Excerpts from Samuli Suominen's message of Sat Apr 30 06:39:52 +0200 2011:
> sources.gentoo.org is for that. ChangeLog is for users, and "old" is
> not useful information to them
If this is not useful information, then entry about added files is not
useful either - user see that files are there.
On 04/30/2011 07:45 AM, Matt Turner wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 12:39 AM, Samuli Suominen
> wrote:
>> sources.gentoo.org is for that. ChangeLog is for users, and "old" is
>> not useful information to them
>
> So it follows that users don't need to see when ebuilds were removed?
>
Correc
On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 09:19:50PM -0500, William Hubbs wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 11:41:35AM -0700, Brian Harring wrote:
> > Exact results please; the pkg_pretend crap proposed elsewhere (which
> > is yet another way to crap up stage builds) frankly sucks.
> >
> > Mind you I'm just looking
On Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 12:39 AM, Samuli Suominen wrote:
> sources.gentoo.org is for that. ChangeLog is for users, and "old" is
> not useful information to them
So it follows that users don't need to see when ebuilds were removed?
On 04/30/2011 07:10 AM, Jeremy Olexa wrote:
> On 04/29/2011 01:34 PM, Samuli Suominen wrote:
>> On 04/29/2011 09:26 PM, Mark Loeser wrote:
>>> "Samuli Suominen (ssuominen)" said:
ssuominen11/04/29 18:13:31
Removed: transmission-2.12.ebuild
Log:
dr
On 04/29/2011 01:34 PM, Samuli Suominen wrote:
On 04/29/2011 09:26 PM, Mark Loeser wrote:
"Samuli Suominen (ssuominen)" said:
ssuominen11/04/29 18:13:31
Removed: transmission-2.12.ebuild
Log:
drop old, broken with stable libnotify
(Portage version: 2.2.0_alpha30/
On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 11:41:35AM -0700, Brian Harring wrote:
> Exact results please; the pkg_pretend crap proposed elsewhere (which
> is yet another way to crap up stage builds) frankly sucks.
>
> Mind you I'm just looking in, but this whole upgrade process really
> reads fairly suboptimal to
On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 08:58:31PM +0300, Alex Alexander wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 01:52:15PM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 1:25 PM, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> > >> On Fri, 29 Apr 2011, Alex Alexander wrote:
> > >
> > >> please have a look at the attached patch.
>
On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 02:40:49PM -0400, Matt Turner wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 2:34 PM, Samuli Suominen wrote:
> > On 04/29/2011 09:26 PM, Mark Loeser wrote:
> >> "Samuli Suominen (ssuominen)" said:
> >>> ssuominen 11/04/29 18:13:31
> >>>
> >>> Removed: transmission-2.12
2011/3/9 Alexis Ballier :
> As for the reasons: "its the fdo version + a debian/patches dir with, heh,
> some fixes and improvements I'm using..."
So, the SDS version is simply the freedesktop version with a few
patches on top? So, the freedesktop version is actually... upstream?
We patch plenty
On Fri, Apr 22, 2011 at 12:39:04PM +0200, Lars Wendler wrote:
> Am Donnerstag 21 April 2011, 03:12:21 schrieb Donnie Berkholz:
> > It seems like nobody's really clear on what exactly happens though,
> > since I've seen people talking about this *maybe* resulting in an
> > unbootable system. Has any
On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 2:34 PM, Samuli Suominen wrote:
> On 04/29/2011 09:26 PM, Mark Loeser wrote:
>> "Samuli Suominen (ssuominen)" said:
>>> ssuominen 11/04/29 18:13:31
>>>
>>> Removed: transmission-2.12.ebuild
>>> Log:
>>> drop old, broken with stable libnotify
>>>
>>>
Samuli Suominen said:
> On 04/29/2011 09:26 PM, Mark Loeser wrote:
> > "Samuli Suominen (ssuominen)" said:
> >> ssuominen11/04/29 18:13:31
> >>
> >> Removed: transmission-2.12.ebuild
> >> Log:
> >> drop old, broken with stable libnotify
> >>
> >> (Portage version: 2.2.
On 04/29/2011 09:26 PM, Mark Loeser wrote:
> "Samuli Suominen (ssuominen)" said:
>> ssuominen11/04/29 18:13:31
>>
>> Removed: transmission-2.12.ebuild
>> Log:
>> drop old, broken with stable libnotify
>>
>> (Portage version: 2.2.0_alpha30/cvs/Linux x86_64, RepoMan optio
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
# Kacper Kowalik (29 Apr 2011)
# Fails to build with gcc 4.5. It doesn't work with latest cgal
# Bugs 320543, 344723
# Removal in 30 days
dev-python/cgal-python
Cheers,
Kacper
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (GNU/Linux)
Comment:
"Samuli Suominen (ssuominen)" said:
> ssuominen11/04/29 18:13:31
>
> Removed: transmission-2.12.ebuild
> Log:
> drop old, broken with stable libnotify
>
> (Portage version: 2.2.0_alpha30/cvs/Linux x86_64, RepoMan options: --force)
When removing an ebuild, please do do
On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 01:52:15PM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 1:25 PM, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> >> On Fri, 29 Apr 2011, Alex Alexander wrote:
> >
> >> please have a look at the attached patch.
> >
> >> -EAPI="1"
> >> +EAPI="4"
> >
> > Shouldn't the ebuild's phase funct
On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 1:25 PM, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>> On Fri, 29 Apr 2011, Alex Alexander wrote:
>
>> please have a look at the attached patch.
>
>> -EAPI="1"
>> +EAPI="4"
>
> Shouldn't the ebuild's phase functions be updated from "EAPI 0 style"
> to "EAPI 2 style" too?
If the goal is to
On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 07:25:12PM +0200, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> > On Fri, 29 Apr 2011, Alex Alexander wrote:
>
> > please have a look at the attached patch.
>
> > -EAPI="1"
> > +EAPI="4"
>
> Shouldn't the ebuild's phase functions be updated from "EAPI 0 style"
> to "EAPI 2 style" too?
Yea
> On Fri, 29 Apr 2011, Alex Alexander wrote:
> please have a look at the attached patch.
> -EAPI="1"
> +EAPI="4"
Shouldn't the ebuild's phase functions be updated from "EAPI 0 style"
to "EAPI 2 style" too?
Ulrich
On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 12:28:03PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Apr 2011 07:21:23 -0400
> Rich Freeman wrote:
> > Perhaps a future/in-progress EAPI could define a mechanism where an
> > ebuild can indicate that a particular update or set of circumstances
> > is a system-critical chan
William Hubbs posted on Fri, 29 Apr 2011 02:08:31 -0500 as excerpted:
> Also, the way you can recover if you boot your system before following
> the steps is mentioned in the news item now, and there's not really
> anything more to it, so I'm not sure where else it should be mentioned.
>
> What d
On Fri, 29 Apr 2011 07:21:23 -0400
Rich Freeman wrote:
> Perhaps a future/in-progress EAPI could define a mechanism where an
> ebuild can indicate that a particular update or set of circumstances
> is a system-critical change, and that the package manager should
> consequently alert the user and e
On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 3:08 AM, William Hubbs wrote:
> Someone suggested that we make emerge not work until the news item is
> read. There is nothing I can do in openrc to make something like that
> happen. It would be something that would require a portage modification.
Honestly - I see that as
On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 09:22, William Hubbs wrote:
> The more important part of this test is that we need some users to
> migrate from baselayout-1 to openrc-0.8.2-r1 and be sure that is
> successful.
I migrated a mostly-stable (so baselayout-1) amd64 server to
baselayout-2.0.2 with openrc-0.8.2
William Hubbs wrote:
All,
The openrc stable candidate is now openrc-0.8.2-r1.
The changes between it and the previous stable candidates are small, so
the news item date and stable request date are still 2011/05/01 and 2011/05/08
respectively.
The more important part of this test is that we nee
All,
The openrc stable candidate is now openrc-0.8.2-r1.
The changes between it and the previous stable candidates are small, so
the news item date and stable request date are still 2011/05/01 and 2011/05/08
respectively.
The more important part of this test is that we need some users to
migrat
All,
here is an updated version of the news item. If there are no
objections/corrections/criticisms, this will be committed on 2011/5/1.
This includes input from several comments I received on this thread.
Someone suggested that we make emerge not work until the news item is
read. There is nothi
28 matches
Mail list logo
