| 1 |
Duncan wrote: |
| 2 |
> Matti Bickel <kabel@××××.de> posted 20060810215951.GA8456@×××××.athome, |
| 3 |
> excerpted below, on Thu, 10 Aug 2006 23:59:51 +0200: |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
>> Thomas Cort <tcort@g.o> wrote: |
| 6 |
>>> Why do arch testers need to post `emerge --info` if everything works? |
| 7 |
>>> Shouldn't we be able to trust that they have sane CFLAGS, proper |
| 8 |
>>> FEATURES, and an up to date system? |
| 9 |
>> Once there was the idea of putting AT testing system specs somewhere, so arch |
| 10 |
>> devs could actually see what we're running. Is this still needed or is the |
| 11 |
>> number of ATs small enough to keep that in head-RAM? |
| 12 |
>> |
| 13 |
>> Anyways, I agree that posting emerge --info to a highly frequented stable bug |
| 14 |
>> is annoying and should be abolished. |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> Even back before it became the "in" thing, I was posting emerge --info as |
| 17 |
> attachments, because it simply fit the bill -- bugzy /says/ to put long |
| 18 |
> stuff as attachments. I never did quite understand why all that |
| 19 |
> admittedly often useful high-volume spew was tolerated in the bug comments |
| 20 |
> themselves. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
bugzy also says "('emerge --info' goes here)" above Description and |
| 23 |
"(this is where you put 'emerge --info') above Comments. ;) you're |
| 24 |
right, it does say make it an attachment if it's too long, but how long |
| 25 |
is too long? |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
--de. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
-- |
| 30 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives