Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@×××.net>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: [gentoo-dev] Re: Portage 2.0.51 comments/questions
Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2004 20:16:47
Message-Id: pan.2004.09.27.20.16.40.217113@cox.net
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] Portage 2.0.51 comments/questions by Paul de Vrieze
1 Paul de Vrieze posted <200409271101.42703.pauldv@g.o>, excerpted
2 below, on Mon, 27 Sep 2004 11:01:42 +0200:
3
4 > On Monday 27 September 2004 05:52, Duncan wrote:
5 >>
6 >> Evidently .51 is rather stricter in some things than .50 and a number
7 >> of things are QA Notices now that were silent, before. Are things to
8 >> the point where it's worthwhile bugging the various ebuilds that emit
9 >> these notices, illegal eclass inheritance and the like, or are there
10 >> still enough of them it'd just be unnecessary noise?
11 >
12 > If you could come up with patches for those ebuilds (or eclasses) then
13 > please post them to bugzilla. (We get the notices too) Without patches it
14 > is probably more of an annoyance than actually useful (most maintainers
15 > know about them).
16
17 Thanks. I figured something of that nature. My ability in that area is
18 somewhat limited and I haven't looked to see if it's within my range, yet,
19 so I'll avoid filing on them now. I had just seen enough of them to goad
20 me into asking, lest I be guilty of not giving back where I could, since
21 one thing I /can/ do is file bugs! <g>
22
23 --
24 Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs.
25 "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little
26 temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." --
27 Benjamin Franklin
28
29
30
31 --
32 gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list