Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists

On 12/02/2017 06:18 PM, Michał Górny wrote: > II. This practically assumes that every new mailing list subscriber will > be able to recognize the problem. Otherwise, new people will repeatedly > be lured into discussing with them. > > III. In the end, it puts Gentoo in a bad position. Firstly,

Accidental spoofing -> Re: [gentoo-dev] We Are All wltjr On This Blessed Day

On Mon, 4 Dec 2017 18:01:39 -0500 "William L. Thomson Jr." wrote: > On Mon, 4 Dec 2017 14:43:15 -0800 > Matt Turner wrote: > > > > Sorry. I think I was confusing a number of irritating things you've > > done: email spoofing, > > That was a complete

Re: [gentoo-dev] We Are All wltjr On This Blessed Day

On Mon, 4 Dec 2017 14:43:15 -0800 Matt Turner wrote: > > Sorry. I think I was confusing a number of irritating things you've > done: email spoofing, That was a complete accident due to a new version of Kmail that had the from field editable by default. It was NOT

Re: [gentoo-dev] We Are All wltjr On This Blessed Day

On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 5:43 PM, Matt Turner wrote: > On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 1:46 PM, William L. Thomson Jr. > wrote: >> On Mon, 4 Dec 2017 13:26:26 -0800 >> Matt Turner wrote: >> >>> On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 10:52 AM, William L. Thomson

Re: [gentoo-dev] We Are All wltjr On This Blessed Day

On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 1:46 PM, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote: > On Mon, 4 Dec 2017 13:26:26 -0800 > Matt Turner wrote: > >> On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 10:52 AM, William L. Thomson Jr. >> wrote: >> > That being said, that people find it

Re: [gentoo-dev] We Are All wltjr On This Blessed Day

On Mon, 4 Dec 2017 13:26:26 -0800 Matt Turner wrote: > On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 10:52 AM, William L. Thomson Jr. > wrote: > > That being said, that people find it acceptable to talk behind > > another's back. Lobbing lots of insults. Then having the ego to

Re: OT Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-project] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists

On 12/04/2017 10:36 PM, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote: > Sorry last one, directed to Alec, but all should read. I hope you really mean that, we've all heard you complaining about this too many times already. -- Kristian Fiskerstrand OpenPGP keyblock reachable at hkp://pool.sks-keyservers.net

OT Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-project] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists

Sorry last one, directed to Alec, but all should read. On Mon, 4 Dec 2017 16:08:51 -0500 "William L. Thomson Jr." wrote: > > You could at least realize being here since 2008. If your not the one > making it better. Maybe do not give others a hard time or creating > more noise.

Re: [gentoo-dev] We Are All wltjr On This Blessed Day

On Mon, 4 Dec 2017 19:54:12 + Peter Stuge wrote: > I'm quite unimpressed by how mgorny and jstein behave there. Doesn't matter its ok because it was about me... I never did anything of that nature or other stuff. Yet action was sought to be taken against me years go and it

Re: [gentoo-dev] We Are All wltjr On This Blessed Day

On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 10:52 AM, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote: > That being said, that people find it acceptable to talk behind another's > back. Lobbing lots of insults. Then having the ego to assume someone > would create a fake identity. Any minimal research can show

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists

On Mon, 4 Dec 2017 21:29:26 +0100 Vincent-Xavier JUMEL wrote: > > Please do rembember that you can't solve all earth problems, not even > all Gentoo problems :) Technology is no means to resolve social issues. Our use of technology is bringing about entirely

[gentoo-dev] Last rites: net-misc/mediatomb

# Ian Whyman (04 Dec 2017) # Declared dead upstream. Masked for removal in 30 days # Please see net-misc/gerbera for a replacement. net-misc/mediatomb

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-project] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists

On Mon, 4 Dec 2017 14:54:38 -0500 Alec Warner wrote: > > I think you make my point sir; not debase it. You did (and continue > to do) many things, that are in fact > valuable What else may I have done since 08 had things been otherwise? Gentoo's loss. > However, you also

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists

On Sun, Dec 03, 2017 at 12:18:04AM +0100, Michał Górny wrote: > Hello, everyone. > > This is something that's been talked about privately a lot lately but it > seems that nobody went forward to put things into motion. SO here's > a proposal that aims to improve the condition of our mailing lists

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists

Le 2017-12-03 22:31, Michał Górny a écrit : Multiple people have tried, and as explained in the long rationale we haven't had any success. If you have a constructive ideas how to solve the problem otherwise, we're open to hear them. That's the whole purpose of this thread. Once or twice in

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-project] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists

> On Mon, 4 Dec 2017, William L Thomson wrote: [quote omitted] Can you keep this out of gentoo-dev, please? You personal reminiscences are very off-topic in this mailing list. Ulrich pgp9lk61Z9Iem.pgp Description: PGP signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] We Are All wltjr On This Blessed Day

I'm quite unimpressed by how mgorny and jstein behave there. I wouldn't accept that, were I leading the project. //Peter

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-project] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists

On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 2:37 PM, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote: > On Mon, 4 Dec 2017 14:17:00 -0500 > Alec Warner wrote: > > > > Clearly if Gentoo could be successful if millions of people were > > killed; we would not choose to kill millions of people. > >

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists

On Mon, 4 Dec 2017 13:34:49 -0500 kuzetsa wrote: > On 12/04/2017 01:11 PM, Christopher Head wrote: > > On December 3, 2017 1:35:23 PM PST, "Michał Górny" > > wrote: > >> The best way to reach specific Gentoo developers is through > >> Bugzilla. This gives

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-project] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists

On Mon, 4 Dec 2017 13:57:16 -0500 kuzetsa wrote: > On 12/04/2017 01:51 PM, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote: > > On Mon, 4 Dec 2017 13:15:32 + > > "M. J. Everitt" wrote: > > > >> On 04/12/17 00:37, Matt Turner wrote: > >>> A user requested I forward

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-project] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists

On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 1:51 PM, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote: > On Mon, 4 Dec 2017 13:15:32 + > "M. J. Everitt" wrote: > > > On 04/12/17 00:37, Matt Turner wrote: > > > A user requested I forward this information to the mailing list: > > > > > >

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-project] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists

On 12/04/2017 01:51 PM, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote: > On Mon, 4 Dec 2017 13:15:32 + > "M. J. Everitt" wrote: > >> On 04/12/17 00:37, Matt Turner wrote: >>> A user requested I forward this information to the mailing list: >>> >>>

Re: [gentoo-dev] We Are All wltjr On This Blessed Day

It is interesting to see people discussing behavior on list while flat out ignoring the following. This person is NOT me! They showed in #gentoo-java the other day. Prior to that I have never had any contact. They shared the below log with me then. Which I found flattering and amusing. Haters

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-project] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists

On Mon, 4 Dec 2017 13:15:32 + "M. J. Everitt" wrote: > On 04/12/17 00:37, Matt Turner wrote: > > A user requested I forward this information to the mailing list: > > > > http://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Publication%20Files/16-057_d45c0b4f-fa19-49de-8f1b-4b12fe054fea.pdf > >

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists

On 12/04/2017 01:11 PM, Christopher Head wrote: > On December 3, 2017 1:35:23 PM PST, "Michał Górny" wrote: >> The best way to reach specific Gentoo developers is through Bugzilla. >> This gives the best chance for focused discussion on the specific issue >> without unnecessary

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCH] depgraph: eval disjunctive build deps earlier (bug 639346)

On Sun, 3 Dec 2017 15:19:44 -0800 Zac Medico wrote: > Since built-time deps tend to be a superset of run-time deps, evaluate > disjunctive build-time deps before run-time deps, so that choices for > build-time deps influence choices for run-time deps. > > Also, fix

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists

On December 3, 2017 1:35:23 PM PST, "Michał Górny" wrote: > >The best way to reach specific Gentoo developers is through Bugzilla. >This gives the best chance for focused discussion on the specific issue >without unnecessary distraction for other developers who are not

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists

W dniu nie, 03.12.2017 o godzinie 23∶59 -0600, użytkownik R0b0t1 napisał: > As noted, there is one: analyzing the actions of those who are being > "attacked" to see why people are bothering to do it in the first > place. I sincerely doubt the offensive parties are doing what they are > doing

[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-project] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists

W dniu nie, 03.12.2017 o godzinie 14∶06 -0800, użytkownik Matt Turner napisał: > On Sat, Dec 2, 2017 at 3:18 PM, Michał Górny wrote: > > The problems of more abusive behavior from some of the mailing list > > members have been reported to ComRel numerous times. After the

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists

W dniu pon, 04.12.2017 o godzinie 14∶18 +0100, użytkownik Dirkjan Ochtman napisał: > On Sun, Dec 3, 2017 at 10:43 PM, Michał Górny wrote: > > > > On the face of it, I like this proposal. On the other hand, wouldn't it > > > > be > > > better if we just had more active list

Re: [gentoo-dev] profiles 17.0 hardened/no-multilib missing?

On Sat, Dec 2, 2017 at 2:14 PM, Alon Bar-Lev wrote: >> 1) there's barely any use for it, > > Well, I think that whoever use hardened barely use multilib. For the value of one anecdote, I'm a long-time hardened user and all of my hardened systems are no-multilib.

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists

On Sun, Dec 3, 2017 at 10:43 PM, Michał Górny wrote: > > On the face of it, I like this proposal. On the other hand, wouldn't it > be > > better if we just had more active list moderators? That is, moderators > who > > move problematic user's posts to moderated by default, and

[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-project] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists

On 04/12/17 00:37, Matt Turner wrote: > A user requested I forward this information to the mailing list: > > There's been research, on this, and the study by harvard business > school was summarized and discussed by NPR in 2015: > > [ Turns out toxic coworkers are more > than just an annoyance. A

Re: [gentoo-dev] Eclasses for BLAS and Lapack

Dear Fellows, and thanks Dominik, Dominik Schmidt writes: > Gentoo does not yet have a (proper) way of selecting a BLAS or Lapack > implementation at compile time. Hence I wrote two eclasses, which can > be found in my fork of the science overlay: > > *

[gentoo-dev] Eclasses for BLAS and Lapack

Hi there Gentoo does not yet have a (proper) way of selecting a BLAS or Lapack implementation at compile time. Hence I wrote two eclasses, which can be found in my fork of the science overlay: * https://github.com/Doeme/sci/blob/blas_lapack_eclass/eclass/blas.eclass *

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCH] xtermTitle: support st (simple terminal)

On 12/04/2017 12:16 AM, Christoph Böhmwalder wrote: > On Mon, Dec 04, 2017 at 06:27:39AM +0100, Christoph Böhmwalder wrote: >> Maybe we should be using the 'stterm' symlinks instead? >> >> -- >> Regards, >> Christoph > > Uh, actually that doesn't make any sense, since the $TERM variable is >

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCH] xtermTitle: support st (simple terminal)

On Mon, Dec 04, 2017 at 06:27:39AM +0100, Christoph Böhmwalder wrote: > Maybe we should be using the 'stterm' symlinks instead? > > -- > Regards, > Christoph Uh, actually that doesn't make any sense, since the $TERM variable is still set to just 'st-...'. It was a little too early when I wrote