On 1/27/12 10:41 AM, Thomas Kahle wrote:
> On 15:23 Wed 18 Jan 2012, Agostino Sarubbo wrote:
> [...]
>
>> 5) If is a library, obviously, we can try to rebuild stable RDEPENDS in tree
>> and an easy way to check the list of rdepend is asking our bot:
>> !rdep ${package}
>> Unfortunately it print
On 15:23 Wed 18 Jan 2012, Agostino Sarubbo wrote:
[...]
> 5) If is a library, obviously, we can try to rebuild stable RDEPENDS in tree
> and an easy way to check the list of rdepend is asking our bot:
> !rdep ${package}
> Unfortunately it prints a complete list of RDEPEND(stable+testing), and i
On Wednesday 18 January 2012 22:41:26 Mike Gilbert wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 10:05 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > - you're confusing the literal @system with implicit system deps
>
> I don't quite follow here. By "implicit system deps", are you
> referring to the "common sense" set of essen
On Thursday 19 January 2012 09:04:08 Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 10:05 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > if it's part of the implicit system dep, they absolutely need to defend
> > their actions. you want to change the policy, then start a thread on
> > it.
>
> What policy? I don'
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 18/01/12 10:41 PM, Mike Gilbert wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 10:05 PM, Mike Frysinger
> wrote:
>> - you're confusing the literal @system with implicit system deps
>
> I don't quite follow here.
>
literal @system = the exact packages listed
On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 10:05 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> if it's part of the implicit system dep, they absolutely need to defend their
> actions. you want to change the policy, then start a thread on it.
What policy? I don't see any written policy stating that you aren't
allowed to include sys
On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 10:05 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> - you're confusing the literal @system with implicit system deps
I don't quite follow here. By "implicit system deps", are you
referring to the "common sense" set of essential packages that you
have floating around in that brain of yours?
On Wednesday 18 January 2012 15:45:04 Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 3:01 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > it is a problem. not all profiles use "coreutils" ... they provide
> > replacement packages. busybox is just one example. the bsd/prefix guys
> > go in even weirder directions.
On Wednesday 18 January 2012 11:55:30 Alexis Ballier wrote:
> > 3) Check your rdepend, where is possible with scanelf[3] and if you
> > declare it, please, as you said, exclude gcc/glibc and all package
> > from @system
>
> imho this has nothing to do with stabilization
There is a misunderstading
On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 3:01 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> it is a problem. not all profiles use "coreutils" ... they provide
> replacement
> packages. busybox is just one example. the bsd/prefix guys go in even
> weirder
> directions.
Yup - hence my point about coreutils not being a good one
On Wednesday 18 January 2012 14:02:01 Markos Chandras wrote:
> On 01/18/2012 05:32 PM, "Paweł Hajdan, Jr." wrote:
> > On 1/18/12 4:48 PM, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> >> On 10:05 Wed 18 Jan , Mike Frysinger wrote:
> >>> On Wednesday 18 January 2012 09:23:00 Agostino Sarubbo wrote:
> 3) Check y
On Wednesday 18 January 2012 13:42:12 Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 11:45 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > it isn't just circular deps. it's also about breaking alternatives and
> > useless bloat. adding "coreutils" to their depend because they execute
> > `mv`, or "sed" because they
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 01/18/2012 05:32 PM, "Paweł Hajdan, Jr." wrote:
> On 1/18/12 4:48 PM, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
>> On 10:05 Wed 18 Jan , Mike Frysinger wrote:
>>> On Wednesday 18 January 2012 09:23:00 Agostino Sarubbo wrote:
3) Check your rdepend, where is
On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 11:45 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> it isn't just circular deps. it's also about breaking alternatives and
> useless bloat. adding "coreutils" to their depend because they execute `mv`,
> or "sed" because they execute `sed`, etc... is absolutely pointless. same
> goes for
On 1/18/12 7:10 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Wednesday 18 January 2012 12:32:08 Paweł Hajdan, Jr. wrote:
>> Same here. How about adding some warning to portage (maybe just in the
>> developer profile) when files in NEEDED are provided by packages not in
>> RDEPEND?
>
> atm, we'll get a lot of fa
On Wednesday 18 January 2012 12:32:08 Paweł Hajdan, Jr. wrote:
> On 1/18/12 4:48 PM, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> > On 10:05 Wed 18 Jan , Mike Frysinger wrote:
> >> On Wednesday 18 January 2012 09:23:00 Agostino Sarubbo wrote:
> >>> 3) Check your rdepend, where is possible with scanelf[3] and if yo
On 1/18/12 4:48 PM, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> On 10:05 Wed 18 Jan , Mike Frysinger wrote:
>> On Wednesday 18 January 2012 09:23:00 Agostino Sarubbo wrote:
>>> 3) Check your rdepend, where is possible with scanelf[3] and if you
>>> declare it, please, as you said, exclude gcc/glibc and all packa
On Wednesday 18 January 2012 10:44:44 Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 9:55 AM, Alexis Ballier wrote:
> > On Wed, 18 Jan 2012 15:23 +0100 Agostino Sarubbo wrote:
> >> 3) Check your rdepend, where is possible with scanelf[3] and if you
> >> declare it, please, as you said, exclude gcc/g
On 10:05 Wed 18 Jan , Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Wednesday 18 January 2012 09:23:00 Agostino Sarubbo wrote:
> > 3) Check your rdepend, where is possible with scanelf[3] and if you
> > declare it, please, as you said, exclude gcc/glibc and all package
> > from @system
>
> portage generates a
On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 9:55 AM, Alexis Ballier wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Jan 2012 15:23 +0100
> Agostino Sarubbo wrote:
>> 3) Check your rdepend, where is possible with scanelf[3] and if you
>> declare it, please, as you said, exclude gcc/glibc and all package
>> from @system
>
> imho this has nothing
On Wednesday 18 January 2012 09:23:00 Agostino Sarubbo wrote:
> So, everytime, I must suggest the same things and I can say that at some
> point it gets boring.
so put it into a Gentoo guide and refer people to that
> 3) Check your rdepend, where is possible with scanelf[3] and if you declare
> i
Hi,
On Wed, 18 Jan 2012 15:23 +0100
Agostino Sarubbo wrote:
> 2) _Before_ filing a request, please run repoman full, to be sure
> that there is nothing to fix, then take a look at the ebuild and make
> sure your ebuild have a minimum of QA; all external binary called in
> the ebuild(sed, mv, cp,
Hi!
On Wed, 18 Jan 2012, Agostino Sarubbo wrote:
> 4) Nobody knows how work all packages in tree, so there are
> obvious packages like a browsers, IM, audio player,that is easy
> decide if is ok or not, but there are also packages that an
> Arch tester has never seen, so is a lack of time everyti
This mail is come from my long time experience about testing.
So, everytime, I must suggest the same things and I can say that at some point
it gets boring.
I appreciate the work of all, but I must say that some people pay little
attention to stablereq bugs, so this mail wants to be a short rem
24 matches
Mail list logo
