On Wednesday 19 December 2012 18:56:10 Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Friday 14 December 2012 02:49:08 George Shapovalov wrote:
> > On Thursday 13 December 2012 12:59:40 Jory A. Pratt wrote:
> > > But to keep ebuilds for ex. gcc around for over 5 years is just insane.
> >
> > I would argue, that stuff
On Thursday 13 December 2012 13:59:40 Jory A. Pratt wrote:
> Well there are exceptions to every rule, it is the ideal to get a
> discussion to make a better decision as to when a revision of a package
> should be removed and no longer supported. Well many slots can be useful
> for many packages, th
On Friday 14 December 2012 02:49:08 George Shapovalov wrote:
> On Thursday 13 December 2012 12:59:40 Jory A. Pratt wrote:
> > But to keep ebuilds for ex. gcc around for over 5 years is just insane.
>
> I would argue, that stuff like gcc and some other system packages should be
> kept forewer. One
El jue, 13-12-2012 a las 21:51 -0600, William Hubbs escribió:
[...]
> > > I'm wondering if packages assigned to maintainer-needed should be
> > > looked at and removed since no one cares about them after they have
> > > sat there for a certain amount of time?
> >
> > They are, aren't they? treecl
> "WH" == William Hubbs writes:
WH> For example, glibc-2.9 and gcc-2.95. I think that if we are going to
WH> keep things this old in the tree we need a good reason for them.
gcc-2.95 is still the current version for some non-mainstream dist+
architecture tuples. The ability to test whether
On Thu, 13 Dec 2012 21:25:59 +
Markos Chandras wrote:
> We also have 720 packages listed as maintainer-needed[1] meaning
> nobody is actually taking care of them.
> And this number is pretty scary.
> [1]http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/qa/treecleaners/maintainer-needed.xml
Why is the number 72
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 13/12/12 10:51 PM, William Hubbs wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 10:06:34PM -0500, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256
>>
>> On 13/12/12 06:49 PM, William Hubbs wrote:
>>> For example, glibc-2.9 and gcc-2.9
On 14 December 2012 07:56, George Shapovalov wrote:
> On Thursday 13 December 2012 21:25:59 Markos Chandras wrote:
>> We also have 720 packages listed as maintainer-needed[1] meaning
>> nobody is actually taking care of them.
>> And this number is pretty scary.
> Scary how?
> With over 15000 packa
On 14 December 2012 06:21, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn
wrote:
> William Hubbs schrieb:
For example, glibc-2.9 and gcc-2.95. I think that if we are going
to keep things this old in the tree we need a good reason for
them.
>>>
>>> iirc, gcc-2.95 and linux-2.4 (still used for some emb
On Thursday 13 December 2012 21:25:59 Markos Chandras wrote:
> We also have 720 packages listed as maintainer-needed[1] meaning
> nobody is actually taking care of them.
> And this number is pretty scary.
Scary how?
With over 15000 packages total by now (in only the official tree; or even
more, wh
On Thursday 13 December 2012 12:59:40 Jory A. Pratt wrote:
> But to keep ebuilds for ex. gcc around for over 5 years is just insane.
What?
I would argue, that stuff like gcc and some other system packages should be
kept forewer. One (working) version per SLOT is enough, but these should just
stay
William Hubbs schrieb:
>>> For example, glibc-2.9 and gcc-2.95. I think that if we are going
>>> to keep things this old in the tree we need a good reason for
>>> them.
>>
>> iirc, gcc-2.95 and linux-2.4 (still used for some embedded systems)
>> play best together.
>
> I'm not sure how strong this
On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 12:07 AM, William Hubbs wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 05:57:16PM -0500, Mike Gilbert wrote:
>> I am sure that some people find it very handy to have old gcc ebuilds
>> around. It might come in handy for testing.
>
> Testhing what?
>
Maybe to see if my code works with ol
On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 05:57:16PM -0500, Mike Gilbert wrote:
> I am sure that some people find it very handy to have old gcc ebuilds
> around. It might come in handy for testing.
Testhing what?
> It doesn't matter if they can't compile the latest kernel. If someone
> files a bug for that, it get
On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 10:06:34PM -0500, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA256
>
> On 13/12/12 06:49 PM, William Hubbs wrote:
> > For example, glibc-2.9 and gcc-2.95. I think that if we are going
> > to keep things this old in the tree we need a good reason f
On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 10:04 PM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
> +1 , the ability to install older versions of software or legacy
> software is one of the reasons I switched to Gentoo in the first
> place. There is of course a point when these packages can no longer
> be maintained, but until that hap
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 13/12/12 06:49 PM, William Hubbs wrote:
> For example, glibc-2.9 and gcc-2.95. I think that if we are going
> to keep things this old in the tree we need a good reason for
> them.
iirc, gcc-2.95 and linux-2.4 (still used for some embedded systems
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 13/12/12 06:24 PM, Jeff Horelick wrote:
> On 13 December 2012 17:57, Mike Gilbert
> wrote:
>> On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 1:59 PM, Jory A. Pratt
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1
>>>
>>> On 12/13/2012 12:48 PM, Tomáš
On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 06:24:30PM -0500, Jeff Horelick wrote:
> On 13 December 2012 17:57, Mike Gilbert wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 1:59 PM, Jory A. Pratt wrote:
> >>
> >> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> >> Hash: SHA1
> >>
> >> On 12/13/2012 12:48 PM, Tomáš Chvátal wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
On 13 December 2012 17:57, Mike Gilbert wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 1:59 PM, Jory A. Pratt wrote:
>>
>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> On 12/13/2012 12:48 PM, Tomáš Chvátal wrote:
>>>
>>> But there is one big ass but. We have some packages that were
>>> stabilised las
On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 1:59 PM, Jory A. Pratt wrote:
>
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 12/13/2012 12:48 PM, Tomáš Chvátal wrote:
>>
>> But there is one big ass but. We have some packages that were
>> stabilised last time few year back and they provide multiple testing
>>
On 13 December 2012 19:28, Pacho Ramos wrote:
> El jue, 13-12-2012 a las 13:10 -0600, William Hubbs escribió:
>> I think another good reason for treecleaning a package is if upstream for
>> the package stops supporting their package and recommends that you use
>> a new package. In this situation,
El jue, 13-12-2012 a las 13:10 -0600, William Hubbs escribió:
> I think another good reason for treecleaning a package is if upstream for
> the package stops supporting their package and recommends that you use
> a new package. In this situation, once the new package hits stable,
> there is really
I think another good reason for treecleaning a package is if upstream for
the package stops supporting their package and recommends that you use
a new package. In this situation, once the new package hits stable,
there is really not a reason to keep the old package around. Instead,
any necessary tr
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 12/13/2012 12:48 PM, Tomáš Chvátal wrote:
>
> But there is one big ass but. We have some packages that were
> stabilised last time few year back and they provide multiple testing
> versions on top of that.
> Who is the one to deterimine which one s
2012/12/13 Tomáš Chvátal :
>
> But there is one big ass but. We have some packages that were
> stabilised last time few year back and they provide multiple testing
> versions on top of that.
> Who is the one to deterimine which one should go stable and which to get rid
> of?
> We had some humble t
2012/12/13 Jory A. Pratt :
>
> As many of us are aware the tree is growing to a size that is really
> unacceptable for many. We have many packages that have excessive amounts
> of versions laying around that are not used any more. Many of these
> packages with excessive revisions most likely do not
El jue, 13-12-2012 a las 12:31 -0600, Jory A. Pratt escribió:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> As many of us are aware the tree is growing to a size that is really
> unacceptable for many. We have many packages that have excessive amounts
> of versions laying around that are n
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
As many of us are aware the tree is growing to a size that is really
unacceptable for many. We have many packages that have excessive amounts
of versions laying around that are not used any more. Many of these
packages with excessive revisions most li
29 matches
Mail list logo
