On Thursday 10 February 2011 22:57:41 Diego Elio Pettenò wrote:
[snip]
Repeat after me: Politeness and professional courtesy is an integral part of
our QA team policy.
--
Andreas K. Huettel
Gentoo Linux developer
dilfri...@gentoo.org
http://www.akhuettel.de/
Hello!
In relation to bug 354395 [1] I would like to downgrade my glibc back to
2.12.2. Portage doesn't allow me to do that:
* Sanity check to keep you from breaking your system:
* Downgrading glibc is not supported and a sure way to destruction
* ERROR: sys-libs/glibc-2.12.2 failed (setup
Il giorno ven, 11/02/2011 alle 09.17 +0100, Andreas K. Huettel ha
scritto:
Repeat after me: Politeness and professional courtesy is an integral
part of
our QA team policy.
Politeness is due where politeness is received. If you keep
second-guessing QA team, without looking at the packages
Il giorno ven, 11/02/2011 alle 09.50 +0100, Sebastian Pipping ha
scritto:
Can anyone guide me or point me to a guide how to savely do that
manually?
There really isn't a safe way as soon as you built anything at all
against the new version.
--
Diego Elio Pettenò — Flameeyes
Il giorno ven, 11/02/2011 alle 10.55 +0100, Michael Haubenwallner ha
scritto:
what do you think of working around the memcpy troubles with
glibc-2.13 by
simply redirecting memcpy to memmove within glibc, either
unconditionally or
optional/temporary (via USE-flag?) until everyone uses
Diego Elio Pettenò posted on Fri, 11 Feb 2011 10:22:44 +0100 as excerpted:
Il giorno ven, 11/02/2011 alle 09.50 +0100, Sebastian Pipping ha
scritto:
Can anyone guide me or point me to a guide how to savely do that
manually?
There really isn't a safe way as soon as you built anything at
A little update from my side:
I was abe to downgrade glibc to 2.12.2 and my sound problem [1] is now
gone again! If it's not glibc itself, it's one of the packages
re-installed after (again, see [1] for the list).
If anyone considers masking glibc 2.13 for now: please take my vote.
Best,
On 2/11/11 10:55 AM, Michael Haubenwallner wrote:
what do you think of working around the memcpy troubles with glibc-2.13 by
simply redirecting memcpy to memmove within glibc, either unconditionally or
optional/temporary (via USE-flag?) until everyone uses memmove where
necessary?
I'm not a
On 2/11/11 1:06 PM, Sebastian Pipping wrote:
I was abe to downgrade glibc to 2.12.2 and my sound problem [1] is now
gone again!
Just curious, what downgrade method did you use? Just untaring an older
glibc package?
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Il giorno ven, 11/02/2011 alle 13.06 +0100, Sebastian Pipping ha
scritto:
If anyone considers masking glibc 2.13 for now: please take my vote.
It should have been masked _beforehand_, masking it now is going to
cause more trouble.
Remember: unless you're able to rebuild everything that was
On 02/11/11 13:26, Paweł Hajdan, Jr. wrote:
Just curious, what downgrade method did you use? Just untaring an older
glibc package?
This is what I did:
0) Log out of X, log in to root console
1) Collect packages emerged after previous update to glibc from
files in PORT_LOGDIR (using
On 02/11/2011 01:20 PM, Paweł Hajdan, Jr. wrote:
On 2/11/11 10:55 AM, Michael Haubenwallner wrote:
what do you think of working around the memcpy troubles with glibc-2.13 by
simply redirecting memcpy to memmove within glibc, either unconditionally or
optional/temporary (via USE-flag?) until
On 02/11/2011 11:12 AM, Diego Elio Pettenò wrote:
Il giorno ven, 11/02/2011 alle 10.55 +0100, Michael Haubenwallner ha
scritto:
what do you think of working around the memcpy troubles with
glibc-2.13 by
simply redirecting memcpy to memmove within glibc, either
unconditionally or
On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 1:27 PM, Diego Elio Pettenò flamee...@gmail.com wrote:
Il giorno ven, 11/02/2011 alle 13.06 +0100, Sebastian Pipping ha
scritto:
If anyone considers masking glibc 2.13 for now: please take my vote.
It should have been masked _beforehand_, masking it now is going to
On 02/11/2011 01:27 PM, Diego Elio Pettenò wrote:
It should have been masked _beforehand_, masking it now is going to
cause more trouble.
Portage will propose a downgrade of glibc on emerge-update-world, okay.
How bad would that be? Does it cause any other trouble?
Remember: unless you're
Il giorno ven, 11/02/2011 alle 15.37 +0100, Sebastian Pipping ha
scritto:
Portage will propose a downgrade of glibc on emerge-update-world, okay.
How bad would that be? Does it cause any other trouble?
And glibc will refuse to downgrade unless you hack the ebuild. Now let's
say that the user
Il giorno ven, 11/02/2011 alle 14.23 +0100, Michael Haubenwallner ha
scritto:
But both that document as well as uncountable lines of source code are
rather old.
While the source code isn't that large a problem for Gentoo, existing
binaries
without source code still are.
Beside flash what
On 02/11/2011 05:13 PM, Diego Elio Pettenò wrote:
Il giorno ven, 11/02/2011 alle 15.37 +0100, Sebastian Pipping ha
scritto:
Portage will propose a downgrade of glibc on emerge-update-world, okay.
How bad would that be? Does it cause any other trouble?
And glibc will refuse to downgrade
On Fri, 11 Feb 2011 10:23:19 +0100
Diego Elio Pettenò flamee...@gmail.com wrote:
Politeness is due where politeness is received. If you keep
second-guessing QA team, without looking at the packages at all (see
Samuli's mail) you're not going to receive any.
Sorry, but that violates the devrel
I'm not a member of QA team or libpng maintainer, but hopefully I'm not
going to write something horribly wrong here.
To ensure good upgrade experience for our users, and learning some
lessons from previous, um... disruptive upgrade (1.2 - 1.4), I'd have
some questions:
1) Are we going to have a
On 02/11/2011 06:38 PM, Paweł Hajdan, Jr. wrote:
I'm not a member of QA team or libpng maintainer, but hopefully I'm not
going to write something horribly wrong here.
To ensure good upgrade experience for our users, and learning some
lessons from previous, um... disruptive upgrade (1.2 -
On 02/11/2011 05:38 PM, Paweł Hajdan, Jr. wrote:
To ensure good upgrade experience for our users, and learning some
lessons from previous, um... disruptive upgrade (1.2 - 1.4), I'd have
some questions:
FWIW: For that upgrade I've not used lafile-fixer or anything like that
on my stable x86
Il giorno ven, 11/02/2011 alle 17.38 +0100, Paweł Hajdan, Jr. ha
scritto:
1) Are we going to have a tinderbox run *before* libpng-1.5 gets keyworded?
Absolutely.
2) If the upgrade is non-trivial, i.e. just emerge -uDNa world and
revdep-rebuild isn't going to fix it, will we have an upgrade
# Pacho Ramos pa...@gentoo.org (11 Feb 2011)
# Upstream dead since a lot of time, still using gnome-vfs and
# other deprecated stuff, replaced by udisks, udisks-glue,
# udiskie or gvfs. Removal in 30 days.
app-misc/magicdev
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
On 02/09/2011 03:11 PM, Zac Medico wrote:
In order to try to avoid forcing users to micro-manage flags too much,
it might make sense to avoid REQUIRED_USE whenever it's possible to do a
build that will almost certainly suit the user's needs. The most common
case that I can imagine where
# Pacho Ramos pa...@gentoo.org (11 Feb 2011)
# Upstream dead for a long time, replaced by app-text/evince
# Removal in 30 days.
app-text/ggv
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
On Friday, February 11, 2011 03:53:35 AM Torsten Veller wrote:
* Samuli Suominen ssuomi...@gentoo.org:
So I think your own chance is to contact aballier, ask if he still has
access (or ask for renewed opinion for the killing)
That was the intention. I cc'ed the bsd team and am still
On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 8:07 PM, Diego Elio Pettenò flamee...@gmail.com wrote:
Il giorno ven, 11/02/2011 alle 16.51 -0300, Alexis Ballier ha scritto:
you are seriously considering patching every single package using
libpng like
this instead of fixing those that fail??? (and i'm not talking
Matt Turner posted on Fri, 11 Feb 2011 20:39:04 + as excerpted:
I'm a little unclear about -lpng vs -lpng15. ssuominen tells me on IRC
that probably 90% of packages linking with libpng will fail with 1.5.
These 90% will link with -lpng until a version that supports 1.5 is
released? The
On Friday, February 11, 2011 05:07:50 PM Diego Elio Pettenò wrote:
Il giorno ven, 11/02/2011 alle 16.51 -0300, Alexis Ballier ha scritto:
you are seriously considering patching every single package using
libpng like
this instead of fixing those that fail??? (and i'm not talking about
the
On Friday, February 11, 2011 18:33:32 Alexis Ballier wrote:
On Friday, February 11, 2011 05:07:50 PM Diego Elio Pettenò wrote:
Il giorno ven, 11/02/2011 alle 16.51 -0300, Alexis Ballier ha scritto:
you are seriously considering patching every single package using
libpng like
this
On Friday, February 11, 2011 08:44:04 PM Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Friday, February 11, 2011 18:33:32 Alexis Ballier wrote:
On Friday, February 11, 2011 05:07:50 PM Diego Elio Pettenò wrote:
Il giorno ven, 11/02/2011 alle 16.51 -0300, Alexis Ballier ha scritto:
you are seriously
On Fri, 11 Feb 2011 16:24:14 +0100
Diego Elio Pettenò flamee...@gmail.com wrote:
Il giorno ven, 11/02/2011 alle 14.23 +0100, Michael Haubenwallner ha
scritto:
But both that document as well as uncountable lines of source code are
rather old.
While the source code isn't that large a
On Fri, 11 Feb 2011 07:40:53 +0200
Samuli Suominen ssuomi...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 02/10/2011 11:03 PM, Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
I'm not sure if you understand opensync then, there's 3-4 series in tree
and mostly not compatible with each other:
0.22, 0.36, 0.39 and latest being live .
34 matches
Mail list logo
