Fellow Developers!
I have the pleasure to announce that portage-2.2.25 has just been
committed and it comes with complete EAPI 6 support. This effectively
means that from this moment forward Gentoo developers are permitted to
commit EAPI 6 ebuilds to ~arch.
Some quick notes:
1. Remember that you
On 11/17/2015 05:09 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
> Fellow Developers!
>
> I have the pleasure to announce that portage-2.2.25 has just been
> committed and it comes with complete EAPI 6 support. This effectively
> means that from this moment forward Gentoo developers are permitted to
> commit EAPI 6 eb
On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 5:45 PM, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
> For developers, is my stable version of repoman smart enough to make
> sure I don't break any dependencies in this way?
As a developer, please run the latest ~arch version of repoman at the
very least.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 17/11/15 05:45 PM, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
> On 11/17/2015 05:09 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
>> Fellow Developers!
>>
>> I have the pleasure to announce that portage-2.2.25 has just
>> been committed and it comes with complete EAPI 6 support. This
>>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On Tue, 17 Nov 2015 23:09:34 +0100
Michał Górny wrote:
> Fellow Developers!
>
> I have the pleasure to announce that portage-2.2.25 has just been
> committed and it comes with complete EAPI 6 support. This effectively
> means that from this moment
On 11/17/2015 08:04 PM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
>
> If your PM doesn't support EAPI6, then those ebuilds will be ignored
> just as if they do not exist. It is plenty safe. There can be
> issues if EAPI5 or older ~arch packages start -needing- EAPI6-only
> ~arch dependencies, but so long as peopl
On Tue, 17 Nov 2015 20:20:26 -0500
NP-Hardass wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA256
>
> On Tue, 17 Nov 2015 23:09:34 +0100
> Michał Górny wrote:
>
> > Fellow Developers!
> >
> > I have the pleasure to announce that portage-2.2.25 has just been
> > committed and it comes w
> On Tue, 17 Nov 2015, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
> It doesn't seem that unlikely to me...
> 1. Otherwise stable system with package "foo" keyworded as ~arch.
> 2. foo needs some dependency of a dependency named "bar".
> 3. The bar maintainer revbumps and removes the old EAPI=5 ebuild.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 18/11/15 08:25, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> - If you mix stable and unstable then you are by definition an
> advanced user, who will be able to cope with the situation. :)
This attitude is shitty, and I am willing to wager a really big bunch
of users
On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 1:25 AM, Alexander Berntsen
wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA512
>
> On 18/11/15 08:25, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> > - If you mix stable and unstable then you are by definition an
> > advanced user, who will be able to cope with the situation. :)
> This
> On Wed, 18 Nov 2015, Alexander Berntsen wrote:
> On 18/11/15 08:25, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>> - If you mix stable and unstable then you are by definition an
>> advanced user, who will be able to cope with the situation. :)
> This attitude is shitty, and I am willing to wager a really big
> b
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 18/11/15 12:05, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> Only that there is no real difference to the existing situation
> when mixing stable and unstable. It is not guaranteed that all
> dependencies of an unstable package are stable, so already now
> users may h
> On Wed, 18 Nov 2015, Alexander Berntsen wrote:
>> And on what basis would you stabilise Portage, when there are no
>> ebuilds in the tree to test its EAPI 6 code?
> When I do QA in projects I'm involved with (at least outside of
> Gentoo), we don't do it live on end-user systems. I'll leave
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 18/11/15 12:23, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> That sort of QA should take place before making a new Portage
> relaese. I was talking about marking it stable, though.
The problem we are talking about isn't making sure Portage's EAPI 6
support is bug fre
On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 6:05 AM, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>
> And on what basis would you stabilise Portage, when there are no
> ebuilds in the tree to test its EAPI 6 code?
>
As long as the EAPI6 code in the new portage is no more broken than
the EAPI6 code in the current stable version of portage
On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 6:12 AM, Alexander Berntsen wrote:
> When I do QA in projects I'm involved with (at least outside of
> Gentoo), we don't do it live on end-user systems. I'll leave the
> details as an exercise for the Gentoo developer.
>
People who run ~arch are not really end-users - they
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 18/11/15 12:59, Rich Freeman wrote:
> Actually, what is less clear to me is how portage versioning
> actually works, or if we attach any meaning to the version numbers
> at all.
The higher number is the newer version.
- --
Alexander
berna...@gen
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 18/11/15 13:01, Rich Freeman wrote:
> People who run ~arch are not really end-users - they're
> contributors who have volunteered to test packages.
We are talking about people who run Gentoo stable who need to
keyword several specific packages be
On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 7:06 AM, Alexander Berntsen wrote:
> We are talking about people who run Gentoo stable who need to
> keyword several specific packages because the lack of manpower
> leads to Gentoo stable by itself not being very usable for most
> people.
>
In this case, however, I don't
Am Mittwoch, 18. November 2015, 10:25:23 schrieb Alexander Berntsen:
> On 18/11/15 08:25, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> > - If you mix stable and unstable then you are by definition an
> > advanced user, who will be able to cope with the situation. :)
>
> This attitude is shitty, and I am willing to wag
Am Mittwoch, 18. November 2015, 12:12:05 schrieb Alexander Berntsen:
> On 18/11/15 12:05, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> > Only that there is no real difference to the existing situation
> > when mixing stable and unstable. It is not guaranteed that all
> > dependencies of an unstable package are stable,
On Wed, 18 Nov 2015 06:59:19 -0500
Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 6:05 AM, Ulrich Mueller
> wrote:
> >
> > And on what basis would you stabilise Portage, when there are no
> > ebuilds in the tree to test its EAPI 6 code?
> >
>
> As long as the EAPI6 code in the new portage is n
On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 10:10 AM, Brian Dolbec wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Nov 2015 06:59:19 -0500
> Rich Freeman wrote:
>
>> Actually, what is less clear to me is how portage versioning actually
>> works, or if we attach any meaning to the version numbers at all.
>> Both the stable and unstable series a
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 18/11/15 02:25 AM, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>> On Tue, 17 Nov 2015, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
>
>> It doesn't seem that unlikely to me...
>
>> 1. Otherwise stable system with package "foo" keyworded as
>> ~arch.
>
>> 2. foo needs some dependency
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
> And, as a developer maintaining bar in #3 above, you should make
> sure that either the stable version satisfies all rdeps (even those
> in ~arch), or you don't remove the EAPI5 ~arch version until all the
> rdeps are EAPI6.
>
> Theoretically repo
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 11/18/2015 01:54 AM, Raymond Jennings wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 1:25 AM, Alexander Berntsen
> mailto:berna...@gentoo.org>> wrote:
>
> On 18/11/15 08:25, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>> - If you mix stable and unstable then you are by definition a
On Wed, 18 Nov 2015 11:47:01 -0500
Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 10:10 AM, Brian Dolbec
> wrote:
> > On Wed, 18 Nov 2015 06:59:19 -0500
> > Rich Freeman wrote:
>
> It is a bit ironic that you chose this as the part to quote when
> adding a snide remark. My whole point was t
On 11/18/2015 01:01 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 6:12 AM, Alexander Berntsen
> wrote:
>> When I do QA in projects I'm involved with (at least outside of
>> Gentoo), we don't do it live on end-user systems. I'll leave the
>> details as an exercise for the Gentoo developer.
>
On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 4:39 AM, Patrick Lauer wrote:
>
> On 11/18/2015 01:01 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
>> On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 6:12 AM, Alexander Berntsen
>> wrote:
>>> When I do QA in projects I'm involved with (at least outside of
>>> Gentoo), we don't do it live on end-user systems. I'll le
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 11/18/2015 04:06 AM, Alexander Berntsen wrote:
> On 18/11/15 13:01, Rich Freeman wrote:
>> People who run ~arch are not really end-users - they're
>> contributors who have volunteered to test packages.
> We are talking about people who run Gentoo
Hi,
On Wed, 18 Nov 2015 07:01:21 -0500 Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 6:12 AM, Alexander Berntsen
> wrote:
> > When I do QA in projects I'm involved with (at least outside of
> > Gentoo), we don't do it live on end-user systems. I'll leave the
> > details as an exercise for the Ge
On Sat, Nov 21, 2015 at 1:51 PM, Andrew Savchenko wrote:
>
> On Wed, 18 Nov 2015 07:01:21 -0500 Rich Freeman wrote:
>> On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 6:12 AM, Alexander Berntsen
>> wrote:
>> > When I do QA in projects I'm involved with (at least outside of
>> > Gentoo), we don't do it live on end-user
32 matches
Mail list logo