Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: QA issue: No stable skype in Tree

2007-06-19 Thread Kent Fredric
On 6/19/07, Steve Long <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Chris Gianelloni wrote: > On Mon, 2007-06-18 at 06:01 +0100, Steve Long wrote: >> Stephen Bennett wrote: >> > Not everyone sees that as a reason not to use a potentially useful >> > piece of software. We're not debian. >> >> Could you clarify whet

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Pony Colour Schemes [was: QA issue: No stable skype in Tree]

2007-06-19 Thread Kent Fredric
On 6/19/07, Ryan Hill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Andrew Gaffney wrote: > Chris Gianelloni wrote: >> If the Gentoo developers as a whole decided to dedicate this list to >> pink ponies, we can. > > Are pretty purple ponies acceptable as well? As *everybody* knows, purple ponies aren't pretty.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Determining ebuild stability and the 30 day suggestion

2007-06-19 Thread Sune Kloppenborg Jeppesen
On Tuesday 19 June 2007 06:40, Luis Francisco Araujo wrote: > I use to ask for stabilization of the new version of a package > immediately if it is supposed to fix an *important* security problem in > the package, so that way we spread as soon as possible the new fix to > our users. > > Not sure if

[gentoo-dev] Re: Re: Re: QA issue: No stable skype in Tree

2007-06-19 Thread Steve Long
Chris Gianelloni wrote: > On Mon, 2007-06-18 at 23:49 +0100, Steve Long wrote: > Alright. I've had about enough of your constant and pointless bashing > of everything that we do. Seriously. Grow up. > > Take a step back and come back after you've decided to actually be > *useful* or don't come

Re: [gentoo-dev] Determining ebuild stability and the 30 day suggestion (was: QA issue: No stable skype in Tree)

2007-06-19 Thread Chris Gianelloni
On Tue, 2007-06-19 at 05:32 +0300, Mart Raudsepp wrote: > Hey, > > On E, 2007-06-18 at 11:34 -0700, Chris Gianelloni wrote: > > Also, remember that stabilization is *supposed* to be about the > > stabilization of the *ebuild* and not the *package* itself. > > This sentence made me personally sta

[gentoo-dev] Last rites for dev-cpp/{libbonobomm,libbonobouimm}

2007-06-19 Thread Daniel Gryniewicz
Nothing in the tree depends on the, they don't currently build, and the last upstream release was 2003. Daniel -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Last rites for dev-cpp/{libbonobomm,libbonobouimm}

2007-06-19 Thread Daniel Gryniewicz
On Tue, 2007-06-19 at 21:20 -0400, Daniel Gryniewicz wrote: > Nothing in the tree depends on the, they don't currently build, and the > last upstream release was 2003. > > Daniel > Forgot: scheduled to be removed Jul 19; bug #182612 Daniel -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list

[gentoo-dev] Last rites for dev-cpp/orbitcpp

2007-06-19 Thread Mart Raudsepp
--- package.mask20 Jun 2007 01:17:34 - 1.7379 +++ package.mask20 Jun 2007 01:38:02 - @@ -25,6 +25,7 @@ # Masked for bug #182612 dev-cpp/libbonobomm dev-cpp/libbonobouimm +dev-cpp/orbitcpp With dev-cpp/libbonobomm being masked, nothing else depends on dev-cpp/orbit

[gentoo-dev] how to handle sensitive files when generating binary packages

2007-06-19 Thread Mike Frysinger
there are many files out there that contain critical information about your system ... lets look at /etc/shadow baselayout installs this file, yet it is not listed in CONTENTS for a very good reason ... if someone were to run `quickpkg baselayout` and post the file somewhere, they could easily