On 1 September 2013 11:42, hasufell wrote:
> On 09/01/2013 12:30 PM, Thomas Sachau wrote:
>> they dont search for recruits
>
> why not?
>
Will you please ready Thomas e-mail again as a whole? You only
"extract" a single sentence
and you redirect the other part of it to /dev/null.
We (recruiters)
On 09/01/2013 12:30 PM, Thomas Sachau wrote:
> they dont search for recruits
why not?
Rick "Zero_Chaos" Farina schrieb:
> On 08/31/2013 03:57 PM, Tom Wijsman wrote:
>> On Sat, 31 Aug 2013 20:45:00 +0200
>> Pacho Ramos wrote:
>
>>> El sáb, 31-08-2013 a las 12:37 -0400, Rick "Zero_Chaos" Farina
>>> escribió: [...]
I know we are a little OT here but the fifth type of recruit is
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 08/31/2013 03:57 PM, Tom Wijsman wrote:
> On Sat, 31 Aug 2013 20:45:00 +0200
> Pacho Ramos wrote:
>
>> El sáb, 31-08-2013 a las 12:37 -0400, Rick "Zero_Chaos" Farina
>> escribió: [...]
>>> I know we are a little OT here but the fifth type of recru
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 08/31/2013 01:29 PM, Jeroen Roovers wrote:
> On Sat, 31 Aug 2013 12:37:58 -0400
> "Rick \"Zero_Chaos\" Farina" wrote:
>
>> I know we are a little OT here but the fifth type of recruit is
>
> Yes.
>
>> someone who is very excited, very dedicated,
On Sat, 31 Aug 2013 20:45:00 +0200
Pacho Ramos wrote:
> El sáb, 31-08-2013 a las 12:37 -0400, Rick "Zero_Chaos" Farina
> escribió: [...]
> > I know we are a little OT here but the fifth type of recruit is
> > someone who is very excited, very dedicated, and completely unable
> > to find a mentor.
El sáb, 31-08-2013 a las 12:37 -0400, Rick "Zero_Chaos" Farina escribió:
[...]
> I know we are a little OT here but the fifth type of recruit is someone
> who is very excited, very dedicated, and completely unable to find a
> mentor. That is where I was for a long time, no one seemed to have the
>
On Sat, 31 Aug 2013 19:29:30 +0200
Jeroen Roovers wrote:
> > someone who is very excited, very dedicated, and completely unable
> > to find a mentor. That is where I was for a long time, no one
> > seemed to have the time to mentor me.
>
> Your recruitment bug disagrees with you here in that yo
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sat, 31 Aug 2013 12:37:58 -0400
"Rick \"Zero_Chaos\" Farina" wrote:
> I know we are a little OT here but the fifth type of recruit is
> someone who is very excited, very dedicated, and completely unable to
> find a mentor. That is where I was for
On Sat, 31 Aug 2013 12:37:58 -0400
"Rick \"Zero_Chaos\" Farina" wrote:
> I know we are a little OT here but the fifth type of recruit is
Yes.
> someone who is very excited, very dedicated, and completely unable to
> find a mentor. That is where I was for a long time, no one seemed to
> have th
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 08/21/2013 05:13 AM, Tom Wijsman wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Aug 2013 12:32:35 +0400
> Sergey Popov wrote:
>
>> 21.08.2013 12:13, Tom Wijsman пишет:
>>> Recruiting shows to be a hard task; so, the suggestions I am doing
>>> are assuming that that doesn't
On Tue, 2013-08-20 at 16:12 -0400, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
> > # Redmine
> > =dev-ruby/builder-3.1.4 ~amd64
> > =dev-ruby/rails-3.2.13 ~amd64
> Ok, this one is ridiculous. The stable version of Rails is 2.3.18, and
> 3.0 was released almost exactly three years ago. Every time rails-3.x
> gets bum
On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 10:56 AM, Tom Wijsman wrote:
>
> That doesn't make it a special case here, imo; especially not, since
> we are designing and implementing ebuilds that _build_ the kernel.
> Whether it provides the sources, or build it; what does that matter?
Yes and no. I don't think the
21.08.2013 17:38, Wyatt Epp пишет:
> Fundamentally, I see this as a problem of tooling.
I think that no tool can cover all cases of checking that software
WORKS. I mean - in generic, for all kinds of software. You can guarantee
if it builds, if it follow some QA rules about CFLAGS/LDFLAGS/whateve
On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 10:27 AM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
> That's not to say that gentoo-sources shouldn't follow the regular
> overall stabilization policies, but focusing on the kernel as the
> impetus for adjusting the stabilization policy or pointing out what's
> wrong with the policy as a wh
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, 21 Aug 2013 10:27:51 -0400
Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA256
>
> On 21/08/13 08:36 AM, Tom Wijsman wrote:
> >
> > Given the kernel volume, I think even CVE's don't cover
> > everything...
> >
>
>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 21/08/13 08:36 AM, Tom Wijsman wrote:
>
> Given the kernel volume, I think even CVE's don't cover
> everything...
>
Kernel is really a special case here, imo -- emerge doesn't install
kernels, it just provides their sources. End-users still ne
On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 5:50 AM, Sergey Popov wrote:
>
> As i said earlier, we should recruit more people -> then problem will go
> away.
This is a point most of the people in this thread seem to be dancing
around that's sort of problematic. You can talk about recruiting
until you're blue in the
El mié, 21-08-2013 a las 14:25 +0200, Tom Wijsman escribió:
[...]
> > 2) recruit more arch testers/arch team members;
>
> Same point as before, let's see if that will be enough.
>
Well, ago has being doing a great work getting more Arch Testers (at
least for amd64), maybe some of them could give
On Wed, 21 Aug 2013 16:22:28 +0400
Sergey Popov wrote:
> 21.08.2013 14:29, Tom Wijsman пишет:
> > On Wed, 21 Aug 2013 13:42:56 +0400
> > You do draw assumptions, because you don't take a look; please do:
> >
> > https://bugs.gentoo.org/buglist.cgi?quicksearch=assignee%3Asecurity%40gentoo.org%20C
On Wed, 21 Aug 2013 16:16:53 +0400
Sergey Popov wrote:
> >> And if you want to move stabilization checks to unqualified users,
> >> then it is way to nowhere.
> >
> > No, because there would be much more users giving feedback.
>
> Feedback is good. But if it simple "works for me" without tests
21.08.2013 14:29, Tom Wijsman пишет:
> On Wed, 21 Aug 2013 13:42:56 +0400
> You do draw assumptions, because you don't take a look; please do:
>
> https://bugs.gentoo.org/buglist.cgi?quicksearch=assignee%3Asecurity%40gentoo.org%20CC%3Akernel%40gentoo.org
>
> Sort by "Changed" such that the newest
21.08.2013 14:36, Tom Wijsman пишет:
> On Wed, 21 Aug 2013 13:54:51 +0400
> Sergey Popov wrote:
>
>> 21.08.2013 13:13, Tom Wijsman пишет:
>>> On Wed, 21 Aug 2013 12:32:35 +0400
>>> Sergey Popov wrote:
>>>
21.08.2013 12:13, Tom Wijsman пишет:
> Recruiting shows to be a hard task; so, the
On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 4:39 AM, Tom Wijsman wrote:
>
> "The latest distros seemed to be just a bunch of same old stuff.
> Nothing new -- nothing innovative." ~ Larry's frustration. :(
>
> "Then Larry tried Gentoo Linux. He was just impressed. ... He
> discovered lots of up-to-date packages ..." ~
On 08/21/2013 12:35 AM, Ben de Groot wrote:
> On 21 August 2013 04:12, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
>> [snip]
>> Ok, this one is ridiculous. The stable version of Rails is 2.3.18, and
>> 3.0 was released almost exactly three years ago. Every time rails-3.x
>> gets bumped, I have to manually update the
El mié, 21-08-2013 a las 11:16 +0200, Tom Wijsman escribió:
[...]
> That's not what I am suggesting.
>
> It is not about bringing in new versions, but about getting rid of
> OLD versions which LIKELY contain MORE security problems than you
> imagine. Keeping them around for too long time isn't rea
On Wed, 21 Aug 2013 13:50:22 +0400
Sergey Popov wrote:
> Easing stabilization procedure makes stable more, well, unstable.
It doesn't have to be easier; it just has to be done differently, in
which way we can benefit from the users whom are actively testing it.
Currently we use "no bugs were fil
On Wed, 21 Aug 2013 13:54:51 +0400
Sergey Popov wrote:
> 21.08.2013 13:13, Tom Wijsman пишет:
> > On Wed, 21 Aug 2013 12:32:35 +0400
> > Sergey Popov wrote:
> >
> >> 21.08.2013 12:13, Tom Wijsman пишет:
> >>> Recruiting shows to be a hard task; so, the suggestions I am doing
> >>> are assuming
On Wed, 21 Aug 2013 13:42:56 +0400
Sergey Popov wrote:
> So it is definitely NOT 7 weeks
Let me clarify this again, our last stable kernel is from 7 weeks ago.
> 21.08.2013 13:28, Tom Wijsman пишет:
> > That is 3.10.7, not 3.10; please look into how kernel releases work,
> > minor releases are
21.08.2013 13:13, Tom Wijsman пишет:
> On Wed, 21 Aug 2013 12:32:35 +0400
> Sergey Popov wrote:
>
>> 21.08.2013 12:13, Tom Wijsman пишет:
>>> Recruiting shows to be a hard task; so, the suggestions I am doing
>>> are assuming that that doesn't work out. In which case, I wonder
>>> what "by some o
21.08.2013 13:17, Manuel Rüger пишет:
>
> Security team could maintain its own p.accept_keywords in profiles/ and
> add testing keyworded ebuilds that fix security issues there.
> Users who are interested skipping the stabilization process could link
> it into their /etc/portage/p.accept_keywords
21.08.2013 13:28, Tom Wijsman пишет:
> That is 3.10.7, not 3.10; please look into how kernel releases work,
> minor releases are merely a small number of "backported" "known" fixes.
>
> What you propose, waiting 30 days for a minor; simply doesn't work
> when there are one to two minors a week, it
On Wed, 21 Aug 2013 12:49:03 +0400
Sergey Popov wrote:
> 21.08.2013 12:39, Tom Wijsman пишет:
> > "The latest distros seemed to be just a bunch of same old stuff.
> > Nothing new -- nothing innovative." ~ Larry's frustration. :(
> >
> > "Then Larry tried Gentoo Linux. He was just impressed. ...
On Wed, 21 Aug 2013 12:46:17 +0400
Sergey Popov wrote:
> 21.08.2013 12:25, Tom Wijsman пишет:
> >
> > 3.10 is not a shiny new version, it has been in the Portage tree
> > for 7 weeks now (upstream release at 2013-06-30 22:13:42 (GMT));
> > so, that's almost double the time you are suggesting.
>
On 08/21/2013 09:57 AM, Sergey Popov wrote:
> 20.08.2013 23:42, Tom Wijsman пишет:
>> On Tue, 20 Aug 2013 14:29:09 -0400
>> Wyatt Epp wrote:
>>> What manner of bitrot?
>>
>> They might ...
>>
>> 2. ... contain security bugs that later versions have fixed.
>
> There should be security bug on our
Am Mittwoch, 21. August 2013, 10:39:23 schrieb Tom Wijsman:
>
> "The latest distros seemed to be just a bunch of same old stuff.
> Nothing new -- nothing innovative." ~ Larry's frustration. :(
>
> "Then Larry tried Gentoo Linux. He was just impressed. ... He
> discovered lots of up-to-date package
On Wed, 21 Aug 2013 12:21:41 +0400
Sergey Popov wrote:
> 21.08.2013 12:17, Tom Wijsman пишет:
> > On Wed, 21 Aug 2013 11:57:22 +0400
> > Sergey Popov wrote:
> >
> >> 20.08.2013 23:42, Tom Wijsman пишет:
> >>> On Tue, 20 Aug 2013 14:29:09 -0400
> >>> Wyatt Epp wrote:
> What manner of bitro
On Wed, 21 Aug 2013 12:32:35 +0400
Sergey Popov wrote:
> 21.08.2013 12:13, Tom Wijsman пишет:
> > Recruiting shows to be a hard task; so, the suggestions I am doing
> > are assuming that that doesn't work out. In which case, I wonder
> > what "by some other ways" you would think of...
>
> Droppi
21.08.2013 12:39, Tom Wijsman пишет:
> "The latest distros seemed to be just a bunch of same old stuff.
> Nothing new -- nothing innovative." ~ Larry's frustration. :(
>
> "Then Larry tried Gentoo Linux. He was just impressed. ... He
> discovered lots of up-to-date packages ..." ~ Larry's happines
21.08.2013 12:25, Tom Wijsman пишет:
>
> 3.10 is not a shiny new version, it has been in the Portage tree for 7
> weeks now (upstream release at 2013-06-30 22:13:42 (GMT)); so, that's
> almost double the time you are suggesting.
>
Current stabilization target(3.10.7) was added to tree:
*gentoo-
On Tue, 20 Aug 2013 20:42:57 -0400
Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 5:03 PM, Andreas K. Huettel
> wrote:
> >
> > Stable implies "not so often changing". If you really need newer
> > packages on a system that has to be rock-solid, then keyword what
> > you need and nothing else.
>
>
21.08.2013 12:13, Tom Wijsman пишет:
> Recruiting shows to be a hard task; so, the suggestions I am doing are
> assuming that that doesn't work out. In which case, I wonder what "by
> some other ways" you would think of...
Dropping some keywords to unstable on minor arches. And about
recruiting, i
On Wed, 21 Aug 2013 12:07:16 +0400
Sergey Popov wrote:
> 21.08.2013 00:06, Tom Wijsman пишет:
> > On Tue, 20 Aug 2013 15:41:42 -0400
> > Rich Freeman wrote:
> >
> >>> Let me dig up an example...
> >>>
> >>> Our last sys-kernel/gentoo-sources stabilization was 3 months ago:
> >>
> >> I don't rea
21.08.2013 12:17, Tom Wijsman пишет:
> On Wed, 21 Aug 2013 11:57:22 +0400
> Sergey Popov wrote:
>
>> 20.08.2013 23:42, Tom Wijsman пишет:
>>> On Tue, 20 Aug 2013 14:29:09 -0400
>>> Wyatt Epp wrote:
What manner of bitrot?
>>>
>>> They might ...
>>>
>>> 2. ... contain security bugs that later
On Wed, 21 Aug 2013 11:57:22 +0400
Sergey Popov wrote:
> 20.08.2013 23:42, Tom Wijsman пишет:
> > On Tue, 20 Aug 2013 14:29:09 -0400
> > Wyatt Epp wrote:
> >> What manner of bitrot?
> >
> > They might ...
> >
> > 2. ... contain security bugs that later versions have fixed.
>
> There should b
On Wed, 21 Aug 2013 11:54:48 +0400
Sergey Popov wrote:
> by some other ways(e.g., recruiting people).
Recruiting shows to be a hard task; so, the suggestions I am doing are
assuming that that doesn't work out. In which case, I wonder what "by
some other ways" you would think of...
--
With kind
21.08.2013 00:00, Alan McKinnon пишет:
> Hey, maybe you guys are doing your job in ~arch *too well*, to your own
> detriment :-) Something to consider?
~arch should not break every day, yeah(we have hardmasked for that :-P),
but it means that breakages are ALLOWED and it is NORMAL if they are not
21.08.2013 00:06, Tom Wijsman пишет:
> On Tue, 20 Aug 2013 15:41:42 -0400
> Rich Freeman wrote:
>
>>> Let me dig up an example...
>>>
>>> Our last sys-kernel/gentoo-sources stabilization was 3 months ago:
>>
>> I don't really see a problem with stable package being all of 3 months
>> old. Contra
20.08.2013 23:42, Tom Wijsman пишет:
> On Tue, 20 Aug 2013 14:29:09 -0400
> Wyatt Epp wrote:
>> What manner of bitrot?
>
> They might ...
>
> 2. ... contain security bugs that later versions have fixed.
There should be security bug on our bugzilla with quick stabilization on
it and(probably) G
20.08.2013 23:48, Tom Wijsman пишет:
> Yes, +1; last time this came up on chat, I asked whether it would be a
> nice idea to have something between stable and ~, what you propose
> sounds similar and might make sense. Though, on the other hand, doing
> it this way we don't get the advantages that f
20.08.2013 22:28, Ian Stakenvicius пишет:
> I see a few issues with ~arch -> table migrations:
>
> #1 - things just sit in ~arch. The auto-stablereq script should help
> with this one I think; we should give it some time to see if it works out.
My personal opinion on this - there is some package
On 21/08/2013 03:54, Doug Goldstein wrote:
> Its also precisely that mix and match that might cause instability due
> to people not testing things. Case in point QEMU 1.6.0 just came out and
> it went through a number of release candidates but no one ever saw that
> it depends only on Python 2.4 bu
On Aug 20, 2013, at 11:19 AM, William Hubbs wrote:
>
> My question is, how can we improve our stabilization procedures/policies
> so we can convince people not to run production servers on ~arch and
> keep the stable tree more up to date?
do the Arch Linux thing…keep just one version of a packag
On 20/08/2013 22:25, Tom Wijsman wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Aug 2013 22:00:52 +0200
> Alan McKinnon wrote:
>
>> As a long time user and citizen of -user I can tell you what the
>> general feeling of arch vs ~arch there is:
>
> Thanks for jumping into the discussion.
>
>> arch has plenty old stuff in i
On 21 August 2013 04:12, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
> [snip]
> Ok, this one is ridiculous. The stable version of Rails is 2.3.18, and
> 3.0 was released almost exactly three years ago. Every time rails-3.x
> gets bumped, I have to manually update the entire list above. I need
> to do it on an x86 ser
On 8/20/13 11:19 AM, William Hubbs wrote:
> During the last release of OpenRC, I learned that people *do* run
> production servers on ~arch. I asked about it and was told that the
> reason for this is bitrot in the stable tree.
People frequently point to lack of manpower as reason for this, but I
On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 7:42 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 5:03 PM, Andreas K. Huettel
> wrote:
> >
> > Stable implies "not so often changing". If you really need newer
> packages on a
> > system that has to be rock-solid, then keyword what you need and nothing
> else.
>
> ++
On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 5:03 PM, Andreas K. Huettel
wrote:
>
> Stable implies "not so often changing". If you really need newer packages on a
> system that has to be rock-solid, then keyword what you need and nothing else.
++
30 days is too long? How can something new be stable? Stable doesn't
On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 5:05 PM, Tom Wijsman wrote:
>
> At least the numbers for the year sound like something we will want to
> deal with; from there, we could try to keep half a year low. And after
> a while, we might end up ensuring stabilization within 3 months.
>
> That's still three times mo
On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 04:12:45PM -0400, Michael Orlitzky wrote
> On 08/20/2013 02:19 PM, William Hubbs wrote:
> > My question is, how can we improve our stabilization
> > procedures/policies so we can convince people not to run production
> > servers on ~arch and keep the stable tree more up to d
On Tue, 20 Aug 2013 22:16:34 +0200
hasufell wrote:
> On 08/20/2013 08:19 PM, William Hubbs wrote:
> >
> > My question is, how can we improve our stabilization
> > procedures/policies so we can convince people not to run production
> > servers on ~arch and keep the stable tree more up to date?
>
Am Dienstag, 20. August 2013, 20:19:10 schrieb William Hubbs:
>
> I'm not really sure what the answer to this problem is, so I want to
> know what the group thinks about how we can handle it.
>
> During the last release of OpenRC, I learned that people *do* run
> production servers on ~arch. I as
On Tue, 20 Aug 2013 22:00:52 +0200
Alan McKinnon wrote:
> As a long time user and citizen of -user I can tell you what the
> general feeling of arch vs ~arch there is:
Thanks for jumping into the discussion.
> arch has plenty old stuff in it
Yes, it keeps me from using it; I would have to unma
On 08/20/2013 08:19 PM, William Hubbs wrote:
>
> My question is, how can we improve our stabilization procedures/policies
> so we can convince people not to run production servers on ~arch and
> keep the stable tree more up to date?
>
Why convince them? They have been warned and it's their own p
On 08/20/2013 02:19 PM, William Hubbs wrote:
> My question is, how can we improve our stabilization procedures/policies
> so we can convince people not to run production servers on ~arch and
> keep the stable tree more up to date?
Just delete /etc/conf.d/net with an ~arch update every once in a wh
On Tue, 20 Aug 2013 15:41:42 -0400
Rich Freeman wrote:
> > Let me dig up an example...
> >
> > Our last sys-kernel/gentoo-sources stabilization was 3 months ago:
>
> I don't really see a problem with stable package being all of 3 months
> old. Contrast that with youtube-dl which pull from ~arch
On 20/08/2013 21:24, Tom Wijsman wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Aug 2013 13:19:10 -0500
> William Hubbs wrote:
>
>> All,
>>
>> I'm not really sure what the answer to this problem is, so I want to
>> know what the group thinks about how we can handle it.
>>
>> During the last release of OpenRC, I learned tha
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, 20 Aug 2013 20:37:17 +0100
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Tue, 20 Aug 2013 14:28:15 -0400
> Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
> > #1 - things just sit in ~arch. The auto-stablereq script should
> > he
On Tue, 20 Aug 2013 20:45:05 +0200
Dirkjan Ochtman wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 8:29 PM, Wyatt Epp
> wrote:
> > This right here seems strange to me. What things in stable are
> > undergoing bitrot? What manner of bitrot? On what architectures?
>
> Yeah, something slightly more specific w
On Tue, 20 Aug 2013 14:29:09 -0400
Wyatt Epp wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 2:19 PM, William Hubbs
> wrote:
> What things in stable are undergoing bitrot?
Things that are too old; see 'imlate' from app-portage/gentoolkit-dev,
this can be handy to indicate stabilization candidates. You can try
On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 3:24 PM, Tom Wijsman wrote:
> While I don't, and asked it just because of the large amount; it
> appears from some things lately, and not just OpenRC, that there is a
> certain group that regards ~arch as some kind of new stable.
People have been talking about that for yea
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, 20 Aug 2013 14:28:15 -0400
Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
> #1 - things just sit in ~arch. The auto-stablereq script should help
> with this one I think; we should give it some time to see if it works
> out.
As an alternative, how about a new keywo
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, 20 Aug 2013 14:28:15 -0400
Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
> I see a few issues with ~arch -> table migrations:
> #1 - things just sit in ~arch. The auto-stablereq script should help
> with this one I think; we should give it some time to see if it
On Tue, 20 Aug 2013 13:19:10 -0500
William Hubbs wrote:
> All,
>
> I'm not really sure what the answer to this problem is, so I want to
> know what the group thinks about how we can handle it.
>
> During the last release of OpenRC, I learned that people *do* run
> production servers on ~arch.
On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 8:29 PM, Wyatt Epp wrote:
> This right here seems strange to me. What things in stable are
> undergoing bitrot? What manner of bitrot? On what architectures?
Yeah, something slightly more specific would be useful here.
I run my servers with stable with just a few packa
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 20/08/13 02:29 PM, Wyatt Epp wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 2:19 PM, William Hubbs
> wrote:
>>
>> During the last release of OpenRC, I learned that people *do*
>> run production servers on ~arch. I asked about it and was told
>> that the reaso
On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 2:19 PM, William Hubbs wrote:
>
> During the last release of OpenRC, I learned that people *do* run
> production servers on ~arch. I asked about it and was told that the
> reason for this is bitrot in the stable tree.
>
This right here seems strange to me. What things in s
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 20/08/13 02:19 PM, William Hubbs wrote:
> All,
>
> I'm not really sure what the answer to this problem is, so I want
> to know what the group thinks about how we can handle it.
>
> During the last release of OpenRC, I learned that people *do* ru
All,
I'm not really sure what the answer to this problem is, so I want to
know what the group thinks about how we can handle it.
During the last release of OpenRC, I learned that people *do* run
production servers on ~arch. I asked about it and was told that the
reason for this is bitrot in the s
79 matches
Mail list logo
