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
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
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
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
-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/'
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
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
> 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
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
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
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
# 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
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
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
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
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
-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
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
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
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. :
# 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... ;-)
# 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... ;-)
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
-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
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
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
-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
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
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
-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
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
>
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
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
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
-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
-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
-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
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.
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
> >
39 matches
Mail list logo
