[arch-dev-public] [signoff] csup in testing, now replaces cvsup - Arch-dev-public - lists.archlinux.org

newer
[arch-dev-public] [signoff]...

[arch-dev-public] [signoff] csup in testing, now replaces cvsup

older
[arch-dev-public] Fwd: [arch]...

Dan McGee

30 Oct 2007 30 Oct '07

6:36 a.m.

Need a signoff for i686 to move to current. PLEASE let me know if you are running core/glibc or testing/glibc, as I built it with testing and want to see if it is safe to push. x86_64 signoffs welcome too, I believe Eric is rebuilding as we speak. I will remove the CVS files from extra once this moves out of testing. -Dan

Show replies by date

Eric Belanger

30 Oct 30 Oct

6:53 a.m.

On Mon, 29 Oct 2007, Dan McGee wrote:

Need a signoff for i686 to move to current. PLEASE let me know if you are running core/glibc or testing/glibc, as I built it with testing and want to see if it is safe to push.

x86_64 signoffs welcome too, I believe Eric is rebuilding as we speak.

I will remove the CVS files from extra once this moves out of testing.

-Dan

The x86_64 package is now available. -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.

Dan McGee

2 Nov 2 Nov

7:14 p.m.

On 10/29/07, Eric Belanger wrote:

On Mon, 29 Oct 2007, Dan McGee wrote:

...
Need a signoff for i686 to move to current. PLEASE let me know if you are running core/glibc or testing/glibc, as I built it with testing and want to see if it is safe to push.

x86_64 signoffs welcome too, I believe Eric is rebuilding as we speak.

I will remove the CVS files from extra once this moves out of testing.

-Dan

The x86_64 package is now available.

Bump, anyone? -Dan

Roman Kyrylych

7:22 p.m.

2007/11/2, Dan McGee :

On 10/29/07, Eric Belanger wrote:

...
On Mon, 29 Oct 2007, Dan McGee wrote:

...
Need a signoff for i686 to move to current. PLEASE let me know if you are running core/glibc or testing/glibc, as I built it with testing and want to see if it is safe to push.

x86_64 signoffs welcome too, I believe Eric is rebuilding as we speak.

I will remove the CVS files from extra once this moves out of testing.

-Dan

The x86_64 package is now available.

Bump, anyone?

I sign off. -- Roman Kyrylych (Роман Кирилич)

Varun Acharya

7:30 p.m.

Roman Kyrylych wrote:

2007/11/2, Dan McGee :

...
On 10/29/07, Eric Belanger wrote:

...
On Mon, 29 Oct 2007, Dan McGee wrote:

...
Need a signoff for i686 to move to current. PLEASE let me know if you are running core/glibc or testing/glibc, as I built it with testing and want to see if it is safe to push.

x86_64 signoffs welcome too, I believe Eric is rebuilding as we speak.

I will remove the CVS files from extra once this moves out of testing.

-Dan

The x86_64 package is now available.

Bump, anyone?

I sign off.

signed off for x86_64 Varun

Roman Kyrylych

30 Oct 30 Oct

11:23 a.m.

2007/10/30, Dan McGee :

Need a signoff for i686 to move to current. PLEASE let me know if you are running core/glibc or testing/glibc, as I built it with testing and want to see if it is safe to push.

x86_64 signoffs welcome too, I believe Eric is rebuilding as we speak.

I will remove the CVS files from extra once this moves out of testing.

could you please add groups=('base-devel') before pushing it to core? -- Roman Kyrylych (Роман Кирилич)

Andreas Radke

7:53 p.m.

Am Mon, 29 Oct 2007 22:36:19 -0500 schrieb "Dan McGee" :

Need a signoff for i686 to move to current. PLEASE let me know if you are running core/glibc or testing/glibc, as I built it with testing and want to see if it is safe to push.

x86_64 signoffs welcome too, I believe Eric is rebuilding as we speak.

I will remove the CVS files from extra once this moves out of testing.

-Dan

_______________________________________________ arch-dev-public mailing list arch-dev-public@archlinux.org http://archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/arch-dev-public

Why do you want to move it to core? It's only needed by "abs" and not a real dependency to build the core repository. That's why cvsup also was moved from current to extra. Any strong reason why you want to move it? We shouldn't blow up core with anything not absolutely necessary. And glib2 is also still in extra and it's a makedep for syslog-ng in core. There it would make more sense to me to move the pkg. Andy

Dan McGee

8:02 p.m.

On 10/30/07, Andreas Radke wrote:

Why do you want to move it to core? It's only needed by "abs" and not a real dependency to build the core repository. That's why cvsup also was moved from current to extra.

Any strong reason why you want to move it? We shouldn't blow up core with anything not absolutely necessary.

See below thread, I didn't see your objection then. http://archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-dev-public/2007-October/002594.html

And glib2 is also still in extra and it's a makedep for syslog-ng in core. There it would make more sense to me to move the pkg.

I see your point, but syslog-ng is built statically which partially explains it. Maybe start another thread for this? -Dan

Aaron Griffin

8:12 p.m.

On 10/30/07, Dan McGee wrote:

On 10/30/07, Andreas Radke wrote:

...
Why do you want to move it to core? It's only needed by "abs" and not a real dependency to build the core repository. That's why cvsup also was moved from current to extra.

Any strong reason why you want to move it? We shouldn't blow up core with anything not absolutely necessary.

See below thread, I didn't see your objection then. http://archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-dev-public/2007-October/002594.html

Agreed. No one objected in the previous thread, which means either assent or complacency. Both of which are good enough for me.

Andreas Radke

8:36 p.m.

Am Tue, 30 Oct 2007 12:02:15 -0500 schrieb "Dan McGee" :

See below thread, I didn't see your objection then. http://archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-dev-public/2007-October/002594.html

Hm. Seems I have missed that one thread or forgot to reply. I'm still thinking it's not worth the word "core" of our distribution. But in case you move it please also adopt it. Andy

Aaron Griffin

8:54 p.m.

On 10/30/07, Andreas Radke wrote:

Am Tue, 30 Oct 2007 12:02:15 -0500 schrieb "Dan McGee" :

...
See below thread, I didn't see your objection then. http://archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-dev-public/2007-October/002594.html

Hm. Seems I have missed that one thread or forgot to reply. I'm still thinking it's not worth the word "core" of our distribution.

Well, it's crucial to some of our tools. Either way, think about it this way - the faster we dump CVS, the faster we can get rid of it in core.

6020

Age (days ago)

6023

Last active (days ago)

Download

10 comments

6 participants

tags

participants (6)

Aaron Griffin
Andreas Radke
Dan McGee
Eric Belanger
Roman Kyrylych
Varun Acharya