On 24 March 2013 22:48, Markos Chandras wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA512
>
> On 03/24/2013 12:40 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
>> On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 8:31 AM, Markos Chandras
>> wrote:
>>> I don't mind adding that link to every package mask. Do note
>>> thought that this i
On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 4:40 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 3:24 PM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
>> The number of open bugs doesn't really matter, it's what those bugs
>> are that matters -- security bugs, sure, are of a higher priority and
>> can be fairly easily detected in bugzi
On Mon, 25 Mar 2013 08:23:31 +0800
Patrick Lauer wrote:
> On 03/24/2013 09:40 PM, Peter Stuge wrote:
> > Markos Chandras wrote:
> >> The masks are sort of announcements as you have 30 days to revert
> >> that decision.
> >
> > You don't seem to recognize the quite significant psychological
> > i
On Sun, 24 Mar 2013 19:40:07 -0400
Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 3:24 PM, Ian Stakenvicius
> wrote:
> > The number of open bugs doesn't really matter, it's what those bugs
> > are that matters -- security bugs, sure, are of a higher priority
> > and can be fairly easily detected
24.03.2013 13:15, Róbert Čerňanský пишет:
> And that is why I now appeal to users:
>
> _Do not report bugs to Gentoo unless a package is completely broken._
>
> Because what you will get in return? Package removed.
If package is broken, upstream is dead/unresponsive and nobody wants or
can fi
On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 8:23 PM, Patrick Lauer wrote:
> On 03/24/2013 09:40 PM, Peter Stuge wrote:
>> Markos Chandras wrote:
>>> The masks are sort of announcements as you have 30 days to revert that
>>> decision.
>>
>> You don't seem to recognize the quite significant psychological
>> impact of y
On 03/24/2013 09:40 PM, Peter Stuge wrote:
> Markos Chandras wrote:
>> The masks are sort of announcements as you have 30 days to revert that
>> decision.
>
> You don't seem to recognize the quite significant psychological
> impact of you having already made the decision, compared to, say,
> havin
On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 3:24 PM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
> The number of open bugs doesn't really matter, it's what those bugs
> are that matters -- security bugs, sure, are of a higher priority and
> can be fairly easily detected in bugzilla.
Well, our current treecleaner policy seems to be that
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 24/03/13 11:19 AM, Peter Stuge wrote:
> Markos Chandras wrote:
>>> A per-ebuild bug metric would be cool. A kind of health
>>> indicator for individual ebuilds, alerting users when some of
>>> our installed ebuilds go yellow, so that we have perha
On Sun, 24 Mar 2013 08:40:17 -0400
Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 8:31 AM, Markos Chandras
> wrote:
> > I don't mind adding that link to every package mask. Do note thought
> > that this is not the only way for a package to be rescued (assuming
> > it can be rescued). Providing fi
Markos Chandras wrote:
> > A per-ebuild bug metric would be cool. A kind of health indicator
> > for individual ebuilds, alerting users when some of our installed
> > ebuilds go yellow, so that we have perhaps on the order of six
> > months before the package goes red, at which point it would be
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 03/24/2013 01:52 PM, Peter Stuge wrote:
> Users who want to fix the problem need to get involved upstream,
> there is no disagreement about that, but users who have already
> gotten a package masked by the powers that be are vastly less
> motiv
Alan McKinnon wrote:
> Masking already accomplishes everything you propose, which is to
> communicate "there is something wrong with this package and it is in
> danger of leaving the tree. To get it out of this state, you need to
> take action".
I disagree strongly that this is what masking commun
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 03/24/2013 12:40 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 8:31 AM, Markos Chandras
> wrote:
>> I don't mind adding that link to every package mask. Do note
>> thought that this is not the only way for a package to be rescued
>> (assuming
Rich Freeman wrote:
> > A per-ebuild bug metric would be cool. A kind of health indicator
> > for individual ebuilds, alerting users when some of our installed
> > ebuilds go yellow, so that we have perhaps on the order of six
> > months before the package goes red, at which point it would be fine
On 24/03/2013 15:40, Peter Stuge wrote:
> Markos Chandras wrote:
>> The masks are sort of announcements as you have 30 days to revert that
>> decision.
>
> You don't seem to recognize the quite significant psychological
> impact of you having already made the decision, compared to, say,
> having a
On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 9:52 AM, Peter Stuge wrote:
> A per-ebuild bug metric would be cool. A kind of health indicator
> for individual ebuilds, alerting users when some of our installed
> ebuilds go yellow, so that we have perhaps on the order of six
> months before the package goes red, at whic
Rich Freeman wrote:
> something is bound to break for good sooner or later if things don't change.
Certainly.
But consider the chain of events:
* user is happily using outdated, but working, software without
knowing how behind the times upstream really is, because it works
* gentoo masks and r
On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 9:40 AM, Peter Stuge wrote:
> You don't seem to recognize the quite significant psychological
> impact of you having already made the decision, compared to, say,
> having an actually inclusive package removal process.
I was going to post something along these lines, but I'
Markos Chandras wrote:
> The masks are sort of announcements as you have 30 days to revert that
> decision.
You don't seem to recognize the quite significant psychological
impact of you having already made the decision, compared to, say,
having an actually inclusive package removal process.
Bugzi
On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 9:24 AM, Peter Stuge wrote:
>
> I find the become-a-dev threshold significant so yes, something stops it..
>
So, my personal feeling is that /some/ packages get pulled a little
earlier than strictly necessary. However, the fact is that when a
package gets treecleaned it i
Alec Warner wrote:
> > MC> The package is going away unless someone fixes the bugs and
> > MC> properly maintains the package
> >
> > Again, that is an irresponsible mistake. It is better to just leave it
> > as is than to kick it. Dropping important packages can only harm the
> > community and i
On Sat, 23 Mar 2013 17:40:37 -0400
James Cloos wrote:
> > "RF" == Rich Freeman writes:
>
> RF> Is this package working in the typical case? That is, when you aren't
> RF> intentionally trying to buffer-overflow it or otherwise break it?
>
> I haven't found an image file which causes it to
On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 8:31 AM, Markos Chandras wrote:
> I don't mind adding that link to every package mask. Do note thought
> that this is not the only way for a package to be rescued (assuming it
> can be rescued). Providing fixes without becoming the maintainer is
> also a viable solution, wh
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 03/24/2013 12:18 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 8:11 AM, Markos Chandras
> wrote:
>> The process for rescuing a package is documented here[1] and it
>> takes about 15'' of google searching to find it.
>>
>
> I think that some
On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 8:11 AM, Markos Chandras wrote:
> The process for rescuing a package is documented here[1] and
> it takes about 15'' of google searching to find it.
>
I think that something a bit more elaborate with links to the relevant
pages (proxy-maint, etc) that is more user-oriented
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 03/24/2013 11:22 AM, Rich Freeman wrote:
>
> Markos - I'm not sure what can be done to try to better flush out
> user interest in taking care of packages that are on the verge of
> death. I'd suggest announcing pending removals before masking the
On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 6:43 AM, Markos Chandras wrote:
> So per https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=462366#c4, the package
> now has a new maintainer so it will not be removed.
> See? This is what I call a good solution instead of going around and
> constantly saying "Ohhh bad bad Gentoo remo
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 03/24/2013 09:15 AM, Róbert Čerňanský wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Mar 2013 16:13:07 -0400 James Cloos
> wrote:
>
>>> "MC" == Markos Chandras writes:
>>
>> MC> The package is going away unless someone fixes the bugs and
>> MC> properly maintains
On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 5:40 PM, James Cloos wrote:
>> "RF" == Rich Freeman writes:
>
> RF> Is this package working in the typical case? That is, when you aren't
> RF> intentionally trying to buffer-overflow it or otherwise break it?
>
> I haven't found an image file which causes it to crash
On Sat, 23 Mar 2013 16:13:07 -0400
James Cloos wrote:
> > "MC" == Markos Chandras writes:
>
> MC> The package is going away unless someone fixes the bugs and
> MC> properly maintains the package
>
> Again, that is an irresponsible mistake. It is better to just leave
> it as is than to kic
> "RF" == Rich Freeman writes:
RF> Is this package working in the typical case? That is, when you aren't
RF> intentionally trying to buffer-overflow it or otherwise break it?
I haven't found an image file which causes it to crash.
-JimC
--
James Cloos OpenPGP: 1024D/ED7DAEA6
On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 1:13 PM, James Cloos wrote:
>> "MC" == Markos Chandras writes:
>
> MC> Please do not reply to gentoo-dev-announce.
>
> I didn't. I explicitly replied to the message in gentoo-dev. If doing
> that resulted in a cc to announce that means there was no reply-to
> header
On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 4:13 PM, James Cloos wrote:
> Again, that is an irresponsible mistake. It is better to just leave it
> as is than to kick it. Dropping important packages can only harm the
> community and is never welcome.
Is this package working in the typical case? That is, when you a
On 23 March 2013 20:13, James Cloos wrote:
>
> Again, that is an irresponsible mistake. It is better to just leave it
> as is than to kick it. Dropping important packages can only harm the
> community and is never welcome.
You are not listening to what I am saying so I'll stop here
--
Regards
> "MC" == Markos Chandras writes:
MC> Please do not reply to gentoo-dev-announce.
I didn't. I explicitly replied to the message in gentoo-dev. If doing
that resulted in a cc to announce that means there was no reply-to
header in the message posted to dev. Had there been a reply-to header
On 23 March 2013 19:52, James Cloos wrote:
>> "MC" == Markos Chandras writes:
>
> MC> # Removal in 30 days
> MC> app-text/cuneiform
>
> That one should not go. There are not enough quality ocr engines
> available, Gentoo needs to keep all of them.
>
> And a couple of bugs is never a sufficie
> "MC" == Markos Chandras writes:
MC> # Removal in 30 days
MC> app-text/cuneiform
That one should not go. There are not enough quality ocr engines
available, Gentoo needs to keep all of them.
And a couple of bugs is never a sufficient reason to kick a package.
-JimC
--
James Cloos
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
# Markos Chandras (22 Mar 2013)
# Quite a few buffer overflow and other bugs
# See #462366 #462224 #421717
# Removal in 30 days
app-text/cuneiform
- --
Regards,
Markos Chandras - Gentoo Linux Developer
http://dev.gentoo.org/~hwoarang
-BEGIN PG
39 matches
Mail list logo
