| Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Age | Files | Lines |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Signed-off-by: Agostino Sarubbo <ago@gentoo.org>
Package-Manager: Portage-2.3.19, Repoman-2.3.6
RepoMan-Options: --include-arches="amd64"
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
Package-Manager: Portage-2.3.19, Repoman-2.3.6
|
|
|
|
| |
Package-Manager: Portage-2.3.24, Repoman-2.3.6
|
|
|
|
| |
Closes: https://github.com/gentoo/gentoo/pull/7213
|
|
|
|
| |
Package-Manager: Portage-2.3.24, Repoman-2.3.6
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
sysprof is an optional dependency of gnome-builder and its previous
maintainers are all part of that. Given that gnome-builder is maintained
by gnome team, move sysprof to be maintained primarily by gnome@ as well.
Remove myself by name in the process, keep tetromino for now as he's not
me, and no need to remove at least an explicit CC unless he wants that.
Package-Manager: Portage-2.3.19, Repoman-2.3.6
|
|
|
|
| |
Package-Manager: Portage-2.3.19, Repoman-2.3.6
|
|
|
|
| |
Package-Manager: Portage-2.3.24, Repoman-2.3.6
|
|
|
|
| |
Package-Manager: Portage-2.3.24, Repoman-2.3.6
|
|
|
|
| |
Package-Manager: Portage-2.3.24, Repoman-2.3.6
|
|
|
|
| |
Package-Manager: Portage-2.3.24, Repoman-2.3.6
|
|
|
|
| |
Package-Manager: Portage-2.3.19, Repoman-2.3.6
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Package-Manager: Portage-2.3.19, Repoman-2.3.6
Closes: https://github.com/gentoo/gentoo/pull/7029
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Package-Manager: Portage-2.3.13, Repoman-2.3.3
Closes: https://bugs.gentoo.org/645086
Closes: https://github.com/gentoo/gentoo/pull/6929
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Closes: https://bugs.gentoo.org/646050
Package-Manager: Portage-2.3.24, Repoman-2.3.6
|
|
|
|
| |
Package-Manager: Portage-2.3.19-r1, Repoman-2.3.6
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Package-Manager: 2.3.19-r1, Repoman-2.3.6
Closes: https://bugs.gentoo.org/646420
Closes: https://github.com/gentoo/gentoo/pull/7068
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Package-Manager: Portage-2.3.24, Repoman-2.3.6
RepoMan-Options: --include-arches="ia64"
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Package-Manager: Portage-2.3.24, Repoman-2.3.6
RepoMan-Options: --include-arches="ia64"
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Closes: https://bugs.gentoo.org/638068
Package-Manager: Portage-2.3.24, Repoman-2.3.6
|
|
|
|
| |
Bug: https://bugs.gentoo.org/638068
|
|
|
|
| |
Package-Manager: Portage-2.3.19, Repoman-2.3.6
|
|
|
|
| |
Closes: https://bugs.gentoo.org/646146
|
|
|
|
| |
Closes: https://github.com/gentoo/gentoo/pull/7148
|
|
|
|
| |
Package-Manager: Portage-2.3.19, Repoman-2.3.6
|
|
|
|
| |
Package-Manager: Portage-2.3.19, Repoman-2.3.6
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Closes: https://bugs.gentoo.org/647662
Package-Manager: Portage-2.3.24, Repoman-2.3.6
|
|
|
|
| |
Package-Manager: Portage-2.3.24, Repoman-2.3.6
|
|
|
|
| |
Package-Manager: Portage-2.3.24, Repoman-2.3.6
|
|
|
|
| |
Package-Manager: Portage-2.3.24, Repoman-2.3.6
|
|
|
|
| |
Package-Manager: Portage-2.3.24, Repoman-2.3.6
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Reported-by: Daniel M. Weeks
Closes: https://bugs.gentoo.org/647648
Package-Manager: Portage-2.3.24, Repoman-2.3.6
|
|
|
|
| |
Package-Manager: Portage-2.3.19, Repoman-2.3.6
|
|
|
|
| |
Package-Manager: Portage-2.3.19, Repoman-2.3.6
|
|
|
|
| |
Package-Manager: Portage-2.3.19, Repoman-2.3.6
|
|
|
|
| |
Package-Manager: Portage-2.3.24, Repoman-2.3.6
|
|
|
|
| |
Package-Manager: Portage-2.3.24, Repoman-2.3.6
|
|
|
|
| |
Package-Manager: Portage-2.3.24, Repoman-2.3.6
|
|
|
|
| |
Package-Manager: Portage-2.3.24, Repoman-2.3.6
|
|
|
|
| |
Package-Manager: Portage-2.3.24, Repoman-2.3.6
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
Package-Manager: Portage-2.3.24, Repoman-2.3.6
|
|
|
|
| |
Package-Manager: Portage-2.3.24, Repoman-2.3.6
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Remove useless/redundant maintainer <description/>. It does not benefit
bug wrangling, and only wastes developer's time on reading it. Few tips:
- assignee/CC is implied by ordering, there is no reason to repeat it,
- we know that maintainer is maintainer (la la la la la),
- most of adjectives for maintainer are of no value and/or are obvious.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Remove useless/redundant maintainer <description/>. It does not benefit
bug wrangling, and only wastes developer's time on reading it. Few tips:
- assignee/CC is implied by ordering, there is no reason to repeat it,
- we know that maintainer is maintainer (la la la la la),
- most of adjectives for maintainer are of no value and/or are obvious.
|