On 06/29/14 17:33, Markos Chandras wrote:
> On 06/29/2014 10:23 AM, Patrick Lauer wrote:
>> On Sunday 29 June 2014 17:03:52 Patrick Lauer wrote:
>>> On Sunday 29 June 2014 10:12:22 Tom Wijsman wrote:
On Sun, 29 Jun 2014 09:09:36 +0100
Markos Chandras wrote:
> It's been a long ti
On Sun, Jun 29, 2014 at 8:36 AM, hasufell wrote:
> This is still too vague for me. If it's expected to be short-term, then
> it can as well just land in ~arch.
A package that hasn't been tested AT ALL doesn't belong in ~arch.
Suppose the maintainer is unable to test some aspect of the package,
or
Rich Freeman:
> On Sun, Jun 29, 2014 at 8:12 AM, hasufell wrote:
>> Also, those masks are rarely short-term in practice, because well, see
>> this thread.
>
> Is there any evidence to support this statement? You only notice
> masks when they're a problem, and these kinds of masks tend to be a
>
On Sun, Jun 29, 2014 at 8:12 AM, hasufell wrote:
> Also, those masks are rarely short-term in practice, because well, see
> this thread.
Is there any evidence to support this statement? You only notice
masks when they're a problem, and these kinds of masks tend to be a
problem only if they're lo
Rich Freeman:
>
> If the only one testing it is the maintainer then it probably
> shouldn't go in the tree. However, if the maintainer is working with
> others to actually test the package, then a short-term mask is
> probably fine.
>
IMO, if you are testing with others without knowing the outc
On Sun, Jun 29, 2014 at 7:36 AM, hasufell wrote:
> If something is that fragile that you want to add it to the tree masked,
> maybe it isn't even ready for it yet.
> Fun-stuff, alpha-software and other broken things have a good place in
> overlays.
How is not putting it in the tree at all better
On Sun, 29 Jun 2014 09:25:16 +0100
Markos Chandras wrote:
> It's been a long time and sources.g.o is down so i can't check the
> history of that file.
$ cvsps -u -f package.mask -l '.*docker.*' -q -g
...
--- gentoo-x86/profiles/package.mask:1.15773Tue Jun 10 02:03:02
2014 +++ gentoo-x86/pr
Greg KH:
> On Sun, Jun 29, 2014 at 05:17:36AM +0200, Jeroen Roovers wrote:
>> On Sat, 28 Jun 2014 19:58:22 -0700
>> Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Markos,
>>>
>>> I was wondering why docker 1.0.0 wasn't seeming to get updated on my
>>> boxes recently, despite me commiting the update to the cv
On 06/29/2014 10:23 AM, Patrick Lauer wrote:
> On Sunday 29 June 2014 17:03:52 Patrick Lauer wrote:
>> On Sunday 29 June 2014 10:12:22 Tom Wijsman wrote:
>>> On Sun, 29 Jun 2014 09:09:36 +0100
>>>
>>> Markos Chandras wrote:
It's been a long time. To be honest I don't remember masking docker
>
On 06/29/2014 10:03 AM, Patrick Lauer wrote:
> On Sunday 29 June 2014 10:12:22 Tom Wijsman wrote:
>> On Sun, 29 Jun 2014 09:09:36 +0100
>>
>> Markos Chandras wrote:
>>> It's been a long time. To be honest I don't remember masking docker
>>> but I most likely did it because I was asked to mask >=lx
On Sunday 29 June 2014 17:03:52 Patrick Lauer wrote:
> On Sunday 29 June 2014 10:12:22 Tom Wijsman wrote:
> > On Sun, 29 Jun 2014 09:09:36 +0100
> >
> > Markos Chandras wrote:
> > > It's been a long time. To be honest I don't remember masking docker
> > > but I most likely did it because I was as
On Sunday 29 June 2014 10:12:22 Tom Wijsman wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Jun 2014 09:09:36 +0100
>
> Markos Chandras wrote:
> > It's been a long time. To be honest I don't remember masking docker
> > but I most likely did it because I was asked to mask >=lxc-1.0.0 by
> > the virtualization team (and Diego
On 06/29/2014 09:12 AM, Tom Wijsman wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Jun 2014 09:09:36 +0100
> Markos Chandras wrote:
>
>> It's been a long time. To be honest I don't remember masking docker
>> but I most likely did it because I was asked to mask >=lxc-1.0.0 by
>> the virtualization team (and Diego (flameeyes
On Sun, 29 Jun 2014 09:09:36 +0100
Markos Chandras wrote:
> It's been a long time. To be honest I don't remember masking docker
> but I most likely did it because I was asked to mask >=lxc-1.0.0 by
> the virtualization team (and Diego (flameeyes). And docker depends on
> lxc-1.0.0 according to th
On 06/29/2014 03:58 AM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> Hi Markos,
>
> I was wondering why docker 1.0.0 wasn't seeming to get updated on my
> boxes recently, despite me commiting the update to the cvs tree, and
> Tianon noticed that it was masked at the moment:
>
> # Markos Chandras (03 May 2014)
>
On Sat, 28 Jun 2014 20:46:08 -0700
Greg KH wrote:
> So, given a total lack of "testing" by anyone, I might as well just
> remove the mask, so it can actually be done given that people are
> wanting the latest Docker release, especially due to the security
> fixes in it over the one that is curren
On Sun, Jun 29, 2014 at 05:17:36AM +0200, Jeroen Roovers wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Jun 2014 19:58:22 -0700
> Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
>
> > Hi Markos,
> >
> > I was wondering why docker 1.0.0 wasn't seeming to get updated on my
> > boxes recently, despite me commiting the update to the cvs tree, and
On Sat, Jun 28, 2014 at 11:17 PM, Jeroen Roovers wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Jun 2014 19:58:22 -0700
> Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
>
>> Hi Markos,
>>
>> I was wondering why docker 1.0.0 wasn't seeming to get updated on my
>> boxes recently, despite me commiting the update to the cvs tree, and
>> Tianon not
On Sat, 28 Jun 2014 19:58:22 -0700
Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> Hi Markos,
>
> I was wondering why docker 1.0.0 wasn't seeming to get updated on my
> boxes recently, despite me commiting the update to the cvs tree, and
> Tianon noticed that it was masked at the moment:
>
> # Markos Chandras (03
19 matches
Mail list logo
