Re: [gentoo-dev] please remove me off your mailing list
thanks. i just don;t want my inbox full of gentoo anymore. i use gentoo for 4 years now you guys kick ass thanks for the support On Mon, May 23, 2016 at 1:08 PM, Dale wrote: > Tyler Pohl wrote: > > tylerap...@gmail.com > > Thanks, > -- > Tyler Pohl > > > Nope. It doesn't work that way. Try this: > > List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev+unsubscr...@lists.gentoo.org> > > > Send a empty email to that and I think you have to confirm. > > Dale > > :-) :-) > > > -- Tyler Pohl
[gentoo-dev] please remove me off your mailing list
tylerap...@gmail.com Thanks, -- Tyler Pohl
Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH] python-utils-r1.eclass: python_export_utf8_locale(), ensure sane locale
Please reomove tylerap...@gmail.com from the mailing list. Or please let me know how to get this done. On Sat, Nov 28, 2015 at 11:10 AM, Michał Górny wrote: > On Sun, 15 Nov 2015 10:21:51 +0100 > Michał Górny wrote: > > > Ensure that the locale selected by python_export_utf8_locale() conforms > > to POSIX-ish case conversions. Otherwise, we may accidentally force > > a locale that will break random ebuilds and programs. > > --- > > eclass/python-utils-r1.eclass | 24 ++-- > > 1 file changed, 22 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > Merged. > > -- > Best regards, > Michał Górny > <http://dev.gentoo.org/~mgorny/> > -- Tyler Pohl
Re: [gentoo-dev] Is the $Id$ line in our ebuilds still useful?
Can someone please tell me how to get off this mailing list? Please please please On Aug 13, 2015 8:37 AM, "William Hubbs" wrote: > All, > > I understood the usefulness of this line to some when we were using CVS > since it expanded into the ebuild revision, date, etc. > > This expansion doesn't take place under git, so now I don't understand > the usefulness of this line. If I have missed something, can someone > fill me in, or if it isn't useful any more can we consider removing it? > > Thanks, > > William > >
Re: [gentoo-dev] A question to Russian Gentoo Developers Community about import software substitution
How can I unsucribe from this mailing list On May 9, 2015 1:25 AM, "Dmitry Yu Okunev" wrote: > 08.05.2015 23:05, Vadim A. Misbakh-Soloviov пишет: > >> I had been trying to push the idea of creating an united FOSS community >>> to solve problems of the higher school of the Russian Federation. But >>> such initiatives faded due to absence of support of top executives… And >>> now (according to e.g. [1]) it won't be a problem, IMHO. >>> >> >> It would. Just because of the fact, that "top executives" (in Education >> Dept, >> in regional ministerys and so on) is that kind of clerks, that WOULDN'T >> accept >> anything if it is impossible to get (read as "steal") some money in >> personal. >> > > The link [1] shows that the _can_ get money in personal. > > And I'd prefer >>> make a distribution for the higher shool based on Gentoo Linux. >>> >> >> I'd also prefer, but it is not that possible as you imagine. There is such >> thing as certification in Federal Security Service (FSB) and so on. >> > > 1. It's not a big problem. We can certify a release of our Gentoo based >distribution. It's just need a money to pay to laboratories. Plus >big universities (like my) have enough social ties to fast push >such things through Russian bureaucracy machines, IMO. And we >can return the spent money the same way as ALT Linux (by selling >tech support coupons). > > 2. The Federal Service for Technical and Export Control (ФСТЭК) and >Federal Security Service (ФСБ) certificates required only to process >big systems with personal data (ФЗ-152). For the rest systems (like >ordinal desktop) it's not required at all. > > So >>> here's the Question: >>> >>> Does anybody interested in creating a consortium to send an application >>> to the Ministry of Communications? >>> >> >> I'm partially interested to mentally maintain that, but I have to free >> time to >> activelly do anything in personal (but, probably, will be fine in a >> group). >> > > I just offer to unite efforts. You don't need to free an additional time. > We just need to find common problems and solve it together as a project for > Ministry of Communications. Other good people will connect to us and > meanwhile the support of the ministry will stimulate the top executives. > > Specifically, I'm interested in making a distribution for the higher > school of Russian Federation. > > But, as I said, I doubt in success of that operation. But... Let the >> Force be >> with us... >> > > There was a lot of doubtable (but good) projects in my life. However few > of them successfully started and completed. I think we _must_ try if we > believe in FOSS. Sorry for this pathos :) > > P.S. I'd not use politic-related phrases (like "import software >> substitution") >> in international communities at all and here in particular. >> > > Sorry for that. I was thinking that it's better to make subject more > concrete. > > > Best regards, Dmitry. > >
Re: [gentoo-dev] gentoo-x86 tree cleanup for 'DESCRIPTION ends with a '.' character' warnings
how to i get off these mailing lists? On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 7:42 PM, William Hubbs wrote: > On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 03:59:30AM +0200, Manuel Rüger wrote: > > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > > Hash: SHA512 > > *snip* > > > These links might be helpful: > > > > > http://git.overlays.gentoo.org/gitweb/?p=proj/portage.git;a=commit;h=06637c4215d55c57517739214c6e0fd6f8f53914 > > > > https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=438976 > > > > http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/80786 > > > > > > What's still missing is a patch for devmanual (if we still really want > > to enforce this). > > I read the thread, and there was no concensus about making this a > repoman check. Some people thought it was a good idea, but there was a > feeling that this sort of thing is trivial and shouldn't be worried > about. > > William > -- Tyler Pohl
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: dropping redundant stable keywords
why cant there be a second repository for all old source, ebuilds, and patches and the stable and testing repository can be rolling like it already is. slower archs can then sync the old repository and the new one. On Feb 5, 2014 5:54 PM, "Tom Wijsman" wrote: > On Wed, 05 Feb 2014 20:00:41 -0500 > "Rick \"Zero_Chaos\" Farina" wrote: > > > > Can this be proven? Why are maintainers like WilliamH upset about > > > this? > > > > > > Reference: http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/90063 > > > > I've already voiced my concern on his bug: > > https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=500014 > > Yes; there is some unclear wording causing misconceptions as well as > that you oppose in a way that makes it worth to clarify and vote again, > and I'll ACK hard enough to not discuss this without your presence. > > > > > > >> If the maintainer doesn't wish to support version X any longer then > > >> they can close bugs wontfix. > > > > > > +1, but what about stabilization bugs that block other bugs? > > > > They stay open as a tracker, bugs track all arches. This doesn't > > prevent the work being done on the faster arches, all it does is leave > > bugs hanging around when certain devs think more closed bugs is more > > better. > > My concern with this is that that list is growing; and when that > happens, I'm not so much for "closed bugs", but rather about shifting > our priority to more important bugs, getting new people, better arch > testing quality, and the list goes on... > > We could for example use Tinderbox and have it send success / failure > results, build logs and binpkg(s) (for download) to the arch team, > which makes the arch team just have to solely do a quick inspeciton > of the build log and test the binpkg; this automation can cut down on a > lot of manual testing. On top of that, you have Tinderbox's build log > checking on top of that; which can catch some things the eye might not > see at a first take. This was an example from #gentoo-dev yesterday. > > > >> Removing the last stable version on an arch from the tree is > > >> against policy. > > > > > > The QA policy meant to override this; to avoid confusion, I mean > > > including the proper workflow involved in this. But this has raised > > > concerns on IRC today, as it was made clear what the reasons are > > > that I was asking for; it's good that we do a new vote on this to > > > properly reflect what we really intend, rather than some poor > > > voting that went through a quick vote and didn't take everything in > > > consideration. > > > > > Nothing in the QA policy says "ignore standard removal policy". Here > > is the standard removal policy, and I expect it to be followed: > > > > > https://devmanual.gentoo.org/ebuild-writing/ebuild-maintenance/index.html > > We do however "revisit" it (subject of original thread); the workflow > (masking, news, ...) of course should not be ignored, however we do > ignore that it says "not to remove the last stable ebuild". > > > When a doctor tells you "go to the hospital as fast as you can" he > > doesn't mean "steal a faster car, speed as much as possible, and don't > > stop at red lights". Doing so would obviously be dangerous, and cause > > additional problems, just like ignoring the standard keyword/ebuild > > removal policy. > > Consider that the person will however at least try to test the limits; > and even with those limits in place and following them, the person can > still slowly crash into something. Attention and thoughts are involved. > > > Not the QA team's actions. YOURS. YOUR actions and responses in > > this thread. And the fact that the QA team allows you to > > continue to be on it, despite your obvious lack of interest in > > ACTUALLY having quality assurance. My actions are affected by it > > because I have to continue to attempt to discuss the issue with > > others who actually give a shit, and you just swoop in and say > > no, that absolutely is unacceptable as a solution > > >>> > > >>> The policy is made by the QA team; you are attempting to object to > > >>> the policy, therefore this is the QA team's action. This is their > > >>> action. > > >> > > >> Please don't claim you speak for the QA team when in fact, you have > > >> not discussed it with any of us, > > > > > > We did discuss this QA policy during the QA meeting. > > > > > >> and the QA lead told you to cool it on irc hours ago. > > > > > > That was minutes ago, you are replying to is written before that; > > > furthermore, I believe things are cool. Why do you think otherwise? > > > > > >> You are speaking for yourself here and no one else. > > > > > > I'm quoting QA team policy, agreed on by at least 8 individuals; > > > that policy can be read at the following URL: > > > > > > https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:Quality_Assurance/Policies > > > > > That policy doesn't permit removal of keywords/ebuilds without > > following gentoo standard policy, standard polic
