On Thu, 11 Jun 2015 21:55:14 +0200
Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> >> From previous ocaml stabilizations, I'd say that I'll have to use
> > --force for at least two months before it can be removed. I might
> > get bored and alias --force :)
>
> Unless the commit rate in dev-lang/ocaml (which was a total
> On Thu, 11 Jun 2015, Alexis Ballier wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Jun 2015 15:15:42 -0400
> Rich Freeman wrote:
>> In general I'd tend to agree, but we're talking about a very
>> limited pool of 70 packages,
49 packages with 58 ebuilds, to be precise.
>> whose maintainers should always be aware of
On Thu, 11 Jun 2015 15:15:42 -0400
Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 3:12 PM, Alexis Ballier
> wrote:
> > On Thu, 11 Jun 2015 14:38:35 -0400
> > Rich Freeman wrote:
> >>
> >> These errors are not user-visible. I really don't have a problem
> >> with repoman errors for deprecated fea
Dnia 2015-06-11, o godz. 21:12:00
Alexis Ballier napisał(a):
> On Thu, 11 Jun 2015 14:38:35 -0400
> Rich Freeman wrote:
> >
> > These errors are not user-visible. I really don't have a problem with
> > repoman errors for deprecated features.
> >
>
> I don't have a problem with always using --
On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 3:12 PM, Alexis Ballier wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Jun 2015 14:38:35 -0400
> Rich Freeman wrote:
>>
>> These errors are not user-visible. I really don't have a problem with
>> repoman errors for deprecated features.
>>
>
> I don't have a problem with always using --force either.
On Thu, 11 Jun 2015 14:38:35 -0400
Rich Freeman wrote:
>
> These errors are not user-visible. I really don't have a problem with
> repoman errors for deprecated features.
>
I don't have a problem with always using --force either. But then the
distinction between warnings and errors becomes much
On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 12:55 PM, Alexis Ballier wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Jun 2015 18:33:36 +0200
> Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>
>> >> Maintainers can still use --force if there is no other way.
>>
>> > i'm definitely not convinced it is good practice to encourage people
>> > to do that ;)
>>
>> People are
On Thu, 11 Jun 2015 18:33:36 +0200
Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> >> Maintainers can still use --force if there is no other way.
>
> > i'm definitely not convinced it is good practice to encourage people
> > to do that ;)
>
> People are strongly encouraged to update their ebuilds to a newer
> EAPI. ;)
> On Thu, 11 Jun 2015, Alexis Ballier wrote:
>> dev-lang/ocaml-3.12.1 in slot
> in subslot not slot, but more importantly in stable
Right, there are newer ebuilds in slot 0 for dev-lang/ocaml. I've
double-checked the list now; for all other packages the "in slot" was
accura
On Thu, 11 Jun 2015 13:13:18 +0200
Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> > On Thu, 11 Jun 2015, Jason Zaman wrote:
> dev-lang/ocaml-3.12.1 in slot
in subslot not slot, but more importantly in stable
> > my bet would be that those 60 ebuilds are from packages barely
> > maintained,
10.06.2015 23:43, Ulrich Mueller пишет:
> Hi,
> The number of EAPI 1 ebuilds in the Portage tree has decreased to
> a total of 60, corresponding to 0.16 %.
>
> We briefly discussed in the QA team if we should demote EAPI 1 in
> layout.conf from "eapis-deprecated" to "eapis-banned". This would
> h
> On Thu, 11 Jun 2015, Jason Zaman wrote:
> This would be great! Do we have a list somewhere of ebuilds that are
> still EAPI1? and which of those have a newer version that is a
> higher EAPI for the same keywords? IE how many of the EAPI1 ebuilds
> cant just be dropped?
> On Thu, 11 Jun
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 11.06.2015 11:16, Alexis Ballier wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Jun 2015 22:43:10 +0200 Ulrich Mueller
> wrote:
>
>> Hi, The number of EAPI 1 ebuilds in the Portage tree has
>> decreased to a total of 60, corresponding to 0.16 %.
>>
>> We briefly discusse
On Wed, 10 Jun 2015 22:43:10 +0200
Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> Hi,
> The number of EAPI 1 ebuilds in the Portage tree has decreased to
> a total of 60, corresponding to 0.16 %.
>
> We briefly discussed in the QA team if we should demote EAPI 1 in
> layout.conf from "eapis-deprecated" to "eapis-banne
Wednesday 10 Jun 2015 22:43:10, Ulrich Mueller wrote :
> Hi,
> The number of EAPI 1 ebuilds in the Portage tree has decreased to
> a total of 60, corresponding to 0.16 %.
>
> We briefly discussed in the QA team if we should demote EAPI 1 in
> layout.conf from "eapis-deprecated" to "eapis-banned".
On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 10:43:10PM +0200, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> Hi,
> The number of EAPI 1 ebuilds in the Portage tree has decreased to
> a total of 60, corresponding to 0.16 %.
>
> We briefly discussed in the QA team if we should demote EAPI 1 in
> layout.conf from "eapis-deprecated" to "eapis-
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 06/10/2015 01:43 PM, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> Hi, The number of EAPI 1 ebuilds in the Portage tree has decreased
> to a total of 60, corresponding to 0.16 %.
>
> We briefly discussed in the QA team if we should demote EAPI 1 in
> layout.conf from
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Am Mittwoch, 10. Juni 2015, 22:43:10 schrieb Ulrich Mueller:
>
> We briefly discussed in the QA team if we should demote EAPI 1 in
> layout.conf from "eapis-deprecated" to "eapis-banned". This would
> have the consequence that repoman would refuse t
On Wed, 10 Jun 2015 22:43:10 +0200
Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> We briefly discussed in the QA team if we should demote EAPI 1 in
> layout.conf from "eapis-deprecated" to "eapis-banned". This would
> have the consequence that repoman would refuse to commit packages
> containing such ebuilds. AFAICS th
Dnia 2015-06-10, o godz. 22:43:10
Ulrich Mueller napisał(a):
> Hi,
> The number of EAPI 1 ebuilds in the Portage tree has decreased to
> a total of 60, corresponding to 0.16 %.
>
> We briefly discussed in the QA team if we should demote EAPI 1 in
> layout.conf from "eapis-deprecated" to "eapis-b
On 6/10/2015 4:43 PM, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> Hi,
> The number of EAPI 1 ebuilds in the Portage tree has decreased to
> a total of 60, corresponding to 0.16 %.
>
> We briefly discussed in the QA team if we should demote EAPI 1 in
> layout.conf from "eapis-deprecated" to "eapis-banned". This would
On Wed, 10 Jun 2015 22:43:10 +0200
Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> Hi,
> The number of EAPI 1 ebuilds in the Portage tree has decreased to
> a total of 60, corresponding to 0.16 %.
>
> We briefly discussed in the QA team if we should demote EAPI 1 in
> layout.conf from "eapis-deprecated" to "eapis-banne
On 2015-06-10 22:43, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> Hi,
> The number of EAPI 1 ebuilds in the Portage tree has decreased to
> a total of 60, corresponding to 0.16 %.
>
> We briefly discussed in the QA team if we should demote EAPI 1 in
> layout.conf from "eapis-deprecated" to "eapis-banned". This would
>
El mié, 10-06-2015 a las 22:43 +0200, Ulrich Mueller escribió:
> Hi,
> The number of EAPI 1 ebuilds in the Portage tree has decreased to
> a total of 60, corresponding to 0.16 %.
>
> We briefly discussed in the QA team if we should demote EAPI 1 in
> layout.conf from "eapis-deprecated" to "eapis-b
Hi,
The number of EAPI 1 ebuilds in the Portage tree has decreased to
a total of 60, corresponding to 0.16 %.
We briefly discussed in the QA team if we should demote EAPI 1 in
layout.conf from "eapis-deprecated" to "eapis-banned". This would
have the consequence that repoman would refuse to commit
25 matches
Mail list logo
