Re: [gentoo-dev] ChangeLog generation - pros and cons (council discussion request)

2011-06-05 Thread Fabian Groffen
On 02-06-2011 17:15:11 +0530, Nirbheek Chauhan wrote: All these problems are fixed if we don't re-generate the *existing* ChangeLogs. We should simply archive the existing ChangeLog, and append to it after the move to git. About this slightly hybrid approach: - the ChangeLog file is retained,

Re: [gentoo-dev] ChangeLog generation - pros and cons (council discussion request)

2011-06-05 Thread Nirbheek Chauhan
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 1:30 PM, Fabian Groffen grob...@gentoo.org wrote: On 02-06-2011 17:15:11 +0530, Nirbheek Chauhan wrote: All these problems are fixed if we don't re-generate the *existing* ChangeLogs. We should simply archive the existing ChangeLog, and append to it after the move to

[gentoo-dev] Test request: open-iscsi 2.0.872

2011-06-05 Thread Sebastian Pipping
Hello! Would be great to have a few people test open-iscsi 2.0.872 before moving it from overlay betagarden to the main tree. To get it installed please run: # layman -a betagarden # emerge -av =sys-block/open-iscsi-2.0.872 Important: Please include a description of what you did while

[gentoo-dev] Re: Test request: open-iscsi 2.0.872

2011-06-05 Thread Sebastian Pipping
PS: I noticed the typo in gentoo-users@lists.g.o ^ and sent a new mail to gentoo-user@lists.g.o now. Sebastian

Re: [gentoo-dev] Test request: open-iscsi 2.0.872

2011-06-05 Thread Roy Bamford
On 2011.06.05 12:54, Sebastian Pipping wrote: Hello! Would be great to have a few people test open-iscsi 2.0.872 before moving it from overlay betagarden to the main tree. To get it installed please run: # layman -a betagarden # emerge -av =sys-block/open-iscsi-2.0.872 [snip]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Test request: open-iscsi 2.0.872

2011-06-05 Thread Stefan Behte
Hi, Would be great to have a few people test open-iscsi 2.0.872 before moving it from overlay betagarden to the main tree. [...] In the good old days, stuff like this would just be added to the tree either hard masked or not keyworded, or both. Why not still do that? +1 I had tested

Re: [gentoo-dev] MULTI_ABI support addition to main tree portage

2011-06-05 Thread Matt Turner
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 9:00 PM, Zac Medico zmed...@gentoo.org wrote: On 06/02/2011 03:04 PM, Matt Turner wrote: For this problem, I think some kind of per-ebuild ABI_DEPENDENT flag should be used to recognize which packages ABI dependencies should apply to. Without thinking about it too hard,

[gentoo-dev] Automated Package Removal and Addition Tracker, for the week ending 2011-06-05 23h59 UTC

2011-06-05 Thread Robin H. Johnson
The attached list notes all of the packages that were added or removed from the tree, for the week ending 2011-06-05 23h59 UTC. Removals: www-client/chromium-bin 2011-06-04 08:02:07 phajdan.jr Additions: dev-python/psutil 2011-05-30 10:00:03

Re: [gentoo-dev] MULTI_ABI support addition to main tree portage

2011-06-05 Thread Zac Medico
On 06/05/2011 04:44 PM, Matt Turner wrote: Have you looked at Tommy[D]'s work? What do you think needs to happen for it to be merged? I haven't looked at the code in detail, but the idea behind it seems reasonable. Given the complexity of the issue, I think that it needs to be approved as a

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Test request: open-iscsi 2.0.872

2011-06-05 Thread Jeroen Roovers
On Sun, 05 Jun 2011 13:57:18 +0200 Sebastian Pipping sp...@gentoo.org wrote: PS: I noticed the typo in gentoo-users@lists.g.o ^ and sent a new mail to gentoo-user@lists.g.o now. Sebastian From an grossly incomplete, very quick and rather dirty count of my own