being pushed to websites like GitHub by default.
How are patches different from other di
And it would be nice to also recall the overlays, which can also use repoman
(and/or mgorny's travis hook for that), but at the same time have no
possibility to self-host the patches...
// well, I personally would prefer that repoman had an option to "ignore" some
(specified as an argument) of
On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 3:33 PM, Patrick Lauer wrote:
> On 12/17/17 19:39, Mike Gilbert wrote:
>> On Sun, Dec 17, 2017 at 8:21 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
>>> Hello, everyone.
>>>
>>> It's my pleasure to announce that with a majority vote the QA team has
>>> accepted a new policy. The accepted wordin
On 2017-12-17 14:21, Michał Górny wrote:
> Total size of 'files' subdirectory of a package should not be larger
> than 32 KiB. If the package needs more auxiliary files, they should
> be put into SRC_URI e.g. via tarballs.
I don’t have any strong opinions about this either way.
However, wha
On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 2:33 PM, Patrick Lauer wrote:
> On 12/17/17 19:39, Mike Gilbert wrote:
>> On Sun, Dec 17, 2017 at 8:21 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
>>> Hello, everyone.
>>>
>>> It's my pleasure to announce that with a majority vote the QA team has
>>> accepted a new policy. The accepted wordin
On 12/17/17 19:39, Mike Gilbert wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 17, 2017 at 8:21 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
>> Hello, everyone.
>>
>> It's my pleasure to announce that with a majority vote the QA team has
>> accepted a new policy. The accepted wording is:
>>
>> Total size of 'files' subdirectory of a package
On Sun, Dec 17, 2017, at 07:21 CST, Michał Górny wrote:
> Hello, everyone.
>
> It's my pleasure to announce that with a majority vote the QA team has
> accepted a new policy. The accepted wording is:
>
> Total size of 'files' subdirectory of a package should not be larger
> than 32 KiB. If t
On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 8:33 AM, Francesco Riosa wrote:
>
> On 12/18/17 14:01, Rich Freeman wrote:
>>
>> Whether we remove all files/ or the entire package dir from the repo,
>> I'd suggest that this become more standardized if we wanted to go down
>> one of these roads. Instead of sticking somet
On 12/18/17 14:01, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 7:45 AM, Francesco Riosa wrote:
>> It would be interesting instead to evaluate ways to remove _all_ files/ dirs
>> from the tree, keeping ebuilds separated from data.
> Arguably you could go a step further and not distribute even t
On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 7:45 AM, Francesco Riosa wrote:
>
> It would be interesting instead to evaluate ways to remove _all_ files/ dirs
> from the tree, keeping ebuilds separated from data.
Arguably you could go a step further and not distribute even the
ebuilds except on demand. Just have an i
On 12/17/17 14:21, Michał Górny wrote:
> ...
> Rationale
> =
>
> At this moment, syncing the repository implies fetching 'files'
> directories of all packages, even though the relevant files are used
> only when a ebuild referencing them is being built. This means that our
> users fetch
W dniu nie, 17.12.2017 o godzinie 13∶39 -0500, użytkownik Mike Gilbert
napisał:
> On Sun, Dec 17, 2017 at 8:21 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
> > Hello, everyone.
> >
> > It's my pleasure to announce that with a majority vote the QA team has
> > accepted a new policy. The accepted wording is:
> >
> >
> On Sun, 17 Dec 2017, Mike Gilbert wrote:
>> It is a policy, not an absolute rule.
> What's the difference? Is QA not going to enforce the policy?
It is described here:
https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:Quality_Assurance/Policies#General_Notes
The QA team can grant an exception if for a
On Sun, Dec 17, 2017 at 5:18 PM, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>> On Sun, 17 Dec 2017, Mike Gilbert wrote:
>
>> I just want to voice my opinion on this: as a developer, this policy
>> is a royal pain in the ass.
>
>> I would ask the council to please increase this limit to at least
>> 100 KiB, prefera
> On Sun, 17 Dec 2017, Mike Gilbert wrote:
> I just want to voice my opinion on this: as a developer, this policy
> is a royal pain in the ass.
> I would ask the council to please increase this limit to at least
> 100 KiB, preferably more.
It is a policy, not an absolute rule.
Ulrich
pgpy
On Sun, 17 Dec 2017 20:23:21 +0100
"Andreas K. Huettel" wrote:
> Am Sonntag, 17. Dezember 2017, 14:21:10 CET schrieb Michał Górny:
> > Hello, everyone.
> >
> > It's my pleasure to announce that with a majority vote the QA team has
> > accepted a new policy. The accepted wording is:
> >
> > To
On 17/12/17 20:35, Lars Wendler wrote:
>> On Sun, Dec 17, 2017 at 1:39 PM, Mike Gilbert
>> wrote:
>>> I just want to voice my opinion on this: as a developer, this
>>> policy is a royal pain in the ass.
>>>
>>> I would ask the council to please increase this limit to at
>>> least 100 KiB, prefer
Am Sun, 17 Dec 2017 13:40:35 -0500
schrieb Mike Gilbert :
> On Sun, Dec 17, 2017 at 1:39 PM, Mike Gilbert
> wrote:
> > On Sun, Dec 17, 2017 at 8:21 AM, Michał Górny
> > wrote:
> >> Hello, everyone.
> >>
> >> It's my pleasure to announce that with a majority vote the QA team
> >> has accepted a
Am Sonntag, 17. Dezember 2017, 14:21:10 CET schrieb Michał Górny:
> Hello, everyone.
>
> It's my pleasure to announce that with a majority vote the QA team has
> accepted a new policy. The accepted wording is:
>
> Total size of 'files' subdirectory of a package should not be larger
> than 32
On Sun, Dec 17, 2017 at 1:39 PM, Mike Gilbert wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 17, 2017 at 8:21 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
>> Hello, everyone.
>>
>> It's my pleasure to announce that with a majority vote the QA team has
>> accepted a new policy. The accepted wording is:
>>
>> Total size of 'files' subdirector
On Sun, Dec 17, 2017 at 8:21 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
> Hello, everyone.
>
> It's my pleasure to announce that with a majority vote the QA team has
> accepted a new policy. The accepted wording is:
>
> Total size of 'files' subdirectory of a package should not be larger
> than 32 KiB. If the pa
Hello, everyone.
It's my pleasure to announce that with a majority vote the QA team has
accepted a new policy. The accepted wording is:
Total size of 'files' subdirectory of a package should not be larger
than 32 KiB. If the package needs more auxiliary files, they should
be put into SRC_UR
29 matches
Mail list logo
