# Rich Freeman (2020-02-16)
# Dead upstream, obsolete deps.
app-misc/sleepyhead
On 12/03/2010 07:05 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
On Fri, 03 Dec 2010 11:35:14 +0100
Sebastian Pipping sp...@gentoo.org wrote:
to better communicate USE_PYTHON we could use:
The first question that comes into my mind is -- why do we need
to communicate that? I think that USE_PYTHON is a pretty
On 12/01/2010 01:16 PM, Diego Elio Pettenò wrote:
Il giorno mer, 01/12/2010 alle 19.05 +0100, Thomas Kahle ha scritto:
I agree, comments within the ebuild are practically invisible to
archteams (at least to me for x86). But also running repoman is
usually
the final step, right before
On 10/30/2010 05:09 AM, Markos Chandras wrote:
On Sat, Oct 30, 2010 at 10:05:17AM +0400, Peter Volkov wrote:
В Птн, 29/10/2010 в 09:11 -0700, Alec Warner пишет:
On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 5:21 AM, Markos Chandras hwoar...@gentoo.org
wrote:
Can I install a machine with the server profile and
On 10/04/2010 03:50 AM, Michael Haubenwallner wrote:
So - would it make sense to split repoman into its own ebuild?
++
I always did wonder why the two have been part of the same project.
Repoman updates could probably be stabilized more quickly with so much
worry about impact on users at large.
On 10/03/2010 09:26 PM, Duncan wrote:
The problem is that in-tree is a reasonably bounded set of builds, while
out-of-tree is unlimited. Practically speaking, I simply don't see how
Gentoo can be concerned with out-of-tree in general.
If any other distro had that attitude Gentoo (and other
On 10/03/2010 07:53 AM, David Leverton wrote:
Would it be too much trouble to have a standardised variable that
means .la files should be kept? It maybe /shouldn't/ be exposed as a
USE flag because very few people will need it, but if it's easy to
implement (maybe by having an eutils function
On 09/20/2010 07:06 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
I guess quite a good solution for now might be enabling newnet through
an USE flag, being masked in the profile by default. That would satisfy
the oldnet compatibility requirement for users, while the small group
preferring newnet could still benefit
On 08/25/2010 08:29 PM, Duncan wrote:
But that was pretty much decided some time ago, based on my following of
the relevant discussions here and elsewhere, so why are you arguing a
point that's not being argued any more? I believe that's what Mike's
WTFing about. It's not that you're wrong,
On 08/24/2010 11:57 PM, Nathan Zachary wrote:
If we are going to endorse using OpenRC,
the more relevant issues are the ones regarding its future development.
Is the future development of OpenRC more problematic than the future
development of baselayout-1? As far as I can tell, baselayout-1
On 08/25/2010 03:06 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Wednesday, August 25, 2010 12:37:34 Richard Freeman wrote:
On 08/24/2010 11:57 PM, Nathan Zachary wrote:
If we are going to endorse using OpenRC,
the more relevant issues are the ones regarding its future development.
Is the future development
On 08/24/2010 08:57 AM, Thilo Bangert wrote:
given how long, so far, it has taken openrc to reach stable, it is no
wonder people start lobbying for systemd today. ;-)
Perhaps, but if we want to move in that direction perhaps we should
consider at least getting openrc stable first. That
On 08/14/2010 10:29 AM, Markos Chandras wrote:
So do I. Fixing your package and you don't even bother to send a *ready to go*
patch
upstream seems like a bit rude to me as well. Perhaps, we do have a complete
different point of view in this one.
Recent example is Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn
On 08/14/2010 02:35 PM, Duncan wrote:
User perspective here...
For LDFLAGS, given the new --as-needed default, I'd prefer the rev-bump.
Yes, it requires a rebuild, but the rebuilds will occur as the bugs are
fixed so it's a few at a time for people who keep reasonably updated
(every month or
On 07/26/2010 12:32 AM, Jeremy Olexa wrote:
On 07/24/2010 10:10 AM, Richard Freeman wrote:
I'm trying to make a correction to the devmanual (assuming this is
supposed to be general access) for bug 293629. However, I can't seem to
find where to clone the repository from.
See Git Repositories
Are the procedures for using git with anything but an overlay on gentoo
documented anywhere?
I'm trying to make a correction to the devmanual (assuming this is
supposed to be general access) for bug 293629. However, I can't seem to
find where to clone the repository from.
If this isn't
On 07/20/2010 04:34 PM, Joshua Saddler wrote:
x86 and AMD64 have not had new stages or LiveCDs in months.
jmbsvicetto just started working on 'em, but we need LOTS of eyes and
fixers for our two biggest arches. Right now there's no one else.
Most of the breakages seem to come from toolchain and
On 07/14/2010 03:16 PM, William Hubbs wrote:
I am an amateur radio operator as well, and that is why putting the ham radio
apps inmedia-radio bothers me. Ham radio is not part of the media.
Most of the stuff in the media-* doesn't have anything to do with the
media - whatever that is.
On 07/12/2010 10:18 PM, Paweł Hajdan, Jr. wrote:
Rationale: Meeting summary for 20091012 is to be completed. Meeting
summary for 20100419 is also to be completed, and all following
council meetings lack summaries. This makes it hard to follow the
council's work.
I've seen this at work quite a
On 06/27/2010 06:52 AM, Enrico Weigelt wrote:
remark #981: operands are evaluated in unspecified order (tons of them)
return strcmp( left.c_str(), right.c_str() ) 0;
I'm not sure if this really qualifies an warning, since - AFAIK -
C spec never said, that there is an evaluation order
On 06/19/2010 03:10 PM, Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote:
I can assure you that if someone goes to #gentoo-forums and tries to
tell the forums team what tone should be used in that channel, we'll
kindly ask the person to stop or to leave. This is one of the public
and exposed channels and thus
On 06/19/2010 01:06 PM, Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote:
On 19-06-2010 16:15, Sebastian Pipping wrote:
#gentoo-infra is a channel on infra matters.
The fact that it's developers only doesn't make it a private channel in
a sense of tone doesn't matter.
you've failed to notice an important
On 06/19/2010 06:54 AM, Ben de Groot wrote:
This is a point that deserves more consideration. One of the top
reasons (as witnessed in forum discussions) many people are not
getting more involved and volunteering to become developers is the
level of in-fighting and the ineffective way that
On 06/16/2010 08:33 PM, Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote:
On 17-06-2010 00:00, Sebastian Pipping wrote:
3) Let Gentoo developers vote on who's in the conflict resolution
team just like we do with the council.
AFAIK this never happened before and in my opinion choosing conflict
On 05/29/2010 01:54 PM, Joshua Saddler wrote:
D-Link routers, for example, run (or used to run) Gentoo. SRI's solar
probe, RAISE, ran Gentoo. The Misa Digital Guitar, just entering mass
production, runs Gentoo. There are many more places where Gentoo's
been used in various devices and
On 05/25/2010 02:24 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Tuesday 18 May 2010 02:02:01 Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
could you please help the poor bug wranglers a bit?! The queue has reached
170 unassigned bugs...
people dont seem to realize that bug-wranglers isnt just for re-assigning to
the proper
On 05/20/2010 01:46 PM, Arun Raghavan wrote:
Why is gentoo-core is not enough? I thought all devs were expected to
follow -core, no exceptions made.
Well, unless something is sensitive it probably doesn't belong on -core.
In the spirit of openness we really should have very little traffic on
On 05/14/2010 09:34 AM, Samuli Suominen wrote:
I'd like to see the whole thing go away. It's this one user I've pretty
much ever seen using it. And he's using it to change RESOLVED status
to VERIFIED on e.g. removal bugs, stabilization bugs, keywording bugs...
I think that VERIFIED could have
On 04/25/2010 07:36 AM, Ryan Hill wrote:
People make mistakes.
Agreed - at work I've often found a quality mindset that is 100% focused
on preventing mistakes, and I've found that these kinds of systems are
almost equally as focused on preventing them from being fixed (three
minutes to fix
On 04/13/2010 12:33 PM, Matti Bickel wrote:
Alec Warner wrote:
Its not possible in perforce once your change has been submitted.
Oh, missed that one. Maybe that makes perforce more auditble or whatnot.
I suspect that is the gist of it. I work with numerous systems that
have audit trails
On 04/10/2010 07:44 PM, Ben de Groot wrote:
On 11 April 2010 00:54, Denis Dupeyroncalc...@gentoo.org wrote:
I know it hurts the eyes a bit, but calling problems by their name is
part of fixing them.
Except when someone else does it, then calling the problem of lack of
leadership suddenly
On 04/07/2010 05:58 AM, Angelo Arrifano wrote:
3*) With git, one would just branch (lets call it embedded branch) the
package. Apply the patches there and let people using embedded profiles
to emerge from that branch instead of master.
Benefits? I think they are pretty obvious - people can start
On 04/07/2010 11:00 AM, Denis Dupeyron wrote:
5. centralize developer documentation
=
This is an interesting idea which I believe I have seen discussed on
irc at some point. Feel free to work on a GLEP to address that.
To be honest, this doesn't even need
On 04/05/2010 10:13 PM, Nirbheek Chauhan wrote:
* Proposed is to generate ChangeLogs from git commits on the rsync
server side when metadata generation is done
- Scripts to do this already exist[1]
I haven't seen this discussed, so I'm going to toss this out there and duck:
Why not just
On 04/05/2010 03:48 AM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Mon, 05 Apr 2010 03:33:52 +0200
Tobias Heinleinkeytoas...@gentoo.org wrote:
3) Questions that aren't that important at all and would just be nice
to know.
[snip]
Examples for these:
5. What is wrong with using $(somecommand) or `somecommand`
On 04/04/2010 02:09 PM, Denis Dupeyron wrote:
All ideas regarding improving recruitment are welcome, thanks. However
if, during your review, you were not given the impression that your
maturity and other social skills were being assessed then you were
being blissfully naive. :o)
That
On 04/03/2010 06:19 AM, Tobias Scherbaum wrote:
And still, when someone tries to fix things in such an understaffed herd
people go all territorial and are like omg u touched my package.
Right now I'm quite confused what our project strategy seems to be, as
far as I can tell there's one group
On 03/28/2010 06:04 AM, Tomáš Chvátal wrote:
Basically you are saying that NONE tested that package on the arch until
the stablerequest. That's quite wrong and it should mean that the arch
should be ~ only, since they are stabling packages that they first
tested the day they stable them.
On 03/28/2010 10:27 AM, Duncan wrote:
The point being, perhaps I'm wrong and openrc does have a broader
distribution basis than I'm aware of, but in practice, it seems all of
these tend to be used /almost/ exclusively with Gentoo and Gentoo based
distributions. If openrc's usage is rather wider
On 03/24/2010 11:47 PM, Joshua Saddler wrote:
Even then, it'll likely get
installed first, as users will probably learn about p.masking it only
*after* they install it.
I don't have strong feelings on whether having v3 installed by default
is a big problem, but the last bit here probably
On 03/24/2010 02:28 PM, Joshua Saddler wrote:
On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 19:04:51 +0100 Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar
Arahesisarfre...@gentoo.org wrote:
People, don't want Python 3, probably have already masked it. There
is no reason to waste Council's time for decision on what sentence
should be
On 03/18/2010 04:34 PM, Ben de Groot wrote:
Recruitment being the bottleneck that it is (with candidates
waiting many months), it is good to have another option
for people who want to contribute.
If we do have a list of people waiting to get in, could we maybe publish
this list somewhere, or
On 03/11/2010 03:53 PM, Alec Warner wrote:
however if it becomes some kind of integral part of Gentoo
(which I doubt it will) we will have to look at switching to something
else (which is easy given the many export formats of Google Calendar
:))
I think you hit the nail on the head. Right
On 03/10/2010 04:42 PM, Duncan wrote:
So a gmail account is now considered mandatory for Gentoo devs, at least
if they want calendar access?
What about those who might think that Google knows enough about them with
search and the web crawling and database correlation Google does, and
whatever
On 03/05/2010 08:06 AM, Ben de Groot wrote:
On 5 March 2010 04:18, Graham Murraygra...@gmurray.org.uk wrote:
3. Include one or both of the packages in the stage tarball.
None of the packages involved (gtk+, cups and poppler) is in any
shape or form essential, so you will have a very hard
On 03/04/2010 08:57 PM, Patrick Nagel wrote:
Obviously, users who re-install Gentoo the way you do will have less
difficulties resolving a circular dependency than those who are just following
the guide and getting their first Gentoo experience.
I think that the cups issue is probably worth
On 03/03/2010 09:41 PM, Dale wrote:
So in the situation above, removing cups doesn't help any? The user
would still have to work around the dependency problem. Is there not a
better way to handle this?
Agreed that there should be better ways of handling things.
However, at the very least if
On 03/01/2010 09:24 AM, Ben de Groot wrote:
The 72 hours have passed, so I take it we are ready to officially
publish this. Richard, are you going to commit this?
I will do so today.
On 02/26/2010 07:06 AM, Ben de Groot wrote:
Is there a simple way for users to determine what client versions they may have?
Forwarding my reply:
Well, they can always just ask the package manager what version is
installed. The news item is targeted only at users who do not already
have
suspect the other arch teams feel
similarly - nobody wants to just commit something like this without
testing and good documentation.
How about this revised news item:
Title: MythTV 0.22 Upgrade Database Corruption
Author: Richard Freeman ri...@gentoo.org
Content-Type: text/plain
Posted: date
item (I can commit if there are no
objections - and be gentle as I just parsed the GLEP - also posted to
the bug 299222):
Title: MythTV 0.22 Upgrade Database Corruption
Author: Richard Freeman ri...@gentoo.org
Content-Type: text/plain
Posted: date
Revision: 1
News-Item-Format: 1.0
Display
On 02/20/2010 09:23 PM, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
The MySQL 5.1 news item with all updates is now commited, and 5.1.x have
been unblocked in package.mask.
It looks like that news item is visible to users running stable as well.
When 5.1 eventually goes stable we might want to re-announce it
On 01/24/2010 01:20 PM, Ben de Groot wrote:
2010/1/24 Petteri Rätybetelge...@gentoo.org:
On 01/24/2010 03:02 PM, Ben de Groot wrote:
Why should we keep redundant information in the list?
How is that redundant?
Well, I doubt we'll get away from python in the system set anytime soon,
but
On 01/24/2010 07:02 PM, Dale wrote:
Is there something that I am missing here? For me, system should
include the things needed for booting and for the package manager to
work.
It should include the programs directly involved in booting, and the
package manager. I'm not sure that it should
On 01/17/2010 03:20 PM, Thilo Bangert wrote:
Ben de Grootyng...@gentoo.org said:
I think we have a bigger problem with packages that have a maintainer,
at least nominally, but said maintainer does not actually maintain the
package anymore.
full ack. i was thinking that maybe we need an
On 01/17/2010 08:23 PM, Ben de Groot wrote:
What about something like: if a bug has been open for 2 months without
any apparent maintainer activity, anyone can step in and commit a fix?
How about - anybody at any time can at their discretion post a comment
in a bug asking if there are
On 01/13/2010 09:24 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Tuesday 12 January 2010 15:51:28 Tomáš Chvátal wrote:
And since WE want to enable as-needed as default at some time we need to
work on the bugs
which isnt going to happen
This isn't really intended to point fingers at anybody in particular -
On 01/13/2010 10:06 AM, Arnaud Launay wrote:
which kind of explain what is a proxy maintainer (more or less),
but does not explain how to become one...
We don't really have any official process around this. Things like
sunrise and proxy-maintainers are good ways to get new blood into the
On 01/11/2010 10:43 PM, Jeremy Olexa wrote:
(A general reply, not targeted towards you, Rich)
No prob - my post wasn't really directed personally at anybody.
Speaking on behalf of the treecleaners:
The fact is, some of us have never heard of inn and until Gentoo has
some sort of popularity
On 01/12/2010 01:30 PM, Markos Chandras wrote:
IMHO ( this is not a treecleaners@ opinion, i m just talking for my
self ), announcing and masking a package is a good way to inform and wake up
everybody to take care of this package if they really really want to stay on
portage.
I agree with the
On 01/11/2010 06:30 PM, Arnaud Launay wrote:
As a newsmaster, I'm a bit concerned by this.
Yeah, inn seems like a really high-profile package to mask for removal.
It would be conspicuous in its absence.
Would it make sense to post on -dev BEFORE masking packages like this?
I'm sure there
On 01/08/2010 12:26 AM, Greg KH wrote:
If the kernel loads a firmware
file that is not free, or if the device itself has a firmware in it that
you can not change so easily, has _nothing_ to do with the license of
the kernel,
I don't think anybody is concerned about the license of the kernel,
On 01/07/2010 01:19 AM, Vincent Launchbury wrote:
All I'm asking for is that users who care about this will be shown an
accurate license,
I think that this really sums this whole thing up. Can you run a
computer with ONLY FOSS on it (firmware to ROMs to hard drive
controlers) - probably
On 01/07/2010 05:46 AM, Hanno Böck wrote:
I think the GPL-compatible set makes barely sense.
++
Difference between OSI and FSF approved: ... I think the definitions
of FSF and OSI are pretty much the same, ... So I'd like it much more
to have one big This is free and open source software
On 01/05/2010 01:07 PM, Duncan wrote:
Periodically there's talk of adding + versions of at least the FSF
licenses, but while it would probably be quite a good thing, it'd be a
LOT of VERY boring work poring thru all those packages and either
updating to the + version, or leaving comments in each
On 12/30/2009 11:48 PM, Greg KH wrote:
Heh, no, it does not, unless your BIOS, and your keyboard firmware, and
your mouse firmware are all under a free license. The only thing
close to this type of machine is the OLPC, and even then, I don't think
all the microcode for the box was ever
On 12/30/2009 12:14 PM, Ben de Groot wrote:
2010-01-21:
* Qt team meeting: discuss actions to be taken regarding remaining
pkgs that use qt:3
2010-02-21:
* mask qt:3 and depending ebuilds, pending removal
30 days isn't a long time. How about filing bugs against anything that
currently
On 12/31/2009 08:24 AM, Samuli Suominen wrote:
On 12/31/2009 03:13 PM, Christian Faulhammer wrote:
Hi,
Samuli Suominenssuomi...@gentoo.org:
Just saying...
Please track progress somehow. I know it is a lot of work, but makes
understanding the process easier.
V-Li
It's been done in,
On 12/31/2009 07:51 AM, Samuli Suominen wrote:
Stable MythTV has more issues than just Qt3, as the current stable
doesn't compile anymore, http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=280303
which is about to get masked tomorrow with kdelibs-3...
Those of us who run it wouldn't mind seeing a
On 12/29/2009 07:52 PM, Greg KH wrote:
No, the readme/copying is correct, it covers all of the code that runs
on the processor as one body of work. Firmware blobs are different in
that they do not run in the same processor, and can be of a different
license.
Yes, but they don't cover
On 12/30/2009 05:18 AM, Petteri Räty wrote:
You need to understand what the world set means. The world set is the
packages in /var/lib/portage/world and the sets from
/var/lib/portage/world_sets . From this follows that we can't change the
content of the world set as it's a user specific
On 12/28/2009 06:23 AM, Tomáš Chvátal wrote:
we should ENFORCE it, not just fill bugs about it, because mostly people
tend to ignore that things.
Agreed, although some presumption of innocence should be assumed. If a
dev is ignoring repoman output that is a fairly big violation, but if a
On 12/28/2009 01:56 PM, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
Actually, this is a case where the license on the ebuild is wrong, not
the license group. The kernel ebuilds should have GPL-2 and something
else, and by definition should not pass @FSF-APPROVED alone.
Is this appropriate? The kernel sources
On 12/28/2009 05:53 PM, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
You're wrong there. The kernel does contain additional licenses, and
EXPLICITLY mentions them. Go and read 'firmware/WHENCE'.
The licenses listed therein range from use-permitted only
no-modification, to GPL-compliant and BSD-like.
I stand
Started new subject since this is only tangentially related to the election.
On 12/27/2009 06:16 PM, Tomáš Chvátal wrote:
Anyway, i wont write huge manifesto but these things i would like spent
my time:
QA propagation (motivating people, explaining why we are doing stuff and
so on)
Could
On 12/23/2009 01:36 PM, Paul de Vrieze wrote:
Perhaps we should create a schema to validate the file. XMLSchema (or
any of the other standards) allows for much more flexibility in
specifying these things. Btw. I did not design the metadata DTD for
order to be significant. The only priority is
On 12/21/2009 02:54 AM, Fabian Groffen wrote:
If all mail that would go to -dev-announce would guaranteed be sent to
-dev as well, I didn't have to check -dev-announce, and archives.g.o
would also have the original January 2010 meeting date mail in the
thread on -dev.
Or you could just
On 12/20/2009 01:04 PM, Jeremy Olexa wrote:
Flattered, but I decline. I don't agree with the way the Council works
and don't have motivation to attempt to change it.
Out of curiosity, would you care to elaborate? I don't have much of a
political axe to grind so I guess I tend to stay out of
On 12/21/2009 06:33 AM, Richard Freeman wrote:
On 12/20/2009 01:04 PM, Jeremy Olexa wrote:
Flattered, but I decline. I don't agree with the way the Council works
and don't have motivation to attempt to change it.
Out of curiosity, would you care to elaborate? I don't have much of a
political
On 12/15/2009 01:46 AM, Daniel Black wrote:
I did email the debian maintainer too. no response yet. They have interactive
builds though and I guess we do too now. Will be a royal pain if every
CA/software did the same thing.
The last thing gentoo needs is interactive builds. XFree86 was
On 12/13/2009 02:49 PM, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 10:44:05PM +1100, Daniel Black wrote:
Recently this got produced as a draft license for parties distributing
CAcert's root certificate(s) (like us).
On 12/14/2009 03:10 PM, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
1.4 Vendor's Agreement with End-User
Vendor agrees
1. to distribute both the NRP-DaL and this present agreement to end-user,
Ah, this was my mistake. I read that as to distribute both the NRP-DaL
and present this agreement to [the]
Antoni Grzymala wrote:
How about getting back to GLEP-57 [1]? Robin Hugh Johnson made an effort
a year ago to summarize the then-current state of things regarding tree
and package signing, however the matter seems to have lain idle and
untouched for more than a year since.
One concern I have
Peter Volkov wrote:
1. Our good non-formal policy if developer touched anything he becames
responsible for that ebuild and should fix issues noticed is sometimes
ignored. We see people reacting: you've noticed - you fix. I think such
attitude is unacceptable.
Keep in mind the downside to such
Petteri Räty wrote:
#SRC_URI=mirror://sourceforge/${PN}/${P}.tar.gz
# starting to hate sf.net ...
SRC_URI=http://foremost.sourceforge.net/pkg/foremost-1.5.6.tar.gz;
The filename that violates our policies hasn't changed between the new
and old SRC_URI.
Is this policy actually written down
Mart Raudsepp wrote:
Is it stated in any documentation that 30 days is a policy?
Not that I'm aware of - it is a guideline as you indicate. However,
don't expect anybody to actually take action on a STABLEREQ if there
isn't some kind of rationale for going stable so quickly.
The whole
Duncan wrote:
Actually, yes. Gentoo has never been a hand-holding distribution. We
try to provide documentation and reasonable defaults for any apps the
user chooses to install, and let the user configure what they will.
Gentoo is about choice. Well, except for the choice to not have to
Jesús Guerrero wrote:
In my opinion, if we really want to speak about a way to implement that
kind of snapshoting, we should start thinking about providing a better
integration with lvm, from the root. lvm can take care of the snapshots on
a non-expensive way, and it would be relatively easy to
Joshua Saddler wrote:
On Sat, 3 Oct 2009 20:45:21 +0300 Markos Chandras
hwoar...@gentoo.org wrote:
This is actually true. Maybe all devs should have access on docs
since the docs teams are dead. I would suggest to let all
developers contribute to documentation whether they belong to docs
team
Rémi Cardona wrote:
May I request a faster commit time since I didn't expect Samuli to
stabilize everything so quickly?
Yup - I wouldn't be surprised if within a few hours 80% of the concerned
users will have already installed it. Even if you send out the news now
anybody who synced
Olivier Crête wrote:
~arch is for testing ebuilds, not the upstream package
I'm pretty sure this isn't the case - at least not as cleanly as you
suggest. Certainly testing the ebuilds themselves is part of the reason
for having ~arch, but upstream readiness is part of it as well. If a
Ryan Hill wrote:
So, should we always keep a working EAPI 0 version around? If not, when can
we drop support for old EAPIs? Your opinions please.
You might want to define what you mean by dropping support for old
EAPIs? Do you mean:
1. No longer ensuring that users who have pre-EAPI
Jesús Guerrero wrote:
Most Gentoo users will have no problem to use overlays as they need
them. If we had more developers we could as maintain more packages,
as simple as that.
I actually tend to agree with this position, however to use overlays as
a valid solution for end-users we need to
Jesús Guerrero wrote:
Yeah, devs for that as well.
Yup - I think we're actually on the same page. Ultimately quality
matters more than quantity and everybody does what they can given the
resources we have.
Right now it is at least a little painful to get set up with an overlay.
No,
Luca Barbato wrote:
Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote:
I have a few ideas about this that I'll have to put in writing and share
later, but let me start by proposing that for such a change we require
the support of at least 2/3 of the devs that vote *and* a minimum of 1/3
of all devs.
I'd use
Doug Goldstein wrote:
On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 9:33 PM, Ned Luddso...@gentoo.org wrote:
Meetings will likely go back to one time per month and be +m with +v be
handed out per request with open chat pre/post meetings. The reason for
this is to keep the meetings on-track. I won't engage in endless
Ben de Groot wrote:
In my opinion it is in the best interest of Gentoo at this point to
ignore Exherbo and to silence those people involved with Exherbo that
have been so divisive and generated so much conflict in Gentoo channels.
Nobody needs to be silenced (unless they're litereally
Nirbheek Chauhan wrote:
Please, do not waste everyone's time and bandwidth with thoughts that
do not belong on this list, and hence they do not care about.
Let's be nice. Somehow I don't think Duncan's goal was to get the
mailing lists to be as flame-filled as he perceives IRC to be... :)
Ulrich Mueller wrote:
Let's assume for the moment that we change from .ebuild to .eb.
Then we obviously cannot change all ebuilds in the tree to .eb,
otherwise old Portage versions would see an empty tree and there would
be no upgrade path.
Or am I missing something?
That is a good point.
Patrick Lauer wrote:
And if you really absolutely have to do that you can change the sync
location on every disruptive change, but (imo) that should be
avoided.
If mirroring and other practical concerns weren't an issue what you're
essentially describing is just moving to a CVS/git/etc
1 - 100 of 212 matches
Mail list logo
