Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: new herd: theology
Steve Dibb wrote: > Dominique Michel wrote: > >> I fully agree, theology is the worst possible name if the herd will >> include >> both religious and scientific softwares. > > No worries, app-misc/gramps was dropped from the theology herd, and is > herdless once again. It's interesting that people are up in arms once again (like they didn't read the old thread) about putting a package into a herd -- read the category name; it's not sci-anything, it's app-misc. Just about any herd would do. Usually the developers don't like packages that are herdless for all the usual maintenance reasons. I mean, at least it's got a maintainer (beandog in this case). But it's gotten no love from any of the sci-* herds; it doesn't seem to be wanted. So what's the big problem of sticking it into a herd somewhere, a herd that seems to be maintained by just one person (beandog in this case)? signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: new herd: theology
Dominique Michel wrote: I fully agree, theology is the worst possible name if the herd will include both religious and scientific softwares. No worries, app-misc/gramps was dropped from the theology herd, and is herdless once again. Steve -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] That time again...
Donnie Berkholz wrote: > Michael Cummings wrote: >> Worth a shot, it seemed to work last time (and I just noticed that a >> neglected >> -dev mail folder is a bad thing). > > We're working on getting X.Org 7.2 stable. The hot new stuff, video > hotplugging et al, is in xorg-server 1.3 and xf86-video-i810 2.0. Other > drivers remain to be ported. Also 1.3 has faster EXA, for those of you > who use the new acceleration architecture instead of XAA. (See > AccelMethod in the xorg.conf man page for info.) AccelMethod is actually documented in individual driver man pages if they're capable of it, as a reader pointed out to me in private email. Thanks, Donnie signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: new herd: theology
Drake Wyrm wrote: > Wernfried Haas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> On Fri, Apr 27, 2007 at 07:54:00AM +0200, Steffen Brumm wrote: >>> and darwin is satan, other beliefs than christianity - death >>> penalty, fight the sciences, womans have to go behind the cooker or >>> into the open flame, only conservapedia is real,... >> This certainly is an interesting first post to the Gentoo development >> list, not sure if it's pure trolling or just a joke gone bad. In any >> way, this is not exactly Gentoo development related and not really CoC >> [1] compliant. Please read the CoC before posting again. > > Yeah, see... There's the problem with the CoCk. It's a generic > catch-all. "I didn't like that, therefore you're evil." Perfect example: > You took a friendly bit of sarcasm as being offensive, and you're using > the CoCk as justification for your objection thereto. The point, to me, isn't whether it's sarcasm. It's totally irrelevant to development and off-topic, and it wasted my time. Thanks, Donnie signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
[gentoo-dev] Re: new herd: theology
Wernfried Haas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, Apr 27, 2007 at 07:54:00AM +0200, Steffen Brumm wrote: > > and darwin is satan, other beliefs than christianity - death > > penalty, fight the sciences, womans have to go behind the cooker or > > into the open flame, only conservapedia is real,... > > This certainly is an interesting first post to the Gentoo development > list, not sure if it's pure trolling or just a joke gone bad. In any > way, this is not exactly Gentoo development related and not really CoC > [1] compliant. Please read the CoC before posting again. Yeah, see... There's the problem with the CoCk. It's a generic catch-all. "I didn't like that, therefore you're evil." Perfect example: You took a friendly bit of sarcasm as being offensive, and you're using the CoCk as justification for your objection thereto. So, there are a few possibilities here. Either your English skills need polishing, or you did so deliberately, or you could possibly be drunk. If the former of the three, ignore this and keep practicing; you'll get better. If the middle one, you're broken; you'll either ignore this and dismiss me as ignorant, or throw a hissy-fit and try to hurt me in any way you can. If the latter of the three, party on; it's Friday. > Everyone else, please don't reply to this subthread as well for the > same reasons. Speaking of theology, isn't that a bit hypocritical: to reply, but suggest that nobody else does? -- "Such things have often happened and still happen, and how can these be signs of the end of the world?" -- Julian, Emperor of Rome 361-363 A.D. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Planning for automatic assignment of bugs
Robin H. Johnson wrote: > Have you got a reference for it? That's how it is in XHTML, so I thought it's common practice in XML as well. That probably isn't true, so sorry for noise. Cheers, -jkt -- cd /local/pub && more beer > /dev/mouth signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Planning for automatic assignment of bugs
On Fri, 2007-04-27 at 10:57 -0700, Robin H. Johnson wrote: > On Fri, Apr 27, 2007 at 08:57:27AM -0700, Ned Ludd wrote: > > > In light of the above, how about 'automatic=0'? > > Please keep with your original idea of letting maintainers opt out vs > > some of the ideas proposed in this thread where maintainers have to opt > > in as I'm sure the metadata.xml files wont be updated by enough people > > to really gain the benefit of what we are trying to do here if they have > > to do opt in. > Err, nowhere in here have I said it was going to be opt-in. With some of the dal and tri-state suggestions we have seen in this thread automatic=1/contact=1 this would seem to be an opt-in vs opt-out. But either way I don't care as long as we can get the bulk of the bug-wranglers@ assigned to somewhere other than bug-wranglers@ and the scripts that are going to handle it don't have to become totally convoluted while reasonable to maintain. > Taking into account the other reasonable input, how about the name of > attribute 'automatic-bug' ? I don't see anything wrong with how it was proposed originally using contact=0 > 'automatic-bug=1' will be implied by the DTD, and developers will have > to explicitly opt-out by including 'automatic-bug=0' in their > entries. > -- Ned Ludd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Gentoo Linux -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] That time again...
Michael Cummings wrote: Worth a shot, it seemed to work last time (and I just noticed that a neglected -dev mail folder is a bad thing). We're working on getting X.Org 7.2 stable. The hot new stuff, video hotplugging et al, is in xorg-server 1.3 and xf86-video-i810 2.0. Other drivers remain to be ported. Also 1.3 has faster EXA, for those of you who use the new acceleration architecture instead of XAA. (See AccelMethod in the xorg.conf man page for info.) Also a new mesa dev release should be coming out later today. Thanks, Donnie -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Planning for automatic assignment of bugs
Robin H. Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Taking into account the other reasonable input, how about the name of > attribute 'automatic-bug' ? I would like "assign" somewhere in the name, but i'd be fine with your proposal as well. -- Regards, Matti Bickel Encrypted/Signed Email preferred pgpqjgvmTCCXj.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: new herd: theology
Le Fri, 27 Apr 2007 12:59:25 +0200, Alexandre Buisse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit : > On Fri, Apr 27, 2007 at 11:25:01 +0200, Duncan wrote: > > > It's a very good question, it was posed at the time, it was never > > > answered and at last we can now say it was almost completely ignored. > > > > I (and I expect others who know) didn't answer this before, as it would > > have been too easy to start an OT subthread I didn't want to start, but I > > trust everyone minding the CoC will prevent that from occurring now. > > > > Briefly (and intended to be neutrally), the Latter Day Saints, commonly > > known as the Mormons (maybe other groups as well??), have a religious > > interest in genealogy, so having it in the religion/theology herd would > > make sense to them. That should answer the question, and give a place to > > start for those interested in looking it up. > > And a sect from the remote regions of Lapland believes that haskell is > a godsend and adore the ghc source code as their Holy Scripture, should > we move the haskell herd to theology as well? > > > > However, I agree the sciences or a general humanities herd will make more > > sense to most folks. I don't feel strongly enough about it to be worth > > arguing a maintainer's choice of herd for their packages, however. After > > all, they're the ones taking responsibility for it in the tree, > > regardless of the herd it's in, and if it's more convenient for them in a > > theology herd, why should it be a problem for those not interested in the > > package? It might raise a few eyebrows here or there, but if it's being > > well maintained, there are more critical things to argue about. > > Sure, there are more critical things out there, but why should people, > on such a critical subject, chose to label packages that have nothing to > do with religion with a "theology" stamp? I fully agree, theology is the worst possible name if the herd will include both religious and scientific softwares. Human beings have the unique possibility to use their critical mind (at least if they understand at we have this unique feature in the creation), and all the theology are based on the assumption at they are true only if we give away our critical mind (Introduction of all the religious book, they said at it is true because it is true...). And they cannot be true otherwise. Religion: the prophet prove the religion and the religion prove the prophet. Science: the theory is true only if it is proved by practical and reproductible experimentation. Words have a meaning. The fact is at genealogy is a science as it is possible to prove it by practical experimentation, and it doesn't matter if the father is a Mormon or the currier, an ADN prove will tell us. And for that it have nothing to do with religious ideology. Theology is about religious study and cannot be proved by practical and reproductible experimentation. For that, it have nothing to do with science. Otherwise: I think at it is a good idea to have that kind of softwares, but I also think at the name of the herd is one of the worst the worst possible. Please, don't call it with a name that is a direct reference to religious ideology if you want to mix those different kind of softwares. I think at at the best solution will be to make 2 herds, one for the religious ideology, one for human-sciences, so at we can know what we are talking about. It was my 2c. contribution on that matter. Ciao, Dominique > > /Alexandre -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Planning for automatic assignment of bugs
On Fri, Apr 27, 2007 at 08:57:27AM -0700, Ned Ludd wrote: > > In light of the above, how about 'automatic=0'? > Please keep with your original idea of letting maintainers opt out vs > some of the ideas proposed in this thread where maintainers have to opt > in as I'm sure the metadata.xml files wont be updated by enough people > to really gain the benefit of what we are trying to do here if they have > to do opt in. Err, nowhere in here have I said it was going to be opt-in. Taking into account the other reasonable input, how about the name of attribute 'automatic-bug' ? 'automatic-bug=1' will be implied by the DTD, and developers will have to explicitly opt-out by including 'automatic-bug=0' in their entries. -- Robin Hugh Johnson Gentoo Linux Developer & Council Member E-Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] GnuPG FP : 11AC BA4F 4778 E3F6 E4ED F38E B27B 944E 3488 4E85 pgpAnqHwj7xmg.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Planning for automatic assignment of bugs
On Fri, Apr 27, 2007 at 02:01:13PM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > I intend that the first non-excluded maintainer entry is the one used > > for the automatic process. > This could even make the need for "contact=0|1" unneccessary (since at least > one bugzilla account should be a valid assignee), yet it's of course better > to still have it anyway. No, it doesn't make it unnecessary, as otherwise you have no way to exclude a maintainer element. 1. Read maintainer blocks in order 2. Remove maintainer blocks that have 'contact=0' 3. First maintainer block is used for the assignee. 4. Remaining blocks go into the CC. > > In light of the above, how about 'automatic=0'? > Kind of what I proposed, though I'd include "assign" and/or as > Jan jkt Kundr??t proposed "bug" somewhere in the variable name. > Like... "AutoBugAssign=whatever" or so. No, because assign and CC are already overloaded terms. If you approach it from a semantic angle, what does 'automatic-assign=0' do? Does it mean that the maintainer is still used for the CC list? That's why 'assign' and 'cc' should not occur in the attribute name. -- Robin Hugh Johnson Gentoo Linux Developer & Council Member E-Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] GnuPG FP : 11AC BA4F 4778 E3F6 E4ED F38E B27B 944E 3488 4E85 pgpmDKASChhQ6.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Planning for automatic assignment of bugs
On Fri, Apr 27, 2007 at 10:32:25AM +0200, Jan Kundr?t wrote: > AFAIK the preferred way of specifying boolean values in XML is to use > contact="contact", not contact="1". I can't find this described anywhere in the XML specification http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml/ Have you got a reference for it? > Speaking of name, I'd try to include string "bug" somewhere in the > attribute name, like "bugzilla-auto-assignment" or something... I'll follow this up in solar's post. -- Robin Hugh Johnson Gentoo Linux Developer & Council Member E-Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] GnuPG FP : 11AC BA4F 4778 E3F6 E4ED F38E B27B 944E 3488 4E85 pgpdEutQU03CJ.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] That time again...
It's a rather rare occasion in my case [1], but i actually used CVS a couple of minutes ago. No worries, the tree is still safe from me, i just (finally) uploaded the project page for the proctors [2]. I hope it answers all the questions people have been asking me every now and then, like how to contact us and who's on the team in the first place. Of course there is still a lot of work to be done, but i think we're heading into the right direction. cheers, Wernfried [1] Every 2 months according to http://cia.vc/stats/author/amne :-) [2] http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/proctors/ -- Wernfried Haas (amne) - amne (at) gentoo.org http://forums.gentoo.org || http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/proctors/ forum-mods (at) gentoo.org || proctors (at) gentoo.org #gentoo-forums || #gentoo-proctors (freenode) pgpMODgZIMVlv.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] That time again...
On Wed, 2007-04-25 at 20:12 -0400, Michael Cummings wrote: > Any other cool updates in the last few weeks? (it's been 20 days since > the last time I started this thread - at this rate, we might make enough input > to make Chris' job on the gwn easier). > For Gnome, 2.18.1 is almost entirely in the tree, but still masked pending the unmasking of hal (which has one bug left, last I checked). 2.19.1 is going into the overlay slowly. Daniel -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
[gentoo-dev] Re: Linux 2.6.21 plans
Daniel Drake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted [EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Fri, 27 Apr 2007 11:00:41 -0400: > Duncan wrote: >> I'm running (vanilla) rc7-git10 ATM, and have two possible regressions >> remaining here > > If reproducible on gentoo-soures-2.6.21, please file bug reports for > them or they will get lost. Ugh. I hate it when I so publicly mis-type! =8^( It was 2.6.21-rc7- git8, not git10. Anyway, the X restore thing was (apparently) fixed since git4, but the clock thing's still an issue. I still have to eliminate a couple more things on my end, however, before bugging it. -- Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. "Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Linux 2.6.21 plans
Petteri Räty wrote: > Daniel Drake kirjoitti: >> Petteri Räty wrote: >>> Why would the kernel have to go stable before the usual month dictated >>> by policy? Yes there are usually security bugs but you did not mention >>> that as a reason in your post. >> At last check this was a recommendation, not a policy, plus nobody >> objected timeframe-wise before. > > http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/glep/glep-0040.html > > "The package has spent a reasonable amount of time in ~arch first. > Thirty days is the usual figure, although this is clearly only a > guideline. For critical packages, a much longer duration is expected. > For small packages which have only minor changes between versions, a > shorter period is sometimes appropriate." > > I would consider the kernel a critical package. Sure I could have worded > my original mail a little better. > 'is expected'. Portage is also a critical package and I doubt it's ever spent 30 days in ~arch. As always, maintainer knows best (and you can obviously blame dsd if all hell breaks loose :)) -Alec -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Planning for automatic assignment of bugs
On Thu, 2007-04-26 at 22:01 -0700, Robin H. Johnson wrote: > On Fri, Apr 27, 2007 at 02:33:50AM +0200, Danny van Dyk wrote: > > > Both 'assign' and 'cc' (and derivations thereof are not suitable). > > notification=assignment|cc|none ? > This is to answer expose's question as well, but the attribute should > only indicate if the maintainer entry should be used for any automatic > process at all, not how to use it. > > One of the reasons is that multiple maintainers each with > notification=assignment obviously won't work, and it's non-trivial to > validate via the DTD (yes, DTDs suck compared to XSchema, I know). > > I intend that the first non-excluded maintainer entry is the one used > for the automatic process. > > In terms of implementing this in the DTD, I'm going to specify that > 'contact=1' (or whatever name we settle on) is the default, so that we > don't break validation of any existing metadata: > >contact (0|1) 1 -- should this maintainer be used by > -- automatic processes? > > > > In light of the above, how about 'automatic=0'? Please keep with your original idea of letting maintainers opt out vs some of the ideas proposed in this thread where maintainers have to opt in as I'm sure the metadata.xml files wont be updated by enough people to really gain the benefit of what we are trying to do here if they have to do opt in. Thanks. -- Ned Ludd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Linux 2.6.21 plans
Daniel Drake kirjoitti: > Petteri Räty wrote: >> Why would the kernel have to go stable before the usual month dictated >> by policy? Yes there are usually security bugs but you did not mention >> that as a reason in your post. > > At last check this was a recommendation, not a policy, plus nobody > objected timeframe-wise before. http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/glep/glep-0040.html "The package has spent a reasonable amount of time in ~arch first. Thirty days is the usual figure, although this is clearly only a guideline. For critical packages, a much longer duration is expected. For small packages which have only minor changes between versions, a shorter period is sometimes appropriate." I would consider the kernel a critical package. Sure I could have worded my original mail a little better. Regards, Petteri signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Linux 2.6.21 plans
Duncan wrote: I'm running (vanilla) rc7-git10 ATM, and have two possible regressions remaining here If reproducible on gentoo-soures-2.6.21, please file bug reports for them or they will get lost. Daniel -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Linux 2.6.21 plans
Petteri Räty wrote: Why would the kernel have to go stable before the usual month dictated by policy? Yes there are usually security bugs but you did not mention that as a reason in your post. At last check this was a recommendation, not a policy, plus nobody objected timeframe-wise before. Also, as noted in my mail I anticipate this taking more than a week from the point where we ask arch teams to consider stabling. Daniel -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] new herd: theology
On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 09:56:44 +0200 Matti Bickel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Jeroen Roovers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I shall contemplate fiercely on building my own herd of nightly > > bloodsuckers, zombies and cannibals. I don't know whether to call it > > 'postnuclear-vampirism' or just plain 'satanism' yet. > > I'm interested. Will you bring back xmms? Will your program include > last-rites for packages you "convert" over from maintainer-needed? Yes, and maybe "inhumanities" would be a better idea for a herd. Although converting all the maintainer-needed sounds like vampirism a lot. > Oh, and about that "theology" herd - i do find 'theology' a kinda > narrow naming, but that's just me. My point exactly. However, as long as they drive people to coordinate their work better, I don't care what herds are called. For all I care you start giving each herd a mascot. Kind regards, JeR -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Planning for automatic assignment of bugs
On 4/27/07, Nguyen Thai Ngoc Duy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 4/26/07, Joshua Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Nguyen Thai Ngoc Duy wrote: > > It should take devaway into account. > > > why? Seriously, dev-away != dev retired... having it take devaway into > account is pointless in my opinion as it won't improve it being properly > assigned...as it'll be covered in other cases, and its not like there's > not bugs for all of us dev's that have not sat there for a month or so, > at some point I meant if a maintainer is away, his/her herd should be assignee with him/her CCed. Eh; if the maintainer has been away for months (a.k.a MIA), then yeah... otherwise, no reason for this if someone's away for a week. Sorry to disappoint you and others here, but the scripts will lack artificial intelligence and frankly I don't see what exactly are you expecting from this whole thing. Anyway, good luck. ;) -- Jakub Moc Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] new herd: theology
Josh Sled wrote: On Thu, 2007-04-26 at 20:03 -0600, Steve Dibb wrote: The idea came up a few months ago about creating a 'religion' herd. I finally got around to following through, and with robbat2's help, created the 'theology' herd. The basic description is to take care of packages relating to religion, genealogy and humanities in general. If that's the case, might not "humanities" be a better name? That was actually my first choice as well, but after talking to robbat2 about it, we decided on 'theology' instead. The fact is, all the packages but one we currently maintain are directly and obviously related to religion, and it seemed like it would be silly to create herds for each social categorization. In the end, I tried my best to make up for it by noting in the herds.xml that the description is to take care of "Religious, genealogy, humanities-related packages". Also, for the curious, here's the list of packages the herd will help to take care of: Packages(8): app-misc/gramps app-text/bibletime app-text/gnomesword app-text/sword app-text/sword-modules games-misc/fortune-mod-mormon games-misc/fortune-mod-scriptures kde-misc/kio-sword If I missed anything, please be sure to let me know. Thanks guys Steve -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Planning for automatic assignment of bugs
On 4/26/07, Joshua Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Nguyen Thai Ngoc Duy wrote: > On 4/26/07, Robin H. Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Case 2 - Metadata contains a single maintainer >> -- >> - The herd field is not used. >> - The maintainer address is used as the bugzilla assignee. >> This is important for all the herds that have aliases that are NOT the >> same as their herd name! >> This diverges from existing manual practice, to avoid unnecessary >> duplicate mail, and means that existing metadata may need a cleanup. > > It should take devaway into account. > why? Seriously, dev-away != dev retired... having it take devaway into account is pointless in my opinion as it won't improve it being properly assigned...as it'll be covered in other cases, and its not like there's not bugs for all of us dev's that have not sat there for a month or so, at some point I meant if a maintainer is away, his/her herd should be assignee with him/her CCed. -- Duy -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] New project: Gentoo Artwork
Jakub Moc ha scritto: > On 4/27/07, Dawid Węgliński <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Ciaran McCreesh napisał(a): >> > On Thu, 26 Apr 2007 19:03:02 -0600 >> > Steve Dibb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> Sweet. Are you gonna bring back those Gentoo icons that mysteriously >> >> disappeared? :) >> > >> > The ones with the copyright problems? >> > >> >> I'm out of topic i think. Could you amplify, please? > > http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=158197 > http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-nfp/msg_01213.xml > http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_141498.xml IIRC the problem is only for the Windows icons http://web.archive.org/web/20060223065658/www.gentoo.org/dyn/icons/WIN.xml -- Timothy `Drizzt` Redaelli - http://dev.gentoo.org/~drizzt/ FreeSBIE Developer, Gentoo Developer, GUFI Staff There are two major products that come out of Berkeley: LSD and UNIX. We don't believe this to be a coincidence. -- Jeremy S. Anderson signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
[gentoo-dev] Last rites: dev-java/jcs-bin
+# Krzysiek Pawlik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (27 Apr 2007) +# Mask binary-only version of jcs, please use dev-java/jcs, +# will be removed from the tree around end of May. +dev-java/jcs-bin + "end of May" is 27 of May ;) -- Krzysiek Pawlik key id: 0xBC51 desktop-misc, desktop-dock, x86, java, apache, ppc... signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Planning for automatic assignment of bugs
Robin H. Johnson wrote: > [...] the attribute should only indicate if the maintainer entry should be > used for any automatic process at all, not how to use it. Oh, I thought you were talking about the name of the variable. > I intend that the first non-excluded maintainer entry is the one used > for the automatic process. This could even make the need for "contact=0|1" unneccessary (since at least one bugzilla account should be a valid assignee), yet it's of course better to still have it anyway. > In light of the above, how about 'automatic=0'? Kind of what I proposed, though I'd include "assign" and/or as Jan jkt Kundrát proposed "bug" somewhere in the variable name. Like... "AutoBugAssign=whatever" or so. Daniel -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Our profiles/updates handling is not smart enough
On Thu, 26 Apr 2007 22:00:18 +0300 Petteri Räty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~ $ grep javahelp -r /usr/portage/profiles/updates/ > /usr/portage/profiles/updates/3Q-2004:move dev-java/javahelp > dev-java/javahelp-bin > > Well nowadays Sun has put javahelp under GPL so now we have > dev-java/javahelp again. The problem is that Portage now uses this old > entry to rename the package back to javahelp-bin. > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~ $ qfile /usr/bin/jhindexer > dev-java/javahelp-bin (/usr/bin/jhindexer) > > So should we make it a policy to remove old entries after some time, or > make sure people check for old entries when adding new ones? I used to remove old "updates" files from time to time in the past, guess it's time to do it again. Marius -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: new herd: theology
>... and if it's more convenient for them in a > theology herd, why should it be a problem for those not interested in the > package? It might raise a few eyebrows here or there, but if it's being > well maintained, that is the problem, because what is theology? only christianity, only islam? i would prefer to name it religions, so everyone who owns a belief(buddhism, wicca, heathen,... TOO) can place his/her software. > there are more critical things to argue about. YES!! Steffen -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: new herd: theology
On Fri, Apr 27, 2007 at 11:25:01 +0200, Duncan wrote: > > It's a very good question, it was posed at the time, it was never > > answered and at last we can now say it was almost completely ignored. > > I (and I expect others who know) didn't answer this before, as it would > have been too easy to start an OT subthread I didn't want to start, but I > trust everyone minding the CoC will prevent that from occurring now. > > Briefly (and intended to be neutrally), the Latter Day Saints, commonly > known as the Mormons (maybe other groups as well??), have a religious > interest in genealogy, so having it in the religion/theology herd would > make sense to them. That should answer the question, and give a place to > start for those interested in looking it up. And a sect from the remote regions of Lapland believes that haskell is a godsend and adore the ghc source code as their Holy Scripture, should we move the haskell herd to theology as well? > However, I agree the sciences or a general humanities herd will make more > sense to most folks. I don't feel strongly enough about it to be worth > arguing a maintainer's choice of herd for their packages, however. After > all, they're the ones taking responsibility for it in the tree, > regardless of the herd it's in, and if it's more convenient for them in a > theology herd, why should it be a problem for those not interested in the > package? It might raise a few eyebrows here or there, but if it's being > well maintained, there are more critical things to argue about. Sure, there are more critical things out there, but why should people, on such a critical subject, chose to label packages that have nothing to do with religion with a "theology" stamp? /Alexandre -- Hi, I'm a .signature virus! Please copy me in your ~/.signature. pgp8gL7leaSHF.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Linux 2.6.21 plans
Daniel Drake kirjoitti: > > This means that we may be pushing for 2.6.21 stable on x86 and amd64 on > May 17th. If important issues come up (which they may well do), this > will obviously be delayed, but do keep this date in mind. > Why would the kernel have to go stable before the usual month dictated by policy? Yes there are usually security bugs but you did not mention that as a reason in your post. Regards, Petteri signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] New project: Gentoo Artwork
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 It would be nice if there where some CD/DVD labels created, that people could print and put on their LiveCDs/InstallCDs :-) Bjarke Dawid Węgliński skrev: > Hi there > As a fresh developer i would like to introduce you all new subproject I > have just started. It is Gentoo Artwork Project. Its official webpage is > under [1]. Project consists of two members so far, so this is why we > enlist everyone who would like to help us in creating artwork > gentoo-related stuff. Do not forget to visit us in #gentoo-artwork. :) > > @ GWN - could you guys write about us in the next version of gwn please? > > [1]. http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/desktop/artwork/index.xml > > Regards -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFGMcJFO+Ewtpi9rLERAluXAJ4gZZVammSCu5tt1520Ffs3ZZv8uACgrecs 67ymo1sp5zYOGZYoGdw60lo= =+FV8 -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
[gentoo-dev] Re: Linux 2.6.21 plans
Greg KH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted [EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Thu, 26 Apr 2007 21:16:26 -0700: > As no one was actually fixing any of the remaining bugs that were > reported, what were the kernel developers supposed to do, just sit > around and wait another week for no reason? I wasn't intending to second-guess the decision (who me, a little nobody?), just pointing out that the ride to stability might not be so smooth this time, both from my experience and in the opinion of the guy who has been doing the regression tracking upstream... > Now we have more people testing :) > > And yes, this release might be a bit more unstable due to the large core > changes, but in my testing, I have had no problems. Agreed with both sentiments, even if I'm having a couple minor problems that could be related (unverified as yet). -- Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. "Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
[gentoo-dev] Re: new herd: theology
Jeroen Roovers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted [EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Fri, 27 Apr 2007 07:24:18 +0200: > On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 00:11:26 -0400 > Josh Sled <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> If that's the case, might not "humanities" be a better name? >> >> E.g., I don't know what genealogy has to do with theology, but I do see >> that both relate to the human condition. > > It's a very good question, it was posed at the time, it was never > answered and at last we can now say it was almost completely ignored. I (and I expect others who know) didn't answer this before, as it would have been too easy to start an OT subthread I didn't want to start, but I trust everyone minding the CoC will prevent that from occurring now. Briefly (and intended to be neutrally), the Latter Day Saints, commonly known as the Mormons (maybe other groups as well??), have a religious interest in genealogy, so having it in the religion/theology herd would make sense to them. That should answer the question, and give a place to start for those interested in looking it up. However, I agree the sciences or a general humanities herd will make more sense to most folks. I don't feel strongly enough about it to be worth arguing a maintainer's choice of herd for their packages, however. After all, they're the ones taking responsibility for it in the tree, regardless of the herd it's in, and if it's more convenient for them in a theology herd, why should it be a problem for those not interested in the package? It might raise a few eyebrows here or there, but if it's being well maintained, there are more critical things to argue about. -- Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. "Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] New project: Gentoo Artwork
On 4/27/07, Dawid Węgliński <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Ciaran McCreesh napisał(a): > On Thu, 26 Apr 2007 19:03:02 -0600 > Steve Dibb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Sweet. Are you gonna bring back those Gentoo icons that mysteriously >> disappeared? :) > > The ones with the copyright problems? > I'm out of topic i think. Could you amplify, please? http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=158197 http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-nfp/msg_01213.xml http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_141498.xml -- Jakub Moc Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [gentoo-dev] New project: Gentoo Artwork
Ciaran McCreesh napisał(a): > On Thu, 26 Apr 2007 19:03:02 -0600 > Steve Dibb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Sweet. Are you gonna bring back those Gentoo icons that mysteriously >> disappeared? :) > > The ones with the copyright problems? > I'm out of topic i think. Could you amplify, please? -- ,-. | Dawid Węgliński | | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | | cla @ irc.freenode.net | | GPG: 295E72D9 | `-' -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Planning for automatic assignment of bugs
Robin H. Johnson wrote: > In terms of implementing this in the DTD, I'm going to specify that > 'contact=1' (or whatever name we settle on) is the default, so that we > don't break validation of any existing metadata: > >contact (0|1) 1 -- should this maintainer be used by > -- automatic processes? > > > > In light of the above, how about 'automatic=0'? AFAIK the preferred way of specifying boolean values in XML is to use contact="contact", not contact="1". Speaking of name, I'd try to include string "bug" somewhere in the attribute name, like "bugzilla-auto-assignment" or something... Cheers, -jkt -- cd /local/pub && more beer > /dev/mouth signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
[PROCTORS] Re: [gentoo-dev] new herd: theology
On Fri, Apr 27, 2007 at 07:54:00AM +0200, Steffen Brumm wrote: > and darwin is satan, other beliefs than christianity - death penalty, fight > the sciences, womans have to go behind the cooker or into the open flame, > only conservapedia is real,... This certainly is an interesting first post to the Gentoo development list, not sure if it's pure trolling or just a joke gone bad. In any way, this is not exactly Gentoo development related and not really CoC [1] compliant. Please read the CoC before posting again. Everyone else, please don't reply to this subthread as well for the same reasons. cheers, Wernfried [1] http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/council/coc.xml -- Wernfried Haas (amne) - amne at gentoo dot org Gentoo Forums: http://forums.gentoo.org IRC: #gentoo-forums on freenode - email: forum-mods at gentoo dot org pgpGOx81MaWTH.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] new herd: theology
Jeroen Roovers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I shall contemplate fiercely on building my own herd of nightly > bloodsuckers, zombies and cannibals. I don't know whether to call it > 'postnuclear-vampirism' or just plain 'satanism' yet. I'm interested. Will you bring back xmms? Will your program include last-rites for packages you "convert" over from maintainer-needed? Oh, and about that "theology" herd - i do find 'theology' a kinda narrow naming, but that's just me. -- Regards, Matti Bickel Encrypted/Signed Email preferred pgpTVOJsY2bso.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] New project: Gentoo Artwork
On Thu, 26 Apr 2007 19:03:02 -0600 Steve Dibb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Sweet. Are you gonna bring back those Gentoo icons that mysteriously > disappeared? :) The ones with the copyright problems? -- Ciaran McCreesh signature.asc Description: PGP signature
