From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([140.105.134.102] helo=robin.gentoo.org) by nuthatch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1GLIQr-0002Yq-TB for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Thu, 07 Sep 2006 11:52:34 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.8/8.13.6) with SMTP id k87Bpxah014302; Thu, 7 Sep 2006 11:51:59 GMT Received: from smtp.top-hosting.cz (gw.top-hosting.cz [81.0.254.91]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.8/8.13.6) with ESMTP id k87Bmp82027747 for ; Thu, 7 Sep 2006 11:48:51 GMT Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.top-hosting.cz (Postfix) with ESMTP id 91BB8539557 for ; Thu, 7 Sep 2006 13:48:50 +0200 (CEST) Received: from smtp.top-hosting.cz ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp.top-hosting.cz [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 27847-04-6 for ; Thu, 7 Sep 2006 13:48:46 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [192.168.0.1] (7.201.broadband6.iol.cz [88.101.201.7]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.top-hosting.cz (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4516B5351E5 for ; Thu, 7 Sep 2006 13:48:45 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <45000715.5030407@gentoo.org> Date: Thu, 07 Sep 2006 13:48:37 +0200 From: Jakub Moc User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.5 (X11/20060719) Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: packages going into the tree with non-gentoo maintainers References: <20060903112049.29f5026e@c1358217.kevquinn.com> <20060903125107.GA8959@woodpecker.gentoo.org> <200609070409.55884.carlo@gentoo.org> <44FF85E1.8070409@gentoo.org> <20060907031029.GA31255@seldon> <450002B7.5000600@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: <450002B7.5000600@gentoo.org> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.94.0.0 OpenPGP: url=http://subkeys.pgp.net:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xCEBA3D9E Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-ripemd160; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="------------enigED8BF1C70A7C19744F582500" X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new 2.3.3 (20050822) at top-hosting.cz X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.926 tagged_above=-999 required=6 tests=[AWL=-0.927, BAYES_50=0.001] X-Spam-Score: -0.926 X-Spam-Level: X-Archives-Salt: 45d421d5-74c6-4490-82e4-9326d2b36aa4 X-Archives-Hash: 0dd7c33dfb1ba549bf486a0be9da9704 This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156) --------------enigED8BF1C70A7C19744F582500 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Stephen P. Becker wrote: > Brian Harring wrote: >> The proper forum for crap like this is via taking it up with QA/devrel= =2E >> >> Screaming about a change on the ml doesn't accomplish anything more >> then making you look like a jack ass trying to publically embarass >> someone you're pissed at; at least carlo has a reason, stephen you're >> just being an asshole. >=20 > Yes, I am, because it pisses me off when people outright break things > because they had no clue what they were doing. Furthermore, he did > break mips with that change, so that makes it my business to whip out > the cluestick. My previous email was intended to show that he doesn't > seem to have any idea what he was doing. I wonder how exactly genstef broke mips, 'cos mind you, he just reverted to what the ebuild was doing before Bug 114161 was fixed by hard-disabling of hspell [1]. Since mips doesn't have hspell keyworded, it wasn't affected by that bug before it's been fixed and it wasn't affected after the bug has been reintroduced now [2] (Additionally there shouldn't be any problem now except for one called automagic dependencies since the blocker for incompatible versions was there). [1] http://sources.gentoo.org/viewcvs.py/gentoo-x86/kde-base/kdelibs/kdelibs-= 3.5.0.ebuild?hideattic=3D0&r1=3D1.4&r2=3D1.5 [2] http://sources.gentoo.org/viewcvs.py/gentoo-x86/kde-base/kdelibs/kdelibs-= 3.5.4-r1.ebuild?r1=3D1.3&r2=3D1.4 So, how exactly is this public bitching useful? --=20 Best regards, Jakub Moc mailto:jakub@gentoo.org GPG signature: http://subkeys.pgp.net:11371/pks/lookup?op=3Dget&search=3D0xCEBA3D9E Primary key fingerprint: D2D7 933C 9BA1 C95B 2C95 B30F 8717 D5FD CEBA 3= D9E ... still no signature ;) --------------enigED8BF1C70A7C19744F582500 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFFAAcahxfV/c66PZ4RAyl8AJ9EqkOOXpW5Yh1cn2uVJR8uilCTWgCgrRcA tGqqlT+DrTJuXBPFptB1U6E= =ubD9 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------enigED8BF1C70A7C19744F582500-- -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list