Re: [arch-general] inefficient handling of bug reports?
When I file a bug report with the Flyspray web interface, why can't I specify the package it concerns? Having that option should make it possible for the package maintainers to be immediately and automatically notified of the report. The way it works now seems to be that I have to wait for some generic bug janitor to manually assign my report to the maintainer of the package (correct me if I'm mistaken). For example, I filed a bug report nearly two days ago, but apparently no janitor (or any other maintainer) has looked at it jet, which means all that time is wasted for hardly any reason (and no, I won't specify which bug. It's irrelevant to the issue I'm addressing here.) I believe the coders among us appreciate efficiency and automation, so maybe we can improve this system? ...come on, not even a single flame or a +1? -_-;
Re: [arch-general] inefficient handling of bug reports?
On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 9:58 PM, Grigorios Bouzakis grb...@xsmail.com wrote: Angus charmen...@gmail.com wrote: When I file a bug report with the Flyspray web interface, why can't I specify the package it concerns? Having that option should make it possible for the package maintainers to be immediately and automatically notified of the report. The way it works now seems to be that I have to wait for some generic bug janitor to manually assign my report to the maintainer of the package (correct me if I'm mistaken). For example, I filed a bug report nearly two days ago, but apparently no janitor (or any other maintainer) has looked at it jet, which means all that time is wasted for hardly any reason (and no, I won't specify which bug. It's irrelevant to the issue I'm addressing here.) I believe the coders among us appreciate efficiency and automation, so maybe we can improve this system? ...come on, not even a single flame or a +1? -_-; I think job description no.1 fits you perfectly. You seem to have what it takes. :) http://www.archlinux.org/news/contributors-wanted Uh huh, that's great, but the point I tried to make is that these janitors (or Bug Wranglers as they're apparently called in Arch land) are unnecessary in most cases if only users could properly flag their reports with the corresponding package. I'm In other words, I'm claiming this is mostly a UI problem rather than a man power problem. Yay for reading comprehension...
Re: [arch-general] inefficient handling of bug reports?
On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 10:07 PM, Ionuț Bîru ib...@archlinux.org wrote: On 03/27/2011 05:16 AM, Angus wrote: When I file a bug report with the Flyspray web interface, why can't I specify the package it concerns? Having that option should make it possible for the package maintainers to be immediately and automatically notified of the report. you seem to be a regular bugzilla user. You can't specify a package because we have a lot of them and somebody has to add them as a project and sucks(it might be a limitation for flyspray) But a script should be able to take care of this, no? instead we chose to have some style but not everyone use it. [packagename] short description I use that when reporting bugs, but it doesn't seem to get my reports assigned to the relevant maintainer(s) any faster at all...
Re: [arch-general] inefficient handling of bug reports?
On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 10:31 PM, Grigorios Bouzakis grb...@xsmail.com wrote: Angus charmen...@gmail.com wrote: But a script should be able to take care of this, no? Doesn't a script solve everything? Here is Arch's customized flyspray: http://projects.archlinux.org/vhosts/bugs.archlinux.org.git Thanks. Unfortunately I'm not familiar with php (I've always found it a bit too stinky stinky for my taste). If Arch would use Roundup or something else python based I could probably hack it though... You guessed it, its because the maintainer has to become aware of the bug report. Which usually means someone should assign it to him :) Again, I'm saying there should be a straightforward option for the user to do that him/herself when filing the bug report. This I think applies especially to a community like Arch, where there are many packages (and thus bugs) to manage and users tend to be somewhat less clueless then in most other communities. If flyspray can't be fixed to include this basic functionality, perhaps replacing it with something else would be a good idea?
[arch-general] inefficient handling of bug reports?
When I file a bug report with the Flyspray web interface, why can't I specify the package it concerns? Having that option should make it possible for the package maintainers to be immediately and automatically notified of the report. The way it works now seems to be that I have to wait for some generic bug janitor to manually assign my report to the maintainer of the package (correct me if I'm mistaken). For example, I filed a bug report nearly two days ago, but apparently no janitor (or any other maintainer) has looked at it jet, which means all that time is wasted for hardly any reason (and no, I won't specify which bug. It's irrelevant to the issue I'm addressing here.) I believe the coders among us appreciate efficiency and automation, so maybe we can improve this system?
Re: [arch-general] no python3 package?
Those are AUR packages, you need to ask their maintainers in the AUR to make the necessary changes. Learn2read, please. I was given the impression that this was going to be solved with the python package: On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 1:49 PM, Allan McRae al...@archlinux.org wrote: Hmm... I probably should have added a version to the provides line in the python package. Currently it only provides python3 and not a version so the versioned deps in those AUR packages are causing issues. I'll get around to that before this exits [testing] Note the part: I'll get around to that before this exits [testing]...
Re: [arch-general] no python3 package?
Hmm... I probably should have added a version to the provides line in the python package. Currently it only provides python3 and not a version so the versioned deps in those AUR packages are causing issues. I'll get around to that before this exits [testing] Um... did you perhaps not get around to it? :: Replace python3 with extra/python? [Y/n] error: failed to prepare transaction (could not satisfy dependencies) :: pyqt-py3and2: requires python3=3.1 :: sip-py3and2: requires python3=3.1 ...anybody?
Re: [arch-general] no python3 package?
Hmm... I probably should have added a version to the provides line in the python package. Currently it only provides python3 and not a version so the versioned deps in those AUR packages are causing issues. I'll get around to that before this exits [testing] Um... did you perhaps not get around to it? :: Replace python3 with extra/python? [Y/n] error: failed to prepare transaction (could not satisfy dependencies) :: pyqt-py3and2: requires python3=3.1 :: sip-py3and2: requires python3=3.1
[arch-general] no python3 package?
I'm glad Arch did the python3 transition and I agree with python3 being the default version (i.e. having 'python' symlink to 'python3.x'). But what's the reason for no longer having a package named 'python3' with a symlink to 'python3.x'? It would make (/have made) the transition a little easier, no? Any harm done in providing it?
Re: [arch-general] no python3 package?
On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 1:49 PM, Allan McRae al...@archlinux.org wrote: On 07/10/10 14:40, Angus wrote: I'm glad Arch did the python3 transition and I agree with python3 being the default version (i.e. having 'python' symlink to 'python3.x'). But what's the reason for no longer having a package named 'python3' with a symlink to 'python3.x'? It would make (/have made) the transition a little easier, no? Any harm done in providing it? I have no idea what you are talking about... pacman -Ss python3 testing/python 3.1.2-2 [installed] Next generation of the python high-level scripting language community/python3 3.1.2-4 Next generation of the python high-level scripting language Note that testing/python will replace the community/python3 once it moves to [extra]. Allan Argh... sorry for not checking things properly first... It's just that when I tried to update my packages (includer AUR) I saw this: :: Replace python3 with testing/python? [Y/n] resolving dependencies... looking for inter-conflicts... error: failed to prepare transaction (could not satisfy dependencies) :: pyqt-py3and2: requires python3=3.1 :: sip-py3and2: requires python3=3.1 ...and just assumed that meant 'python3' was set to disappear. Ang
Re: [arch-general] no python3 package?
Hmm... I probably should have added a version to the provides line in the python package. Currently it only provides python3 and not a version so the versioned deps in those AUR packages are causing issues. I'll get around to that before this exits [testing] Allan Yes, that makes sense. Thank you for your quick responses and solution. Ang
Re: [arch-general] [gcc-4.3] segfault when runnung -O3 compiled c++ code
On 26/06/2008, at 6:13 PM, Maik Beckmann wrote: Hi, Can someone confirm that this http://codepad.org/I313t7BN compiled with g++ -O3 test.cpp -o test gives a segfault when trying to run it via ./test Using gcc 4.3.1 on arch32, I don't get a segfault.
