On 13 March 2010 00:07, Ryan Hill wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Mar 2010 18:33:12 +0100
> Ben de Groot wrote:
>> Abandoned packages do not belong in the portage tree. That's
>> why we have a treecleaners project.
>
> The treecleaners project is tasked with keeping these packages working, and
> removing the
Ryan Hill wrote:
> I can't find it any more, but that's probably where this idea came
> from. It never really made sense to me but I've done it on several occasions.
me too. I guess it's been handed down for ages.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
On Fri, 12 Mar 2010 18:33:12 +0100
Ben de Groot wrote:
> On 12 March 2010 16:59, Alexis Ballier wrote:
> > Or like the old gtk-1: completely abandon the package and let the
> > consumers upgrade slowly. IMHO this is the less annoying approach for
> > everyone.
>
> Abandoned packages do not belo
On Fri, 12 Mar 2010 21:18:03 +0200
Petteri Räty wrote:
> There seems to be two different schools on who to assign a keywording
> bug with only a single arch. I have myself assigned it to the arch in
> question but there's a difference of opinion here:
> http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2721
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 12-03-2010 20:47, William Hubbs wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 08:11:50PM +, Jeremy Olexa wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, 12 Mar 2010 21:18:03 +0200, Petteri R??ty
>> wrote:
>>> There seems to be two different schools on who to assign a keywording
>>> b
On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 08:11:50PM +, Jeremy Olexa wrote:
>
> On Fri, 12 Mar 2010 21:18:03 +0200, Petteri R??ty
> wrote:
> > There seems to be two different schools on who to assign a keywording
> > bug with only a single arch. I have myself assigned it to the arch in
> > question but there's
On 03/12/2010 11:39 AM, Petteri Räty wrote:
> In eclasses there's often use for outputting QA warnings for ebuild
> authors (at least in java and python could immediately make use of
> this). Currently Portage has eqawarn available but it's considered
> internal. Hopefully eqawarn finds it's way to
On 03/10/10 11:36, Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis wrote:
2010-03-08 22:28:16 William Hubbs napisał(a):
On Fri, Mar 05, 2010 at 04:19:36PM -0800, Zac Medico wrote:
No, it won't. To prove it, I've just tested with a stable stage3
containing portage-2.1.7.x. Here are the steps:
1) extract st
On Fri, 12 Mar 2010 21:18:03 +0200, Petteri Räty
wrote:
> There seems to be two different schools on who to assign a keywording
> bug with only a single arch. I have myself assigned it to the arch in
> question but there's a difference of opinion here:
> http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=272
On 03/12/2010 09:39 PM, "Paweł Hajdan, Jr." wrote:
> On 3/12/10 8:18 PM, Petteri Räty wrote:
>> There seems to be two different schools on who to assign a keywording
>> bug with only a single arch.
>
> Why a special case for that? The general rule seems to be that the owner
> is the maintaining he
On 03/12/2010 09:18 PM, Petteri Räty wrote:
> There seems to be two different schools on who to assign a keywording
> bug with only a single arch. I have myself assigned it to the arch in
> question but there's a difference of opinion here:
> http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=272160#c5
> Let's
In eclasses there's often use for outputting QA warnings for ebuild
authors (at least in java and python could immediately make use of
this). Currently Portage has eqawarn available but it's considered
internal. Hopefully eqawarn finds it's way to the next EAPI but in the
mean while do we want:
1)
On 3/12/10 8:18 PM, Petteri Räty wrote:
> There seems to be two different schools on who to assign a keywording
> bug with only a single arch.
Why a special case for that? The general rule seems to be that the owner
is the maintaining herd (if any), otherwise the maintainer. Then all
arch teams an
There seems to be two different schools on who to assign a keywording
bug with only a single arch. I have myself assigned it to the arch in
question but there's a difference of opinion here:
http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=272160#c5
Let's get agreed on a single approach and I will add a note
On Sex, 2010-03-12 at 17:59 +0100, Matti Bickel wrote:
> Angelo Arrifano wrote:
> > What do you people think on a new pkg_changelog function that would
> > instruct the ebuild how to retrieve this kind of information from the
> > package?
>
> No, please don't. I'm okay with it if your mean "at th
On 12 March 2010 10:48, Theo Chatzimichos wrote:
> First of all, I'll delay the commit since I need to write documentation
> patches, and I won't be able, as I'll leave soon for a conference and will be
> back on Monday.
What exactly needs to be done for documentation? Maybe I can help there.
Ch
Ben de Groot posted on Fri, 12 Mar 2010 16:47:13 +0100 as excerpted:
> * Making it harder to get both GNOME and KDE things out of a profile
>> (though the common things in desktop profile right now is quite
>> suboptimal for GNOME)
>
> Either solution is suboptimal, so it is very much about weig
On 12 March 2010 16:59, Alexis Ballier wrote:
> Or like the old gtk-1: completely abandon the package and let the
> consumers upgrade slowly. IMHO this is the less annoying approach for
> everyone.
Abandoned packages do not belong in the portage tree. That's
why we have a treecleaners project.
C
On 12 March 2010 14:18, Robert Bradbury wrote:
> It would appear that the pending (0321) mask of Qt3 will break
> sci-misc/qcad, sci-chemistry/xdrawchem and x11-misc/glunarclock.
The mask has already been in place since March 1st.
> a) Has research been done to determine whether there are replac
Jeremy Olexa wrote:
> There is an optional tag in metadata.xml.
Good. Seems i'm not the first who thought about that ;)
Yeah, maybe we can get the package managers to display the URLs
corresponding to the atoms to be installed/updated when given a flag.
But maybe that already exists, i haven't ha
On Friday 12 of March 2010 17:17:01 Fabian Groffen wrote:
> On 12-03-2010 08:46:34 -0700, Denis Dupeyron wrote:
> > That said they were perfectly entitled to make the decision of not
> > wanting to maintain qt3 any longer. The only advice I can give is that
> > all disgruntled users and developers
On Fri, 12 Mar 2010 17:59:58 +0100, Matti Bickel wrote:
> As an alternative, let the ebuild provide a variable that points to
> upstreams online Changelog or something, so you as a human can go parse
> it yourself. But then you could also just take the HOMEPAGE variable
> that's already there.
Angelo Arrifano wrote:
> What do you people think on a new pkg_changelog function that would
> instruct the ebuild how to retrieve this kind of information from the
> package?
No, please don't. I'm okay with it if your mean "at the end of
emerge -u ", but wouldn't it be pointless to see what chang
On 12/03/10 17:17, Fabian Groffen wrote:
> On 12-03-2010 08:46:34 -0700, Denis Dupeyron wrote:
>> That said they were perfectly entitled to make the decision of not
>> wanting to maintain qt3 any longer. The only advice I can give is that
>> all disgruntled users and developers create a qt3 project
Le vendredi 12 mars 2010 à 16:59 +0100, Alexis Ballier a écrit :
> On Fri, 12 Mar 2010 08:46:34 -0700
> Denis Dupeyron wrote:
>
> [...]
> > That said they were perfectly entitled to make the decision of not
> > wanting to maintain qt3 any longer. The only advice I can give is that
> > all disgrun
On 12-03-2010 08:46:34 -0700, Denis Dupeyron wrote:
> That said they were perfectly entitled to make the decision of not
> wanting to maintain qt3 any longer. The only advice I can give is that
> all disgruntled users and developers create a qt3 project and
> adopt/unmask/re-commit the qt3 librarie
On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 04:51:02PM +0100, Angelo Arrifano wrote:
> On Sex, 2010-03-12 at 09:33 -0600, William Hubbs wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 04:16:05PM +0100, Angelo Arrifano wrote:
> > > Hello all,
> > >
> > > [Speaking as user] I find myself many times stumbling through package
> > > C
On Fri, 12 Mar 2010 08:46:34 -0700
Denis Dupeyron wrote:
[...]
> That said they were perfectly entitled to make the decision of not
> wanting to maintain qt3 any longer. The only advice I can give is that
> all disgruntled users and developers create a qt3 project and
> adopt/unmask/re-commit the
On 12 March 2010 09:36, Mart Raudsepp wrote:
> * The split desktop profile plan retroactively modifies 2008.0 and 10.0
> profiles. Not a good thing for obvious reasons.
While I agree with you in principle, this has not been Gentoo practice.
The profiles have already been modified, multiple times,
On Sex, 2010-03-12 at 09:33 -0600, William Hubbs wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 04:16:05PM +0100, Angelo Arrifano wrote:
> > Hello all,
> >
> > [Speaking as user] I find myself many times stumbling through package
> > ChangeLogs to see what is new/changed after a emerge -u world. As some
> > of
On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 6:18 AM, Robert Bradbury
wrote:
> It would appear that the pending (0321) mask of Qt3 will break
> sci-misc/qcad, sci-chemistry/xdrawchem and x11-misc/glunarclock.
I'm not concerned but I feel sympathy for those who use these packages
and many others. The decision from the
On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 04:16:05PM +0100, Angelo Arrifano wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> [Speaking as user] I find myself many times stumbling through package
> ChangeLogs to see what is new/changed after a emerge -u world. As some
> of you might agree, this is time consuming.
>
> What do you people thi
Hello all,
[Speaking as user] I find myself many times stumbling through package
ChangeLogs to see what is new/changed after a emerge -u world. As some
of you might agree, this is time consuming.
What do you people think on a new pkg_changelog function that would
instruct the ebuild how to retrie
It would appear that the pending (0321) mask of Qt3 will break
sci-misc/qcad, sci-chemistry/xdrawchem and x11-misc/glunarclock.
These are fairly significant science packages for which there are no current
(qt4) or "equivalent" packages. While on one hand it may not do much harm
to mask Qt3 based
On Friday 12 March 2010 10:36:57 Mart Raudsepp wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-03-11 at 23:20 +0100, Ben de Groot wrote:
> > On 11 March 2010 21:20, Mart Raudsepp wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2010-03-11 at 02:36 +0100, Ben de Groot wrote:
> > >> Seeing as there were no further comments, I think we are good to go!
>
On Thu, 2010-03-11 at 23:20 +0100, Ben de Groot wrote:
> On 11 March 2010 21:20, Mart Raudsepp wrote:
> > On Thu, 2010-03-11 at 02:36 +0100, Ben de Groot wrote:
> >> Seeing as there were no further comments, I think we are good to go!
> >
> > I suggest reading my comments...
>
> Unless I missed s
36 matches
Mail list logo
