On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 6:19 AM, Markos Chandras wrote:
> On 22 August 2013 11:01, Rich Freeman wrote:
>> I think the result of a policy like this would be that stable keywords
>> would get dropped on most peripheral packages, but system packages
>> might still keep them.
&g
On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 7:28 AM, Markos Chandras wrote:
> On 22 August 2013 12:24, Rich Freeman wrote:
>> Do we actually have examples of this happening? I've never had
>> problems with a mix of stable and ~arch keywords. Granted, I'm not
>> running ~arch
On Sat, Aug 24, 2013 at 11:39 AM, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn
wrote:
> Jeroen Roovers schrieb:
>> Mixing stable and testing is precisely what package
>> maintainers (hopefully) do when committing new versions: building and
>> running new software on a known to be stable platform on the premise
>>
On Mon, Aug 26, 2013 at 3:38 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
> I've noticed that some people are using internal eclass functions
> in their ebuilds. I mean, functions that are explicitly marked
> @INTERNAL and that start with an underscore. What should I do to them?
Seems crazy to need a written policy t
On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 10:38 AM, Alex Xu wrote:
> 1. The license expressly forbids redistribution, so RESTRICT=mirror is
> mandatory. RESTRICT=fetch may be required, but I haven't read it that
> carefully.
RESTRICT=fetch generally has nothing to do with what is written in the
license, and everyt
On Sun, Sep 1, 2013 at 10:01 AM, Tom Wijsman wrote:
> If you want to help, please join the herd. If nobody joins, we will
> likely proceed with dropping it in a month and moving its packages
> to maintainer-needed letting everybody want the packages they prefer.
>
> Another option is to combine th
On Tue, Sep 3, 2013 at 4:41 PM, Alan McKinnon wrote:
> The solution is obvious - default to writing plain text to log files and
> give the user an option to enable escapes in the log if {s,}he chooses
> to have it. This does mean you can't use tricks with tee.
Not sure it is so obvious.
Log file
On Tue, Sep 3, 2013 at 5:12 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
> How would you handle progress reporting with this? Something like
> 'capture one thousand lines of updated percentages and merge them with
> a magical pretty printer'? I don't see real gain compared to what we
> have now.
There is no value of
On Tue, Sep 3, 2013 at 5:22 PM, Alan McKinnon wrote:
> On 03/09/2013 23:03, Rich Freeman wrote:
>> It seems to me that the cleaner situation would be to capture
>> information in the logs, and use a pretty-printer of some kind to make
>> it look nice. Terminate output should
On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 7:09 AM, Tom Wijsman wrote:
> On Thu, 05 Sep 2013 12:54:27 +0200
> Agostino Sarubbo wrote:
>
>> On Thursday 05 September 2013 12:47:01 Tom Wijsman wrote:
>> > What I wonder about here is at which cost this does come, when
>> > looking at the fstack-protector then I see that
On Sat, Sep 7, 2013 at 2:10 PM, Martin Vaeth
wrote:
> Ryan Hill wrote:
>>
>> * -fstack-protector{-all}
>> No thank you. -fstack-protector has very limited coverage
>
> I'd say it covers most cases where bugs can be made,
> practically without a severe impact on execution time or code size.
> In
On Sat, Sep 7, 2013 at 7:08 PM, Rick "Zero_Chaos" Farina
wrote:
> Personally I'm using the hardened profile already and find the
> performance penalties negligible for a desktop user, and someone trying
> to run realtime on defaults is likely suicidal anyway.
I suspect what keeps people away from
On Sun, Sep 8, 2013 at 8:06 PM, Ryan Hill wrote:
> You will be expected to fix them, and `append-flags
> -fno-stack-protector` is not an acceptable fix. You can't champion for more
> secure defaults and then just disable them when they get in your way.
Why not? Surely a system where 99.9% of th
On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 6:41 PM, Richard Yao wrote:
> 1. The kernel expects -fno-stack-protector to be the default. What will
> the effect be on kernel configuration once -fstack-protector is the default?
Nothing, since the kernel build system doesn't source make.conf. If
somebody creates an ebu
On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 9:09 AM, Michael Palimaka wrote:
> At what point do we draw the line? Today my mailbox is full of email with
> changes like "app-foo/bar-1.2.3: version bump" -> "app-foo/bar-1.7.3 -
> Version bump.", changing keywords on years-old bugs etc.
Jer - can you comment on how the
On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 7:28 AM, Steven J. Long
wrote:
> It's only an issue at system-level when your code is dependent on what the
> higher layer is going to do with your output, or requires a specific higher
> layer to run at all(!).
I think the real issue is the lack of any kind of standardiza
The Gentoo Council would like to put out a call for volunteers to join
the GLEP team. Right now the alias has only a single member.
I do not see anything in GLEP 1 that requires GLEP team members to be
Gentoo developers, so interested community members are welcome to
apply.
The GLEP team works w
On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 6:13 PM, Tom Wijsman wrote:
> So, something along the lines of:
>
> Linux systems with /usr on a separate file system that do not use
> an initramfs will become unsupported, starting on 01-Nov-2013.
>
++
> Then go on like:
>
> This decision has been taken beca
On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 4:35 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
>
>>
>> What about busybox[sep-usr]? Is that still supported or is everyone with
>> separate /usr forced to use an initramfs?
>
> I'd say it's supported as long as it gives a compatible end result.
> I suspect that the number of cases supported
On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 10:09 AM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
> William, I think what Tom was mentioning here is that he thinks a
> one-sentence answering the "Why" would be a good idea to have in the
> news item, so users that don't have a clue on all of these sep-/usr
> issues will get an idea of wh
On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 3:16 PM, William Hubbs wrote:
> It seems a bit long to me, but I'm not sure how to make it any shorter
> if we include the information about why this is happening.
I would use the newspaper article approach - put the most important
and actionable material at the top, and s
On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 11:03 AM, JD Horelick wrote:
> My only issue here is that I feel like we should give users a bit longer
> than one month (34 days, close enough) to make this change. In some cases,
> it may require a large, architectural change which may take a while to be
> engineered and
On Sun, Sep 29, 2013 at 8:14 PM, hasufell wrote:
> On 09/30/2013 12:54 AM, Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
>> Am Sonntag, 29. September 2013, 23:41:03 schrieb hasufell:
>>> It seems this happens more frequently these days, so I'd like to
>>> remind people to check stable reverse deps before stabilizing
On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 12:58 PM, William Hubbs wrote:
>
> Agreed. I was always told that it is up to the arch teams to test the
> reverse deps.
While I think this makes the most sense in general, I think
maintainers do have a role.
If some package has 75 reverse dependencies, and 1 of them tend
On Sun, Oct 13, 2013 at 7:38 PM, Patrick Lauer wrote:
> And the magic trick is to keep "system mounts" like /run out of
> /etc/mtab (willful desynchronization) so that umount -a doesn't nuke
> them by accident.
>
> ... why else would you keep such data in two non-synchronized locations?! :D
>
Sou
On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 12:42 AM, yac wrote:
>
> Curiously I don't see any difference on my gentoo box, which I think I
> should see but I'm not sure.
On mine the main difference seems to be bind mounts. In /etc/mtab the
bind mount "device" is the directory that is being bind-mounted. In
/proc/
On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 7:59 AM, Ben de Groot wrote:
> I don't see a compelling case being made for why we should make this
> change apart from "all the other distros are doing it", and quite a
> few reasons why we shouldn't. I'm open to being convinced, so please
> tell me why this is good for Ge
On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 9:52 AM, Richard Yao wrote:
> The Linux kernel also supports far more architectures than we do. That does
> not mean that we must support them too.
>
> With that said, how does changing things benefit/affect users, especially
> non-systemd users?
Better support for names
On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 1:01 PM, Richard Yao wrote:
>
> 1. What are mount namespaces? How do they integrate with the kernel?
> 2. What does systemd do with them? What does systemd's use of them
> provide to users?
>
> Saying to google "per-process namespaces" does not really answer that.
> Per-pro
On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 2:58 PM, David Leverton
wrote:
>
> If only someone would invent some sort of kernel feature that could make the
> name "/etc/mtab" refer to different files in different processes
>
Well, the symlink seems like the simpler solution to be honest. I
mean, instead of havi
On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 4:03 PM, David Leverton
wrote:
> So to work around that limitation we insist that everyone change how their
> systems are set up, and still have to reintroduce mtab under a different
> name ("utab", hidden away under /run) because /proc/self/mounts *doesn't*
> contain every
On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 1:04 PM, P.C.
wrote:
>
> Is that "ebuild decay" intentional? How long I can expect ebuilds to
> stay useful?
There really are no guarantees for anything not in the current tree.
The EAPIs/eclasses themselves are pretty well-designed and while
breakage over a period of year
On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 9:53 PM, Peter Stuge wrote:
> Markos,
>
> Markos Chandras wrote:
>> This is not a great way to invite more users to participate. If you
>> intend to make the game overlay and team a developer-only thing you
>> are doing a great work.
>
> Everything in the Gentoo project is
On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 2:52 AM, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>> On Tue, 22 Oct 2013, Pacho Ramos wrote:
>
>> Lets compare it with the 2.32 one that looks to were valid in the
>> past:
>
> That we had less than optimal news items in the past doesn't mean that
> we shouldn't do better now.
I also thi
On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 1:43 PM, Pacho Ramos wrote:
>
> The last revision includes this reference:
> "The guide will also show you
> how to migrate to systemd as it is the only supported setup now."
>
> But the news item cannot contain all the information needed for that ->
> people need to read t
On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 7:28 AM, Tom Wijsman wrote:
> On Mon, 04 Nov 2013 06:06:52 -0600
> Dale wrote:
>
>> But after a person has used Gentoo a while, they figure out what
>> process leads to the most stable update process.
>
> Do they? What do you consider a stable update process?
>
> I come acr
On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 11:15 AM, Alan McKinnon wrote:
> I agree with this sentiment. It's always been my view that the needs of
> a package are driven by the package itself, not by the tree.
>
> Rationale: A package will build and run as long as it's own requirements
> are met regardless of what t
On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 7:14 AM, Denis M. wrote:
> Almost every Gentoo dev that does software testings of some sorts could
> benefit from these "build farms" (although I'd refrain from using that
> term ;) ..).
Don't let me put a damper on your plans as-is, but I'd be interested
if developers who
On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 3:08 PM, Denis M. wrote:
> On 11/07/2013 08:59 PM, Matthew Thode wrote:
>> iirc, we give $200 if infra for developer accounts for a couple of
>> months. If a deal is struck it would likely be more and forever or
>> something.
>
> I've been running my VM for Ago for 13 month
On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 9:42 AM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
> I'm still a little concerned about the potential security issues
> caused by embedded V8's in projects, but as we've already concluded in
> that other thread, there's no other way until the API stabilizes..
Yup. When a project uses a libr
On Sat, Nov 9, 2013 at 10:43 AM, Diego Elio Pettenò
wrote:
> But I don't see the point in saying "well, nobody cares about nagios but two
> people, so we're moving it to a nagios herd". Might as well just use the two
> maintainers there, then.
++
Aliases and herds make sense when you actually ha
On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 8:25 AM, Thomas Kahle wrote:
> On 11/13/2013 12:39 PM, Tom Wijsman wrote:
>> On Wed, 13 Nov 2013 10:28:02 + (UTC)
>> Martin Vaeth wrote:
>>
>>> Hello.
>>>
>>> The new "features" use.stable.mask and package.use.stable.mask
>>> have turned maintaining systems with mixed
On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 10:02 AM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
> It's also worth pointing out that the whole reason why abi_x86_32 is
> {package.,}use.stable.masked is because trying to manage the partial
> transisition between emul-* and multilib-build dependencies on stable
> or mixed-keyworded syste
On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 12:03 PM, Peter Stuge wrote:
>
> Rich Freeman wrote:
>> Users who take advantage of new features in these kinds of states
>> are going to run into problems. That's just the cost of being on
>> the cutting edge.
>
> Why should a feature
On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 1:24 PM, Peter Stuge wrote:
> Rich Freeman wrote:
>> >> Users who take advantage of new features in these kinds of states
>> >> are going to run into problems. That's just the cost of being on
>> >> the cutting edge.
>&g
On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 1:58 PM, Francesco R. wrote:
>
> long story short
> having a portage-20130126.tar.bz2 snapshot (before the EAPI 5 switch)
> greatly simplified the upgrade of an old server on a client.
>
> Why not keep a copy on the servers? I mean
> http://distfiles.gentoo.org/snapshots/
On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 3:49 PM, Roy Bamford wrote:
> The GPL obliges us to keep such patches around for three years, iirc.
> Don't we do that ?
Why? We own the copyright on the patches (to whatever degree that
they're copyrightable), so we don't need a license to distribute them.
If somebody e
On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 7:03 AM, Patrick Lauer wrote:
>
> So just "fix it as problems appear and/or we have some spare time" ...
Have any problems appeared that impact anybody who hasn't tried to
take advantage of the new multilib features (ie modified their config
files/etc)?
>
> Well, you acci
On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 7:21 AM, Ben de Groot wrote:
> On 14 November 2013 13:13, Michał Górny wrote:
>>
>> And how is it possible to discuss anything properly in Gentoo?
>
> That's because we have no proper leadership. We're an anarchistic
> collection of people working at cross-purposes at the
On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 7:30 AM, Patrick Lauer wrote:
>
> Apart from me masking a few things because portage couldn't figure out a
> way to a consistent state, and all that ...
That is vague. It may be true, but it does nothing to help anybody
understand what is going on. I haven't had to mask
On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 8:17 AM, Francesco R. wrote:
> Rich, that made me smile, none of my remote machine has cvs since a
> _very_ long time say 2006.
> We are speaking of box that have troubles to emerging anything new, plus
> me and most of the internet barely remember cvs up :)
You don't nee
On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 7:57 AM, Ben de Groot wrote:
>> I said
> As it is always happy to point out, Council doesn't see itself as
> leadership, just as a supreme court of appeal, when everything else
> seems to have failed. It likes to get involved as little as possible.
The last time I talked
On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 11:38 AM, Ben de Groot wrote:
> I was particularly hit by this as maintainer of freetype, see bugs
> 455070 and 459352 for some of the mess that could have been avoided.
Looks like 455070 was the source of problems there (the other is just
a tracker with the aftermath). T
On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 4:22 PM, Pacho Ramos wrote:
>
> We are pleased to announce the stabilization of GNOME-3.8. Users are
> strongly encouraged to read the GNOME 3.8 Upgrade Guide to avoid any
> possible issues relating to the upgrade. The guide will also show you
> how to migrate to systemd as
On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 1:53 AM, Ben de Groot wrote:
>
> I don't really want to bring up this episode again, but it is a
> telling example, which you asked for.
I appreciate that. I did ask for an example. I'll also limit my
comments just to things that I think are more helpful moving forward.
On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 8:17 AM, Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote:
> To the extent patches are larger than the rather blurry "trivial" level,
> I believe there's no question that they ARE derivative. In the case of
> literal patches, literally and provably so, due to the context-diff which
> li
On Sun, Nov 24, 2013 at 9:35 AM, Petteri Räty wrote:
> when doing a fresh installation I noticed that during I get to see many
> old news items. There used to be a problem with Portage so no news items
> could be removed. I think that has now been fixed for years so we
> should be able to do this
On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 10:56 PM, Paul B. Henson wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 09:36:38PM +0100, Peter Stuge wrote:
>> Paul B. Henson wrote:
>> > In openntpd ebuilds starting with version 20080406-r3, logging was changed
>> > from using the default standard syslog to running the daemon in debu
On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 2:39 AM, Alan McKinnon wrote:
> In this day and age not having a network-capable install out the box is
> silly. The first major action after unpacking the tarball is going to be
> adding new packages and doing updates, the source code for which is on
> the network.
A netwo
On Sat, Dec 7, 2013 at 12:52 AM, Rick "Zero_Chaos" Farina
wrote:
>
> 2.) having dhcpcd in this list will cause everything else to be cleaned
> out that that is bd. imho, dhcpcd shouldn't be on this list at all
> purely from a safety perspective. The stages will have dhcpcd so they
> wouldn't
On Sat, Dec 7, 2013 at 9:22 AM, Rick "Zero_Chaos" Farina
wrote:
> Choice is fine, I love choice, but to have a user unpack a stage tarball
> and find no way at all to handle their networking that's just ugly.
> I mean we could just have dhcpcd in @system and let people figure it
> out from th
On Sun, Dec 8, 2013 at 12:46 PM, Tom Wijsman wrote:
>
> Given that the retroactive change I suggest causes a lot of complexity;
> changing it on the next EAPI indeed sounds like one way to go, the
> alternative is to make it a suggestive guideline or policy and cover
> it as a QA check in repoman.
On Sun, Dec 8, 2013 at 2:14 PM, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>
> PMS just provides a mechanism, but doesn't prefer one SLOT value over
> another. Such a change would introduce policy into PMS which is not
> the right way to go.
Sure it does - it defaults to :* when :* was never specified. I don't
see ho
On Sun, Dec 8, 2013 at 3:01 PM, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> Our rules of slot/subslot dependencies and slot operators are just
> complicated enough, so I really would dislike complicating them even
> more by having an EAPI dependent default. In addition, from a package
> manager view there is nothing
On Sun, Dec 8, 2013 at 6:57 PM, Patrick Lauer wrote:
> On 12/09/2013 12:54 AM, Tom Wijsman wrote:
>>
>> One thing that directly comes to mind is that dependencies that have no
>> SLOT="0" ebuild present would need us to manually specify a specific
>> SLOT; given that this is a not so common situat
On Sun, Dec 8, 2013 at 9:37 PM, wrote:
>
> How about defining a QA workflow for introducing a new slot of a
> library, such as "mask it and open a tracker bug until every individual
> reverse dependencies are checked"?
>
The problem with this is that it puts the onus on the person who wants
to m
On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 9:50 AM, Rick "Zero_Chaos" Farina
wrote:
> I can honestly say most of the time when setup my arm systems I'm
> unpacking the arm stage3 on an amd64 and then booting the arm device
> with the base stage3 and fixing things from there. I suppose it is
> possible to use qemu to
On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 5:55 AM, Tom Wijsman wrote:
> For the dependency syntax, having :* as a default breaks things or
> causes a lot of work. If explicit slots (or :0) were the default, it
> works and you spare out dealing with lots of reverse dependencies when
> you introduce a new slot.
I was
On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 2:56 PM, Rick "Zero_Chaos" Farina
wrote:
> I really don't like the idea of having no networking in the stage3 by
> default, however, I'm becoming more open minded on what qualifies as
> networking. What I'm wrestling with is this, what if I want to slap a
> stage3 on a devi
On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 5:31 AM, Steev Klimaszewski wrote:
> On Mon, 2013-12-09 at 20:33 -0500, Rich Freeman wrote:
> You're thinking with your x86/amd64 hat on here.
Actually, I probably just underquoted. I am well-aware that there are
issues with ARM, hence my previous suggest
On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 3:47 PM, Chris Reffett wrote:
> The idea of running a sed on inittab in an ebuild, no matter what the
> context, terrifies me. Perhaps we can ease this in slowly by renaming rc ->
> openrc and symlinking rc -> openrc and making a release with that change
> concurrent with a
On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 7:41 PM, Patrick Lauer wrote:
> Well, given that systemd unit files don't express dependencies ...
>
Sure they do. They declare wants, after, wantedby, etc. Looking in
my /usr/lib/systemd/system it seems like all the units I looked at
declared their dependencies. I don'
On Wed, Jan 1, 2014 at 8:51 PM, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
> In essence, I don't want to *use* code that isn't @FREE. This includes
> the installed files, of course, but also the build system (that I use
> temporarily). We could generalize this to "any file accessed during
> emerge" to be on the safe
On Wed, Jan 1, 2014 at 9:19 PM, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
>
> Is there a real example where the license matters for something
> redistributed to yourself?
Well, "yourself" is a loose term. If I were to redistribute MS
Windows across 300 PCs for my employer I suspect some people would
have somethin
On Wed, Jan 1, 2014 at 9:50 PM, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
>
> But Gentoo can't distribute MS Windows to you in the first place. Is
> there a package that Gentoo can distribute to you, but you can't
> redistribute within your organization?
Well, ACCEPT_LICENSE is about more than just whether a packa
On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 10:25 AM, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
> If you think the transition period for that is long, how long do you
> think it will take for people to become aware of the magic USE flag and
> begin populating the other-LICENSE-contained-within-LICENSE variable?
> How long until it has
On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 1:17 PM, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>
> This is not primarily about distfiles mirroring, about about giving
> users a choice what distfiles they will accept on their systems (for
> whatever reasons, e.g. legal or philosophical). Besides, not all users
> are under the same legisla
On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 4:11 PM, Ryan Hill wrote:
> That's only possible if we enumerate every license in every distfile we
> distribute, which I don't think is a good idea. Or at least not on the
> basis of a theoretic user that might not actually exist.
Why would we need to do that when we don'
On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 5:29 PM, Rick "Zero_Chaos" Farina
wrote:
> I never felt manipulating cflags with use flags was a great idea, but in
> this case is does feel extra pointless.
>
Tend to agree, though one place I could see it being hypothetically
useful is if we need to set a use-dep. That i
On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 7:41 AM, Igor wrote:
> What I offer is to make the response and self-assessment on Gentoo
> changes automated and fast. Then it will be getting better by itself.
> The rate of experience Dev is attaining will jump several times up and
> the level drudgery will decrease in t
On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 8:10 AM, Igor wrote:
> Hello Patrick,
>
> Friday, January 10, 2014, 4:39:59 PM, you wrote:
>
>> Bad code is bad. You can write bad code in any language.
>
> BTW Perl is faster than Python too.
>
> Try writing quick sort in Perl, Ptyhon and G++
>
> then dump the memory.
>
>
On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 4:54 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
>
> 2) has to add package.accept_keywords entry for the package. Which
> means turning a pure stable system into an unsupported mixed-keyword
> system.
As opposed to an unsupported pure stable system or an unsupported pure
unstable system? I d
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 10:54 AM, Peter Stuge wrote:
> Sergey Popov wrote:
>> As i said earlier, problem begins when we NEED to stabilize
>> something to prevent breakages and arch teams are slow.
>
> Isn't that simply a matter of assigning and respecting priority on
> bugs properly?
Are you sugg
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 1:11 PM, Peter Stuge wrote:
> I certainly don't think the work needs to go away if the work is
> considered to be important. It's fine to have open bugs for years
> in the absence of a good solution.
I get what you're saying, though there is still a cost to leaving the
bug
On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 2:58 AM, Matt Turner wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 11:02 PM, wrote:
>> Maybe, a good solution is to introduce a special arch, "noarch", for such
>> packages (similar to what's done in the rpm world). Then, if a package is
>> ~noarch, it is automatically considered ~arc
On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 9:54 PM, Tom Wijsman wrote:
> #gentoo-qa | @hwoarang: pretty sure diego had the powerzz to suspend
> people
>
> Whether this has actually happened is something that is questionable;
Not that this necessarily needs to make it into the GLEP, and I'm
still on the fenc
On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 7:22 PM, Patrick Lauer wrote:
>
> Yey, we're allowed to sometimes do revert games, if we're asking nicely
> ... and the only way to stop the revert game is for QA to stand down.
> We're allowed to send strongly-worded emails, but getting things baked
> into policy is too ra
On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 9:56 AM, Tom Wijsman wrote:
> If a developer does an unannounced mass action that breaks the tree
> severely or is heavily prohibited by policy, is unreachable while he
> continues to commit this; then it would be handy to "temporarily" be
> able to withdraw the commit acce
On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 12:26 PM, William Hubbs wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 10:47:50AM -0500, Rich Freeman wrote:
>> If Comrel really objects to this I'm not entirely opposed to letting
>> QA have the reins (certainly we can't just let policy go unenforced
>&g
On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 7:34 AM, Patrick Lauer wrote:
> On 01/22/2014 03:00 PM, Alan McKinnon wrote:
>> I don't want to appear rude, but when reading this entire mail all I see
>> is someone who has probably never had to do it for real.
>>
>> People are not machines. Volunteers really do not like
On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 11:02 PM, Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote:
> I've often wondered just how much faster gentoo could move, and how much
> better we could keep up with upstream, if we weren't so focused on 30+day
> outdated stab?l3 bumping all the time. All that effort... from my
> viewpo
On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 11:53 PM, Peter Stuge wrote:
> Rich Freeman wrote:
>> It seems like the simplest solution in these cases is to just have
>> them focus on @system packages for the stable tree, and let users
>> deal with more breakage outside of that set
>
> Why
On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 1:56 PM, Peter Stuge wrote:
>
> I don't think that's "completely optional" though, it sounds like a
> one-way function. If have ever stabilized a package once then must
> ensure a stable package forever.
>
> I think arbitrarily removing stable versions should also be an opt
On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 2:41 AM, Steev Klimaszewski wrote:
> It's not necessarily the STABLEREQs stopping, some of the issues are (at
> least on some arches!) that some of the unstable software doesn't quite
> work properly anymore, and we are failing at communicating. And in
> those cases, we on
On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 12:23 PM, Jeroen Roovers wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Jan 2014 08:33:05 -0800
> ""Paweł Hajdan, Jr."" wrote:
>
>> Why not allow maintainers to drop redundant stable and even ~arch
>> keywords from their packages?
>
> This is standard practice already.
If there is still pain then m
On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 1:14 AM, Alec Warner wrote:
>> sounds to me like QA is giving itself carte blanche to make any "fix"
>> they want as per "we think a developer's actions are causing problems"
>> hmm?
>
> So in short, while one could read that passage as you did, I don't think
> that is thei
On Sat, Feb 1, 2014 at 12:35 PM, Rick "Zero_Chaos" Farina
wrote:
>
> I see exactly zero downside to doing this, so if whoever is going to
> actually do the editing of the profiles would like to work with me (to
> give me warning), I think I can manage the rest.
I see no harm in this - it is just
On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 11:42 AM, Rick "Zero_Chaos" Farina
wrote:
> I'm more worried about how long it takes me to learn
> how to news than the actual second the snapshot is taken.
Just read the GLEP and post some text to the list. Bikeshedding will
occur. If you need help committing it just pin
On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 10:15 PM, Steev Klimaszewski wrote:
>
> You know what - this is pure and utter bullshit. Keeping it around for
> "slower" arches does NOT block progress. I have intimate knowledge with
> what ACTUALLY happens when people pull this bullshit - and that is a
> system that I c
On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 8:00 PM, Rick "Zero_Chaos" Farina
wrote:
> On 02/05/2014 07:48 PM, Tom Wijsman wrote:
>>
>> https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:Quality_Assurance/Policies
>>
> That policy doesn't permit removal of keywords/ebuilds without following
> gentoo standard policy, standard policy
1101 - 1200 of 2196 matches
Mail list logo
