[gentoo-dev] Re: joining the Software Freedom Conservancy
Michael Cummings wrote: >>> a. The Project Will Be Free Software. The Conservancy and the Project >>> agree that >>>any software distributed by the Project will be distributed solely as >>> Free Software. >> If that's not a problem I think this is a great idea. > It's not a problem - what we actually produce as a product, the ebuilds, > etc., > are free to distribute. They may want to change their language then from "software distributed" to "software produced" or something. Taken literally it seems to imply differently. Is it possible to ask your contact to clarify this, just to be safe? -- dirtyepicyou'd be tossed up or wash up, the narrator relates gentoo org in a spartan antarctican walk for many days 9B81 6C9F E791 83BB 3AB3 5B2D E625 A073 8379 37E8 (0x837937E8) -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: joining the Software Freedom Conservancy
On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 18:03:50 -0700 Chris Gianelloni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, 2007-07-23 at 14:06 -0700, Donnie Berkholz wrote: > > Chris Gianelloni wrote: > > > Well, we'd be the second distribution, as Debian uses the SFC. > > > Also, realize that we've already gone through all of this with > > > the SFC and wouldn't even be bringing it up as an option if the > > > SFC hadn't already approved us. They are aware of the state of > > > our tree and that we do ship *ebuilds* for proprietary software. > > > Remember that we don't distribute closed-source software, we > > > distribute *ebuilds* for said software. > > > > Are you sure we don't mirror any binary software or non-free > > software? I would be shocked if our mirrors contained nothing > > violating the open-source definition. > > We have lots that violates "open source" by any definition, but we > don't create it. I completely agree with you. But the part quoted by Ryan Hill doesn't say created. It says distributed. Perhaps we need to modify the wording of their standard agreement to reflect how distributions work. Thanks, Donnie signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] baselayout-2 stablisation plans
On Mon, 2007-07-23 at 22:24 +0100, Roy Marples wrote: > On Mon, 2007-07-23 at 13:30 -0700, Chris Gianelloni wrote: > > We'll definitely want the same version stable across the board. I'll be > > sure to work with Roy and you to ensure we come to an agreement on what > > to use and that we're all on the same page. > > Fair enough. > > Should I open a bug (when the time comes) just requesting the blessing > of the arch teams or just unmask it anyway? Well, the "best" for us is if it is already stable in the tree before we snapshot, as that means it was tested and stabilized prior to our snapshot and likely has more QA done on it before we even start the release. If we can do that, then Release Engineering will be set and we'll love you long time. -- Chris Gianelloni Release Engineering Strategic Lead Alpha/AMD64/x86 Architecture Teams Games Developer/Council Member/Foundation Trustee Gentoo Foundation signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: New lists and their usage
On Mon, 2007-07-23 at 22:20 +0100, Roy Marples wrote: > On Mon, 2007-07-23 at 13:41 -0700, Chris Gianelloni wrote: > > On Sun, 2007-07-22 at 21:26 +0200, Jan Kundrát wrote: > > > Ryan Hill wrote: > > > > zombieswift/new devs-project > > > > council/trustee nominations -project > > > > > > Then it's worth cross-posting -core or -dev-announce or similar. I > > > thought that goal of -project was to keep devs away from poisonous > > > content without impairing their Gentoo-awareness. > > > > This is what I am afraid of, as it now looks like all we've accomplished > > is making it more difficult for someone to keep their eyes on > > everything. > > On the other hand it's easier to keep our eyes off stuff which a large > chunk of devs deem twaddle. You can subscribe to many lists easily - not > so easily to filter one massive list. See, but I also would like to actually see some of this stuff, without having to worry about which list my reply is supposed to go to (come on, that's just getting ludicrous) and without reading the same emails repeatedly (auto-forwarding). As I see it now, to be even the least bit informed to do things like... oh... voting for the Council, I'd have to follow multiple lists. > > [ ... ] > > Yeah, you should take that to -project or some other suitable list :P Once some consensus is made and it actually becomes policy, sure. Until then, I'm going to continue to use this list for the same things it's been used for up until now. Once we've agreed upon how the lists should be used, then I see no issue with using them that way, meaning *this* conversation does belong here, as there's been no consensus amongst our developer pool, nor a completed Council decision to change the policy. Like I said, the two proposals I had seen were: - gentoo-dev-announce - gentoo-project I hadn't seen anyone asking for both, so we've now got to figure out whether to drop one list or repurpose one of them. Personally, I'm for repurposing gentoo-dev-announce to be a global "development" announce list with no reply-to munging/filtering and developer-only posting. I think doing this would be complimentary to gentoo-project and would be useful to me, allowing me to know about conversations on other lists and allowing *me* to *choose* when I want to participate, which is a vast improvement from what we have had until now. -- Chris Gianelloni Release Engineering Strategic Lead Alpha/AMD64/x86 Architecture Teams Games Developer/Council Member/Foundation Trustee Gentoo Foundation signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: joining the Software Freedom Conservancy
On Mon, 2007-07-23 at 14:06 -0700, Donnie Berkholz wrote: > Chris Gianelloni wrote: > > Well, we'd be the second distribution, as Debian uses the SFC. Also, > > realize that we've already gone through all of this with the SFC and > > wouldn't even be bringing it up as an option if the SFC hadn't already > > approved us. They are aware of the state of our tree and that we do > > ship *ebuilds* for proprietary software. Remember that we don't > > distribute closed-source software, we distribute *ebuilds* for said > > software. > > Are you sure we don't mirror any binary software or non-free software? I > would be shocked if our mirrors contained nothing violating the > open-source definition. We have lots that violates "open source" by any definition, but we don't create it. -- Chris Gianelloni Release Engineering Strategic Lead Alpha/AMD64/x86 Architecture Teams Games Developer/Council Member/Foundation Trustee Gentoo Foundation signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
[gentoo-dev] Last rites: media-fonts/artwiz-fonts
# Ryan Hill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (23 Jul 2007) # duplicated by media-fonts/artwiz-aleczapka-en. use that instead. # Bug #186400 media-fonts/artwiz-fonts -- dirtyepicyou'd be tossed up or wash up, the narrator relates gentoo org in a spartan antarctican walk for many days 9B81 6C9F E791 83BB 3AB3 5B2D E625 A073 8379 37E8 (0x837937E8) -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
[gentoo-dev] Nominations Update
Just a reminder about nominations and voting... If anyone is still interested in running, you have one week left for nominations. Most who have accepted havent told us why we should vote for them. While that information is not required perhaps it should be if we are to make intelligent votes - sorry this isnt a popularity contest so give us some content to review. 1) What you will do 2) Why you will do it 3) How you will do it 4) What is the timescale for doing it 5) What experience do you have with this or a similar role 6) Why do you think you are qualified 7) How you plan to balance a council role with your current Gentoo role 8) How much time can you dedicate to the council role Kind regards, Christina Fullam Gentoo Developer Relations Lead | GWN Assistant Editor ** The below information is based off the information on this site: http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/council/voting-logs/council-2007-nominees.xml If any information is incorrect, please let me know so it may be corrected. ** Those who have yet to accept or decline (lack of acceptance by July 31 equals decline): Steve Dibb beandog Donnie Berkholz dberkholz Daniel Drake dsd Stefan Schweizer genstef John Mylchreest johnm Danny van Dyk kugelfang Marien Zwart marienz Joshua Saddler nightmorph Seemant Kulleen seemant Tavis Ormandy taviso Zac Medico zmedico Those who have accepted though havent sent information regarding why we should vote for them: (NeddySeagoon and wolf31o2 sent ideas to comment on, see above) Wernfried Haas amne Petteri Räty betelgeuse Christel Dahlskjær christel Tobias Scherbaum dertobi123 Diego Pettenò flameeyes Sune Kloppenborg Jeppesen jaervosz Markus Ullmann jokey Luca Barbato lu_zero Roy Marples uberlord Mike Frysinger vapier Those who did send information for voters to review (link to info provided on above URL): Peter Weller welp -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] baselayout-2 stablisation plans
On Monday 23 July 2007, Roy Marples wrote: > On Mon, 2007-07-23 at 13:30 -0700, Chris Gianelloni wrote: > > We'll definitely want the same version stable across the board. I'll be > > sure to work with Roy and you to ensure we come to an agreement on what > > to use and that we're all on the same page. > > Fair enough. > > Should I open a bug (when the time comes) just requesting the blessing > of the arch teams or just unmask it anyway? open a bug, package.mask it, and let arch teams test it by filling out KEYWORDS ... once everyone is on board, unmask it > I did compile test it on a s390 a few months ago, but I seem to have > lost my account there now. that's cause you smell like poop. oh and we formatted those boxes. -mike signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-dev] baselayout-2 stablisation plans
On Mon, 2007-07-23 at 13:30 -0700, Chris Gianelloni wrote: > We'll definitely want the same version stable across the board. I'll be > sure to work with Roy and you to ensure we come to an agreement on what > to use and that we're all on the same page. Fair enough. Should I open a bug (when the time comes) just requesting the blessing of the arch teams or just unmask it anyway? Note that the following arch's have been tested by people other than me amd64 arm ppc ppc64 sparc (fbsd only i think so far) x86 I did compile test it on a s390 a few months ago, but I seem to have lost my account there now. Thanks Roy -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: joining the Software Freedom Conservancy
On Sun, 2007-07-22 at 17:28 -0700, Josh Saddler wrote: > Ryan Hill wrote: > > Marius Mauch wrote: > >> While I think this would be an excellent move, there are a few topics > >> that concern me a bit: > >> 1) just to be sure, did someone check the transfer agreement between the > >> Foundation and the old Gentoo, Inc for potential problems? > >> 2) what would this mean for our copyright situation? In detail: > >> a) who would (legally) own the copyright? > >> b) what would (in theory) be involved if we'd want to enforce/change > >> the license? > >> c) if the copyright were owned by the Conservancy, would we have to > >> change our copyright headers (in existing and/or new files)? > > > > It might be worth noting that it appears that Gentoo would be the first > > distribution to join. I'd be interested in knowing if the SFC considers > > distributing closed-source or proprietary software (nero, ati/nvidia > > drivers, vmware) to be "producing non-free software (as per the > > Conservancy's charitable purpose)" as mentioned in section 2(b) of their > > notes. Paragraph 2(a) seems to prohibit it. > > > >> a. The Project Will Be Free Software. The Conservancy and the Project > >> agree that > >>any software distributed by the Project will be distributed solely as > >> Free Software. > > > > If that's not a problem I think this is a great idea. > > We don't "distribute" those, do we? A look at their ebuilds shows that > those are just downloaded from upstream, not from Gentoo mirrors. Well, > except for Nero. > > At least we aren't the creators of it! > > Does that document you mention define what "Free Software" is? nvidia > drivers are free to download, install, use, in the sense that they don't > cost anything. Bah, legal hassle! It doesn't matter, since the SFC has already said they would welcome us. I think Grant did a quick "informal" LICENSE scan and determined that like 95% of the tree was GPL-licensed. That high of a percentage was enough for the SFC, along with our informal policy of preferring OSS over proprietary. After all, we could still be offering XFree86, but chose to go with the more "open" of the two and focus all of our energies there. We've also seen quite a few external drivers get removed over the years after the open replacements got good enough to replace the proprietary drivers. I'm sure many of you can come up with your own examples of this. The point was that we *do* push free software, and our products are free software and not proprietary. The only real problem that I have here is it limits our ability to ever have a non-free fork, such as an enterprise fork, run by us, without leaving the SFC. Of course, we're nowhere near that point now, so it shouldn't be a primary concern, especially considering that we can leave the SFC of our own volition at any time, and the SFC will even help us set up ourselves when/if that times comes. -- Chris Gianelloni Release Engineering Strategic Lead Alpha/AMD64/x86 Architecture Teams Games Developer/Council Member/Foundation Trustee Gentoo Foundation signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: New lists and their usage
Chris Gianelloni wrote: On Sun, 2007-07-22 at 21:26 +0200, Jan Kundrát wrote: Ryan Hill wrote: zombieswift/new devs-project council/trustee nominations -project Then it's worth cross-posting -core or -dev-announce or similar. I thought that goal of -project was to keep devs away from poisonous content without impairing their Gentoo-awareness. This is what I am afraid of, as it now looks like all we've accomplished is making it more difficult for someone to keep their eyes on everything. That's what you get for allowing trolls on the list.Sorry for being brutally honest but it has been a long time coming... George -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: New lists and their usage
On Mon, 2007-07-23 at 13:41 -0700, Chris Gianelloni wrote: > On Sun, 2007-07-22 at 21:26 +0200, Jan Kundrát wrote: > > Ryan Hill wrote: > > > zombieswift/new devs -project > > > council/trustee nominations -project > > > > Then it's worth cross-posting -core or -dev-announce or similar. I > > thought that goal of -project was to keep devs away from poisonous > > content without impairing their Gentoo-awareness. > > This is what I am afraid of, as it now looks like all we've accomplished > is making it more difficult for someone to keep their eyes on > everything. On the other hand it's easier to keep our eyes off stuff which a large chunk of devs deem twaddle. You can subscribe to many lists easily - not so easily to filter one massive list. > [ ... ] Yeah, you should take that to -project or some other suitable list :P Thanks Roy -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: joining the Software Freedom Conservancy
Chris Gianelloni wrote: > Well, we'd be the second distribution, as Debian uses the SFC. Also, > realize that we've already gone through all of this with the SFC and > wouldn't even be bringing it up as an option if the SFC hadn't already > approved us. They are aware of the state of our tree and that we do > ship *ebuilds* for proprietary software. Remember that we don't > distribute closed-source software, we distribute *ebuilds* for said > software. Are you sure we don't mirror any binary software or non-free software? I would be shocked if our mirrors contained nothing violating the open-source definition. Thanks, Donnie signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: New lists and their usage
On Sun, 2007-07-22 at 20:33 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Sun, 22 Jul 2007 21:26:07 +0200 > Jan Kundrát <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Ryan Hill wrote: > > > zombieswift/new devs -project > > > council/trustee nominations -project > > > > Then it's worth cross-posting -core or -dev-announce or similar. I > > thought that goal of -project was to keep devs away from poisonous > > content without impairing their Gentoo-awareness. > > Ah, you mean you thought -project was a dumping ground where people > could be sent when you wanted to ignore someone? Shouldn't you take this to -project? :P -- Chris Gianelloni Release Engineering Strategic Lead Alpha/AMD64/x86 Architecture Teams Games Developer/Council Member/Foundation Trustee Gentoo Foundation signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: New lists and their usage
On Sun, 2007-07-22 at 21:26 +0200, Jan Kundrát wrote: > Ryan Hill wrote: > > zombieswift/new devs-project > > council/trustee nominations -project > > Then it's worth cross-posting -core or -dev-announce or similar. I > thought that goal of -project was to keep devs away from poisonous > content without impairing their Gentoo-awareness. This is what I am afraid of, as it now looks like all we've accomplished is making it more difficult for someone to keep their eyes on everything. Also, what is the point of dev-announce, then? Realize that dev-announce and project were two separate "solutions" for the same "problem" so now we have two different ways of getting the same point across. If dev-announce continues down the path it is currently going of being only some precursor to dev, I don't see the point, at all. If it is opened up more as I'd outlined previously, making it useful for *all* lists, then I definitely see the reasoning. I'm still not sure I see the point on project, though, since nearly anything being discussed on project could go to another list. I mean, anything policy-related could go to the appropriate list, such as gentoo-council, gentoo-nfp, or gentoo-devrel, so what exactly *is* left, aside from flames, that is non-technical in nature, doesn't fall under the Council/Trustees/DevRel, but still is a global issue? -- Chris Gianelloni Release Engineering Strategic Lead Alpha/AMD64/x86 Architecture Teams Games Developer/Council Member/Foundation Trustee Gentoo Foundation signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: joining the Software Freedom Conservancy
On Sun, 2007-07-22 at 12:49 -0600, Ryan Hill wrote: > Marius Mauch wrote: > > While I think this would be an excellent move, there are a few topics > > that concern me a bit: > > 1) just to be sure, did someone check the transfer agreement between the > > Foundation and the old Gentoo, Inc for potential problems? > > 2) what would this mean for our copyright situation? In detail: > > a) who would (legally) own the copyright? > > b) what would (in theory) be involved if we'd want to enforce/change > > the license? > > c) if the copyright were owned by the Conservancy, would we have to > > change our copyright headers (in existing and/or new files)? > > It might be worth noting that it appears that Gentoo would be the first > distribution to join. I'd be interested in knowing if the SFC considers > distributing closed-source or proprietary software (nero, ati/nvidia > drivers, vmware) to be "producing non-free software (as per the > Conservancy's charitable purpose)" as mentioned in section 2(b) of their > notes. Paragraph 2(a) seems to prohibit it. > > > a. The Project Will Be Free Software. The Conservancy and the Project > > agree that > >any software distributed by the Project will be distributed solely as > > Free Software. > > If that's not a problem I think this is a great idea. Well, we'd be the second distribution, as Debian uses the SFC. Also, realize that we've already gone through all of this with the SFC and wouldn't even be bringing it up as an option if the SFC hadn't already approved us. They are aware of the state of our tree and that we do ship *ebuilds* for proprietary software. Remember that we don't distribute closed-source software, we distribute *ebuilds* for said software. -- Chris Gianelloni Release Engineering Strategic Lead Alpha/AMD64/x86 Architecture Teams Games Developer/Council Member/Foundation Trustee Gentoo Foundation signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] baselayout-2 stablisation plans
On Sat, 2007-07-21 at 17:25 -0700, Josh Saddler wrote: > >> 5) Do you have a rough estimate (month, 3 weeks, 5 weeks, what?) on when > >> the first arches might be stabilizing 2.x? > > > > No. > > If the RC's prove stable and no serious regressions are reported for a > > month then we'll probably release a final 2.0.0 and get arch teams to > > mark stable a week later, or right away if no last minute changes have > > been made. > > What'd really be nice is if it goes stable for all arches (or at least > all of the ones that matter, subjectively) either in time or after the > next release. Otherwise, there's going to be some more complications > from users who install from media containing old baselayout-1.x and have > to deal with the new 2.x right away. I guess we'll see. /me pokes > wolf31o2. ;) We'll definitely want the same version stable across the board. I'll be sure to work with Roy and you to ensure we come to an agreement on what to use and that we're all on the same page. -- Chris Gianelloni Release Engineering Strategic Lead Alpha/AMD64/x86 Architecture Teams Games Developer/Council Member/Foundation Trustee Gentoo Foundation signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] baselayout-2 stablisation plans
On Sat, 2007-07-21 at 11:48 -0700, Josh Saddler wrote: > 4) What baselayout will be used in the next release? (Maybe that's more > of a releng question.) Whichever is stable around September(ish) time frame will be what we use, unless it is requested that we use something different. -- Chris Gianelloni Release Engineering Strategic Lead Alpha/AMD64/x86 Architecture Teams Games Developer/Council Member/Foundation Trustee Gentoo Foundation signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] please drop support for 2.4
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Rajiv Aaron Manglani wrote: > hello all. i would like to propose that we officially drop support for > 2.4 kernel profiles (especially default-linux/x86/no-nptl/2.4). over the > last few months it has been increasingly difficult to keep 2.4 systems > up to date. here are some bugs i filed recently discussing this: > > http://bugs.gentoo.org/174697 > unmask linux-headers-2.6 on 2.4 profiles > (eix 0.8.8 compile failure) > > http://bugs.gentoo.org/154018 > alsa-driver-1.0.13 fails compile on hardened-2.4 and vanilla-sources > > http://bugs.gentoo.org/177357 > media-sound/alsa-driver-1.0.14_rc2-r1 compile failure > > > thoughts from the arch teams? It's in the pipe for SPARC, probably by the 2007.1 release. 2007.0 no longer supports 2.4, only 2006.1 does. - -- Gustavo Zacarias Gentoo/SPARC monkey -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7-ecc0.1.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFGpQ6QV3G/IBCn/JARAoURAJwNtrqLebRrnRD6JMwXUA4VXggHOwCfdI1X gLT+cCnRGKXuawTuJdMQX28= =lw6J -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Nominations open for the Gentoo Council 2007/08
On Sat, 2007-07-21 at 13:31 +0100, Roy Bamford wrote: > That's the beginnings of a good election manifesto. All the candidates > need to explain, if they are elected :- > > 1. What they will do > 2. Why they will do it > 3. How they will do it > 4. Timescales for their plans. 5. Experience doing similar things in other arenas 6. Why they think they're qualified for the position 7. How they plan on adding the Council work into their normal Gentoo work load 8. How much time they have to dedicate to Council tasks These last two are probably some of the most important to me, since I have seen first-hand how much time the Council can take. Here's a glimpse, for the rest of you... When the Council was working on the CoC, I spent in excess of 50 hours in one week working solely on the CoC. This means I put my actual paying job on the back burner for the Council because I pretty much had to do so. The Council is *not* only a once a month job. You're a Council member every hour of every day for a year. > This information will allow the electorate to choose a team with > similar aims, so we get a cohesive council, not a collection of > individuals trying to take Gentoo in different directions. I know that I will likely be choosing people of a like mind to myself. I'll also probably be picking people the *least* likely to be pushing for a ton of changes, simply because I also don't think we need 7 people pushing in 7 directions only trying to get *their* ideas enacted. > Any candidate unwilling to prepare such a manifesto should withdraw now > as they clearly don't have the time or interest to take an active seat > on the council. Agreed. > Like it or not, the council is more of a social/political body than a > development body. This is really true. While the Council is the main technical body, we tend to make technical decisions very quickly and without controversy. Social/political issues are almost always very long-running and tend to take up more of our time. If I were to guess, I would say that 90% of what we do is technical, but the 10% that is non-technical takes up 90% of our time. -- Chris Gianelloni Release Engineering Strategic Lead Alpha/AMD64/x86 Architecture Teams Games Developer/Council Member/Foundation Trustee Gentoo Foundation signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] qmail.eclass draft
On Fri, 20 Jul 2007 11:52:02 +0200
Michael Hanselmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello Benedikt
>
> On Fri, Jul 13, 2007 at 01:37:11PM +0200, Benedikt Boehm wrote:
> > It is basically netqmail split into much smaller chunks so they can
> > be reused by other qmail variants as well.
>
> Okay, I looked through it and found some things which need
> reconsideration. I agree that user creation and such things can be
> easily done in an eclass. However, functions like qmail_src_unpack
> should be done in the ebuild. Putting them in an eclass and just doing
> "if (a) { … } else if (b) { … }" makes it harder to understand and
> unneccessarily complicated.
i thought about this, but i'd really like to see things like qmail-spp
and the gentoo qmail tarball be handled by the eclass, on the other
hand i agree that unpacking netqmail or qmail based on $FOO is not the
best idea. any suggestions?
>
> Greets,
> Michael
>
Bene
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
[gentoo-dev] Progress in the last year
Hi all, I'm giving a short talk Thursday at OSCON on Gentoo's progress in the past year. If you have any ideas for cool new features we've added, or whatever else, please email me _off-list_ with your responses. I'm sending this to -dev because I'm looking for _technical_ progress in areas I may not be aware of or have forgotten about. Thanks, Donnie signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] qmail.eclass draft
On Fri, 20 Jul 2007 23:17:46 +0200
Michael Hanselmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 20, 2007 at 10:05:23PM +0200, Benedikt Boehm wrote:
> > > qmail_base_install should be split in smaller functions, maybe
> > > with callbacks (if possible in bash).
>
> > There is now qmail_mini_install (called by every qmail ebuild) and
> > qmail_{full,man,sendmail}_install for the rest of a full blown
> > install.
>
> > I'm not sure what you mean with "callbacks" here, maybe you can
> > elaborate?
>
> If we have a common part which cannot, due to whatever reason, be
> split into several functions, but we've to do something package
> specific in between, we need callbacks. Just a sample (might not work
> at all, I'm not that much into eclasses):
>
> foo.eclass:
> foo_src_install() {
> # Some prefix code
> # …
>
> package_specific_code
>
> # Some postfix code
> # …
> }
>
> foo-simple.ebuild:
> src_install() { foo_src_install }
> package_specific_code() {
> # code for foo-simple
> }
>
> foo-adv.ebuild:
> src_install() { foo_src_install }
> package_specific_code() {
> # code for foo-adv
> }
i guess this could be done with some "eval" foo... going to run some
tests the next days
>
> > The qmail_*_install changes are already in my overlay,
>
> How can I get it using SVN? Looking at the site for more than a minute
> shouldn't be required to find it.
svn co http://overlays.gentoo.org/svn/dev/hollow
>
> Btw.: you didn't correct your blog posting to show the actual facts.
>
> Thanks,
> Michael
>
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: joining the Software Freedom Conservancy
On Sun, Jul 22, 2007 at 12:49:33PM -0600, Ryan Hill wrote: > It might be worth noting that it appears that Gentoo would be the first > distribution to join. I'd be interested in knowing if the SFC considers > distributing closed-source or proprietary software (nero, ati/nvidia > drivers, vmware) to be "producing non-free software (as per the > Conservancy's charitable purpose)" as mentioned in section 2(b) of their > notes. Paragraph 2(a) seems to prohibit it. > > > a. The Project Will Be Free Software. The Conservancy and the Project > > agree that > >any software distributed by the Project will be distributed solely as > > Free Software. > > If that's not a problem I think this is a great idea. > It's not a problem - what we actually produce as a product, the ebuilds, etc., are free to distribute. -- -o()o-- Michael Cummings |#gentoo-dev, #gentoo-perl Gentoo Perl Dev|on irc.freenode.net Gentoo/SPARC Gentoo/AMD64 GPG: 0543 6FA3 5F82 3A76 3BF7 8323 AB5C ED4E 9E7F 4E2E -o()o-- Hi, I'm a .signature virus! Please copy me in your ~/.signature. pgpmXDTwpL8SU.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] baselayout-2 stablisation plans
On Saturday 21 July 2007 16:36:03 Roy Marples wrote: > This is just a heads up for getting baselayout-2 stable. Next week I > plan to put baselayout-2.0.0_rc1 into the tree without any keywords and > it will be removed from package.mask (keeping the current alphas masked > though). Arch teams will then be pinged on a bug to keyword > baselayout-2. > > Well, that's about it. It's been a fun journey making baselayout-2 and > we're almost at the end of this road :) > > Thanks > > Roy Hereby a friendly reminder that gcc-config should be keyworded as well, current gcc-config isn’t compatible with baselayout-2. According to Mike gcc-config-1.4.0 is compatible with baselayout-2. (doesn’t work on my system, but I haven’t investigated yet). -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: New lists and their usage
Duncan wrote: > The idea is this. For non-tech posts, X-post the /first/ post, the > announcement of the idea (for new devs, nominations, etc, to both dev and > dev-announce), so those only paying attention to dev know about it. Set > the followup to project (not dev). Those who wish to discuss it, the > discussion goes to project. It seems to me that since -dev-announce is for topics both technical *and* non-technical, -dev-announce should *not* be automatically (or manually) cross-posted to -dev as a general rule. Also, I would consider it odd to set auto-reply munging for -dev-announce to -dev. >From the description of the new -dev-announce list, it does not seem to be an "announcement version" of -dev, but rather a list with a different purpose, so tying it to -dev, either via automatic reply munging or cross-posting does not make sense to me. -Joe -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: net-im/pidgin protocols
Dawid Węgliński wrote: That's why we do have ... --changelog switch to let users know about changes. Which is of no use when (as in this case) there is no associated version bump. j. (also, when every new version is a new slot - kernels and webapps) -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: net-im/pidgin protocols
Dnia 23-07-2007, pon o godzinie 13:38 +0200, Christian Faulhammer napisał(a): > "Eric Polino" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > Would it be possible to have all the protocols for net-im/pidgin > > turned on by default. We often get people coming to #pidgin looking > > for help as to why they can't get MSN or some other protocol working. > > It most often is because they haven't enabled the given protocol USE > > flag. > > Without doubting the decision made about the msn USE flag, here are > some quotes from a bug report: > > "I am not sure if it's a bug ... > anyway, at least on AMD64 you have removed MSN protocol. > Right now I am avoiding an upgrade because the flag has been marked as > not usable.[...]" > > [Some discussion later] > > "If I see (-msn%*) and as far as I know it means that you are removing > the protocol." [Editor's note: (-msn%) means that the USE flag has been > removed and was not enabled] > > [Even more bitching] > > "Otherwise, if this was not the case, it's not written anywhere that > this flag is incorporated oh, yes I know it is in the Changelog, > and I have read it before filing this bug, but come on ... that's not > the point. In this case, you should do like skype, i.e.: emerge pidgin > (msn) (yahoo) (icq) spell tcl tk -avahi -bonjour ... and so far and so > on ... and you should not delete/remove the flag in the way you did. > > Licq still uses msn flag so I user may understand that licq is the > only software supporting MSN." That's why we do have ChangeLogs and --changelog switch to let users know about changes. > V-Li > Regards -- ,-. | Dawid Węgliński | | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | | cla @ irc.freenode.net | | GPG: 295E72D9 | `-' -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
[gentoo-dev] Re: net-im/pidgin protocols
"Eric Polino" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Would it be possible to have all the protocols for net-im/pidgin > turned on by default. We often get people coming to #pidgin looking > for help as to why they can't get MSN or some other protocol working. > It most often is because they haven't enabled the given protocol USE > flag. Without doubting the decision made about the msn USE flag, here are some quotes from a bug report: "I am not sure if it's a bug ... anyway, at least on AMD64 you have removed MSN protocol. Right now I am avoiding an upgrade because the flag has been marked as not usable.[...]" [Some discussion later] "If I see (-msn%*) and as far as I know it means that you are removing the protocol." [Editor's note: (-msn%) means that the USE flag has been removed and was not enabled] [Even more bitching] "Otherwise, if this was not the case, it's not written anywhere that this flag is incorporated oh, yes I know it is in the Changelog, and I have read it before filing this bug, but come on ... that's not the point. In this case, you should do like skype, i.e.: emerge pidgin (msn) (yahoo) (icq) spell tcl tk -avahi -bonjour ... and so far and so on ... and you should not delete/remove the flag in the way you did. Licq still uses msn flag so I user may understand that licq is the only software supporting MSN." V-Li -- http://www.gentoo.org/ http://www.faulhammer.org/ http://www.gnupg.org/ signature.asc Description: PGP signature
[gentoo-dev] Re: New lists and their usage
Richard Freeman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted [EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Sun, 22 Jul 2007 22:32:26 -0400: > Jan Kundrát wrote: >> Ryan Hill wrote: >>> zombieswift/new devs-project >>> council/trustee nominations -project >> >> Then it's worth cross-posting -core or -dev-announce or similar. I >> thought that goal of -project was to keep devs away from poisonous >> content without impairing their Gentoo-awareness. >> > I thought the goal was more to separate technical and non-technical > content - as most of the heavy-reply emails on -dev were non-technical > in nature. The politics/etc could go on -project. [snip] > If anything of any importance at all gets discussed on -dev, then all > the non-technical stuff will end up on -dev as well and nothing will be > accomplished by having the new list. Developers who are interested in > participating in politics (devrel, CoC debates, user-relation > discussions, etc) should subscribe to -project. The idea is this. For non-tech posts, X-post the /first/ post, the announcement of the idea (for new devs, nominations, etc, to both dev and dev-announce), so those only paying attention to dev know about it. Set the followup to project (not dev). Those who wish to discuss it, the discussion goes to project. If/when a decision is made, the announcement of the decision is made to dev-announce and dev, again xposted and fup2 set to project. For most non-technical stuff then, dev will normally get two posts, the initial idea announcement, and the decision announcement if one is made. Dev-announce will get one, the final decision. Foundation and council nominations are a bit strange in this regard, since generally, the thread starter is an announcement, but arguably so are the nominations and accept/reject notices. This one's tough, but I'd call it an exception. The best idea I can come up with here is initial nominations open announcement to dev-announce, xposted to dev, with fup2 set to dev (not project, the single non-tech exception). That will keep dev-announce noise really low, while allowing the nominations and accept/ reject on dev, one step above where they'd normally be because they are announcements, but not on announce, to keep the noise there lower. In keeping with this exception, the original nominations open announcement should say those and acceptance/rejection notices are welcome on dev, but that any discussion thereof should be on project only. Then an elections official appointed to the job should produce a summary a few days before nominations close with nominations to date, and again as nominations close and elections begin. This summary should go to dev- announce, xposted and fup2 set to dev for more nominations for the pre- close announcement, and to project for the nominations close, elections begin, announcement. So for nominations, there'd be three posts to dev announce instead of two, the opening announcement, the pre-close summary, and the final summary, marking the opening of elections. > One thing I want to caution is a potentially-dangerous mindset that a > flame is any post that one personally disagrees with - or which a > majority of developers disagree with. Flames are more about attitude > and intent - not so much about viewpoint. [snip] ++ -- 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
