On 16/02/15 12:58, Mike Frysinger wrote:
On 16 Feb 2015 19:43, Patrick Lauer wrote:
On Monday 16 February 2015 06:13:10 Mike Frysinger wrote:
even then, deleting an ebuild purely due to different copyright is
complete bs. anyone who understands copyright knows the situation in
Gentoo is
On 02/16/2015 10:36, Anthony G. Basile wrote:
On 02/16/15 08:34, Pacho Ramos wrote:
Hello
Every day I am hitting tons of blockers stabilizations and keywording
requests for alpha, sparc, ia64, ppc and ppc64.
The powerpc team figured we'd deal with this by being lax about
El lun, 16-02-2015 a las 10:36 -0500, Anthony G. Basile escribió:
On 02/16/15 08:34, Pacho Ramos wrote:
Hello
Every day I am hitting tons of blockers stabilizations and keywording
requests for alpha, sparc, ia64, ppc and ppc64.
The powerpc team figured we'd deal with this by being lax
On 02/16/2015 09:04, Rich Freeman wrote:
On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 7:44 AM, Joshua Kinard ku...@gentoo.org wrote:
As far as removing the ebuild goes, that was probably the correct course of
action, because we Yanks love to make our legal code as bizzaringly complex
as
we think we can.
On Mon, 16 Feb 2015 21:00:16 +0800
Patrick Lauer patr...@gentoo.org wrote:
Right now repoman is relatively permissive - it whines about many
things, but treats many issues as warning.
The result is that many ebuilds get committed with 'minor' cosmetic
issues which then someone more OCD than
On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 12:50 PM, Luca Barbato lu_z...@gentoo.org wrote:
Can we just have repoman directly fix the entry automatically since in
itself is nearly-pointless?
That would leave the door open to somebody arguing that the line was
changed without their knowledge. Absent some kind
On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 11:02 AM, Joshua Kinard ku...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 02/16/2015 09:04, Rich Freeman wrote:
I do think that moving to a cleaner policy makes a lot of sense. The
problem is that doing this sort of thing right potentially involves a
lot of work as well. Maybe another
This should return true starting with EAPI 6, and false for EAPI 5 and earlier.
---
bin/eapi.sh | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/bin/eapi.sh b/bin/eapi.sh
index f1c677e..528e6f2 100644
--- a/bin/eapi.sh
+++ b/bin/eapi.sh
@@ -175,7 +175,7 @@
On 02/16/2015 10:21 AM, Ulrich Müller wrote:
This should return true starting with EAPI 6, and false for EAPI 5 and
earlier.
---
bin/eapi.sh | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/bin/eapi.sh b/bin/eapi.sh
index f1c677e..528e6f2 100644
--- a/bin/eapi.sh
+++
Am Montag 16 Februar 2015, 13:05:54 schrieb Rich Freeman:
Another option is remove that header and just state that all the .ebuild
are under $license in a simpler way...
As I said in my other email, that might be a simpler way to go. Of
course, does that make it acceptable to strip the
On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 3:13 AM, Mike Frysinger vap...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 1:16 AM, Alec Warner anta...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Sun, Feb 15, 2015 at 8:05 PM, Mike Frysinger vap...@gentoo.org
wrote:
On Wed, Dec 31, 2014 at 12:21 AM, Patrick Lauer (patrick)
On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 4:22 PM, Anthony G. Basile bluen...@gentoo.org wrote:
They come from multiple places, for example I am now fighting with
getting ipython finally stabilized after months of waiting because the
deps hell in python packages (as package A needs package B, B needs C
and D
On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 8:00 AM, Patrick Lauer patr...@gentoo.org wrote:
Thus I suggest making the following warnings proper errors:
(Taken from current repoman 'qawarnings' set)
changelog.missing,
changelog.notadded,
These two are pretty much irrelevant now that repoman auto-generates
On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 1:32 PM, Andreas K. Huettel
dilfri...@gentoo.org wrote:
Can't we just only require the correct license statement and leave all
copyright statements as they are in whatever form?
Obviously appealing for its simplicity. But, I can see some issues:
1. What if you want
On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 10:59 AM, Joshua Kinard ku...@gentoo.org wrote:
Keep the core git tree constantly rolling forward, have a dedicated branch get
cut say, once a year (or less -- Debian is ~18mo?), another group of devs
works
on stabilizing that (and periodically cherrypicking from the
On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 02:34:50PM +0100, Pacho Ramos wrote:
Hello
Every day I am hitting tons of blockers stabilizations and keywording
requests for alpha, sparc, ia64, ppc and ppc64.
Again, I would suggest to either decrease radically the amount of stable
packages of some of that
On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 02:34:50PM +0100, Pacho Ramos wrote:
Hello
Every day I am hitting tons of blockers stabilizations and keywording
requests for alpha, sparc, ia64, ppc and ppc64.
Again, I would suggest to either decrease radically the amount of stable
packages of some of that
On 16 Feb 2015 13:12, Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
Am Montag 16 Februar 2015, 07:03:18 schrieb Mike Frysinger:
except for two things:
* that phrase is meaningless (legally speaking) and has been for a century
[1] * the header explicitly stated GPL-2 license
So you want to change a
Right now repoman is relatively permissive - it whines about many things, but
treats many issues as warning.
The result is that many ebuilds get committed with 'minor' cosmetic issues
which then someone more OCD than the original committer cleans up, making
pretty much everyone involved more
Thus I suggest making the following warnings proper errors:
(Taken from current repoman 'qawarnings' set)
changelog.missing,
changelog.notadded,
digest.assumed,
digest.unused,
ebuild.notadded,
ebuild.nesteddie,
DESCRIPTION.toolong,
RESTRICT.invalid,
ebuild.minorsyn,
On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 7:44 AM, Joshua Kinard ku...@gentoo.org wrote:
As far as removing the ebuild goes, that was probably the correct course of
action, because we Yanks love to make our legal code as bizzaringly complex as
we think we can. Though, the mistaken code is still in CVS in the
On 12/31/2014 06:21 AM, Patrick Lauer (patrick) wrote:
patrick 14/12/31 05:21:11
Removed: ChangeLog Manifest libusbhp-1.0.2.ebuild
metadata.xml
Log:
QA: Remove package with invalid copyright
Both people made an excellent point for enforcing
Dnia 2015-02-16, o godz. 10:37:12
William Hubbs willi...@gentoo.org napisał(a):
On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 02:34:50PM +0100, Pacho Ramos wrote:
Hello
Every day I am hitting tons of blockers stabilizations and keywording
requests for alpha, sparc, ia64, ppc and ppc64.
Again, I would
On Feb 16, 2015 8:01 AM, Patrick Lauer patr...@gentoo.org wrote:
Right now repoman is relatively permissive - it whines about many things,
but
treats many issues as warning.
The result is that many ebuilds get committed with 'minor' cosmetic issues
which then someone more OCD than the
On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 11:19 AM, Mike Frysinger vap...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 16 Feb 2015 21:00, Patrick Lauer wrote:
Thus I suggest making the following warnings proper errors:
some of these are because they produce false positives. at least these bugs
probably need to be fixed first:
On 02/16/2015 07:12, Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
Am Montag 16 Februar 2015, 07:03:18 schrieb Mike Frysinger:
except for two things:
* that phrase is meaningless (legally speaking) and has been for a century
[1] * the header explicitly stated GPL-2 license
So you want to change a longstanding
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
FWIW: I'm in the warnings are pointless, either we care about
something (so make it an error), or we don't (so get rid of it).
- --
Alexander
berna...@gentoo.org
https://secure.plaimi.net/~alexander
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v2
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 16/02/15 14:02, Alexander Berntsen wrote:
FWIW: I'm in the warnings are pointless, either we care about
something (so make it an error), or we don't (so get rid of it).
s/\./ camp./
(I accidentally a word...)
- --
Alexander
El lun, 16-02-2015 a las 21:00 +0800, Patrick Lauer escribió:
[...]
I agree
On 16 Feb 2015 21:00, Patrick Lauer wrote:
Thus I suggest making the following warnings proper errors:
some of these are because they produce false positives. at least these bugs
probably need to be fixed first:
https://bugs.gentoo.org/405017
https://bugs.gentoo.org/488836
Hello
Every day I am hitting tons of blockers stabilizations and keywording
requests for alpha, sparc, ia64, ppc and ppc64.
Again, I would suggest to either decrease radically the amount of stable
packages of some of that arches or even make them testing only.
For reducing their stable tree,
On Mon, 16 Feb 2015 21:00:16 +0800 Patrick Lauer wrote:
Right now repoman is relatively permissive - it whines about many things, but
treats many issues as warning.
The result is that many ebuilds get committed with 'minor' cosmetic issues
which then someone more OCD than the original
On 02/16/15 11:05, Pacho Ramos wrote:
El lun, 16-02-2015 a las 10:36 -0500, Anthony G. Basile escribió:
On 02/16/15 08:34, Pacho Ramos wrote:
Hello
Every day I am hitting tons of blockers stabilizations and keywording
requests for alpha, sparc, ia64, ppc and ppc64.
The powerpc team figured
On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 8:34 AM, Pacho Ramos pa...@gentoo.org wrote:
The current policy of maintainers dropping keywords after 90 days is
simply not applied because it leads up to that maintainer needing to
kill himself that keyword and ALL the reverse deps keywords
A published script might
El lun, 16-02-2015 a las 10:09 -0500, Rich Freeman escribió:
On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 8:34 AM, Pacho Ramos pa...@gentoo.org wrote:
The current policy of maintainers dropping keywords after 90 days is
simply not applied because it leads up to that maintainer needing to
kill himself that
On 02/16/15 08:34, Pacho Ramos wrote:
Hello
Every day I am hitting tons of blockers stabilizations and keywording
requests for alpha, sparc, ia64, ppc and ppc64.
The powerpc team figured we'd deal with this by being lax about
keywording/stabilization and catch problems in subsequent bug
On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 1:16 AM, Alec Warner anta...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Sun, Feb 15, 2015 at 8:05 PM, Mike Frysinger vap...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Wed, Dec 31, 2014 at 12:21 AM, Patrick Lauer (patrick)
patr...@gentoo.org wrote:
patrick 14/12/31 05:21:11
Removed:
On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 1:16 AM, Alec Warner anta...@gentoo.org wrote:
even then, deleting an ebuild purely due to different copyright is
complete bs.
No. Tree policy.
--
Andreas K. Huettel
Gentoo Linux developer
perl, office, comrel, council
Am Montag 16 Februar 2015, 06:13:10 schrieb Mike Frysinger:
even then, deleting an ebuild purely due to different copyright is
complete bs.
The requirement for Gentoo copyright in the main tree is not optional, but has
been policy for a very long time.
Just because you've been around forever
On 16 Feb 2015 12:31, Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
Am Montag 16 Februar 2015, 06:13:10 schrieb Mike Frysinger:
even then, deleting an ebuild purely due to different copyright is
complete bs.
The requirement for Gentoo copyright in the main tree is not optional, but
has
been policy for a
On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 6:31 AM, Andreas K. Huettel
dilfri...@gentoo.org wrote:
Am Montag 16 Februar 2015, 06:13:10 schrieb Mike Frysinger:
even then, deleting an ebuild purely due to different copyright is
complete bs.
The requirement for Gentoo copyright in the main tree is not optional,
On Monday 16 February 2015 06:13:10 Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 1:16 AM, Alec Warner anta...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Sun, Feb 15, 2015 at 8:05 PM, Mike Frysinger vap...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Wed, Dec 31, 2014 at 12:21 AM, Patrick Lauer (patrick)
patr...@gentoo.org wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 02/16/15 13:31, Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
Am Montag 16 Februar 2015, 06:13:10 schrieb Mike Frysinger:
even then, deleting an ebuild purely due to different copyright
is complete bs.
The requirement for Gentoo copyright in the main tree is
El lun, 16-02-2015 a las 06:39 -0500, Mike Frysinger escribió:
[...]
Anyway, wouldn't have been much more useful for all to spend the effort
used in remove the package on simply fixing the header? :/
El lun, 16-02-2015 a las 12:46 +0100, Pacho Ramos escribió:
El lun, 16-02-2015 a las 06:39 -0500, Mike Frysinger escribió:
[...]
Anyway, wouldn't have been much more useful for all to spend the effort
used in remove the package on simply fixing the header? :/
Ah, ok, I guess it's
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 02/16/2015 12:44 PM, Markos Chandras wrote:
I too believe that if you are reverting someone's commit you should
at least drop him an email to let him know. How else do you expect
him to know he did something wrong? I am a bit worried QA is
On 16 Feb 2015 19:43, Patrick Lauer wrote:
On Monday 16 February 2015 06:13:10 Mike Frysinger wrote:
even then, deleting an ebuild purely due to different copyright is
complete bs. anyone who understands copyright knows the situation in
Gentoo is completely unenforceable. we have no CLA.
On 16 Feb 2015 12:53, Pacho Ramos wrote:
El lun, 16-02-2015 a las 12:46 +0100, Pacho Ramos escribió:
El lun, 16-02-2015 a las 06:39 -0500, Mike Frysinger escribió:
[...]
Anyway, wouldn't have been much more useful for all to spend the effort
used in remove the package on simply fixing
On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 6:46 AM, Pacho Ramos pa...@gentoo.org wrote:
El lun, 16-02-2015 a las 06:39 -0500, Mike Frysinger escribió:
[...]
Anyway, wouldn't have been much more useful for all to spend the effort
used in remove the package on simply fixing the header? :/
Yeah, let's not bring
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 02/16/15 13:53, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote:
On 02/16/2015 12:44 PM, Markos Chandras wrote:
I too believe that if you are reverting someone's commit you
should at least drop him an email to let him know. How else do
you expect him to know
Am Montag 16 Februar 2015, 07:03:18 schrieb Mike Frysinger:
except for two things:
* that phrase is meaningless (legally speaking) and has been for a century
[1] * the header explicitly stated GPL-2 license
So you want to change a longstanding policy rule. Right. How about doing this
like
51 matches
Mail list logo
