On 00:11 Sat 18 Aug , Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Friday 17 August 2007, Alec Warner wrote:
> > On 8/17/07, Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > what do you think of comment #14 in Bug 185567 ?
> > >
> > > i think that plus having hooks for all phase funcs ...
> >
> > +1 for pkg_maint
On Friday 17 August 2007, Alec Warner wrote:
> On 8/17/07, Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Friday 17 August 2007, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> > > On 13:40 Fri 17 Aug , Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > > > On Friday 17 August 2007, Hans de Graaff wrote:
> > > > > On Fri, 2007-08-17 at 18:
On 8/17/07, Peter Volkov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> В Птн, 17/08/2007 в 13:18 -0700, Donnie Berkholz пишет:
> > On 13:40 Fri 17 Aug , Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > > On Friday 17 August 2007, Hans de Graaff wrote:
> > > > Unfortunately FEATURES=stricter stopped being really useful
> > >
> > > i c
On 8/17/07, Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Friday 17 August 2007, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> > On 13:40 Fri 17 Aug , Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > > On Friday 17 August 2007, Hans de Graaff wrote:
> > > > On Fri, 2007-08-17 at 18:43 +0200, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> > > > > Also known a
В Птн, 17/08/2007 в 13:18 -0700, Donnie Berkholz пишет:
> On 13:40 Fri 17 Aug , Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On Friday 17 August 2007, Hans de Graaff wrote:
> > > Unfortunately FEATURES=stricter stopped being really useful
> >
> > i can make it more selective about which ones actually die ...
>
On Friday 17 August 2007, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> On 13:40 Fri 17 Aug , Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On Friday 17 August 2007, Hans de Graaff wrote:
> > > On Fri, 2007-08-17 at 18:43 +0200, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> > > > Also known as FEATURES=stricter.
> > >
> > > Unfortunately FEATURES=stricter
On 13:40 Fri 17 Aug , Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Friday 17 August 2007, Hans de Graaff wrote:
> > On Fri, 2007-08-17 at 18:43 +0200, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> > > Also known as FEATURES=stricter.
> >
> > Unfortunately FEATURES=stricter stopped being really useful when it
> > started to die on ba
On Fri, 2007-08-17 at 13:40 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Friday 17 August 2007, Hans de Graaff wrote:
> > Unfortunately FEATURES=stricter stopped being really useful when it
> > started to die on bad programming practices QA messages. These happen a
> > lot and often are beyond our direct con
On Friday 17 August 2007, Hans de Graaff wrote:
> On Fri, 2007-08-17 at 18:43 +0200, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> > Also known as FEATURES=stricter.
>
> Unfortunately FEATURES=stricter stopped being really useful when it
> started to die on bad programming practices QA messages. These happen a
> lot an
On Fri, 2007-08-17 at 18:43 +0200, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> Also known as FEATURES=stricter.
Unfortunately FEATURES=stricter stopped being really useful when it
started to die on bad programming practices QA messages. These happen a
lot and often are beyond our direct control because it may not b
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Alec Warner wrote:
>> perhaps it'd be useful to introduce an "anal_die". developers run anal
>> tests,
>> users get sane tests.
>> -mike
>>
>>
>
> Anal ftw
>
> -Alec
Also known as FEATURES=stricter.
- --
Vlastimil Babka (Caster)
Gentoo/Java
-
>
> perhaps it'd be useful to introduce an "anal_die". developers run anal tests,
> users get sane tests.
> -mike
>
>
Anal ftw
-Alec
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
On Tuesday 07 August 2007, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Tuesday 07 August 2007, Richard Brown wrote:
> > > On 07/08/07, Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > in an ideal world, yes ... in the real world however, i wouldnt
> > > > trust it
> >
On Tue, 2007-08-07 at 05:40 -0400, Michael Cummings wrote:
>
> sure...except in another thread, we're saying it's ok for non-maintainers to
> bump packages, and i'm here to tell you, when that happens they rarely confirm
> things like missing deps or whether it dies during a build.
What? They won'
On Tue, 2007-08-07 at 12:20 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> Which is why it's so important to catch failures. Something that builds
> correctly for a developer may not build correctly for a user, so being
> strict will help prevent users from installing a broken package.
Personally I agree with b
On Tue, 7 Aug 2007 05:38:25 -0400
Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tuesday 07 August 2007, Richard Brown wrote:
> > On 07/08/07, Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > in an ideal world, yes ... in the real world however, i wouldnt
> > > trust it
> >
> > You wouldn't trust wh
On Tue, Aug 07, 2007 at 09:36:23AM +0100, Richard Brown wrote:
> On 07/08/07, Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > in an ideal world, yes ... in the real world however, i wouldnt trust it
> > -mike
>
> You wouldn't trust what, exactly? A dev to install a package they're
> bumping? Surely
On Tuesday 07 August 2007, Richard Brown wrote:
> On 07/08/07, Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > in an ideal world, yes ... in the real world however, i wouldnt trust it
>
> You wouldn't trust what, exactly? A dev to install a package they're
> bumping?
you cant tell me the build exper
Mike Frysinger kirjoitti:
> On Monday 06 August 2007, Petteri Räty wrote:
>> Mike Frysinger kirjoitti:
>>> On Saturday 04 August 2007, Petteri Räty wrote:
Steev Klimaszewski kirjoitti:
> Vlastimil Babka wrote:
>> dodoc calls should have || die and USE=doc should be tested before
>>
On 07/08/07, Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> in an ideal world, yes ... in the real world however, i wouldnt trust it
> -mike
You wouldn't trust what, exactly? A dev to install a package they're
bumping? Surely everyone does that before they call echangelog and
repoman?
--
Richard Br
On Tuesday 07 August 2007, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote:
> On Mon, 2007-08-06 at 20:23 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > we're not talking developers, we're talking users.
>
> Nope, because the point of the die is for the developer to catch it
> during testing. Before commit to tree, so the user nev
On Mon, 2007-08-06 at 20:23 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>
> we're not talking developers, we're talking users.
Nope, because the point of the die is for the developer to catch it
during testing. Before commit to tree, so the user never has a chance to
experience it.
> it's inappropriate for a
On Monday 06 August 2007, Petteri Räty wrote:
> Mike Frysinger kirjoitti:
> > On Saturday 04 August 2007, Petteri Räty wrote:
> >> Steev Klimaszewski kirjoitti:
> >>> Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> dodoc calls should have || die and USE=doc should be tested before
> commiting a bump, IMHO
> >>>
On Fri, 2007-08-03 at 21:13 -0400, Luis Francisco Araujo wrote:
> > - arch-specific patches/dependencies - If someone is requesting KEYWORD
> > changes on a package and it requires a patch or additional dependencies
> > for your architecture, you are not only permitted, but really are
> > required
Mike Frysinger kirjoitti:
> On Saturday 04 August 2007, Petteri Räty wrote:
>> Steev Klimaszewski kirjoitti:
>>> Vlastimil Babka wrote:
dodoc calls should have || die and USE=doc should be tested before
commiting a bump, IMHO
>>> Sorry, I didn't realize my 3 hour compile of $APPLICATION s
On Saturday 04 August 2007, Petteri Räty wrote:
> Steev Klimaszewski kirjoitti:
> > Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> >> dodoc calls should have || die and USE=doc should be tested before
> >> commiting a bump, IMHO
> >
> > Sorry, I didn't realize my 3 hour compile of $APPLICATION should die
> > because TOD
On Sat, 4 Aug 2007 08:06:07 Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> - HOMEPAGE changes
> - LICENSE changes
> - arch-specific patches/dependencies - If someone is requesting KEYWORD
> changes on a package and it requires a patch or additional dependencies
> for your architecture, you are not only permitted, but r
On Fri, 03 Aug 2007 15:06:07 -0700
Chris Gianelloni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> - arch-specific patches/dependencies - If someone is requesting
> KEYWORD changes on a package and it requires a patch or additional
> dependencies for your architecture, you are not only permitted, but
> really are re
On Sun, 05 Aug 2007 01:56:47 +0200
Jurek Bartuszek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Just thinking aloud - why not add some (QA?) notice in the summary
> when dodoc (and possibly other do*'s) fails? One would be instructed
> to file a new bug when he sees it *and*, after all, the package will
> have st
Petteri Räty wrote:
> Steev Klimaszewski kirjoitti:
>> Vlastimil Babka wrote:
>>
>>> dodoc calls should have || die and USE=doc should be tested before
>>> commiting a bump, IMHO
>>>
>> Sorry, I didn't realize my 3 hour compile of $APPLICATION should die
>> because TODO wasn't around. Vote against
Steev Klimaszewski kirjoitti:
> Vlastimil Babka wrote:
>
>> dodoc calls should have || die and USE=doc should be tested before
>> commiting a bump, IMHO
>>
>
> Sorry, I didn't realize my 3 hour compile of $APPLICATION should die
> because TODO wasn't around. Vote against || die - it doesn't affe
Vlastimil Babka wrote:
dodoc calls should have || die and USE=doc should be tested before
commiting a bump, IMHO
Sorry, I didn't realize my 3 hour compile of $APPLICATION should die
because TODO wasn't around. Vote against || die - it doesn't affect
anything aside from misc docs not being
Jeroen Roovers wrote:
On Fri, 03 Aug 2007 15:06:07 -0700
Chris Gianelloni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
There's a couple more that I wouldn't mind seeing as things developers
can do without the maintainer, but I can see how these might be a bit
more controversial, so I'm asking for input.
Anot
On Fri, 03 Aug 2007 15:06:07 -0700
Chris Gianelloni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> There's a couple more that I wouldn't mind seeing as things developers
> can do without the maintainer, but I can see how these might be a bit
> more controversial, so I'm asking for input.
Another good candidate i
Ask for forgiveness, not permission.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
On Fri, 03 Aug 2007 15:49:58 -0700
Chris Gianelloni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Why should someone have to go through all of that just to make these
> minor fixes? Is it really necessary for someone to be required to try
> to track down and contact the maintainer to tell them that they put
> "eb
On Fri, 03 Aug 2007 15:47:27 -0700
Chris Gianelloni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Well, I meant that this should be doable without the maintainer's
> consent. Meaning, I ask you to stabilize 1.0-r1 and a few weeks
> later, you can decide to stabilize -r2 without me having to file a
> bug. Basicall
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> More and more, I am finding developers who are afraid to touch packages
> for even minor things if they're not the maintainer. This is a sad
> state of affairs and not the reason we have maintainers. We have
> maintainers to
On Fri, Aug 03, 2007 at 04:06:25PM -0700, Mike Doty wrote:
> >> We really need to get a -commits mailing list going again. If the
> >> subject and/or sender are set appropriately, it should be easy to filter
> >> for items of interest.
> > some of us infra types were entertaining a RS feed for this
Mike Doty wrote:
> Donnie Berkowitz wrote:
>> Petteri Räty wrote:
>>> Philipp Riegger kirjoitti:
On Fri, 2007-08-03 at 15:06 -0700, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> So, what do you guys think?
One problem i see is changing versions in the tree but not puting the
changes to the wip ebuil
Donnie Berkowitz wrote:
> Petteri Räty wrote:
>> Philipp Riegger kirjoitti:
>>> On Fri, 2007-08-03 at 15:06 -0700, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
So, what do you guys think?
>>> One problem i see is changing versions in the tree but not puting the
>>> changes to the wip ebuilds in an overlay or somew
On Fri, 2007-08-03 at 15:06 -0700, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> More and more, I am finding developers who are afraid to touch packages
> for even minor things if they're not the maintainer. This is a sad
> state of affairs and not the reason we have maintainers. We have
> maintainers to assure that
On Sat, 2007-08-04 at 01:23 +0300, Petteri Räty wrote:
> Chris Gianelloni kirjoitti:
> > More and more, I am finding developers who are afraid to touch packages
> > for even minor things if they're not the maintainer. This is a sad
> > state of affairs and not the reason we have maintainers. We h
On Fri, 2007-08-03 at 15:19 -0700, Mike Doty wrote:
> Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> [snip]
>
> >
> > There's a couple more that I wouldn't mind seeing as things developers
> > can do without the maintainer, but I can see how these might be a bit
> > more controversial, so I'm asking for input.
> >
>
On Sat, 2007-08-04 at 01:34 +0300, Petteri Räty wrote:
> >> So, what do you guys think?
> >
> > One problem i see is changing versions in the tree but not puting the
> > changes to the wip ebuilds in an overlay or somewhere else. Is there a
> > system to email any changes done to ebuilds maintaine
Petteri Räty wrote:
> Philipp Riegger kirjoitti:
>> On Fri, 2007-08-03 at 15:06 -0700, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
>>> So, what do you guys think?
>> One problem i see is changing versions in the tree but not puting the
>> changes to the wip ebuilds in an overlay or somewhere else. Is there a
>> system
Philipp Riegger kirjoitti:
> On Fri, 2007-08-03 at 15:06 -0700, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
>> So, what do you guys think?
>
> One problem i see is changing versions in the tree but not puting the
> changes to the wip ebuilds in an overlay or somewhere else. Is there a
> system to email any changes do
On Fri, 2007-08-03 at 15:06 -0700, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> So, what do you guys think?
One problem i see is changing versions in the tree but not puting the
changes to the wip ebuilds in an overlay or somewhere else. Is there a
system to email any changes done to ebuilds maintained by developer
Chris Gianelloni kirjoitti:
> More and more, I am finding developers who are afraid to touch packages
> for even minor things if they're not the maintainer. This is a sad
> state of affairs and not the reason we have maintainers. We have
> maintainers to assure that a package is being taken care
Chris Gianelloni wrote:
[snip]
>
> There's a couple more that I wouldn't mind seeing as things developers
> can do without the maintainer, but I can see how these might be a bit
> more controversial, so I'm asking for input.
>
> - Version bumps where the only requirement is to "cp" the ebuild
Th
More and more, I am finding developers who are afraid to touch packages
for even minor things if they're not the maintainer. This is a sad
state of affairs and not the reason we have maintainers. We have
maintainers to assure that a package is being taken care of, not to
establish some kind of "t
51 matches
Mail list logo
