Archives
Archives
| From: | Matti Bickel <kabel@××××.de> | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| To: | gentoo-dev@l.g.o | ||
| Subject: | Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: AT emerge info cruft > attachments on bugs.g.o | ||
| Date: | Thu, 10 Aug 2006 22:06:38 | ||
| Message-Id: | 20060810215951.GA8456@pluto.athome | ||
| In Reply to: | Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: AT emerge info cruft > attachments on bugs.g.o by Thomas Cort |
||
| 1 | Thomas Cort <tcort@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 | > Why do arch testers need to post `emerge --info` if everything works? |
| 3 | > Shouldn't we be able to trust that they have sane CFLAGS, proper |
| 4 | > FEATURES, and an up to date system? |
| 5 | |
| 6 | Once there was the idea of putting AT testing system specs somewhere, so arch |
| 7 | devs could actually see what we're running. Is this still needed or is the |
| 8 | number of ATs small enough to keep that in head-RAM? |
| 9 | |
| 10 | Anyways, I agree that posting emerge --info to a highly frequented stable bug |
| 11 | is annoying and should be abolished. |
| 12 | -- |
| 13 | MfG, Matti Bickel |
| 14 | Homepage: http://www.rateu.de |
| 15 | Encrypted/Signed Email preferred |
| Subject | Author |
|---|---|
| Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: AT emerge info cruft > attachments on bugs.g.o | Ferris McCormick <fmccor@g.o> |
| [gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: AT emerge info cruft > attachments on bugs.g.o | Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@×××.net> |
| [gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: AT emerge info cruft > attachments on bugs.g.o | gentoo@faulhammer.org (Christian 'Opfer' Faulhammer) |