[gentoo-dev] package up for grabs: mail-filter/spambayes

Hi. I decided to either give up maintainership of spambayes (not that there were any releases in the last 5+ years anyway). Anyone interested? if not I'll change it to maintainer-needed (or maybe just treeclean it .. not sure yet if anyone at all still cares - as far as I could see no packages

Re: [gentoo-dev] stabilization candidates, July 2017

On Mon, 2017-07-10 at 10:41 +0200, Paweł Hajdan, Jr. wrote: > Hey folks, > > If you'd like to help Gentoo stable be more up to date, please read > on. > > See > 9.txt> > for potential stabilization candidates (over 1000 of

Re: [gentoo-dev] About adding a *warning* to remind maintainers to check for new PYTHON_COMPAT values

On Mon, 10 Jul 2017 15:41:04 +0200 Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote: > On 07/10/2017 03:35 PM, Kent Fredric wrote: > > On Mon, 10 Jul 2017 13:43:43 +0200 > > Pacho Ramos wrote: > > > >> Yes, but it's similar as the cases when we need to fix our packages > >> to

Re: [gentoo-dev] Sets vs Meta ebuilds

I have a script I've written for my own use. It's not 100% polished, but it does the job for me. My "autodepclean" script runs "emerge --pretend --depclean", and reformats the output into another script, named "cleanscript", which contains a bunch of lines like... emerge --depclean --verbose

Re: [gentoo-dev] Native vs Scripting language for portage speed concerns was -> Sets vs Meta ebuilds

On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 9:29 PM, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote: > > I am aware in a way. Depends on how implemented. This has to hit > package.env files. But what you see below comes from a dependency list. > I have packages with even more deps. > If you want to cope with poor

Re: [gentoo-dev] Native vs Scripting language for portage speed concerns was -> Sets vs Meta ebuilds

On Tue, 11 Jul 2017 02:23:56 +0100 Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Mon, 10 Jul 2017 18:14:23 -0700 > Raymond Jennings wrote: > > If I may ask, does anyone have any profiling information one way or > > the other to shed light on the situation?

Re: [gentoo-dev] Sets vs Meta ebuilds

On Tue, 11 Jul 2017 02:09:12 +0100 Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Tue, 11 Jul 2017 00:24:10 +0200 > Michał Górny wrote: > > William, I'm not sure if you're aware of how package managers work > > but checking reverse dependencies of a package takes

Re: [gentoo-dev] Native vs Scripting language for portage speed concerns was -> Sets vs Meta ebuilds

On Mon, 10 Jul 2017 20:12:28 -0500 R0b0t1 wrote: > On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 6:56 PM, William L. Thomson Jr. > wrote: >> > > IMHO anyone complaining about time taking for dependency resolution > > etc. They should spend THEIR time writing stuff in a real

Re: [gentoo-dev] Native vs Scripting language for portage speed concerns was -> Sets vs Meta ebuilds

On Mon, 10 Jul 2017 18:14:23 -0700 Raymond Jennings wrote: > If I may ask, does anyone have any profiling information one way or > the other to shed light on the situation? Paludis does complete dependency and unused package tracking for everything by default. Any performance

Re: [gentoo-dev] Native vs Scripting language for portage speed concerns was -> Sets vs Meta ebuilds

If I may ask, does anyone have any profiling information one way or the other to shed light on the situation? On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 6:12 PM, R0b0t1 wrote: > On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 6:56 PM, William L. Thomson Jr. > wrote: > > On Mon, 10 Jul 2017 17:47:45

Re: [gentoo-dev] Native vs Scripting language for portage speed concerns was -> Sets vs Meta ebuilds

On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 6:56 PM, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote: > On Mon, 10 Jul 2017 17:47:45 -0500 > Gordon Pettey wrote: > >> On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 5:24 PM, Michał Górny >> wrote: >> >> > On pon, 2017-07-10 at 17:40 -0400, William

Re: [gentoo-dev] Sets vs Meta ebuilds

On Mon, 10 Jul 2017 17:21:42 -0400 Ian Stakenvicius wrote: > On 10/07/17 04:47 PM, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote: > > On Mon, 10 Jul 2017 15:36:11 -0500 > > Ben Kohler wrote: > >> > >> If you want dependencies checked, use the correct option which > >> checks

Re: [gentoo-dev] Sets vs Meta ebuilds

On Tue, 11 Jul 2017 00:24:10 +0200 Michał Górny wrote: > William, I'm not sure if you're aware of how package managers work but > checking reverse dependencies of a package takes significant amount of > time. Changing -C to do that would be a serious performance > regression.

Re: [gentoo-dev] taking a break from arches stabilization

On Monday, July 10, 2017 1:22:20 PM EDT Agostino Sarubbo wrote: > Hi all. > > every time that I attach my tmux session to see what happens on irc, I > always see the same discussion about the 'minor' arches status. > Since I joined gentoo(2011) I worked on all arches except hppa, I put more >

Re: [gentoo-dev] Native vs Scripting language for portage speed concerns was -> Sets vs Meta ebuilds

On Mon, 10 Jul 2017 17:47:45 -0500 Gordon Pettey wrote: > On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 5:24 PM, Michał Górny > wrote: > > > On pon, 2017-07-10 at 17:40 -0400, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote: > > > Stop getting lost in the weeds > > > You all are making

Re: [gentoo-dev] taking a break from arches stabilization

On Mon, 10 Jul 2017 16:27:54 -0400 Rich Freeman wrote: > On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 4:05 PM, M. J. Everitt wrote: > > This is why stabilisation, if not for individual package maintainers on > > amd64, has become a joke, save for Ago's efforts, and recent efforts by > >

Re: [gentoo-dev] Auto adding packages to world was -> Sets vs Meta ebuilds

On Mon, 10 Jul 2017 19:22:47 -0400 "William L. Thomson Jr." wrote: > > That part does not require it to resolve deps. Just check world file, > assuming its correct. Though could be thrown off if say gcc, or > another was in the world file. I think the profile or set would catch

Re: [gentoo-dev] taking a break from arches stabilization

On Mon, 10 Jul 2017 22:17:34 +0200 Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote: > On 07/10/2017 10:02 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: > > On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 3:57 PM, Andrew Savchenko > > wrote: > >> > >> On Mon, 10 Jul 2017 13:49:40 -0400 Rich Freeman wrote: > >> > >>> In the case of amd64 we

Re: [gentoo-dev] Sets vs Meta ebuilds

On Mon, 10 Jul 2017 17:08:54 -0500 Ben Kohler wrote: > On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 4:42 PM, William L. Thomson Jr. > wrote: > > > > > If people understood, then saying use -c or -C makes no sense. It > > does not address the lack of output from either I am

Re: [gentoo-dev] Sets vs Meta ebuilds

On pon, 2017-07-10 at 17:47 -0500, Gordon Pettey wrote: > On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 5:24 PM, Michał Górny wrote: > > > On pon, 2017-07-10 at 17:40 -0400, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote: > > > Stop getting lost in the weeds > > > You all are making this about -c vs -C. I am not

Re: [gentoo-dev] Sets vs Meta ebuilds

On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 5:24 PM, Michał Górny wrote: > On pon, 2017-07-10 at 17:40 -0400, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote: > > Stop getting lost in the weeds > > You all are making this about -c vs -C. I am not talking about that! > > > > LET ME CLARIFY > > > > When using

Re: [gentoo-dev] Sets vs Meta ebuilds

On pon, 2017-07-10 at 17:40 -0400, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote: > Stop getting lost in the weeds > You all are making this about -c vs -C. I am not talking about that! > > LET ME CLARIFY > > When using -C, portage SHOULD warn for dependencies like it does for > profile and set packages,

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Leader election

Voting for Zac as well Am 9. Juli 2017 23:33:07 MESZ schrieb "Michał Górny" : >On wto, 2017-07-04 at 13:02 -0700, Zac Medico wrote: >> On 07/02/2017 12:02 PM, Brian Dolbec wrote: >> > On Sun, 2 Jul 2017 11:28:09 -0700 >> > Brian Dolbec wrote: >> > >> > > On

Re: [gentoo-dev] Sets vs Meta ebuilds

On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 4:42 PM, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote: > > If people understood, then saying use -c or -C makes no sense. It does > not address the lack of output from either I am talking about. > > -- > William L. Thomson Jr. > I really thought I understood you in

Re: [gentoo-dev] Sets vs Meta ebuilds

On Mon, 10 Jul 2017 16:30:07 -0400 Rich Freeman wrote: > On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 4:27 PM, William L. Thomson Jr. > wrote: > > On Mon, 10 Jul 2017 15:55:47 -0400 > > Rich Freeman wrote: > > > >> > >> The --unmerge option is there to let

Re: [gentoo-dev] Sets vs Meta ebuilds

Stop getting lost in the weeds You all are making this about -c vs -C. I am not talking about that! LET ME CLARIFY When using -C, portage SHOULD warn for dependencies like it does for profile and set packages, PERIOD. NOTHING to do with -c vs -C. When using -c the output should say in

Re: [gentoo-dev] Sets vs Meta ebuilds

On 10/07/17 04:47 PM, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote: > On Mon, 10 Jul 2017 15:36:11 -0500 > Ben Kohler wrote: >> >> If you want dependencies checked, use the correct option which checks >> them. This takes significantly longer than -C, as it's significantly >> more complex to

Re: [gentoo-dev] Sets vs Meta ebuilds

On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 4:47 PM, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote: > On Mon, 10 Jul 2017 15:36:11 -0500 > Ben Kohler wrote: >> >> If you want dependencies checked, use the correct option which checks >> them. This takes significantly longer than -C, as it's

Re: [gentoo-dev] Sets vs Meta ebuilds

On Mon, 10 Jul 2017 15:36:11 -0500 Ben Kohler wrote: > > If you want dependencies checked, use the correct option which checks > them. This takes significantly longer than -C, as it's significantly > more complex to check for. > > As far as I can tell, you are literally

Re: [gentoo-dev] Sets vs Meta ebuilds

On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 3:27 PM, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote: > > > Not sure why anyone would have objection to such a warning like exists > for other things. Or providing more information to the user as to why a > package was not removed, or should not be removed. > > -- >

Re: [gentoo-dev] Sets vs Meta ebuilds

On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 4:27 PM, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote: > On Mon, 10 Jul 2017 15:55:47 -0400 > Rich Freeman wrote: > >> >> The --unmerge option is there to let people shoot themselves in the >> feet if they know what they're doing. > > Not sure why

Re: [gentoo-dev] taking a break from arches stabilization

On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 4:05 PM, M. J. Everitt wrote: > > I dunno where you've been lately, Rich, but for most devs, would-be > devs, and observers .. there -are- no arch teams left .. just a few Arch > devs, or arch 'people' .. Obviously. I was describing how the arch team

Re: [gentoo-dev] Sets vs Meta ebuilds

On Mon, 10 Jul 2017 15:55:47 -0400 Rich Freeman wrote: > On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 3:45 PM, William L. Thomson Jr. > wrote: > > On Mon, 10 Jul 2017 14:39:00 -0500 > > Ben Kohler wrote: > >> > >> > You aren't taking the time to read your

Re: [gentoo-dev] taking a break from arches stabilization

On 07/10/2017 10:02 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 3:57 PM, Andrew Savchenko wrote: >> >> On Mon, 10 Jul 2017 13:49:40 -0400 Rich Freeman wrote: >> >>> In the case of amd64 we already >>> encourage individual package maintainers to stabilize their own >>>

Re: [gentoo-dev] taking a break from arches stabilization

On 10/07/17 20:53, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 3:09 PM, Matt Turner wrote: >> For what it's worth, Jack Morgan was recently getting his sparc and >> ia64 systems back up, but then decided to retire instead when he saw >> all of the discussions about dropping

Re: [gentoo-dev] taking a break from arches stabilization

On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 3:57 PM, Andrew Savchenko wrote: > > On Mon, 10 Jul 2017 13:49:40 -0400 Rich Freeman wrote: > >> In the case of amd64 we already >> encourage individual package maintainers to stabilize their own >> packages > > Huh? Have our rules changed? As per

Re: [gentoo-dev] taking a break from arches stabilization

Hi, On Mon, 10 Jul 2017 13:49:40 -0400 Rich Freeman wrote: > On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 1:22 PM, Agostino Sarubbo wrote: > > > > Now, since I work on these arches just to help, i.e. I don't have any > > business > > and I do non have any installation of those arches and the work

Re: [gentoo-dev] Sets vs Meta ebuilds

On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 3:45 PM, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote: > On Mon, 10 Jul 2017 14:39:00 -0500 > Ben Kohler wrote: >> >> > You aren't taking the time to read your own emerge output. > > It always says that same generic message. If that is the case, then

Re: [gentoo-dev] taking a break from arches stabilization

On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 3:09 PM, Matt Turner wrote: > > For what it's worth, Jack Morgan was recently getting his sparc and > ia64 systems back up, but then decided to retire instead when he saw > all of the discussions about dropping the architectures he cares > about. >

Re: [gentoo-dev] Sets vs Meta ebuilds

On Mon, 10 Jul 2017 14:48:23 -0500 Ben Kohler wrote: > > > > > > - The -c option should say why it will not remove. > > > > > > -- > > William L. Thomson Jr. > > > It does, if you use the --verbose flag. This is mentioned in your > emerge output a few times. It just shows

Re: [gentoo-dev] Sets vs Meta ebuilds

> > > - The -c option should say why it will not remove. > > > -- > William L. Thomson Jr. > It does, if you use the --verbose flag. This is mentioned in your emerge output a few times. -Ben

Re: [gentoo-dev] Sets vs Meta ebuilds

On Mon, 10 Jul 2017 14:39:00 -0500 Ben Kohler wrote: > > > You aren't taking the time to read your own emerge output. It always says that same generic message. If that is the case, then why even have that option? Why not default to that all the time? Why did someone give that

Re: [gentoo-dev] Sets vs Meta ebuilds

On Mon, 10 Jul 2017 15:36:16 -0400 "William L. Thomson Jr." wrote: > > !!! 'sys-devel/gcc' is part of your system profile. > !!! Unmerging it may be damaging to your system. When un-merging a package from a set, You get a similar warning. I think this warning should also be

Re: [gentoo-dev] Sets vs Meta ebuilds

On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 2:36 PM, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote: > ... > Calculating dependencies... done! > >>> No packages selected for removal by depclean > >>> To see reverse dependencies, use --verbose > Packages installed: 1779 > Packages in world:194 > ... > #

Re: [gentoo-dev] Sets vs Meta ebuilds

On Mon, 10 Jul 2017 14:28:29 -0500 Ben Kohler wrote: > > Use -c rather than -C, like grknight suggested, and it will. It does not remove, but does not say why either. Which a user may likely proceed with using -C, as -c had no effect nor did it say why it took no action. #

Re: [gentoo-dev] Sets vs Meta ebuilds

On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 2:25 PM, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote: > On Mon, 10 Jul 2017 15:15:35 -0400 > "William L. Thomson Jr." wrote: > > > # emerge -pC tomcat-servlet-api > > * This action can remove important packages! In order to be safer, > > use > >

Re: [gentoo-dev] Sets vs Meta ebuilds

On Mon, 10 Jul 2017 15:15:35 -0400 "William L. Thomson Jr." wrote: > # emerge -pC tomcat-servlet-api > * This action can remove important packages! In order to be safer, > use > * `emerge -pv --depclean ` to check for reverse dependencies >before > * removing packages.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Sets vs Meta ebuilds

On Mon, 10 Jul 2017 15:07:37 -0400 Brian Evans wrote: > On 7/10/2017 2:59 PM, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote: > > On Mon, 10 Jul 2017 00:43:11 -0400 > > "William L. Thomson Jr." wrote: > > I think portage should also warn on removing packages that came in >

Re: [gentoo-dev] taking a break from arches stabilization

On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 10:22 AM, Agostino Sarubbo wrote: > Hi all. > > every time that I attach my tmux session to see what happens on irc, I always > see the same discussion about the 'minor' arches status. > Since I joined gentoo(2011) I worked on all arches except hppa, I put

Re: [gentoo-dev] Sets vs Meta ebuilds

On 7/10/2017 2:59 PM, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote: > On Mon, 10 Jul 2017 00:43:11 -0400 > "William L. Thomson Jr." wrote: > I think portage should also warn on removing packages that came in from > another. If you are removing any dependency of another package. > > Portage

Re: [gentoo-dev] Sets vs Meta ebuilds

On Mon, 10 Jul 2017 00:43:11 -0400 "William L. Thomson Jr." wrote: > On Sun, 9 Jul 2017 21:37:11 -0400 > "Walter Dnes" wrote: > > > > "Fat-Finger" does happen once in while. Removing the risk of it > > happening in the first place is a lot more

Re: [gentoo-dev] taking a break from arches stabilization

On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 07:22:20PM +0200, Agostino Sarubbo wrote: > Hi all. > > every time that I attach my tmux session to see what happens on irc, I always > see the same discussion about the 'minor' arches status. > Since I joined gentoo(2011) I worked on all arches except hppa, I put more >

[gentoo-portage-dev] Re: [gentoo-dev] taking a break from arches stabilization

On 10/07/17 20:11, Jonas Stein wrote: > It would be so motivating to see that many user are glad about a > special package. One gets rarely feedback. Interesting idea. We could have some (separate) portage-y helper tool send a standardised email that could easily be filtered based on sender

Re: [gentoo-dev] taking a break from arches stabilization

Hi Agostino, at first I want to thank you for the many contributions. There should be a "thank you" parameter in emerge for every installed package. It would be so motivating to see that many user are glad about a special package. One gets rarely feedback. I understand your decision and perhaps

Re: [gentoo-dev] taking a break from arches stabilization

On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 1:22 PM, Agostino Sarubbo wrote: > > Now, since I work on these arches just to help, i.e. I don't have any business > and I do non have any installation of those arches and the work I'm doing is > not appreciated at all I decided to stop for now. I

Re: [gentoo-dev] About adding a *warning* to remind maintainers to check for new PYTHON_COMPAT values

On 11 Jul 2017 01:41, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote: > > On 07/10/2017 03:35 PM, Kent Fredric wrote: > > On Mon, 10 Jul 2017 13:43:43 +0200 > > Pacho Ramos wrote: > > > >> Yes, but it's similar as the cases when we need to fix our packages > >> to work with

Re: [gentoo-dev] taking a break from arches stabilization

On Mon, 10 Jul 2017 19:22:20 +0200 Agostino Sarubbo wrote: > Hi all. > > every time that I attach my tmux session to see what happens on irc, > I always see the same discussion about the 'minor' arches status. > Since I joined gentoo(2011) I worked on all arches except hppa, I

Re: [gentoo-dev] About adding a *warning* to remind maintainers to check for new PYTHON_COMPAT values

On Mon, 10 Jul 2017 11:55:30 -0500 William Hubbs wrote: > On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 01:04:10PM +0200, Pacho Ramos wrote: > > Hello > > > > Looking to the list of packages still not supporting python 3.5: > > https://qa-reports.gentoo.org/output/gpyutils/34-to-35.txt > > > >

[gentoo-dev] taking a break from arches stabilization

Hi all. every time that I attach my tmux session to see what happens on irc, I always see the same discussion about the 'minor' arches status. Since I joined gentoo(2011) I worked on all arches except hppa, I put more effort in amd64 and less where I saw other people work on it (arm,alpha) But

Re: [gentoo-dev] About adding a *warning* to remind maintainers to check for new PYTHON_COMPAT values

On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 01:04:10PM +0200, Pacho Ramos wrote: > Hello > > Looking to the list of packages still not supporting python 3.5: > https://qa-reports.gentoo.org/output/gpyutils/34-to-35.txt > > and considering that we should even start testing python 3.6, I think it would > be nice if

Re: [gentoo-dev] About adding a *warning* to remind maintainers to check for new PYTHON_COMPAT values

On 10/07/17 12:43, Pacho Ramos wrote: > El lun, 10-07-2017 a las 13:12 +0200, Kristian Fiskerstrand escribió: >> On 07/10/2017 01:04 PM, Pacho Ramos wrote: >>> Any issues on trying to go further into implementing this warning? >> Not an issue per se, but it should be pointed out that python 3.5

[gentoo-dev] Re: stabilization candidates, July 2017

On 07/10/2017 06:41 PM, Paweł Hajdan, Jr. wrote: > Hey folks, > > If you'd like to help Gentoo stable be more up to date, please read on. > > See > > for potential stabilization candidates (over 1000 of them). > > These

[gentoo-dev] Re: About adding a *warning* to remind maintainers to check for new PYTHON_COMPAT values

On 07/10/2017 11:35 PM, Kent Fredric wrote: > On Mon, 10 Jul 2017 13:43:43 +0200 > Pacho Ramos wrote: > >> Yes, but it's similar as the cases when we need to fix our packages >> to work with a newer library they depend on. In this case it would be >> even easier as we can have

Re: [gentoo-dev] About adding a *warning* to remind maintainers to check for new PYTHON_COMPAT values

On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 7:04 AM, Pacho Ramos wrote: > > Looking to the list of packages still not supporting python 3.5: > https://qa-reports.gentoo.org/output/gpyutils/34-to-35.txt > I realize a warning will address most of the issue, but when creating lists like these it can

Re: [gentoo-dev] About adding a *warning* to remind maintainers to check for new PYTHON_COMPAT values

On 07/10/2017 03:35 PM, Kent Fredric wrote: > On Mon, 10 Jul 2017 13:43:43 +0200 > Pacho Ramos wrote: > >> Yes, but it's similar as the cases when we need to fix our packages >> to work with a newer library they depend on. In this case it would be >> even easier as we can have

Re: [gentoo-dev] About adding a *warning* to remind maintainers to check for new PYTHON_COMPAT values

On Mon, 10 Jul 2017 13:43:43 +0200 Pacho Ramos wrote: > Yes, but it's similar as the cases when we need to fix our packages > to work with a newer library they depend on. In this case it would be > even easier as we can have multiple python versions and switch to the > newer

Re: [gentoo-dev] stabilization candidates, July 2017

On Mon, 10 Jul 2017 10:41:11 +0200 "Paweł Hajdan, Jr." wrote: > Feedback about next steps would be welcome. > > Paweł I'd say hold of on anything Perlish unless strictly necessary. Trying to keep the stable requests down to only what is *needed* for now prioritizing for

Re: [gentoo-dev] About adding a *warning* to remind maintainers to check for new PYTHON_COMPAT values

El lun, 10-07-2017 a las 13:12 +0200, Kristian Fiskerstrand escribió: > On 07/10/2017 01:04 PM, Pacho Ramos wrote: > > Any issues on trying to go further into implementing this warning?  > > Not an issue per se, but it should be pointed out that python 3.5 only > has a testing visibility, so this

Re: [gentoo-dev] About adding a *warning* to remind maintainers to check for new PYTHON_COMPAT values

On 07/10/2017 01:04 PM, Pacho Ramos wrote: > Any issues on trying to go further into implementing this warning? Not an issue per se, but it should be pointed out that python 3.5 only has a testing visibility, so this at the very least requires maintainers to potentially have a separate testing

[gentoo-dev] About adding a *warning* to remind maintainers to check for new PYTHON_COMPAT values

Hello Looking to the list of packages still not supporting python 3.5: https://qa-reports.gentoo.org/output/gpyutils/34-to-35.txt and considering that we should even start testing python 3.6, I think it would be nice if we could make portage to warn when PYTHON_COMPAT value is not updated. It's

Re: [gentoo-dev] stabilization candidates, July 2017

On 10/07/17 09:41, Paweł Hajdan, Jr. wrote: > Hey folks, > > If you'd like to help Gentoo stable be more up to date, please read on. > > See > > for potential stabilization candidates (over 1000 of them). > > These are

Re: [gentoo-dev] stabilization candidates, July 2017

Dnia 10 lipca 2017 10:41:11 CEST, "Paweł Hajdan, Jr." napisał(a): >Hey folks, > >If you'd like to help Gentoo stable be more up to date, please read on. > >See > >for potential stabilization

[gentoo-dev] stabilization candidates, July 2017

Hey folks, If you'd like to help Gentoo stable be more up to date, please read on. See for potential stabilization candidates (over 1000 of them). These are automatically checked to pass repoman, and bugzilla is also