Tom Wijsman wrote:
> I'd say that if around 7 people vote on the matter that that is
> based on a necessary amount of understanding.
That is just incredibly naïve.
In another project five people reviewed an experimental change
written by me that someone else proposed for inclusion into the
projec
Dnia 2014-02-21, o godz. 21:07:54
Michał Górny napisał(a):
> Many people found the current behavior of git-r3 eclass unfortunate,
> lightly saying. Most importantly, I underestimated how many packages
> actually require pretty complete '.git' metadata in the checkout,
> including complete history
All,
there is a significant change I want to make to the
sys-process/runit ebuild to fix a couple of bugs [1] [2].
In a nutshell, we set up a default runlevel as shown in this upstream
document [3] in /etc/runit/runsvdir. We rebuild it every time an upgrade
happens, so this is why we are hitting
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Michał Górny:
> Dnia 2014-02-21, o godz. 21:07:54 Michał Górny
> napisał(a):
>
>> Many people found the current behavior of git-r3 eclass
>> unfortunate, lightly saying. Most importantly, I underestimated
>> how many packages actually require prett
The attached list notes all of the packages that were added or removed
from the tree, for the week ending 2014-02-23 23h59 UTC.
Removals:
net-misc/usbip 2014-02-18 07:46:27 ssuominen
Additions:
app-misc/mediacrush-cli 2014-02-17 17:29:54 maksbotan
On Sun, Feb 23, 2014 at 4:18 PM, hasufell wrote:
> Why do you send RFC out when you ignore comments?
I didn't see any comments suggesting any changes.
On Sun, 23 Feb 2014 17:59:48 +0100
Peter Stuge wrote:
> Tom Wijsman wrote:
> > I'd say that if around 7 people vote on the matter that that is
> > based on a necessary amount of understanding.
>
> That is just incredibly naïve.
>
> In another project five people reviewed an experimental change
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Matt Turner:
> On Sun, Feb 23, 2014 at 4:18 PM, hasufell
> wrote:
>> Why do you send RFC out when you ignore comments?
>
> I didn't see any comments suggesting any changes.
>
There were 2.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJTCpcPAAoJEF
On Sun, Feb 23, 2014 at 4:49 PM, hasufell wrote:
>>> Why do you send RFC out when you ignore comments?
>>
>> I didn't see any comments suggesting any changes.
>
> There were 2.
I don't think there were. But I'll play along with your trolling. A
recap of the thread:
1) I asked what the difference
Tom Wijsman wrote:
> > > I'd say that if around 7 people vote on the matter that that is
> > > based on a necessary amount of understanding.
> >
> > That is just incredibly naïve.
..
> > You need to learn to respect what you don't know that you don't know.
>
> Or you apply knowledge codification
On Mon, 24 Feb 2014 01:59:36 +0100
Peter Stuge wrote:
> Tom Wijsman wrote:
> > > > I'd say that if around 7 people vote on the matter that that is
> > > > based on a necessary amount of understanding.
> > >
> > > That is just incredibly naïve.
> ..
> > > You need to learn to respect what you don
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Matt Turner:
> On Sun, Feb 23, 2014 at 4:49 PM, hasufell
> wrote:
Why do you send RFC out when you ignore comments?
>>>
>>> I didn't see any comments suggesting any changes.
>>
>> There were 2.
>
> I don't think there were. But I'll play alo
Tom Wijsman wrote:
> > > > You need to learn to respect what you don't know that you don't
> > > > know.
> > >
> > > Or you apply knowledge codification and mark it as experimental.
> >
> > No, that's what you *know* that you don't know.
>
> Exactly, which effectively keeps us away from unknown
William Hubbs posted on Sun, 23 Feb 2014 16:13:18 -0600 as excerpted:
> One is to use a use flag to build them. If I do that, I would consider
> forcing the use flag on with an iuse default, so anyone who doesn't want
> the runlevels rebuilt every time would need to turn it off in make.conf
> or p
On Mon, 24 Feb 2014 02:16:20 + (UTC)
Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> OT: I've often wondered if emerge --config is actually intended to hide
> mostly one-shot configs, or if that's purely unintended accident. It
> seems to me that if it's the latter, portage needs some standard me
hasufell posted on Mon, 24 Feb 2014 01:18:49 + as excerpted:
> I am tired of talking to people who are unobjective.
>
> But to make it more clear to you: I don't think that removing shallow
> clone support is an improvement, so I vote against removing it.
FWIW, I didn't get that from reading
On Mon, 24 Feb 2014 03:16:44 +0100
Peter Stuge wrote:
> Tom Wijsman wrote:
> > > > > You need to learn to respect what you don't know that you
> > > > > don't know.
> > > >
> > > > Or you apply knowledge codification and mark it as experimental.
> > >
> > > No, that's what you *know* that you d
On Mon, 24 Feb 2014 02:46:52 + (UTC)
Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> That said, while I didn't see any objections, what surprised me was the
> speed at which it happened. The RFC was posted early afternoon (my time)
> on a Friday. The commit was early evening on a Sunday. Not ev
If it's okay, I'd want to post this fast, before adding KEYWORDS to
sys-fs/udev-209's ebuild
Title: Upgrading udev to version >=209
Author: Samuli Suominen
Content-Type: text/plain
Posted: 2014-02-21
Revision: 1
News-Item-Format: 1.0
Display-If-Installed: https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Udev/upgrad
On Mon, 2014-02-24 at 07:32 +0200, Samuli Suominen wrote:
> If it's okay, I'd want to post this fast, before adding KEYWORDS to
> sys-fs/udev-209's ebuild
>
>
SHOULD or NEEDS TO BE ? Honestly, this didn't read like much of a news
announcement at all, and reads more like something I'd write when
Dnia 2014-02-24, o godz. 01:18:49
hasufell napisał(a):
> But to make it more clear to you: I don't think that removing shallow
> clone support is an improvement, so I vote against removing it.
Then please provide patches that add proper support for that.
The changes were necessary to fix repeate
Dnia 2014-02-24, o godz. 07:32:01
Samuli Suominen napisał(a):
> If it's okay, I'd want to post this fast, before adding KEYWORDS to
> sys-fs/udev-209's ebuild
Could you wait for 210, please? Upstream promised they're going to
release it soon and it has a number of important fixes. We don't want
22 matches
Mail list logo
