Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Slacker arches

2011-01-25 Thread Paweł Hajdan, Jr.
On 1/26/11 3:14 AM, Ryan Hill wrote: > On Tue, 25 Jan 2011 12:38:03 +0100 Tomáš Chvátal > wrote: > > Won't this just pile on more work on already stressed to the max arch > teams? As in, now they have to stabilize more packages to get back to > where they were in the first place? This seems to b

Re: [gentoo-dev] Upcoming changes to hosting of Git repos on git.gentoo.org (NOT overlays.git.gentoo.org)

2011-01-25 Thread Alec Warner
like on the discovery channel? -A 2011/1/25 Tomáš Chvátal : > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > Dne 25.1.2011 23:08, Robin H. Johnson napsal(a): >> On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 12:02:16AM +0200, Theo Chatzimichos wrote: >>> And now, imagine the state of the user/ dev/ list mess in, s

[gentoo-dev] Re: Slacker arches

2011-01-25 Thread Ryan Hill
On Tue, 25 Jan 2011 12:38:03 +0100 Tomáš Chvátal wrote: > Every arch teams should stabilise OR write out reason why they can't do > so to stable bug in 90 days. If any arch team fails to do so the > maintainer can decide to drop their keywords to testing. Given depgraph > breakages the maintainer

[gentoo-dev] Re: Stabilisation exceptions

2011-01-25 Thread Ryan Hill
On Mon, 24 Jan 2011 13:31:20 +0100 Christian Faulhammer wrote: > Hi, > > over the course of the years the x86 (and other architectures as well) > has given away permissions to maintainers/teams to mark packages > stable themselves. As there never was a definitive list what > exceptions exist, I

Re: [gentoo-dev] Upcoming changes to hosting of Git repos on git.gentoo.org (NOT overlays.git.gentoo.org)

2011-01-25 Thread Tomáš Chvátal
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Dne 25.1.2011 23:08, Robin H. Johnson napsal(a): > On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 12:02:16AM +0200, Theo Chatzimichos wrote: >> And now, imagine the state of the user/ dev/ list mess in, say, two or five >> years > So you're in favour of making it 'people/'

Re: [gentoo-dev] Upcoming changes to hosting of Git repos on git.gentoo.org (NOT overlays.git.gentoo.org)

2011-01-25 Thread Robin H. Johnson
On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 12:02:16AM +0200, Theo Chatzimichos wrote: > And now, imagine the state of the user/ dev/ list mess in, say, two or five > years So you're in favour of making it 'people/' and just distinguishing in the descriptions and Layman? -- Robin Hugh Johnson Gentoo Linux: Develope

Re: [gentoo-dev] Upcoming changes to hosting of Git repos on git.gentoo.org (NOT overlays.git.gentoo.org)

2011-01-25 Thread Theo Chatzimichos
On Saturday 22 January 2011 20:06:06 Sebastian Pipping wrote: > On 01/22/11 13:32, Theo Chatzimichos wrote: > > Well, the distinction for unofficial/official overlays happen mostly in > > layman -L, I don't think users pay attention to our git repo list. > > Furthermore, I got at least three reques

Re: [gentoo-dev] EAPI usage in main tree

2011-01-25 Thread Ulrich Mueller
> On Tue, 25 Jan 2011, Lars Wendler wrote: > I don'f feel very well with this idea especially because no matter > how hard I try I don't get comfortable with EAPI-3. No offense to > our prefix guys, you surely did a hell of a good job and EAPI-3 > seems to really get you out of quite some trou

Re: [gentoo-dev] EAPI usage in main tree

2011-01-25 Thread justin
On 25/01/11 22:33, Lars Wendler wrote: > Hi, > > I don'f feel very well with this idea especially because no matter how hard I > try I don't get comfortable with EAPI-3. No offense to our prefix guys, you > surely did a hell of a good job and EAPI-3 seems to really get you out of > quite some t

Re: [gentoo-dev] EAPI usage in main tree

2011-01-25 Thread Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis
2011-01-25 22:33:16 Lars Wendler napisał(a): > Hi, > > I don'f feel very well with this idea especially because no matter how hard I > try I don't get comfortable with EAPI-3. No offense to our prefix guys, you > surely did a hell of a good job and EAPI-3 seems to really get you out of > quite

Re: [gentoo-dev] EAPI usage in main tree

2011-01-25 Thread Lars Wendler
Hi, I don'f feel very well with this idea especially because no matter how hard I try I don't get comfortable with EAPI-3. No offense to our prefix guys, you surely did a hell of a good job and EAPI-3 seems to really get you out of quite some trouble you had with earlier EAPIs, but... I for my

[gentoo-dev] Last rites: dev-dotnet/ndoc

2011-01-25 Thread Pacho Ramos
# Pacho Ramos (25 Jan 2011) # Doesn't work with mono-2.8, upstream died since 2005, # nothing in the tree uses it (bug #342023). # Removal in 30 days. dev-dotnet/ndoc signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Re: [gentoo-dev] EAPI usage in main tree

2011-01-25 Thread Andreas K. Huettel
On Tuesday 25 January 2011 20:13:40 Thomas Sachau wrote: > > The (maybe inofficial) suggestion is already to use the latest EAPI in new > ebuilds. This is ok for > me, as long as it is a suggestion. The same goes for the migration of ebuilds > to the latest EAPI. > But i am against the idea to en

Re: [gentoo-dev] EAPI usage in main tree

2011-01-25 Thread Thomas Sachau
Am 25.01.2011 17:40, schrieb Peter Volkov: > В Втр, 25/01/2011 в 14:33 +0100, Thomas Sachau пишет: >> Do you have some more arguments for your request? Most new developers >> will have to know about all EAPi versions anyway since they join an >> existing team with existing ebuilds, which will mostl

Re: [gentoo-dev] EAPI usage in main tree

2011-01-25 Thread Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis
2011-01-25 15:34:58 Thomas Sachau napisał(a): > This means, that you either have to convince the python eclass maintainers to > reduce the complexity > of their eclass There are plans to remove some EAPI-specific behavior by removing support for old EAPIs. E.g. when there are no remaining ebuild

Re: [gentoo-dev] EAPI usage in main tree

2011-01-25 Thread Peter Volkov
В Втр, 25/01/2011 в 14:33 +0100, Thomas Sachau пишет: > Do you have some more arguments for your request? Most new developers > will have to know about all EAPi versions anyway since they join an > existing team with existing ebuilds, which will mostly not use the > newest EAPI. > > As an argument

Re: [gentoo-dev] Slacker arches

2011-01-25 Thread Tomáš Chvátal
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Dne 25.1.2011 16:49, Jeremy Olexa napsal(a): > On Tue, 25 Jan 2011 12:38:03 +0100, Tomáš Chvátal wrote: > >> Only exception from this rule are toolchain and base-system bugs, since > > In both threads you recently started, you used the term "base-sys

Re: [gentoo-dev] EAPI usage in main tree

2011-01-25 Thread Paweł Hajdan, Jr.
On 1/25/11 1:29 PM, Tomáš Chvátal wrote: > Why would we need subproject for this. The idea was that if you want to introduce a new policy, you should also provide resources to make it possible. The below satisfies most of that. > QA team itself is done to help developers with this tasks. So if so

Re: [gentoo-dev] Slacker arches

2011-01-25 Thread Jeremy Olexa
On Tue, 25 Jan 2011 12:38:03 +0100, Tomáš Chvátal wrote: Only exception from this rule are toolchain and base-system bugs, since In both threads you recently started, you used the term "base-system bugs" but I think you mean "@system packages" - there are a ton of base-system packages that a

Re: [gentoo-dev] Lastrite: sys-auth/policykit

2011-01-25 Thread Samuli Suominen
On 01/25/2011 04:45 PM, Samuli Suominen wrote: > # Samuli Suominen (25 Jan 2011) > # Replaced by sys-auth/polkit. Removal in 30 days. > # Bug 340331. > sys-auth/policykit > > > > Maybe things will get a little big less confusing now... ;-) > hah. looks like I was too slow at hitting cancel. :

[gentoo-dev] Lastrite: sys-auth/policykit

2011-01-25 Thread Samuli Suominen
# Samuli Suominen (25 Jan 2011) # Replaced by sys-auth/polkit. Removal in 30 days. # Bug 340331. sys-auth/policykit Maybe things will get a little bit less confusing now... ;-)

[gentoo-dev] Lastrite: sys-auth/policykit

2011-01-25 Thread Samuli Suominen
# Samuli Suominen (25 Jan 2011) # Replaced by sys-auth/polkit. Removal in 30 days. # Bug 340331. sys-auth/policykit Maybe things will get a little big less confusing now... ;-)

Re: [gentoo-dev] EAPI usage in main tree

2011-01-25 Thread Thomas Sachau
Am 25.01.2011 15:09, schrieb Tomáš Chvátal: > Dne 25.1.2011 14:33, Thomas Sachau napsal(a): >> Do you have some more arguments for your request? Most new developers will >> have to know about all >> EAPi versions anyway since they join an existing team with existing ebuilds, >> which will mostly

Re: [gentoo-dev] EAPI usage in main tree

2011-01-25 Thread Tomáš Chvátal
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Dne 25.1.2011 14:33, Thomas Sachau napsal(a): > Do you have some more arguments for your request? Most new developers will > have to know about all > EAPi versions anyway since they join an existing team with existing ebuilds, > which will mostly not

Re: [gentoo-dev] EAPI usage in main tree

2011-01-25 Thread Thomas Sachau
Am 25.01.2011 12:20, schrieb Tomáš Chvátal: > Hi, > I would like to upgrade tree-wide policy for EAPI usage in main tree. > Currently we say that developers can use any named version they wish or > find sufficient. > I would on other hand like to have all ebuilds to use Latest EAPI > version possib

Re: [gentoo-dev] EAPI usage in main tree

2011-01-25 Thread Markos Chandras
On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 01:32:27PM +0100, Tomáš Chvátal wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > Dne 25.1.2011 13:25, Markos Chandras napsal(a): > > On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 01:13:06PM +0100, "Paweł Hajdan, Jr." wrote: > >> How about creating a project (possibly a subproject of

Re: [gentoo-dev] EAPI usage in main tree

2011-01-25 Thread Tomáš Chvátal
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Dne 25.1.2011 13:25, Markos Chandras napsal(a): > On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 01:13:06PM +0100, "Paweł Hajdan, Jr." wrote: >> How about creating a project (possibly a subproject of QA or something >> else) that would help people do that? In case of no resp

Re: [gentoo-dev] Slacker arches

2011-01-25 Thread Markos Chandras
On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 01:20:29PM +0100, "Paweł Hajdan, Jr." wrote: > On 1/25/11 12:38 PM, Tomáš Chvátal wrote: > > Every arch teams should stabilise OR write out reason why they can't do > > so to stable bug in 90 days. If any arch team fails to do so the > > maintainer can decide to drop their k

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: EAPI usage in main tree

2011-01-25 Thread Fabian Groffen
On 25-01-2011 14:25:05 +0200, Alex Alexander wrote: > We should make repoman print a warning if an older EAPI is used, maybe > even refuse to commit (without -f), at least on version bumps, to get > the devs' attention. base-system excluded for now, obviously. How obvious is that if Python is alr

Re: [gentoo-dev] EAPI usage in main tree

2011-01-25 Thread Tomáš Chvátal
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Dne 25.1.2011 13:13, "Paweł Hajdan, Jr." napsal(a): > On 1/25/11 12:20 PM, Tomáš Chvátal wrote: >> I would like to upgrade tree-wide policy for EAPI usage in main tree. > > I have a great idea for you. > > How about creating a project (possibly a sub

Re: [gentoo-dev] EAPI usage in main tree

2011-01-25 Thread Markos Chandras
On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 01:13:06PM +0100, "Paweł Hajdan, Jr." wrote: > On 1/25/11 12:20 PM, Tomáš Chvátal wrote: > > I would like to upgrade tree-wide policy for EAPI usage in main tree. > > I have a great idea for you. > > How about creating a project (possibly a subproject of QA or something >

[gentoo-dev] Re: EAPI usage in main tree

2011-01-25 Thread Alex Alexander
On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 12:20:30PM +0100, Tomáš Chvátal wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > Hi, > I would like to upgrade tree-wide policy for EAPI usage in main tree. > Currently we say that developers can use any named version they wish or > find sufficient. > I would on

Re: [gentoo-dev] Slacker arches

2011-01-25 Thread Paweł Hajdan, Jr.
On 1/25/11 12:38 PM, Tomáš Chvátal wrote: > Every arch teams should stabilise OR write out reason why they can't do > so to stable bug in 90 days. If any arch team fails to do so the > maintainer can decide to drop their keywords to testing. Given depgraph > breakages the maintainer can coordinate

Re: [gentoo-dev] EAPI usage in main tree

2011-01-25 Thread Paweł Hajdan, Jr.
On 1/25/11 12:20 PM, Tomáš Chvátal wrote: > I would like to upgrade tree-wide policy for EAPI usage in main tree. I have a great idea for you. How about creating a project (possibly a subproject of QA or something else) that would help people do that? In case of no response from maintainers just

Re: [gentoo-dev] Slacker arches

2011-01-25 Thread Tomáš Chvátal
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Dne 25.1.2011 12:38, Tomáš Chvátal napsal(a): > Hi, > Given the talk on last council meeting I would like this policy to be in > effect over main tree: > > Every arch teams should stabilise OR write out reason why they can't do > so to stable bug in 9

[gentoo-dev] Slacker arches

2011-01-25 Thread Tomáš Chvátal
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi, Given the talk on last council meeting I would like this policy to be in effect over main tree: Every arch teams should stabilise OR write out reason why they can't do so to stable bug in 90 days. If any arch team fails to do so the maintainer can

[gentoo-dev] EAPI usage in main tree

2011-01-25 Thread Tomáš Chvátal
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi, I would like to upgrade tree-wide policy for EAPI usage in main tree. Currently we say that developers can use any named version they wish or find sufficient. I would on other hand like to have all ebuilds to use Latest EAPI version possible (given

[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] Stabilisation exceptions

2011-01-25 Thread Christian Faulhammer
Hi, Markos Chandras : > I think it would be better if we kept a single list instead of > compiling a separate list for every arch. Mike's proposal sounds like the ideal solution. If one wants we can autogenerate a list. For now I will collect it manually and move it over once the DTD is fixed.

[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] Stabilisation exceptions

2011-01-25 Thread Christian Faulhammer
Hi, Mike Frysinger : > On Monday, January 24, 2011 07:31:20 Christian Faulhammer wrote: > > over the course of the years the x86 (and other architectures as > > well) has given away permissions to maintainers/teams to mark > > packages stable themselves. As there never was a definitive list > >