On Wed, 01 Feb 2006 00:25:25 -0800 Donnie Berkholz
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| Mark Loeser wrote:
| > I don't really see why anyone that is marking an ebuild stable
| > needs to have a fatal error because an older version of that
| > package isn't ported yet. We are perfectly capable of mentionin
Mark Loeser wrote:
> I don't really see why anyone that is marking an ebuild stable needs to have
> a fatal error because an older version of that package isn't ported yet. We
> are perfectly capable of mentioning this on the bug so the maintainer can fix
> it later :) A flag to ignore it will mak
Jason Stubbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Wednesday 01 February 2006 02:28, Mark Loeser wrote:
> > We are talking about completely unrelated versions, not what we are
> > touching.
> > For example, old imagemagick ebuilds sitting around, where the newer ebuilds
> > are fixed, but old ones are no
On Wednesday 01 February 2006 02:28, Mark Loeser wrote:
> Jason Stubbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> > Is there any need for the packages to go into stable without the X deps
> > being
> > fixed? Why not just open a bug for the package maintainer and mark it
> > against
> > whatever bug is reques
On Tue, 31 Jan 2006 10:41:36 -0800 Donnie Berkholz
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| Mark Loeser wrote:
| > We are talking about completely unrelated versions, not what we are
| > touching. For example, old imagemagick ebuilds sitting around,
| > where the newer ebuilds are fixed, but old ones are not.
Mark Loeser wrote:
> Jason Stubbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> Is there any need for the packages to go into stable without the X deps
>> being
>> fixed? Why not just open a bug for the package maintainer and mark it
>> against
>> whatever bug is requesting stabling of that package? Moving some
Jason Stubbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Is there any need for the packages to go into stable without the X deps being
> fixed? Why not just open a bug for the package maintainer and mark it against
> whatever bug is requesting stabling of that package? Moving something to
> stable that you know
On Tuesday 31 January 2006 13:49, Joshua Jackson wrote:
> Mark Loeser gentoo.org> writes:
> > Donnie Berkholz gentoo.org> said:
> > > Jason Stubbs wrote:
> > > > The patch now has the debugging output and x11-base/xorg-x11 check
> > > > removed.
> > >
> > > Excellent. Works perfectly. Since we
Joshua Jackson wrote:
> To quote one of the ebuild-quiz questions: You wish to make a change
> to an ebuild, but you checked the ChangeLogs and metadata.xml and it
> appears to be maintained by someone else. How should you proceed?
>
> A general response that is obtained from the documentation so
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> Joshua Jackson wrote:
>> In the oldest version of the package (as all these were), I don't
>> see much point in the change. They will be removed within a
>> fairly short amount of time.
>
> Fairly short meaning what, 6 months?
Joshua Jackson wrote:
> In the oldest version of the package (as all these were), I don't see
> much point in the change. They will be removed within a fairly short
> amount of time.
Fairly short meaning what, 6 months? A lot of old ebuilds tend to stick
around forever.
> Secondary, you are sugg
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> Joshua Jackson wrote:
>> I will have to agree that this change has made it a pain to mark
>> anything
>> stable. I had 4 out of the 6 I did today bail out because of this.
>> I took the
>> simple easy fix and removed the check
Joshua Jackson wrote:
I will have to agree that this change has made it a pain to mark anything
stable. I had 4 out of the 6 I did today bail out because of this. I took the
simple easy fix and removed the check to stabalize the packages I needed to. I
know we have people who want modular X yeste
Mark Loeser gentoo.org> writes:
>
> Donnie Berkholz gentoo.org> said:
> > Jason Stubbs wrote:
> > > The patch now has the debugging output and x11-base/xorg-x11 check
> > > removed.
> >
> > Excellent. Works perfectly. Since we're failing on them, perhaps we can
> > say "obsolete" instead of "
Wernfried Haas posted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
excerpted below, on Tue, 24 Jan 2006 19:52:29 +0100:
> On Tue, Jan 24, 2006 at 01:44:28PM -0500, Mark Loeser wrote:
>> We should aim for when it will be done in a way that minimizes the
>> breakage for all of our users. Yes, breakage will happen, but we
Alec Warner posted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, excerpted below, on
Tue, 24 Jan 2006 17:55:04 -0500:
> I guess the deal here is to not encourage this type of behavior;
> intentially breaking ~arch all the time and then making the arch teams
> "clean up" so to speak. I don't believe this to be the case h
16 matches
Mail list logo
