Jan Kundrát wrote:
[...]
My mail server apparently sucks, sorry.
--
cd /local/pub && more beer > /dev/mouth
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Carsten Lohrke wrote:
> On Sunday 02 April 2006 22:29, Simon Stelling wrote:
>
>>Come on. Is this a 'policy doesn't say I have to be sane' war? It's
>>absolutely reasonable to p.mask a package that is pending for removal. That
>>way you give the users a timeframe which they can search for alterna
# emerge -uD world
Calculating world dependencies \
!!! All ebuilds that could satisfy "media-libs/mesa" have been masked.
!!! One of the following masked packages is required to complete your
request:
- media-libs/mesa-6.4.2-r2 (masked by: package.mask)
# Donnie Berkholz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (0
Carsten Lohrke wrote:
This is not the case. At least unless the user actively looks at package.mask.
Since Portage doesn't provide the information, this point is void. And even
if - four weeks are a too long, imho.
It does. Almost all users do emerge -u world when updating their system.
Thei
On Sun, 2006-04-02 at 21:20 +0200, Carsten Lohrke wrote:
> On Sunday 02 April 2006 04:48, Daniel Goller wrote:
> > exactly, what's the point of removing it so fast? give people a chance
> > to miss it, it does not matter if it's removed or masked only as far as
> > going "woah, what?" and if masked
On Sunday 02 April 2006 17:23, Carsten Lohrke wrote:
> This is not the case. At least unless the user actively looks at
> package.mask. Since Portage doesn't provide the information, this point is
> void. And even if - four weeks are a too long, imho.
As Andrej Kacian already noted, there are quit
On Sunday 02 April 2006 15:12, Jan Kundrát wrote:
> > And considering that upstream is dead for about a year I think most
> > people will not try to update that package every 2 days or something like
> > that.
> Most people upgrade the whole system at once - those would see a warning
> about masked
On Sunday 02 April 2006 23:26, Jakub Moc wrote:
> Not that I'd care so much whether it's a week or a month (IMO individual
> depending on ebuild in question) - so just a technical note. Portage 2.1
> *does* spit out the relevant info.
I'm aware of this, but that doesn't help anyone running running
On Sun, 2 Apr 2006 18:42:50 -0300
"Marcelo Góes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 4/2/06, Carsten Lohrke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > This is not the case. At least unless the user actively looks at
> > package.mask. Since Portage doesn't provide the information, this point is
> > void. And even
On 4/2/06, Carsten Lohrke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This is not the case. At least unless the user actively looks at package.mask.
> Since Portage doesn't provide the information, this point is void. And even
> if - four weeks are a too long, imho.
I still do not understand what the rush is wit
Carsten Lohrke wrote:
> I don't see the necessity for devs and users would have to look at the
> package.mask file regularly to get the information that a package is masked.
> If Portage would be that smart to spit out the relevant information on
> emerge --sync, a longer period would probably m
On Sunday 02 April 2006 22:29, Simon Stelling wrote:
> Come on. Is this a 'policy doesn't say I have to be sane' war? It's
> absolutely reasonable to p.mask a package that is pending for removal. That
> way you give the users a timeframe which they can search for alternative
> tools in.
This is n
On Sunday 02 April 2006 22:33, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> This is a recent change, and usually someone replies with "why not a
> month?".
This is simply not true or we have very different ideas of the meaning of
recent. The vast majority of "last rites" emails from 2005 had slated
removals of one
On Sun, 2 Apr 2006 22:20:49 +0200 Carsten Lohrke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| On Sunday 02 April 2006 21:31, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
| > The usual period is thirty days.
|
| Grep this mailing list, most often a one week period was used.
This is a recent change, and usually someone replies with "wh
Carsten Lohrke wrote:
Who said a package gets masked before it gets removed? There is no such
requirement in the ebuild policy.
Come on. Is this a 'policy doesn't say I have to be sane' war? It's absolutely
reasonable to p.mask a package that is pending for removal. That way you give
the user
On Sunday 02 April 2006 21:31, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> The usual period is thirty days.
Grep this mailing list, most often a one week period was used.
> Once it's in p.mask it's effectively gone, to the extent that ignoring
> it for a month is fine.
Who said a package gets masked before it gets
On Sun, 2 Apr 2006 21:20:21 +0200 Carsten Lohrke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| We haven't had a single issue with the usual seven day period
The usual period is thirty days.
| > in short, if it's slowing down the process, why do you need it to be
| > quick in the first place?
|
| Getting the junk
On Sunday 02 April 2006 04:48, Daniel Goller wrote:
> exactly, what's the point of removing it so fast? give people a chance
> to miss it, it does not matter if it's removed or masked only as far as
> going "woah, what?" and if masked it is a matter of unmasking rather
> than recommitting
We haven
Alexander Gretencord wrote:
> And considering that upstream is dead for about a year I think most
> people will not try to update that package every 2 days or something like
> that.
Most people upgrade the whole system at once - those would see a warning
about masked package.
Cheers,
-jkt
--
c
On Saturday 01 April 2006 22:52, Mark Loeser wrote:
> > Yes, there is. It's slowing down the process, getting into the flow.
> > Waiting 30 days is a lot of time. A regular user does not necessarily
> > follow the dev-gentoo mailing list and it doesn't matter for him, if the
> > package is masked o
Carsten Lohrke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Thursday 30 March 2006 01:55, Mark Loeser wrote:
> > Not directed specifically at you, but it seems a lot of people are
> > masking stuff and removing it very quickly, and I'd really like to see
> > everyone wait the 30 days to remove something from the
On Sat, 2006-04-01 at 19:18 +0200, Carsten Lohrke wrote:
> On Thursday 30 March 2006 01:55, Mark Loeser wrote:
> > Not directed specifically at you, but it seems a lot of people are
> > masking stuff and removing it very quickly, and I'd really like to see
> > everyone wait the 30 days to remove so
On Thursday 30 March 2006 01:55, Mark Loeser wrote:
> Not directed specifically at you, but it seems a lot of people are
> masking stuff and removing it very quickly, and I'd really like to see
> everyone wait the 30 days to remove something from the tree. That way
> anyone using this package in s
foser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Hey,
>
> just added a mask for media-gfx/sodipodi. It has been forked into
> inkscape and sodipodi development subsequently has stagnated. I intend
> to remove sodipodi in about 7 days.
Not directed specifically at you, but it seems a lot of people are
masking st
24 matches
Mail list logo
