Hi all, should we start commit signing like the kde [1] guys do in our overlay? justin 1 http://blogs.gentoo.org/alexxy/2012/02/05/git-commit-signing-in-kde-overlay/
On 06.02.2012 08:47, justin wrote: > Hi all, > > should we start commit signing like the kde [1] guys do in our overlay? I just wanted to +1. We'll hopefully soon have it in main tree so it's better to get use to it. Main advantage, besides being fancy, is that it's backward compatible, so people without latest git/portage will just not notice. Cheers, Kacper
On 08:47 Mon 06 Feb 2012, justin wrote: > Hi all, > > should we start commit signing like the kde [1] guys do in our overlay? > > justin > > > 1 > http://blogs.gentoo.org/alexxy/2012/02/05/git-commit-signing-in-kde-overlay/ Generally +1, but the git-1.7.9 is not even keyworded yet... shall we wait for one or two service releases? Cheers, Thomas -- -- Thomas Kahle http://dev.gentoo.org/~tomka/
Hi, I've run the attached script to find duplicates of packages from sage-on-gentoo in science. The output was: $ ./find-overlay-dups.sh sci-chemistry/jmol sci-libs/fplll sci-libs/givaro sci-libs/iml sci-libs/m4ri sci-libs/symmetrica sci-mathematics/gap sci-mathematics/polybori What do people think about merging those versions in the science overlay and removing them from sage-on-gentoo (or vice-versa)? Probably in most cases there are additional fixes in sage-on-gentoo that science users could benefit from (or at least should hurt nobody)? Cheers, Thomas -- -- Thomas Kahle http://dev.gentoo.org/~tomka/
Hello! On Mon, 6 Feb 2012 15:57:28 +0100 Thomas Kahle <tomka <at> gentoo.org> wrote: > > What do people think about merging those versions in the science > overlay and removing them from sage-on-gentoo (or vice-versa)? > Probably in most cases there are additional fixes in sage-on-gentoo > that science users could benefit from (or at least should hurt > nobody)? > If so, what about merging the 'sage-on-gentoo' overlay into the 'science'? Vladimir ----- <v_2e <at> ukr.net>
Quoting Thomas Kahle <tomka <at> gentoo.org>: > Hi, > > I've run the attached script to find duplicates of packages from > sage-on-gentoo in science. The output was: > > $ ./find-overlay-dups.sh > sci-chemistry/jmol > sci-libs/fplll > sci-libs/givaro > sci-libs/iml > sci-libs/m4ri > sci-libs/symmetrica > sci-mathematics/gap > sci-mathematics/polybori > > > What do people think about merging those versions in the science overlay > and removing them from sage-on-gentoo (or vice-versa)? Probably in most > cases there are additional fixes in sage-on-gentoo that science users > could benefit from (or at least should hurt nobody)? > Hi, Since Christopher and I have access to the science overlay we should do some clean up and synchronization. Let's see case by case: jmol, there are a few differences between mine and the science overlay, jeffro and I are not in tune regarding EAPI and that's the main source of(Continue reading)
On 15:56 Tue 07 Feb 2012, fbissey <at> slingshot.co.nz wrote: > Is the Gentoo git infrastructure down? > > I was trying to get paraview-3.12.0 in but I cannot connect. Still down. -- -- Thomas Kahle http://dev.gentoo.org/~tomka/
Hi Francois, On Tue, 07 Feb 2012 10:32:15 +1300 fbissey <at> slingshot.co.nz wrote: > fplll, givaro, iml, m4ri and polybori we are probably ahead. In fact > we probably put them in science in the first place. symmetrica and > gap we are probably ahead as well because I am not sure anyone else > maintain them. It might be better to synchronize with the singular ebuild in lmonade as well. Alexander Dreyer added support for Singular's python interface: https://bitbucket.org/burcin/lmnd-prefix/src/tip/sci-mathematics/singular/singular-3.1.3.3-r1.ebuild Cheers, Burcin
On 10:32 Tue 07 Feb 2012, fbissey <at> slingshot.co.nz wrote: > > I've run the attached script to find duplicates of packages from > > sage-on-gentoo in science. The output was: > > > > $ ./find-overlay-dups.sh > > sci-chemistry/jmol > > sci-libs/fplll > > sci-libs/givaro > > sci-libs/iml > > sci-libs/m4ri > > sci-libs/symmetrica > > sci-mathematics/gap > > sci-mathematics/polybori > > > > > > What do people think about merging those versions in the science overlay > > and removing them from sage-on-gentoo (or vice-versa)? Probably in most > > cases there are additional fixes in sage-on-gentoo that science users > > could benefit from (or at least should hurt nobody)? > > Since Christopher and I have access to the science overlay we should > do some clean up and synchronization. > Let's see case by case: > jmol, there are a few differences between mine and the science overlay, > jeffro and I are not in tune regarding EAPI and that's the main source of > differences (last time I looked). > fplll, givaro, iml, m4ri and polybori we are probably ahead. In fact we > probably put them in science in the first place. symmetrica and gap we are > probably ahead as well because I am not sure anyone else maintain them. >(Continue reading)
RSS Feed7 | |
|---|---|
8 | |
13 | |
15 | |
7 | |
18 | |
4 | |
27 | |
8 | |
21 | |
6 | |
21 | |
15 | |
5 | |
5 | |
50 | |
6 | |
15 | |
7 | |
12 | |
37 | |
56 | |
2 | |
19 | |
4 | |
9 | |
6 | |
2 | |
56 | |
35 | |
53 | |
11 | |
37 | |
52 | |
35 | |
51 | |
53 | |
43 | |
21 | |
11 | |
9 | |
7 | |
3 | |
2 | |
17 | |
1 | |
33 | |
1 | |
9 | |
35 | |
24 | |
5 | |
4 | |
7 | |
6 | |
13 | |
7 | |
13 | |
11 | |
16 | |
14 | |
11 | |
44 | |
1 | |
27 | |
26 | |
26 | |
19 | |
4 | |
23 | |
22 | |
23 | |
7 | |
8 | |
8 | |
27 | |
30 | |
18 | |
45 | |
32 | |
9 | |
34 | |
19 | |
18 | |
38 | |
19 | |
6 | |
35 | |
34 | |
19 | |
22 | |
21 | |
40 | |
25 | |
45 | |
62 | |
3 |
