Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCH] Disable dynamic-deps by default

W dniu nie, 17.12.2017 o godzinie 13∶03 +0100, użytkownik Michał Górny napisał: > We have prepared for this for quite a while and it's time to pull > the plug. Disable dynamic-deps by default and restore the standard > PMS behavior. This will cause some one-time pain but eventually will > result

Re: [gentoo-dev] [QA] New policy: 'files' directory must not be larger than 32 KiB

On 2017-12-19 21:44, R0b0t1 wrote: > How easy is it to move patches to Gentoo infrastructure if the patches > are not provided by upstream? I am slightly uncomfortable with > everything being pushed to websites like GitHub by default. Don't get me wrong but this a *dev* mailing list. Your

[gentoo-dev] [gentoo-dev-announce] Last-rites: app-vim/pam-syntax

# Patrice Clement (19 Dec 2017) # A slightly better syntax file for PAM configuration files is shipped with Vim # since version 8.0. The one we package is old and out of date. # Masked for removal in 30 days. See bug 578278. app-vim/pam-syntax -- Patrice Clement Gentoo

Re: [gentoo-dev] [QA] New policy: 'files' directory must not be larger than 32 KiB

On Tuesday, December 19, 2017 3:44:26 PM EST R0b0t1 wrote: > How easy is it to move patches to Gentoo infrastructure if the patches > are not provided by upstream? I am slightly uncomfortable with > everything being pushed to websites like GitHub by default. How are patches different from other

Re: [gentoo-dev] [QA] New policy: 'files' directory must not be larger than 32 KiB

And it would be nice to also recall the overlays, which can also use repoman (and/or mgorny's travis hook for that), but at the same time have no possibility to self-host the patches... // well, I personally would prefer that repoman had an option to "ignore" some (specified as an argument)

Re: [gentoo-dev] [QA] New policy: 'files' directory must not be larger than 32 KiB

On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 3:33 PM, Patrick Lauer wrote: > On 12/17/17 19:39, Mike Gilbert wrote: >> On Sun, Dec 17, 2017 at 8:21 AM, Michał Górny wrote: >>> Hello, everyone. >>> >>> It's my pleasure to announce that with a majority vote the QA team has >>>

Re: [gentoo-dev] [QA] New policy: 'files' directory must not be larger than 32 KiB

On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 2:33 PM, Patrick Lauer wrote: > On 12/17/17 19:39, Mike Gilbert wrote: >> On Sun, Dec 17, 2017 at 8:21 AM, Michał Górny wrote: >>> Hello, everyone. >>> >>> It's my pleasure to announce that with a majority vote the QA team has >>>

Re: [gentoo-dev] [QA] New policy: 'files' directory must not be larger than 32 KiB

On 12/17/17 19:39, Mike Gilbert wrote: > On Sun, Dec 17, 2017 at 8:21 AM, Michał Górny wrote: >> Hello, everyone. >> >> It's my pleasure to announce that with a majority vote the QA team has >> accepted a new policy. The accepted wording is: >> >> Total size of 'files'

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] First (experimental) 17.1 profiles news item for review

W dniu wto, 19.12.2017 o godzinie 09∶08 +0100, użytkownik Ulrich Mueller napisał: > > > > > > On Mon, 18 Dec 2017, Michał Górny wrote: > > Display-If-Keyword: ~amd64 > > Only keyword names [1] allowed there. Fixed already. Though I'm thinking that it'd probably be better to use

Re: [gentoo-dev] AMD64 Arch Testers needed urgently

On Thu, 14 Dec 2017 16:04:17 -0600 R0b0t1 wrote: > Can you be specific? Human memory is biased towards negative > experiences. If it's hard to actually describe the multitude of issues > that mixed systems cause then it is very likely mixed systems do not > cause many issues.

Re: [gentoo-dev] AMD64 Arch Testers needed urgently

13.12.2017 21:20, Lucas Ramage пишет: > W​hat about running a stable chroot?​ Are there any tools that can be > used to automate this process? Try gentoo-chrootiez[1], it is written by our fellow gentoo developer - slyfox. And it is damn simple to use. [1] -

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] First (experimental) 17.1 profiles news item for review

> On Mon, 18 Dec 2017, Michał Górny wrote: > Display-If-Keyword: ~amd64 Only keyword names [1] allowed there. > multilib layout, and require explicit migration as described below. They > are considered experimental at the moment, and have a fair risk Your line wrapping has room for