Hi,
Am Donnerstag, den 10.08.2006, 19:50 +0200 schrieb Jeroen Roovers:
[...]
> On a minor note, I'd also like to see bug reporters use canonical
> package names in bug descriptions, including the category (and
> preferably the specific version, not some >=foo-3*!!!one, not to
> mention specifying
On Sat, 2006-08-12 at 17:17 +0200, Harald van Dijk wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 12, 2006 at 02:42:32PM +, Francesco Riosa wrote:
> > [...]
> > >>
> > >> $ cd gentoo-x86/*/foo
> > >
> > > This works better:
> > >
> > > $ cd gentoo-x86/*/foo/
> > >
> > > This avoids the case where a file by the same na
On Sat, Aug 12, 2006 at 02:42:32PM +, Francesco Riosa wrote:
> [...]
> >>
> >> $ cd gentoo-x86/*/foo
> >
> > This works better:
> >
> > $ cd gentoo-x86/*/foo/
> >
> > This avoids the case where a file by the same name exists (for
> > example, in licenses/).
>
> may be
> $ cd gentoo-x86/*-*/
[...]
>>
>> $ cd gentoo-x86/*/foo
>
> This works better:
>
> $ cd gentoo-x86/*/foo/
>
> This avoids the case where a file by the same name exists (for
> example, in licenses/).
may be
$ cd gentoo-x86/*-*/foo/
?
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
On Sat, 12 Aug 2006 13:13:48 +0200
Simon Stelling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Jeroen Roovers wrote:
> > On a minor note, I'd also like to see bug reporters use canonical
> > package names in bug descriptions, including the category (and
> > preferably the specific version, not some >=foo-3*!!!one
On Sat, Aug 12, 2006 at 01:13:48PM +0200, Simon Stelling wrote:
> Jeroen Roovers wrote:
> > On a minor note, I'd also like to see bug reporters use canonical
> > package names in bug descriptions, including the category (and
> > preferably the specific version, not some >=foo-3*!!!one, not to
> > m
Jeroen Roovers wrote:
> On a minor note, I'd also like to see bug reporters use canonical
> package names in bug descriptions, including the category (and
> preferably the specific version, not some >=foo-3*!!!one, not to
> mention specifying no version at all). Including the category means
> arch
Jeroen Roovers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ATs can inform you whether something works in the comment to an
> attachment, which, unlike the attachment, will end up in my mailbox.
Ok, so i sample my emerge --info > myconfig.txt and attach that. This is ok
with me. However, i propose that this funct
On Fri, 11 Aug 2006 13:40:23 +0200
Jeroen Roovers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Aug 2006 12:52:30 +0200
> "Kevin F. Quinn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > In general it depends what you're doing. Personally I find inline
> > emerge --info quicker to process, as I tend to do that by sc
On Fri, 11 Aug 2006 12:52:30 +0200
"Kevin F. Quinn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In general it depends what you're doing. Personally I find inline
> emerge --info quicker to process, as I tend to do that by scrolling up
> and down a bug when trying to determine what triggers a bug. However
> tha
On Fri, 11 Aug 2006 00:51:56 +0200
Jeroen Roovers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Aug 2006 23:58:46 +0200
> "Kevin F. Quinn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > The problem with attachments is that processing the report takes
> > longer
> > - you have to go to the web to read the attachment
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Thu, 10 Aug 2006, Matti Bickel wrote:
Thomas Cort <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Why do arch testers need to post `emerge --info` if everything works?
Shouldn't we be able to trust that they have sane CFLAGS, proper
FEATURES, and an up to date syste
On Thu, 2006-08-10 at 18:29 -0400, Thomas Cort wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Aug 2006 23:58:46 +0200
> "Kevin F. Quinn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > It's not about trust, it's about knowing what the CFLAGS/FEATURES
> > were. That way if someone else reports a failure, you can compare the
> > reports an
On Thu, 10 Aug 2006 23:58:46 +0200
"Kevin F. Quinn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The problem with attachments is that processing the report takes
> longer
> - you have to go to the web to read the attachment to find out what
> config worked (or failed, if that was the case). It's best to have it
On Thu, 10 Aug 2006 23:58:46 +0200
"Kevin F. Quinn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It's not about trust, it's about knowing what the CFLAGS/FEATURES
> were. That way if someone else reports a failure, you can compare the
> reports and see what differences might be triggering the fault.
I get that
Thomas Cort <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Why do arch testers need to post `emerge --info` if everything works?
> Shouldn't we be able to trust that they have sane CFLAGS, proper
> FEATURES, and an up to date system?
Once there was the idea of putting AT testing system specs somewhere, so arch
devs
On Thu, 10 Aug 2006 14:44:13 -0400
Thomas Cort <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Aug 2006 19:50:55 +0200
> Jeroen Roovers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I propose the `emerge --info` included in arch testers' comments on
> > stabilisation bugs should rather be posted as attachments. The A
On Thu, 10 Aug 2006 19:50:55 +0200
Jeroen Roovers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I propose the `emerge --info` included in arch testers' comments on
> stabilisation bugs should rather be posted as attachments. The AT
> comments clog up the bugs and are usually not interesting at all to devs
> other
Hi everybody,
I propose the `emerge --info` included in arch testers' comments on
stabilisation bugs should rather be posted as attachments. The AT
comments clog up the bugs and are usually not interesting at all to devs
other than those who are arch devs for the relevant arches. It would
ce
19 matches
Mail list logo
