FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > Gentoo > Gentoo Catalyst

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 06-26-2011, 11:01 PM
Matt Turner
 
Default Migrating man page to asciidoc?

On Sun, Jun 26, 2011 at 2:02 PM, Matt Turner <mattst88@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 26, 2011 at 1:55 PM, Peter Stuge <peter@stuge.se> wrote:
>> What about my suggestion to fix the actual problem, asciidoc
>> dependencies, did you bother looking into that yet? (I haven't
>> because I don't feel at all strongly.)
>
> I asked wired on #gentoo-dev but haven't received a response yet.
>
> I've looked at the source, and it's not clear to me that it's possible.
>
> Matt

A user in #gentoo-releng pointed me to https://bugs.gentoo.org/361255

It looks like asciidoc can be installed and used to generate man pages
without graphviz.

So with that fixed, unless someone has an issue with asciidoc being a
dependency for catalyst, crisis averted!

Matt
 
Old 06-26-2011, 11:26 PM
"Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto"
 
Default Migrating man page to asciidoc?

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

On 26-06-2011 17:55, Peter Stuge wrote:
> William Hubbs wrote:
>> Yes, it was added a couple of days ago, without giving a reasonable
>> amount of time for discussion.
>
> You know just as well as I do that this thread is the most discussion
> that this mailing list has seen in a very long time. Sebastian wants
> to make some progress. I see no problem.

Yes and I'm happy to see people interested on catalyst.
However, given the recent discussions I feel I should point out that
catalyst is Release Engineering's team release tool and not a "toy" for
people to tinker with.
I appreciate the interest all of you are showing for the tool and I
appreciate any improvements, but I and other releng team members need
this tool to work for us to have releases.

>> For a significant change like this,
>
> "significant" is so subjective though.

It did made a significant change to the dependencies of catalyst.
I haven't checked it closely yet, but I also wonder if all the
additional deps are worth avoiding a single man page in the tarball.

>> I think we should give 24-48 hours and make the patch visible
>> somewhere
>
> It is clear that you are displeased because you think you did not
> have a chance to oppose the change before it was made. I can
> understand, but in reality I doubt the one opposing voice would
> have made a difference.

William is not the only one to have concerns about this change.
Also, prior to the subscription by agaffney, armin76 and myself, this
list probably had little if any releng members. As this is a releng
tool, not having us around to "object" doesn't make it ok to commit
changes without ensuring releng is ok with the changes.

>> Based on this as well as my previous objections I would like to see
>> this change reverted.
>
> I disagree and hope that most others do as well, so that development
> will continue instead of being stuck on senseless arguing with you.

I'm sorry but this is not about arguing with William. This is about
making sure that the people interested as well as the direct consumers
of the tool are ok with any proposed changes.
I'm sure no one wants to risk causing a split that could lead to either
releng assuming control of catalyst again or worse causing a fork in the
code.

> What about my suggestion to fix the actual problem, asciidoc
> dependencies, did you bother looking into that yet? (I haven't
> because I don't feel at all strongly.)
>
> Thanks!
>
>
> //Peter

- --
Regards,

Jorge Vicetto (jmbsvicetto) - jmbsvicetto at gentoo dot org
Gentoo- forums / Userrel / Devrel / KDE / Elections / RelEng
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJOB8AxAAoJEC8ZTXQF1qEPyeAP/iQ26OaLYHOaE8SirGp1nsiP
ET6RKcO60a25SeiicIgM6jcJ0HX6u71G6DEPR9jI4dk6yxQoNC xsfvLimIURqhHU
GAwdowhaa0dRQtaQejLYFo30t2TrzhqPsFu+oILskeLifOqoQD WvHG2IeBvQ04Vl
dB8rA6GKu4EKbY/i0XreFO8rjOgW2rjTY8PB+hDagGUK0mqqle1VlHJmW/w5pNwD
NhyyGIwHY7M6sf+HI6QgGr6nzUYeAxMbBtozu/kTNtqp09fkjtis35cKMPYExyCF
8w9mTgLsqa151nIcDP7+IhWkJKPnaxS7EHg2mApnZH4JRNEHd3 9CJLPVk2Gg3FQg
2lp5K4N4JjePC1Ejd5ciL5Po/R7wAsFT2rLwk35xSTM/nhv6lAOjc/Qq2xEA5IUg
5uU6crwthJOMj07kqiT+YuT6mOK3NnNObkpLnyx7aAQAjTe8Lf UWEtVSSgJ40wM2
xTLAE1uDVK7lI/PD4pL+DtFjej263RSRha5PRmYDg24yMTZoV2ZExc4vzbqfrysp
TjNc7kdWtZrzr4a4snGkzpKhD2gI9ivjorfsQr32QXaiSK/+1uLkF9sQIyy2YOvl
qsZiu7hImn39hzJRWbnjv9cxnT/zVs5Q0K32W4FJyqBP3YLmFPtE4UdES1wxDhuH
kV6bW26ZyWLnt/txLQYY
=crYh
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
 
Old 06-27-2011, 12:00 AM
Peter Stuge
 
Default Migrating man page to asciidoc?

Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote:
> I feel I should point out that catalyst is Release Engineering's
> team release tool and not a "toy" for people to tinker with.

Toy? Saying that other people's use of catalyst is only play, while
releng is the only serious user, is really spitting in the face of
everyone who uses catalyst. Maybe not so helpful.

Meeting you I think you seemed sensible enough that you of course
understand that catalyst is equally much a tool for all it's users.


> I appreciate the interest all of you are showing for the tool and I
> appreciate any improvements, but I and other releng team members need
> this tool to work for us to have releases.

No problem. Like every other consumer of open source tools you simply
need to pick the version you choose to use carefully, so that it
works for you. This case is not different from any other tool issue.


> >> For a significant change like this,
> >
> > "significant" is so subjective though.
>
> It did made a significant change to the dependencies of catalyst.

No, not really. It added one dependency, which is hardly significant.
As has already been shown (by others than William, might I add)
further indirect dependencies are really a bug in the asciidoc
ebuild, and should be fixed there. Since you are all developers
(while I am not) you could actually *already* have eliminated the
point of contention - but noone has bothered and instead you're
writing email complaining about how a little bit of progress is
ruining your workflow. (This is how it looks anyway.)


> I haven't checked it closely yet,

Maybe that's actually wise, to determine how significant the change
is?


> William is not the only one to have concerns about this change.

He was so far the only one who voice any, and they weren't so nicely
expressed.


> this list probably had little if any releng members. As this is a
> releng tool,

Either "your" catalyst is an open source project or it is not. If it
is not then you need to hide it away in a secret internal repo so
that noone else in the world can access it. Or you can just do what
the rest of the world does; verify your tools before expecting them
to work.

I understand that you want stable tools, but if you want frozen tools
then you need to do that on your own - because other catalyst users
can and will want to change things. Absolutely not very often, but
apparently often enough that it's a problem for releng to continue
be part of the catalyst community. Or?


> not having us around to "object" doesn't make it ok to commit
> changes without ensuring releng is ok with the changes.

If so, that in itself is reason for forking, as was discussed.

I would have zero bad feelings about that, because the wants and
needs simply seem to be different between releng and all other
catalyst users.


> This is about making sure that the people interested as well as the
> direct consumers of the tool are ok with any proposed changes.

You are neglecting every other user than releng. That means me. That
sucks.


> I'm sure no one wants to risk causing a split that could lead to either
> releng assuming control of catalyst again or worse causing a fork in the
> code.

Actually, forking is indeed the one and only productive step when
different users have different enough requirements and expectations.


//Peter
 
Old 06-27-2011, 12:31 AM
"Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto"
 
Default Migrating man page to asciidoc?

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

On 27-06-2011 00:00, Peter Stuge wrote:
> Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote:
>> I feel I should point out that catalyst is Release Engineering's
>> team release tool and not a "toy" for people to tinker with.
>
> Toy? Saying that other people's use of catalyst is only play, while
> releng is the only serious user, is really spitting in the face of
> everyone who uses catalyst. Maybe not so helpful.
>
> Meeting you I think you seemed sensible enough that you of course
> understand that catalyst is equally much a tool for all it's users.

Peter,

I didn't mean to imply that anyone else uses catalyst as a toy. What I
was saying is that catalyst is a "crucial" tool to releng, whilst to
some of the people currently working on it (having commit privileges to
the repo) it could be a "toy".
I did not and do not in any way want to diminish the importance of the
tool to any of its users. At the same time, it should be obvious that
releng is a "special" user of the tool.

>> I appreciate the interest all of you are showing for the tool and I
>> appreciate any improvements, but I and other releng team members need
>> this tool to work for us to have releases.
>
> No problem. Like every other consumer of open source tools you simply
> need to pick the version you choose to use carefully, so that it
> works for you. This case is not different from any other tool issue.
>
>>>> For a significant change like this,
>>>
>>> "significant" is so subjective though.
>>
>> It did made a significant change to the dependencies of catalyst.
>
> No, not really. It added one dependency, which is hardly significant.
> As has already been shown (by others than William, might I add)
> further indirect dependencies are really a bug in the asciidoc
> ebuild, and should be fixed there. Since you are all developers
> (while I am not) you could actually *already* have eliminated the
> point of contention - but noone has bothered and instead you're
> writing email complaining about how a little bit of progress is
> ruining your workflow. (This is how it looks anyway.)

As you know the current dependency pulls more than 10 deps. I don't know
if they're accurate or not, but they show up when you try to merge
catalyst-9999. If those deps are wrong, we should try to get the team
maintaining the asciidoc package fix them.

>> I haven't checked it closely yet,
>
> Maybe that's actually wise, to determine how significant the change
> is?
>
>
>> William is not the only one to have concerns about this change.
>
> He was so far the only one who voice any, and they weren't so nicely
> expressed.

He wasn't happy to see something pushed through in a so short time span
and in a way that seemed to go over others opinions. I also wasn't happy.

>> this list probably had little if any releng members. As this is a
>> releng tool,
>
> Either "your" catalyst is an open source project or it is not. If it
> is not then you need to hide it away in a secret internal repo so
> that noone else in the world can access it. Or you can just do what
> the rest of the world does; verify your tools before expecting them
> to work.

It is an open source project and we want it to be - no argument about
that. The commit privileges were restricted to releng or some of its
members until a short time ago.
As with other open source projects, releng is happy to see the tool
improve and is open for new features and requests from the users.
However, like any other open source project, there needs to be some
consensus.

> I understand that you want stable tools, but if you want frozen tools
> then you need to do that on your own - because other catalyst users
> can and will want to change things. Absolutely not very often, but
> apparently often enough that it's a problem for releng to continue
> be part of the catalyst community. Or?

We're not interested in frozen tools, but we're also not ready to be
kept in the sidelines or ignored about catalyst development. Some of the
people now working on them are not building or responsible for the
building of the official releases, I and a few others are.
I have no interest in having catalyst forked, but for that, the
developers that got access to catalyst need to realize they need to work
with releng and can't ignore it.

>> not having us around to "object" doesn't make it ok to commit
>> changes without ensuring releng is ok with the changes.
>
> If so, that in itself is reason for forking, as was discussed.
>
> I would have zero bad feelings about that, because the wants and
> needs simply seem to be different between releng and all other
> catalyst users.

Sometimes forks can be the best solution, but I really would like to
avoid that. I don't see why we shouldn't talk to ensure we reach
consensus that work for anyone. At times, a consensus might not be
possible, but in those cases the decision will hopefully not cause
enough problems or grief as to send people away. If we end up having to
make decisions that split the user base of the tool, then people can
think about doing a fork.
So, I think a fork should be the last option and that we should work
hard to reach decisions that everyone can live with.

>> This is about making sure that the people interested as well as the
>> direct consumers of the tool are ok with any proposed changes.
>
> You are neglecting every other user than releng. That means me. That
> sucks.

That is not my purpose. Furthermore, as I've tried to explain above, my
previous mail was not about the users of the tool but about the recent
people committing to the repo.

>> I'm sure no one wants to risk causing a split that could lead to either
>> releng assuming control of catalyst again or worse causing a fork in the
>> code.
>
> Actually, forking is indeed the one and only productive step when
> different users have different enough requirements and expectations.
>
>
> //Peter
>

- --
Regards,

Jorge Vicetto (jmbsvicetto) - jmbsvicetto at gentoo dot org
Gentoo- forums / Userrel / Devrel / KDE / Elections / RelEng
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJOB89zAAoJEC8ZTXQF1qEPA0IQAJssiqfYbS 8bE9w3hjpSS3jn
HpnUWIoLTkst3VSYO/jGr37mthbx7YbxtXm6V4EL0D4hhNSWfKUybTriTTl29yCY
vbDqDrrb8JcJMTx2UAg7q8BjsPpxIo2xhcjQoVX4O1m9zvWeVK gXJIGW/sJ9UKyl
ZhcgMGmXGQskraKmTHHxk6aOWgE7iQxmMMZooVm0IYY8TphesM nqncxJveleOPHx
0kSTOqsm3QedjHq5MAJcLkPF3cFqJ5f3xfQ7tFWqDBTxDABaHp 9Q7FF6J4jCa8p/
DyLW7gYK7NHUXYaemjntumgR/8/l4nGUm4OB+X6nMtSy40jQPBZEghMtu1/Kuy5r
9ss82MWh8sn7rW4FusF05JxpSe/du6kh8lrVkCVvJWRnTslWjsmFLOW3RoTnymHI
MZr/d+foLNdc9uxOcDiBbjYH0rdOPsqnoygCgMvyOOwKmnqDjnt567 vrNh7iRUC/
f/rl5SfEi7cUWHU8OP2GgDsleC22BaNKC8Sb7hvEp4qWiQziBjKa Dv/plFEwGWGq
6qfbJ4+B3oX4TmCm/Rc2LesByyyk8kyNIVYA3wBRAvajn9qeJ9+Ki/Ezo7Aqcvkm
9uzLIxEppegt8NqJzZLmjlCI6gplvRxHfsl10JH/fMZj8tyyP4r8zX/A56fq7763
ou2cZRzmYmLFp8haqTT2
=vgjW
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
 
Old 06-27-2011, 12:39 AM
Peter Stuge
 
Default Migrating man page to asciidoc?

Peter Stuge wrote:
> As has already been shown (by others than William, might I add)
> further indirect dependencies are really a bug in the asciidoc
> ebuild, and should be fixed there.

I just attached live ebuild patch and -r1 ebuilds for all existing
versions which had a graphviz dependency (8.2.6 already did not) at:

https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=361255


> Since you are all developers (while I am not) you could actually
> *already* have eliminated the point of contention

Please review and commit if agreeable. It probably took me all of one
hour to do, following Matt's research.


Thanks!

//Peter
 
Old 06-27-2011, 01:06 AM
Peter Stuge
 
Default Migrating man page to asciidoc?

Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote:
> I didn't mean to imply that anyone else uses catalyst as a toy. What I
> was saying is that catalyst is a "crucial" tool to releng, whilst to
> some of the people currently working on it (having commit privileges to
> the repo) it could be a "toy".

I'm pretty sure Sebastian is not spending time on catalyst because it
makes him laugh.


> I did not and do not in any way want to diminish the importance of the
> tool to any of its users. At the same time, it should be obvious that
> releng is a "special" user of the tool.

I'm not so sure I buy that. But we can punt on that.


> >> It did made a significant change to the dependencies of catalyst.
> >
> > No, not really. It added one dependency, which is hardly significant.
> > As has already been shown (by others than William, might I add)
> > further indirect dependencies are really a bug in the asciidoc
> > ebuild, and should be fixed there.
..
> As you know the current dependency pulls more than 10 deps. I don't
> know if they're accurate or not, but they show up when you try to
> merge catalyst-9999.

And those who really dislike them can look into getting rid of them.


> If those deps are wrong, we should try to get the team maintaining
> the asciidoc package fix them.

Yeah, to silence this silly discussion I tried to do exactly that.
But see my point above:

> > Since you are all developers (while I am not) you could actually
> > *already* have eliminated the point of contention

Again, I believe the problem is solved by the attachments I made to
#361255.

(Note that the oldest version in portage, 8.2.6, correctly does not
have the dep.)


> He wasn't happy to see something pushed through in a so short time span
> and in a way that seemed to go over others opinions. I also wasn't happy.

Yes, how will we all cope with a six year old man page being updated.


> like any other open source project, there needs to be some consensus.

This is fair. But the fact that others only recently have gotten
commit access is likely just coincidence. I'm at least quite
convinced that it has nothing to do with why Sebastian started
looking at the tool.


> We're not interested in frozen tools, but we're also not ready to
> be kept in the sidelines or ignored about catalyst development.

Cool. More activity in the catalyst community can only be good!


> Some of the people now working on them are not building or
> responsible for the building of the official releases, I and a few
> others are.

Again, I'm not so sure that this matters very much. If an older
version worked for you then maybe that's what you should keep using
until latest git has also been verified to work for you? Dunno, this
is trickier, and indeed something important (for you) to figure out,
when you choose to open source "your" tool. (Which I think is a good
move!)


> I have no interest in having catalyst forked, but for that, the
> developers that got access to catalyst need to realize they need
> to work with releng and can't ignore it.

I guess you've read the full thread and also know how little activity
there has been on the list. Since there was very close to zero
activity here over many months I think it's safe to assume that any
ignoring was not really in spite, but rather a side effect of
ignorees being too slow to keep up with the momentum.


> Sometimes forks can be the best solution, but I really would like
> to avoid that.

Well, even if there is a fork that doesn't mean that changes can not
flow both ways. Again, if one user of a tool has special needs it's
not at all a bad idea to have a fork.


> So, I think a fork should be the last option and that we should work
> hard to reach decisions that everyone can live with.

It took me all of an hour to (continue) research *and fix* the
problem in the asciidoc ebuilds. That's probably less than people
have spent on emails in this thread.


> >> This is about making sure that the people interested as well as the
> >> direct consumers of the tool are ok with any proposed changes.
> >
> > You are neglecting every other user than releng. That means me. That
> > sucks.
>
> That is not my purpose. Furthermore, as I've tried to explain above, my
> previous mail was not about the users of the tool but about the recent
> people committing to the repo.

I'm also quite convinced that Sebastien wouldn't be spending time on
catalyst unless he was using it. (In fact, maybe even because I've
told him about how I use it!)


//Peter
 
Old 06-27-2011, 01:43 AM
Sebastian Pipping
 
Default Migrating man page to asciidoc?

On 06/27/2011 02:31 AM, Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote:
> [..] when you try to merge catalyst-9999.

While you mention 9999: are you using 9999 for private stuff or for the
real releng releases? If it's releng why choose 9999 over 2.0.6.916?
(If you told me on IRC I forgot.)

At least the ebuilds still say that 3.x is not supported and that even
bug reports should not be taken to bugzilla, directly.
Maybe that's an indicator that master should be merged (one way or
another) into catalyst_2 code, not the other way around.

Best,



Sebastian
 
Old 06-27-2011, 03:58 AM
"Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto"
 
Default Migrating man page to asciidoc?

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

On 27-06-2011 01:43, Sebastian Pipping wrote:
> On 06/27/2011 02:31 AM, Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote:
>> [..] when you try to merge catalyst-9999.
>
> While you mention 9999: are you using 9999 for private stuff or for the
> real releng releases? If it's releng why choose 9999 over 2.0.6.916?
> (If you told me on IRC I forgot.)

We use 2.0.6.916 on official releng releases.
I tried 9999 on my private tests because I wanted to try
likewhoa/WilliamH patch to have the installcd boot the hard disk is the
user doesn't press a key.

> At least the ebuilds still say that 3.x is not supported and that even
> bug reports should not be taken to bugzilla, directly.
> Maybe that's an indicator that master should be merged (one way or
> another) into catalyst_2 code, not the other way around.

I can confirm that the build with the master branch fails as it doesn't
seem able to find the spec files or doesn't accept them - the official
ones we use to build weekly releases.

> Best,
>
>
> Sebastian

- --
Regards,

Jorge Vicetto (jmbsvicetto) - jmbsvicetto at gentoo dot org
Gentoo- forums / Userrel / Devrel / KDE / Elections / RelEng
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJOB//LAAoJEC8ZTXQF1qEPFUIP/jkASxlANKZ/tOPmBXmE+9YG
yjk6Lowas6fVJA5bs2PTXw09+8y4Pcnjxr0dO1rMNX9Fzse3jq k85zO4KGW1135u
Y8GT8hswpAW8pjoTdvfnVTJUDgw4r8FncI/kdE0NhLETHA/ITwZGg8KOeReBhU2g
QyTAXYF6Bo5MMipwl1q6qKpEUzmSqz4sbj/GazHIX31JukORz97cSsj99zJRiwhE
pikC7xrO/k56hoHGNELMXp7XUgOiDGsQOYpgQB6dRBs2Qz2gxsB/EfZELXg6pTG4
i5J0LMrxrHtDt2TnBF1MRCZ3N6KOsam5/y1QVxkdV/5W4EWMxJctBucQWpLaqJfD
1UXcXWg/q04arGWoLviKedJGfIiMClEWd0fDmH5Evp6HpnLX/Lpdp31cxbruLWD7
TOTrzmLaQ8mNep5ZFP8MacSE+uO7HqcCC5796NknjAZbQqDFbb SLK0i9ZiaDLSkk
TPFmJDZzzg+5/L8UpWiK1cyEDfaicbes/TITeB40I1c/+CQtDKghlvujozNUhft/
mIoAF5iTaZeo3wRsVQGxPTfassvZwG8TmITqcnFzabUvWeOzge m9TyPrQOWErf/w
TuYtdLKHvtzrN59g0unp4KQ7D3BBqxzTUFWppTYAOY7o9rSpjl nOQF9xquMNFeCe
xvwUqPqDmPw9IDrQpU3X
=4cc7
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
 
Old 06-27-2011, 06:33 AM
Peter Volkov
 
Default Migrating man page to asciidoc?

В Вск, 26/06/2011 в 00:10 -0400, Matt Turner пишет:
> On Sat, Jun 25, 2011 at 11:14 PM, Sebastian Pipping <sping@gentoo.org> wrote:
> >> I see two ways around this: We can either make asciidoc a build time
> >> dependency so that the user can use something like "make manpage" to
> >> generate the manpage
> >
> > That adds quite some load on indirect dependencies for more or less
> > nothing, as seen with Matt earlier.
>
> For the live ebuild, I don't see any problem with this. I think we
> just want to avoid having to install asciidoc for the released
> catalyst versions.

Also if there is releng team requirement to have catalyst-9999 ebuild
without asciidoc dependency it'll be not hard to add USE doc or build -
man page is hardly required on automated stage generation servers.

--
Peter.
 
Old 06-27-2011, 03:55 PM
Sebastian Pipping
 
Default Migrating man page to asciidoc?

On 06/27/2011 05:58 AM, Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote:
> We use 2.0.6.916 on official releng releases.
> I tried 9999 on my private tests because [..]

To me that leaves the question who uses 9999 for serious stuff at all.
In case it's no one (which we should find out) we could trash that
branch and fully concentrate on calalyst_2.

I guess that sounds a bit radical at first. It doesn't have to be a
quick decision. Also, version control allows us to bring it back if needed.

Ideas on find out who is using 9999:

- Removing 9999 ebuild from the tree and see who's complaining

- Resetting branch master to nothing but a README announcing
the possible death of that thread and a request to join
this mailing list and speak up about it if there is need.

- Asking on one/some/all of gentoo-dev, gentoo-user, gentoo forums,
planet gentoo.

After such action I imagine a time window of 2 to 4 weeks to give people
a chance to react.

What do you think?


> I can confirm that the build with the master branch fails as it doesn't
> seem able to find the spec files or doesn't accept them - the official
> ones we use to build weekly releases.

That seems to further decrease the chance that someone is using 9999 for
real to me.

Best,




Sebastian
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 03:03 PM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org