Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] 'Gentoo Linux' bugzilla component reorganization

On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 00:01:52 +0200 "Andreas K. Huettel" wrote: > > Right now we have the following components: > > > > - Applications, > merge with unspecified Merging is impossible. > > - Core system, > autoassign to base-system? Will base-system handle systemd

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] 'Gentoo Linux' bugzilla component reorganization

On 06/15/2016 12:11 PM, Michał Górny wrote: > Hello, everyone. > > On bug #577398, Pacho has requested removing the 'Development' > component that's rarely used according to its description. However, I'd > rather not remove a single component when it fits the component split > currently used

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] 'Gentoo Linux' bugzilla component reorganization

> Right now we have the following components: > > - Applications, merge with unspecified > - Core system, autoassign to base-system? > - Development, makes no sense, merge with unspecified > - Eclasses and Profiles, split into eclasses and profiles > - Games, merge with applications > -

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] 'Gentoo Linux' bugzilla component reorganization

On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 3:57 PM, Davide Pesavento wrote: > We could also have separate components for "keywording" vs > "stabilization", which would make the use of STABLEREQ/KEYWORDREQ > keywords obsolete at the same time. The STABLEREQ keyword would still be useful for

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] 'Gentoo Linux' bugzilla component reorganization

On Wed, 15 Jun 2016 21:57:04 +0200 Davide Pesavento wrote: > On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 9:11 PM, Michał Górny wrote: > > I would personally go for the following layout: > > > > - All packages, > > - Core system [includes baselayout], > > - Eclasses and Profiles,

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] 'Gentoo Linux' bugzilla component reorganization

On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 9:11 PM, Michał Górny wrote: > I would personally go for the following layout: > > - All packages, > - Core system [includes baselayout], > - Eclasses and Profiles, > - GCC Porting, > - Hardened, > - Keywording & Stabilization, > - New packages ('New

[gentoo-dev] [RFC] 'Gentoo Linux' bugzilla component reorganization

Hello, everyone. On bug #577398, Pacho has requested removing the 'Development' component that's rarely used according to its description. However, I'd rather not remove a single component when it fits the component split currently used there. Right now we have the following components: -

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Enforced OpenPGP signatures

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 On Tue, 14 Jun 2016 10:41:38 +0200 Alexander Berntsen wrote: > Friends, > > I saw Brian asking Michał to OpenPGP-sign his commits in IRC, to which > Michał quipped that we would have if it were enforced. So perhaps we >

Re: Facilitating user contributed ebuilds (Was: [gentoo-dev] The future of the Sunrise project)

Dnia 15 czerwca 2016 08:42:26 CEST, Andrew Savchenko napisał(a): >On Wed, 15 Jun 2016 05:15:03 +0200 Michał Górny wrote: >> On Wed, 15 Jun 2016 00:12:40 +0200 >> "Andreas K. Huettel" wrote: >> >> > Am Dienstag, 14. Juni 2016, 02:32:41 schrieb Peter

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] New eclass: mate

Dnia 15 czerwca 2016 06:18:31 CEST, Jason Zaman napisał(a): >On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 12:52:34PM -0400, NP-Hardass wrote: >> On 06/09/2016 11:54 PM, Jason Zaman wrote: >> > On Thu, Jun 09, 2016 at 08:19:43AM -0400, NP-Hardass wrote: >> >> # @FUNCTION: python_cond_func_wrap

Re: Facilitating user contributed ebuilds (Was: [gentoo-dev] The future of the Sunrise project)

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 You've got most things right, Rich. But a couple of comments follow. On 15/06/16 02:25, Rich Freeman wrote: > 1. Developers wouldn't have access to all the ebuilds in the > curated repositories. They would only have access to the ones they >

Re: Facilitating user contributed ebuilds (Was: [gentoo-dev] The future of the Sunrise project)

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 On 14/06/16 08:48, Daniel Campbell wrote: > What sort of modularization are you talking about? The cheap answer is "as much as possible. > Would we suggest something like GNOME, KDE, XFCE, Mate, Cinnamon, > et al getting their own overlays?

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Enforced OpenPGP signatures

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 On 14/06/16 20:48, Robin H. Johnson wrote: > Please file a bug to have infra turn it on for the repos you want > (specify them in the bug). Thank you, Robin. Will do once I have some sort of ACK, or at least a long enough period without NACKs. -

Re: Facilitating user contributed ebuilds (Was: [gentoo-dev] The future of the Sunrise project)

On Wed, 15 Jun 2016 05:15:03 +0200 Michał Górny wrote: > On Wed, 15 Jun 2016 00:12:40 +0200 > "Andreas K. Huettel" wrote: > > > Am Dienstag, 14. Juni 2016, 02:32:41 schrieb Peter Stuge: > > > > > > > > I would personally be super happy to have my overlay hosted at Gentoo

Re: Facilitating user contributed ebuilds (Was: [gentoo-dev] The future of the Sunrise project)

Hi! On Tue, 14 Jun 2016, Rich Freeman wrote: > 1. Developers wouldn't have access to all the ebuilds in the curated > repositories. They would only have access to the ones they contribute > to. > 1a. You could accept a contributor into a small project and not have > to give them access to the