Carsten Lohrke wrote:
> On Thursday 07 September 2006 16:42, Simon Stelling wrote:
>> "!> and kdelibs installed on a system at the same time.
>
> This is clear to me. My point was, if there's a specific need to allow to not
> to break arch keywording this way. I'd find it more foolproof and consi
What have we learnt now, Jakub? Keep it in the bug report. ;)
Carsten
pgpxG13G6keIP.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Thu, 07 Sep 2006 16:42:11 +0200
Simon Stelling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Carsten Lohrke wrote:
> > One question remains: Is it needed/correct that Portage doesn't
> > take blockers for architecture breakages into account? Such a
> > line/prefix is easily changed and when someone - whatever t
Jakub Moc wrote:
> carlo, you might want to revert it properly, instead of reverting only
> half of the previous commit you've been complaining about here.
Could you please take such stuff where it belongs next time? (To the
bug, that is.) There's really no need to point out such things on -dev,
b
Simon Stelling wrote:
> Carsten Lohrke wrote:
>> One question remains: Is it needed/correct that Portage doesn't take
>> blockers
>> for architecture breakages into account? Such a line/prefix is easily
>> changed
>> and when someone - whatever the bad reason is - uses cvs commit, a real tree
Carsten Lohrke wrote:
> One question remains: Is it needed/correct that Portage doesn't take blockers
> for architecture breakages into account? Such a line/prefix is easily changed
> and when someone - whatever the bad reason is - uses cvs commit, a real tree
> breakage is the cause.
The behav
On Thursday 07 September 2006 13:48, Jakub Moc wrote:
> I wonder how exactly genstef broke mips, 'cos mind you, he just reverted
> to what the ebuild was doing before Bug 114161 was fixed by
> hard-disabling of hspell [1]. Since mips doesn't have hspell keyworded,
> it wasn't affected by that bug b
On Thursday 07 September 2006 13:25, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
> I'll try to overlook the reverted changes in kdelibs for bug fixes, the
> improper ${ROOT} injected in my changes where it wasn't supposed to be, the
> broken opengl on kdelibs checks that appeared last month, unhelpful
> comme
Stephen P. Becker wrote:
> Brian Harring wrote:
>> The proper forum for crap like this is via taking it up with QA/devrel.
>>
>> Screaming about a change on the ml doesn't accomplish anything more
>> then making you look like a jack ass trying to publically embarass
>> someone you're pissed at; at
On Thursday 07 September 2006 11:11, Stuart Herbert wrote:
> And I'm sure I'm not the only one who has a problem with your
> comment in that bug either. Bugzilla isn't there for flaming other
> devs.
I did not do an ad hominem attack, but have a problem with a single action and
listed my points.
On Thursday 07 September 2006 04:09, Carsten Lohrke wrote:
> How wonderful this sort of "maintenance" is you can read here:
I'll try to overlook the reverted changes in kdelibs for bug fixes, the
improper ${ROOT} injected in my changes where it wasn't supposed to be, the
broken opengl on kdelibs
Brian Harring wrote:
On Wed, Sep 06, 2006 at 10:37:21PM -0400, Stephen P. Becker wrote:
Carsten Lohrke wrote:
On Sunday 03 September 2006 16:36, Stefan Schweizer wrote:
I am not adding stuff. I am fixing existing packages. And I am taking
responsibility.
How wonderful this sort of "maintenanc
Alec Warner wrote:
> If you can't work
> it out, you talk to your project lead. If THEY can't work it out, you
> talk to the ombudsman, and so forth. Everyone knows the policy and yet
> no one follows it. I don't want to see this thread continue; you know
> what you have to do.[1]
>
> [1] http:
On Thu, Sep 07, 2006 at 12:17:27PM +0200, Danny van Dyk wrote:
> Am Donnerstag, 7. September 2006 11:11 schrieb Stuart Herbert:
> > On 9/7/06, Carsten Lohrke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > How wonderful this sort of "maintenance" is you can read here:
> > >
> > > https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.
Am Donnerstag, 7. September 2006 11:11 schrieb Stuart Herbert:
> On 9/7/06, Carsten Lohrke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > How wonderful this sort of "maintenance" is you can read here:
> >
> > https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=146626
> >
> > Am I the only one who has a problem with this?
>
>
On 9/7/06, Carsten Lohrke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
How wonderful this sort of "maintenance" is you can read here:
https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=146626
Am I the only one who has a problem with this?
No. And I'm sure I'm not the only one who has a problem with your
comment in that
Carsten Lohrke wrote:
> On Sunday 03 September 2006 16:36, Stefan Schweizer wrote:
>> I am not adding stuff. I am fixing existing packages. And I am taking
>> responsibility.
>
> How wonderful this sort of "maintenance" is you can read here:
>
> https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=146626
>
>
Carsten Lohrke wrote:
> On Sunday 03 September 2006 16:36, Stefan Schweizer wrote:
>> I am not adding stuff. I am fixing existing packages. And I am taking
>> responsibility.
>
> How wonderful this sort of "maintenance" is you can read here:
>
> https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=146626
>
>
lets try resending this since our shitty mail servers seemed to have eaten it
On Sunday 03 September 2006 10:22, Stefan Schweizer wrote:
> Paul de Vrieze wrote:
> > The maintainer must still be someone with a
> > gentoo email.
>
> is that written down somewhere? I was under the impression that it
On Wed, Sep 06, 2006 at 10:37:21PM -0400, Stephen P. Becker wrote:
> Carsten Lohrke wrote:
> >On Sunday 03 September 2006 16:36, Stefan Schweizer wrote:
> >>I am not adding stuff. I am fixing existing packages. And I am taking
> >>responsibility.
> >
> >How wonderful this sort of "maintenance" is y
Carsten Lohrke wrote:
On Sunday 03 September 2006 16:36, Stefan Schweizer wrote:
I am not adding stuff. I am fixing existing packages. And I am taking
responsibility.
How wonderful this sort of "maintenance" is you can read here:
https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=146626
Am I the only o
On Sunday 03 September 2006 16:36, Stefan Schweizer wrote:
> I am not adding stuff. I am fixing existing packages. And I am taking
> responsibility.
How wonderful this sort of "maintenance" is you can read here:
https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=146626
Am I the only one who has a problem w
On Sun, 03 Sep 2006 16:36:14 +0200
Stefan Schweizer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> this does not allow the actual maintainer to close the bug and
> >> causes a lot of bugspam for a person who does not care about it
> >> and should be only contacted in the end to commit
> >> fixes/patches/bumps.
>
On Sun, 03 Sep 2006 16:22:37 +0200
Stefan Schweizer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Paul de Vrieze wrote:
> > For this stuff, add a comment to the metadata.xml file. Don't do it
> > in this less than obvious way.
>
> arch teams for example will still contact me then for stabilizing, I
> do not want
Paul de Vrieze wrote:
> For this stuff, add a comment to the metadata.xml file. Don't do it in
> this less than obvious way.
arch teams for example will still contact me then for stabilizing, I do not
want that. jeeves and herdstat do not support comments and the metadata is
not often read direct
Bryan Ãstergaard wrote:
> Ok, let me see if I can get this straight.. You're saying that
> maintainer-needed requires less communication overhead compared to
> ebuilds with maintainers assigned? And that maintainer-needed is
> therefore better than ebuilds having maintainers.
agreed. I prefer to f
Kevin F. Quinn wrote:
> Then you should not have committed it - as a dev it is your
> responsibility to test any ebuilds your commit. There's nothing
> stopping you doing the normal checks on the ebuild, even if you can't
> read Hebrew. For example you should verify whether the '-j1' is really
>
27 matches
Mail list logo
