В Сбт, 14/08/2010 в 20:06 +0300, Markos Chandras пишет:
On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 06:26:36PM +0200, Thilo Bangert wrote:
So you want me to force everyone to update the package just to respect
the LDFLAGS.
yes. IIRC it has been stated on this list before, that a change which
changes
Am 14.08.2010 19:35, schrieb Harald van Dijk:
On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 06:26:12PM +0200, Thilo Bangert wrote:
So you want me to force everyone to update the package just to respect
the LDFLAGS.
yes. IIRC it has been stated on this list before, that a change which
changes the resulting binary
On Saturday 07 August 2010 00:21:39 Markos Chandras (hwoarang) wrote:
hwoarang10/08/06 21:21:39
Modified: ChangeLog
Added:mlt-0.5.4-r1.ebuild
Log:
Respect {C,LD}FLAGS when building shared library. Bug #308873
(Portage version: 2.2_rc67/cvs/Linux
On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 03:35:34PM +0300, Alexis Ballier wrote:
On Saturday 07 August 2010 00:21:39 Markos Chandras (hwoarang) wrote:
hwoarang10/08/06 21:21:39
Modified: ChangeLog
Added:mlt-0.5.4-r1.ebuild
Log:
Respect {C,LD}FLAGS when building
On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 03:50:53PM +0300, Markos Chandras wrote:
- If you are not in cc of the gentoo bug nor in the herd alias, please cc
yourself on the bug.
- Please close the bugs, even the dupes (and apply previous point to the
dupes
too).
- That way you'll be able to quickly
On Saturday 14 August 2010 15:50:53 Markos Chandras wrote:
On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 03:35:34PM +0300, Alexis Ballier wrote:
On Saturday 07 August 2010 00:21:39 Markos Chandras (hwoarang) wrote:
hwoarang10/08/06 21:21:39
Modified: ChangeLog
Added:
On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 04:10:13PM +0300, Alex Alexander wrote:
On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 03:50:53PM +0300, Markos Chandras wrote:
- If you are not in cc of the gentoo bug nor in the herd alias, please cc
yourself on the bug.
- Please close the bugs, even the dupes (and apply previous
On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 04:37:04PM +0300, Alexis Ballier wrote:
On Saturday 14 August 2010 15:50:53 Markos Chandras wrote:
On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 03:35:34PM +0300, Alexis Ballier wrote:
On Saturday 07 August 2010 00:21:39 Markos Chandras (hwoarang) wrote:
hwoarang10/08/06 21:21:39
On Saturday 14 August 2010 17:00:38 Markos Chandras wrote:
[...]
- There is absolutely no reference to any patch sent upstream and I
have not seen anything on the upstream dev ml.
Thats because I didn't. I've fixed more than 40 bug wrt LDFLAGS. Do you
expect me to subscribe to 40
On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 05:20:38PM +0300, Alexis Ballier wrote:
On Saturday 14 August 2010 17:00:38 Markos Chandras wrote:
[...]
- There is absolutely no reference to any patch sent upstream and I
have not seen anything on the upstream dev ml.
Thats because I didn't. I've
On 08/14/2010 10:29 AM, Markos Chandras wrote:
So do I. Fixing your package and you don't even bother to send a *ready to go*
patch
upstream seems like a bit rude to me as well. Perhaps, we do have a complete
different point of view in this one.
Recent example is Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn
On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 04:47:39PM +0300, Markos Chandras wrote:
On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 04:10:13PM +0300, Alex Alexander wrote:
On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 03:50:53PM +0300, Markos Chandras wrote:
- If you are not in cc of the gentoo bug nor in the herd alias, please
cc
yourself on
Richard Freeman ri...@gentoo.org said:
On 08/14/2010 10:29 AM, Markos Chandras wrote:
So do I. Fixing your package and you don't even bother to send a
*ready to go* patch upstream seems like a bit rude to me as well.
Perhaps, we do have a complete different point of view in this one.
So you want me to force everyone to update the package just to respect
the LDFLAGS.
yes. IIRC it has been stated on this list before, that a change which
changes the resulting binary always needs to be done in a revbump.
Why, since until recently, nobody gave a crap about this
kind of QA
On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 07:16:26PM +0300, Alex Alexander wrote:
On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 04:47:39PM +0300, Markos Chandras wrote:
On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 04:10:13PM +0300, Alex Alexander wrote:
On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 03:50:53PM +0300, Markos Chandras wrote:
- If you are not in cc of the
On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 06:26:36PM +0200, Thilo Bangert wrote:
So you want me to force everyone to update the package just to respect
the LDFLAGS.
yes. IIRC it has been stated on this list before, that a change which
changes the resulting binary always needs to be done in a revbump.
On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 08:00:40PM +0300, Markos Chandras wrote:
On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 07:16:26PM +0300, Alex Alexander wrote:
Does respecting LDFLAGS change the installed files in any way? yes.
Will users benefit from your change if you don't revbump? No.
I think that chain of logic
On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 08:21:15PM +0300, Alex Alexander wrote:
On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 08:00:40PM +0300, Markos Chandras wrote:
On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 07:16:26PM +0300, Alex Alexander wrote:
Does respecting LDFLAGS change the installed files in any way? yes.
Will users benefit from your
On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 06:26:12PM +0200, Thilo Bangert wrote:
So you want me to force everyone to update the package just to respect
the LDFLAGS.
yes. IIRC it has been stated on this list before, that a change which
changes the resulting binary always needs to be done in a revbump.
If
On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 08:34:13PM +0300, Markos Chandras wrote:
said, commit an actual patch, assigned to QA and if the rest of the
members
agree on that I am willing to change my policy.
Now you're just being stubborn. I'm pretty sure your mentor told you any
change to installed
Markos Chandras posted on Sat, 14 Aug 2010 20:00:40 +0300 as excerpted:
Cause I don't like users to compile the same damn package over and over.
-r1 for docs on ${PF}, -r2 for CFLGAS, -r3 for LDFLAGS, -r4 for ... Is
that a good reason or not? It is not like I introduce huge patches with
On 08/14/2010 02:35 PM, Duncan wrote:
User perspective here...
For LDFLAGS, given the new --as-needed default, I'd prefer the rev-bump.
Yes, it requires a rebuild, but the rebuilds will occur as the bugs are
fixed so it's a few at a time for people who keep reasonably updated
(every month or
On Sat, 14 Aug 2010 19:35:56 +0200
Harald van Dijk true...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 06:26:12PM +0200, Thilo Bangert wrote:
So you want me to force everyone to update the package just to respect
the LDFLAGS.
yes. IIRC it has been stated on this list before, that a
On Sat, 14 Aug 2010 17:00:38 +0300
Markos Chandras hwoar...@gentoo.org wrote:
you don't need to subscribe, there's usually an AUTHORS file with emails
you
can use...
As I said, I thought that maintainers was responsible to do it since they
follow all the bug progress after all. So
On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 02:46:21PM -0600, Ryan Hill wrote:
On Sat, 14 Aug 2010 17:00:38 +0300
Markos Chandras hwoar...@gentoo.org wrote:
you don't need to subscribe, there's usually an AUTHORS file with emails
you
can use...
As I said, I thought that maintainers was responsible to
Richard Freeman wrote:
On 08/14/2010 02:35 PM, Duncan wrote:
User perspective here...
For LDFLAGS, given the new --as-needed default, I'd prefer the rev-bump.
Yes, it requires a rebuild, but the rebuilds will occur as the bugs are
fixed so it's a few at a time for people who keep reasonably
26 matches
Mail list logo
