Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Spider <spider@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Lack of Gnome Development
Date: Fri, 09 Jul 2004 18:06:02
Message-Id: 20040709200554.5df46f91.spider@gentoo.org
In Reply to: [gentoo-dev] Lack of Gnome Development by Simon Watson
1 begin quote
2 On Fri, 09 Jul 2004 18:44:08 +0100
3 Simon Watson <simon@×××××××.uk> wrote:
4
5 > I tried this after submitting my own ebuild, getting on for a month
6 > ago, which resulted in the following unhelpful response shown at:
7 > http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=54008 - and has not yet been
8 > updated.
9
10
11 okay, you just got a generic answer, so I figure I'd post this one too:
12 there is a list, also known as ftp-release-list@×××××.org .. We are
13 subscribed, if you post a bug to repeat that info to us, you are simply
14 cluttering our buglists. My current -unread- list of bugs is way over
15 six thousand. around a thousand of those are Gnome related. See my
16 issue?
17
18 Also, submitting your own version does very little when you don't tell
19 what you changed. Better use the "diff -u" command to show us. if its
20 only the change of "mv nautilus-$OLDVERSION.ebuild
21 nautilus-$NEWVERSION.ebuild" ... don't bother.
22
23 in your case, the only difference is a (broken, on top of it) change of
24 the eel dependency from $PV to strict .1 (when .2 is the latest....)
25
26 Also, unstable releases never end up in the tree, but are maintained
27 (usually ;) in paralell by devs, who then at some time compare notes and
28 push it into the tree as package.masked during the rc phase of Gnome
29 development.
30
31
32 Make my work a bit easier, dont file bugs for every of the 60+ packages
33 released.
34
35 ( And yes, I saw the announcement of Gnome 2.6.2... I was in the room at
36 GVADEC )
37
38
39 Sorry if I sound harsh and bitter, but I'm wading through bugreport
40 emails right now, and its not made much easier by annoying extras.
41
42 //Spider
43
44 --
45 begin .signature
46 Tortured users / Laughing in pain
47 See Microsoft KB Article Q265230 for more information.
48 end

Replies

Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-dev] Lack of Gnome Development Andrew Cowie <andrew@×××××××××××××××××××.com>