On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 9:39 AM, hasufell wrote:
> On 04/02/2013 04:01 PM, Markos Chandras wrote:
> > Here we go again. Fine, keep arguing about the really important
> > question "why old X is in the tree when new X is stable".
> > Did anyone actually consider to ask the maintainers instead of ope
On 04/02/2013 04:01 PM, Markos Chandras wrote:
> Here we go again. Fine, keep arguing about the really important
> question "why old X is in the tree when new X is stable".
> Did anyone actually consider to ask the maintainers instead of opening
> a public debate on this? I guess no, because
> bike
You know guys, I just joined this list so I could get an inside look at how
gentoo development is supposed to work, and hopefully find a few role
models so I know what to do to get the ball rolling on becoming a developer
myself.
I never expected to walk into this sort of tit for tat mud slinging
On 2 April 2013 15:21, Alexis Ballier wrote:
>
> Did you even check if my first reply to this thread was not complete
> BS ? I didn't.
>
> Alexis.
>
Apologies. My reply was below yours because it was the last one in the
thread. It was not referred to you but to the endless
"oh lets keep it, oh le
On Tue, 2 Apr 2013 15:01:08 +0100
Markos Chandras wrote:
> Here we go again. Fine, keep arguing about the really important
> question "why old X is in the tree when new X is stable".
Nobody besides that part of the thread is arguing about anything like
that. If you are upset about the endless deb
On Tue, 2 Apr 2013 15:01:08 +0100
Markos Chandras wrote:
> bikeshedding
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it
means.
--
Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On 2 April 2013 14:34, Alexis Ballier wrote:
> On Tue, 2 Apr 2013 14:07:16 +0100
> Markos Chandras wrote:
>
>> On 2 April 2013 13:48, Rich Freeman wrote:
>> > On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 8:37 AM, Alexis Ballier
>> > wrote:
>> >> but what's the problem with keeping it and not breaking older
>> >> upg
On Tue, 2 Apr 2013 14:07:16 +0100
Markos Chandras wrote:
> On 2 April 2013 13:48, Rich Freeman wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 8:37 AM, Alexis Ballier
> > wrote:
> >> but what's the problem with keeping it and not breaking older
> >> upgrade paths?
> >>
> >
> > This whole discussion seems a b
Samuli Suominen wrote:
> imho,
..
> we should stick to the "latest stable is the stable" mantra
> (i'm not sure if this is even documented anywhere? and propably
> should not be? keep it as maintainer specific decision like it's now?)
If it's the agreen-upon way then why not document it?
//Peter
On 02/04/13 15:25, hasufell wrote:
bash-3.1 seems to break ebuild sourcing and is blocked in most package
managers. So I was wondering how can it still be stable then or even in
the tree? I'd say mask it with a note that this breaks the shit out of
gentoo, no matter what PM you use. Otherwise, ju
On 2 April 2013 13:48, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 8:37 AM, Alexis Ballier wrote:
>> but what's the problem with keeping it and not breaking older
>> upgrade paths?
>>
>
> This whole discussion seems a bit academic. Somebody pointed out that
> we have a version of bash we might
On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 8:37 AM, Alexis Ballier wrote:
> but what's the problem with keeping it and not breaking older
> upgrade paths?
>
This whole discussion seems a bit academic. Somebody pointed out that
we have a version of bash we might not need any longer. If by some
miracle the bash main
On Tue, 02 Apr 2013 14:32:26 +0200
hasufell wrote:
> On 04/02/2013 02:29 PM, Alexis Ballier wrote:
> > On Tue, 02 Apr 2013 14:25:43 +0200
> > hasufell wrote:
> >
> >> bash-3.1 seems to break ebuild sourcing and is blocked in most
> >> package managers. So I was wondering how can it still be sta
On 04/02/2013 02:29 PM, Alexis Ballier wrote:
> On Tue, 02 Apr 2013 14:25:43 +0200
> hasufell wrote:
>
>> bash-3.1 seems to break ebuild sourcing and is blocked in most package
>> managers. So I was wondering how can it still be stable then or even
>> in the tree? I'd say mask it with a note that
On Tue, 02 Apr 2013 14:25:43 +0200
hasufell wrote:
> bash-3.1 seems to break ebuild sourcing and is blocked in most package
> managers. So I was wondering how can it still be stable then or even
> in the tree? I'd say mask it with a note that this breaks the shit
> out of gentoo, no matter what P
15 matches
Mail list logo
