Michał Górny posted on Tue, 01 Apr 2014 07:54:11 +0200 as excerpted:
> Something like this, yes. Once all packages are migrated and some time
> passes, we unmask all the flags locally and do a repoman run. We find
> out what needs to go stable, report bugs, wait and repeat.
The big question on th
On 04/01/2014 01:54 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
>Also, I don't see that it should be an issue, but do you think this
>might affect catalyst runs --- I have to ask because
>repairing/reconfiguring seeds is a lot of work.
Well, I think this mostly depends on whether you want multiple multilib
ABIs in
On 04/01/2014 07:40 AM, Anthony G. Basile wrote:
On 04/01/2014 01:54 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
>Also, I don't see that it should be an issue, but do you think this
>might affect catalyst runs --- I have to ask because
>repairing/reconfiguring seeds is a lot of work.
Well, I think this mostly depe
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Samuli Suominen:
>
>
> The same GLEP says,
>
> "In the case of disagreement among QA members the majority of
> established QA members must agree with the action. Some examples
> of disagreements are whether the perceived problem violates the
> po
On Tue, 2014-04-01 at 13:13 +0800, Ben de Groot wrote:
> On 1 April 2014 06:16, Michał Górny wrote:
> > Hello, all.
> >
> > The late multilib ppc issues made me re-check our stable masks on
> > abi_x86_* flags and, honestly, I'm not sure if we're doing things
> > the right way.
> >
> > That said,
On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 11:53 PM, Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote:
> Alexandre Rostovtsev posted on Mon, 31 Mar 2014 14:54:09 -0400 as
> excerpted:
>
> > The best solution is to figure out why the directory is being created
> > there and whether it is customizable. Maybe the code actually is
>
On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 9:58 AM, Alexandre Rostovtsev
wrote:
> On Tue, 2014-04-01 at 13:13 +0800, Ben de Groot wrote:
>>
>> In my opinion your multilib approach introduces an unnecessary degree
>> of complexity, which --as has been shown here again-- is prone to
>> breakage.
>>
>> It would be best
On Tue, 01 Apr 2014 08:48:24 +0300
Samuli Suominen wrote:
> The same GLEP says,
>
> "In the case of disagreement among QA members the majority of
> established QA members must agree with the action. Some examples of
> disagreements are whether the perceived problem violates the policy or
> wheth
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 31/03/14 06:16 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
> Hello, all.
>
> The late multilib ppc issues made me re-check our stable masks on
> abi_x86_* flags and, honestly, I'm not sure if we're doing things
> the right way. First, a quick summary.
>
>
> Let'
On Tue, 01 Apr 2014 12:23:43 +
hasufell wrote:
> Seems there is a serious communication or authority problem in QA team
> then.
In the weekend, when this came up, there weren't much people around; as
for authority, that appears to be conforming [1] to the GLEP.
[1] "Majority is required in
Dnia 2014-04-01, o godz. 11:12:11
Ian Stakenvicius napisał(a):
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA256
>
> On 31/03/14 06:16 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
> > Hello, all.
> >
> > The late multilib ppc issues made me re-check our stable masks on
> > abi_x86_* flags and, honestly, I'm not
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 01/04/14 07:26 AM, Duncan wrote:
> Altho I'm ~arch so stable masks won't directly affect me, but at
> the same time, I'm no-multilib, so all those --newuse and -rX-bump
> rebuilds really ARE useless rebuilds of the /exact/ same thing!
> While my s
Dnia 2014-04-01, o godz. 11:49:37
Ian Stakenvicius napisał(a):
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA256
>
> On 01/04/14 07:26 AM, Duncan wrote:
> > Altho I'm ~arch so stable masks won't directly affect me, but at
> > the same time, I'm no-multilib, so all those --newuse and -rX-bump
>
On 01/04/14 18:55, Samuli Suominen wrote:
> Otherwise everyone would be lining up the QA team membership just to protect
> their work from others.
*lining up to join (sorry, typing error)
On 01/04/14 18:28, Tom Wijsman wrote:
> On Tue, 01 Apr 2014 12:23:43 +
> hasufell wrote:
>
>> And this is going to get worse if people don't trust them. Currently
>> it looks more like a loose club, instead of a team with strong
>> hierarchical structure, which is the only thing that enables
On Tue, 01 Apr 2014 18:55:40 +0300
Samuli Suominen wrote:
> On 01/04/14 18:28, Tom Wijsman wrote:
> > On Tue, 01 Apr 2014 12:23:43 +
> > hasufell wrote:
> >
> >> And this is going to get worse if people don't trust them.
> >> Currently it looks more like a loose club, instead of a team with
Dnia 2014-04-01, o godz. 00:16:17
Michał Górny napisał(a):
> Your thoughts?
Following the feedback on the mailing list, IRC and bugzilla, and some
of my own thoughts, I'd like to put a few important extra points I've
missed in the original mail:
1. playing with the masks will cause a large unne
On 04/01/2014 11:55 AM, Samuli Suominen wrote:
On 01/04/14 18:28, Tom Wijsman wrote:
On Tue, 01 Apr 2014 12:23:43 +
hasufell wrote:
And this is going to get worse if people don't trust them. Currently
it looks more like a loose club, instead of a team with strong
hierarchical structure, w
On 01/04/14 19:38, Tom Wijsman wrote:
> On Tue, 01 Apr 2014 18:55:40 +0300
> Samuli Suominen wrote:
>
>> Futher, no policy was violated, none, whatsoever.
> The "appeal to ..." policy was, but it was a first time event; this
I don't (completely) agree with that, see below:
> can serve as a remi
On 01/04/14 20:16, Anthony G. Basile wrote:
> On 04/01/2014 11:55 AM, Samuli Suominen wrote:
>> On 01/04/14 18:28, Tom Wijsman wrote:
>>> On Tue, 01 Apr 2014 12:23:43 +
>>> hasufell wrote:
>>>
And this is going to get worse if people don't trust them. Currently
it looks more like a
On 04/01/2014 01:34 PM, Samuli Suominen wrote:
So not, at any time, eudev users saw their implementation being replaced
by another by the PM.
This is reassuring. If I can get reassurances that eudev and udev will
proceed forward on equal footing in the tree then I will feel much
better about
On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 11:28 AM, Tom Wijsman wrote:
> There is a strong structure present; for policy enforcement and
> breakage prevention, we have the ability to 1) act until there is
> disagreement, 2) vote by majority, 3) elevate to deputy and/or lead.
So, rather than making statements of bla
On 01/04/14 20:46, Anthony G. Basile wrote:
> On 04/01/2014 01:34 PM, Samuli Suominen wrote:
>> So not, at any time, eudev users saw their implementation being replaced
>> by another by the PM.
>
> This is reassuring. If I can get reassurances that eudev and udev
> will proceed forward on equal f
On 04/01/2014 01:45 PM, Samuli Suominen wrote:
On 01/04/14 20:46, Anthony G. Basile wrote:
On 04/01/2014 01:34 PM, Samuli Suominen wrote:
So not, at any time, eudev users saw their implementation being replaced
by another by the PM.
This is reassuring. If I can get reassurances that eudev and
> On Tue, 01 Apr 2014, Samuli Suominen wrote:
>> Mar 28 10:10:11so who will fix the mess resulting from
>> virtual/libgudev?
>> Mar 28 10:10:44such things should be package masked, instead
>> of breaking the tree
>>
>> Mar 28 10:33:01blueness: eudev-1.5.3-r1 depends on
>> virtual/
On 01/04/14 21:08, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>> On Tue, 01 Apr 2014, Samuli Suominen wrote:
>>> Mar 28 10:10:11so who will fix the mess resulting from
>>> virtual/libgudev?
>>> Mar 28 10:10:44such things should be package masked, instead
>>> of breaking the tree
>>>
>>> Mar 28 10:33:01
> On Tue, 1 Apr 2014, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> On Tue, 01 Apr 2014, Samuli Suominen wrote:
>>> Mar 28 10:10:11so who will fix the mess resulting from
>>> virtual/libgudev?
>>> Mar 28 10:10:44such things should be package masked, instead
>>> of breaking the tree
>>>
>>> Mar 28 10:33
On Tue, 01 Apr 2014 20:21:23 +0300
Samuli Suominen wrote:
> On 01/04/14 19:38, Tom Wijsman wrote:
>
> > can serve as a reminder how people can respond to such a QA action,
> > that is to talk to the 1) QA person, 2) QA team and then 3) Council.
>
> That is what was done, with the members online
On 01/04/14 21:33, Tom Wijsman wrote:
> Okay, but this isn't what happened yet; because your plan was to send
> out a mail after stabilization for everyone to adapt the reverse
> dependencies, and I predict that that in its own would have lead to a
> discussion.
Exactly.
Tom Wijsman:
> On Tue, 01 Apr 2014 20:21:23 +0300
> Samuli Suominen wrote:
>
>> On 01/04/14 19:38, Tom Wijsman wrote:
>>
>>> can serve as a reminder how people can respond to such a QA action,
>>> that is to talk to the 1) QA person, 2) QA team and then 3) Council.
>>
>> That is what was done, wi
On Tue, 01 Apr 2014 19:18:44 +
hasufell wrote:
> Tom... I am not sure if you know that, but your posts are difficult to
> read. You split up posts horribly and I am often unable to follow what
> you mean... at all.
>
> If I am the only one, then it's probably my fault.
When the post respond
Tom Wijsman:
>
> Could it be that your e-mail reader shows quotes in the same color?
>
No.
Currently the java-utils-2 eclass refers to $DESTTREE in the
java-pkg_init_paths_ function that gets run during pkg_setup (via the
java-pkg-2 eclass that calls java-pkg_init). The java-pkg_init_paths_
function also gets called again for most src_install java-utils-2 eclass
functions that use the re
On Tue, 01 Apr 2014 19:18:44 +
hasufell wrote:
> Tom... I am not sure if you know that, but your posts are difficult to
> read. You split up posts horribly and I am often unable to follow what
> you mean... at all.
>
> If I am the only one, then it's probably my fault.
It's a good thing you
On 04/01/2014 01:13 PM, Ben de Groot wrote:
> On 1 April 2014 06:16, Michał Górny wrote:
>> Hello, all.
>>
>> The late multilib ppc issues made me re-check our stable masks on
>> abi_x86_* flags and, honestly, I'm not sure if we're doing things
>> the right way.
>>
>> That said, I have an alternat
On 04/01/2014 10:43 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 9:58 AM, Alexandre Rostovtsev
> wrote:
>> On Tue, 2014-04-01 at 13:13 +0800, Ben de Groot wrote:
>>>
>>> In my opinion your multilib approach introduces an unnecessary degree
>>> of complexity, which --as has been shown here agai
On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 8:13 PM, Patrick Lauer wrote:
> Now let's just continue to ignore the existing multilib-portage work so
> we can claim it's irrelevant, while shifting the conditions for
> accepting it whenever it is convenient, while silently adding the
> competing method in-tree so it's al
On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 9:38 AM, Tom Wijsman wrote:
> Projects like the Council, ComRel and QA are there to protect Gentoo;
> and yes, people are (or should be) lining up to protect Gentoo.
... from QA.
You don't seem to understand what Samuli is saying. QA is being used
as an offensive weapon. I
On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 12:18 PM, hasufell wrote:
> Tom... I am not sure if you know that, but your posts are difficult to
> read. You split up posts horribly and I am often unable to follow what
> you mean... at all.
>
> If I am the only one, then it's probably my fault.
Definitely not the only o
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 04/01/2014 10:03 AM, Kfir Lavi wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 11:53 PM, Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>> Alexandre Rostovtsev posted on Mon, 31 Mar 2014 14:54:09 -0400 as excerpted:
>>
>>> The best solution is to figure out why the di
On Sat, Mar 29, 2014 at 09:27:18PM +0100, Francisco Blas Izquierdo Riera
(klondike) wrote:
> Hi!
>
> El 29/03/14 05:13, Samuli Suominen escribió:
> > I took the liberty to unbreak the tree for you. Don't ever touch my
> > packages again unless
> > they are broken.
> Udev is broken:
> * They have
On 02/04/14 05:02, Matt Turner wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 9:38 AM, Tom Wijsman wrote:
>> Projects like the Council, ComRel and QA are there to protect Gentoo;
>> and yes, people are (or should be) lining up to protect Gentoo.
> ... from QA.
>
> You don't seem to understand what Samuli is say
42 matches
Mail list logo
