On 5/5/06, Philip Webb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
060504 Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> If we followed others blindly, as so many users suggest,
> then we would have stabilized KDE 3.5 ages ago,
> and every single one of you KDE users would be complaining
> about how our QA sucks because KDE doesn't c
On 5/4/06, Bart Braem <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
What makes us think we can not trust the KDE devs?
1. bugs.gentoo.org
2. bugs.kde.org
I personally have been running KDE 3.5 since the RC days...when you
actually had to add it to package.unmask. And *yes*, it has had more
than it's share of pr
Philip Webb wrote:
> My solution is a line in .bashrc :
> 'alias emergeu='ACCEPT_KEYWORDS="~x86" emerge' ,
Don't do that. Try to do a search on "why is ACCEPT_KEYWORDS emerge bad".
> which allows me to emerge a testing version on a specific occasion.
> The package.keywords alternative is sil
On Friday 05 May 2006 02:14, Philip Webb wrote:
> 060504 Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> > If we followed others blindly, as so many users suggest,
> > then we would have stabilized KDE 3.5 ages ago,
> > and every single one of you KDE users would be complaining
> > about how our QA sucks because KDE doe
On Friday 05 May 2006 20:37, Kevin F. Quinn (Gentoo) wrote:
> First, I'll get the security updates when (1) the relevant updated
> package goes stable, which is usually pretty quickly, or (2)
> notification is made in gentoo-announce (which must be the correct
> place to get such notifications).
T
On Fri, 2006-05-05 at 15:23 +0200, Kevin F. Quinn (Gentoo) wrote:
> In practice, I tend to do:
>
> =category/package-version* ~arch
~category/package-version ~arch
*grin*
--
Chris Gianelloni
Release Engineering - Strategic Lead
x86 Architecture Team
Games - Developer
Gentoo Linux
signature.a
On Fri, 5 May 2006 16:38:57 +0200
Carsten Lohrke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Friday 05 May 2006 15:23, Kevin F. Quinn (Gentoo) wrote:
> > I disagree. Your argument is for not using ~arch at all, rather
> > than an argument against keeping control of what you have from
> > ~arch.
>
> No. My a
On Friday 05 May 2006 15:23, Kevin F. Quinn (Gentoo) wrote:
> I disagree. Your argument is for not using ~arch at all, rather
> than an argument against keeping control of what you have from ~arch.
No. My argument is that category/ebuild is much better than
=category/ebuild-x*. If and only if th
On Fri, 5 May 2006 13:20:09 +0200
Carsten Lohrke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Friday 05 May 2006 08:32, Kevin F. Quinn (Gentoo) wrote:
> > If you use specific versions in the package.keywords file (i.e. do
> > "=category/package-version-revision ~arch" instead of
> > "category/package ~arch", t
On Thu, 04 May 2006 16:29:56 -0700
Michael Kirkland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I would suggest opening a middle ground tag, where things can be
> moved to from "~arch" when they work for reasonable configuration
> values, but still have open bugs for some people.
More work for devs, yay!
Mariu
On Friday 05 May 2006 08:32, Kevin F. Quinn (Gentoo) wrote:
> If you use specific versions in the package.keywords file (i.e. do
> "=category/package-version-revision ~arch" instead of
> "category/package ~arch", this doesn't happen.
Hardcoding specific ~arch versions or revisions unless absolutel
On Friday 05 May 2006 01:11, Jakub Moc wrote:
> Philip Webb wrote:
> >> But yeah, you know better, no problems whatsoever. :P
> >
> > Yes, I know better: I haven't had any problems with any of the KDE
> > packages which I have installed with versions 3.5.0 3.5.1 3.5.2 .
> > It's time the developers
On 05/05/06, Jakub Moc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Philip Webb wrote:
> 060504 Chris Gianelloni wrote:
>> If we followed others blindly, as so many users suggest,
>> then we would have stabilized KDE 3.5 ages ago,
>> and every single one of you KDE users would be complaining
>> about how our QA su
Philip Webb wrote:
>> But yeah, you know better, no problems whatsoever. :P
>
> Yes, I know better: I haven't had any problems with any of the KDE packages
> which I have installed with versions 3.5.0 3.5.1 3.5.2 .
> It's time the developers started listening to users in this area:
> we really do
060505 Jakub Moc wrote:
> Philip Webb wrote:
>> 060504 Chris Gianelloni wrote:
>>> If we followed others blindly, as so many users suggest,
>>> then we would have stabilized KDE 3.5 ages ago,
>>> and every single one of you KDE users would be complaining
>>> about how our QA sucks because KDE doesn
060504 Michael Kirkland wrote:
> I think the problem is that Gentoo is falling into the same sandtrap
> the Debian project has been mired in forever.
> "arch" and "~arch" are polarizing into "stable, but horribly out of date"
> and "maybe it will work". This leads to people trying to maintain
> a
Philip Webb wrote:
> 060504 Chris Gianelloni wrote:
>> If we followed others blindly, as so many users suggest,
>> then we would have stabilized KDE 3.5 ages ago,
>> and every single one of you KDE users would be complaining
>> about how our QA sucks because KDE doesn't compile
>> or breaks badly i
060504 Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> If we followed others blindly, as so many users suggest,
> then we would have stabilized KDE 3.5 ages ago,
> and every single one of you KDE users would be complaining
> about how our QA sucks because KDE doesn't compile
> or breaks badly in so many places.
This is
On Thu, 04 May 2006 16:29:56 -0700
Michael Kirkland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This leads to people trying to maintain a
> frankenstinian /etc/portage/package.keywords file, constantly adding
> to it and never knowing when things can be removed from it.
If you use specific versions in the pack
I think the problem is that Gentoo is falling into the same sandtrap the
Debian project has been mired in forever. "arch" and "~arch" are polarizinginto "stable, but horribly out of date", and "maybe it will work".This leads to people trying to maintain a
frankenstinian /etc/portage/package.keyword
On Thursday 04 May 2006 05:21, Jeff Rollin wrote:
> All,
>
> If I might weigh in at this late stage:
>
> How did we end up here in the first place? Isn't the point of ~arch that we
> can put stuff here that might WELL be unstable? Sure, we'll get lots of "I
> set my ACCEPT_KEYWORDS to ~arch and now
Paul,
That cleared it up for me, thanks
Jeff.On 04/05/06, Paul de Vrieze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Actually the testing keywords are not for unstable packages. If somethingis unstable it must be masked. If we however want to test our packagingwe put it in ~arch. If something is in ~arch that mea
I'm just an user here, but I'd like to ask a simple question:
For Gnome 2.14 there is a tracker bug on b.g.o [1]. I think this is
really usefull for users like me who want to know the status of this
release at any time (and I hope this is useful for devs too :)). Why
such a tracker doesn't exist f
On Thursday 04 May 2006 14:21, Jeff Rollin wrote:
> All,
>
> If I might weigh in at this late stage:
>
> How did we end up here in the first place? Isn't the point of ~arch
> that we can put stuff here that might WELL be unstable? Sure, we'll get
> lots of "I set my ACCEPT_KEYWORDS to ~arch and now
Bart Braem posted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, excerpted below, on Thu,
04 May 2006 13:48:03 +0200:
> As a user I have to add my opinion here. I have been using Gentoo for some
> years now and it was always fairly up to date. Currently KDE is really
> behind on the current situation upstream.
> And then
I think that sums up some good answers to my questions, too.Jeff.On 04/05/06, Chris Gianelloni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:On Thu, 2006-05-04 at 13:48 +0200, Bart Braem wrote:> Does compiling KDE introduce so many bugs? I mean, let's be serious, all
> other distributions have a stable 3.5.x now. Don
All,If I might weigh in at this late stage:How did we end up here in the first place? Isn't the point of ~arch that we can put stuff here that might WELL be unstable? Sure, we'll get lots of "I set my ACCEPT_KEYWORDS to ~arch and now my system is broken," messages, but if people are going to try ~a
On Thu, 2006-05-04 at 13:48 +0200, Bart Braem wrote:
> Does compiling KDE introduce so many bugs? I mean, let's be serious, all
> other distributions have a stable 3.5.x now. Don't they experience all
> those horrible bugs?
Compiling KDE doesn't introduce bugs. Compiling KDE with any
combination
(sorry if you receive this mail twice, my subscription was not ok)
Philip Webb wrote:
> 060404 Caleb Tennis wrote:
>> historically we were much more bleeding edge with our stable KDE
>> versions, but if you've spent any significant time playing with 3.5.0 or
>> 3.5.1, you would agree that they ar
Caleb Tennis posted
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, excerpted
below, on Tue, 04 Apr 2006 06:38:39 -0400:
> I think historically we were much more bleeding edge with our stable KDE
> versions than at the moment, but if you've spent any significant time
> playing with 3.5.0 or 3.5.1, I think you would agree t
Donnie Berkholz posted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, excerpted below, on
Mon, 03 Apr 2006 23:16:07 -0700:
> Duncan wrote:
>> The Gentoo-desktop list is lower volume and generally where I ask
>> (developer level) questions about anything so related, KDE, GNOME,
>> burning CD/DVDs, sometimes sound issues, e
31 matches
Mail list logo
