[gentoo-dev] Re: Announcing The Gentoo Common Lisp Project
Tach Matthew, 0x2B859DE3 (PGP-PK-ID) Matthew Kennedy schrieb: We hope users will contribute to our Darcs overlay instead of simply filing bugs. I asked to include the overlay in the official layman configuration. V-Li -- Fingerprint: 68C5 D381 B69A A777 6A91 E999 350A AD7C 2B85 9DE3 http://www.gnupg.org/ -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
[gentoo-dev] Re: Resignation
Tach Tim, 0x2B859DE3 (PGP-PK-ID) Tim Yamin schrieb: So long, and thanks for all the fish... Even I hope you rethink it... V-Li -- Fingerprint: 68C5 D381 B69A A777 6A91 E999 350A AD7C 2B85 9DE3 http://www.gnupg.org/ -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
[gentoo-dev] Re: Proxy maintainers
Tach Natanael, 0x2B859DE3 (PGP-PK-ID) Natanael Copa schrieb: Can I become a Gentoo dev, even if I'm only maintainer of 1-3 packages? I'm trying to be realistic. You can. And you can even keep out of dev fights here on the mailing list. On IRC you normally have a good working atmosphere, I always found a person who could do what was needed and they get testing back. V-Li -- Fingerprint: 68C5 D381 B69A A777 6A91 E999 350A AD7C 2B85 9DE3 http://www.gnupg.org/ -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
[gentoo-dev] Re: Gentoo World Domination. a 10 step guide
Tach Thomas, 0x2B859DE3 (PGP-PK-ID) Thomas Cort schrieb: Every developer should have access to at least 1 Gentoo system. They should also be able to determine if something is stable or not. It would cut down on the number of keyword/stable bugs if developers did a lot of their own keywording. As others already told: Most devs run ~arch and are surprised when arch testers spot problems on an entire stable system with a package going to be stabled. I see that a lot when testing for x86, most of the time minor issues sometimes graver things. V-Li -- Fingerprint: 68C5 D381 B69A A777 6A91 E999 350A AD7C 2B85 9DE3 http://www.gnupg.org/ -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
[gentoo-dev] Re: Gentoo World Domination. a 10 step guide
Tach Ioannis, 0x2B859DE3 (PGP-PK-ID) Ioannis Aslanidis schrieb: - Make every dev a member of at least 1 arch team That's a sound idea, that way some herds (see KDE) won't have to be searching for testers in every arch because _strangely_ one of the most daily used desktop environments doesn't have many users among the testers. That is a problem of the herd actually. They should look out for a person (be it dev or recruit) who is willing to join an arch team for KDE and do the work. Or place an active user as arch tester in the arch projects, which is very simple. Testers are needed and I try to support KDE even when using Gnome. To bring Gentoo forward, but you have seen the konqburn problems, so just having someone to keyword without proper testing does not help anyone. V-Li -- Fingerprint: 68C5 D381 B69A A777 6A91 E999 350A AD7C 2B85 9DE3 http://www.gnupg.org/ -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
[gentoo-dev] Re: Proxy maintainers
Tach Natanael, 0x2B859DE3 (PGP-PK-ID) Natanael Copa schrieb: On Thu, 2006-10-05 at 00:00 +, Christian 'Opfer' Faulhammer wrote: Natanael Copa schrieb: Can I become a Gentoo dev, even if I'm only maintainer of 1-3 packages? I'm trying to be realistic. You can. And you can even keep out of dev fights here on the mailing list. On IRC you normally have a good working atmosphere, I always found a person who could do what was needed and they get testing back. Ok. Where's the dev form? http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/devrel/recruiters/mentor.xml I'm initially only interested in maintaining packages where I'm the upstream maintainer as well. Nobody will force you to join any projects you don't want to join. Do I have to do the dev quiz etc? If so, I'm not doing it today. It takes a bit longer... V-Li -- Fingerprint: 68C5 D381 B69A A777 6A91 E999 350A AD7C 2B85 9DE3 http://www.gnupg.org/ -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
[gentoo-dev] Re: Gentoo World Domination. a 10 step guide
Tach Josh, 0x2B859DE3 (PGP-PK-ID) Josh Saddler schrieb: Christian 'Opfer' Faulhammer wrote: Most devs run ~arch Says who? Did you pull that fact out of a hat, or something? Do you have any hard numbers to back that statement? A lot of devs run ~arch is more accurate. Or at least their package.keywords is very big. Let's have an informal poll some time: I know I don't run ~arch, and there are many more devs who also run primarily stable systems. During testing I often hear I don't run stable, so I need someone to test ebuild X for verification my bug fix worked V-Li -- Fingerprint: 68C5 D381 B69A A777 6A91 E999 350A AD7C 2B85 9DE3 http://www.gnupg.org/ -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
[gentoo-dev] Re: Proxy maintainers
Tach Natanael, 0x2B859DE3 (PGP-PK-ID) Natanael Copa schrieb: On Thu, 2006-10-05 at 15:47 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Thu, 05 Oct 2006 16:39:50 +0200 Natanael Copa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | I'm initially only interested in maintaining packages where I'm the | upstream maintainer as well. Ick. Rarely a good idea. That removes a layer of QA. [...] * I can't become a proxy maintainer. (you guys will continue your fight if its a good or bad idea having proxy maintainers and meanwhile nothing will happen) You can become a proxy maintainer. If you find a dev who trusts you enough to commit for you. Did you actually read the comments on proxy maintainers as for FreeBSD ports? The discussion about world domination is very friendly so why not answer to the thread's arguments? * It's a bad idea for me to become a dev since I only want to maintain stuff I know I will be able to maintain. (I cant start small and take more and more packages over time, when/if I feel I'm able to do more) Just because Ciaran made a point, you give up? Sure it would be nicer to have devs involved in the project itself and not only with their small task. That leaves me with the conclution that its best to just continue to run my own local portage tree and submit bugreports once in a while and hope for the best, just like I have always been doing. I get the feeling you just stood up to complain, not to help the situation. To get a feeling for the work to be done in Gentoo, become an arch tester or get involved with project Sunrise, which might be what you are looking for. V-Li -- Fingerprint: 68C5 D381 B69A A777 6A91 E999 350A AD7C 2B85 9DE3 http://www.gnupg.org/ -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
[gentoo-dev] Re: treecleaner removals
Tach David, 0x2B859DE3 (PGP-PK-ID) David Grant schrieb: On 9/28/06, Michael Cummings [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: +++ Mark Stier [28/09/06 15:35 +0200]: How about entering the removed ebuilds into bugzilla under an adequate section? I think my original reply got lost, so just in case - seems like a time for sunset overlays ;0 or sunrise rather... New packages not yet in the tree - sunrise Old crufty packages removed from the tree - sunset Got it? V-Li -- Fingerprint: 68C5 D381 B69A A777 6A91 E999 350A AD7C 2B85 9DE3 http://www.gnupg.org/ -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
[gentoo-dev] Re: New project: Gentoo Seeds
Tach Ramon, 0x2B859DE3 (PGP-PK-ID) Thanks for that post. Ramon van Alteren schrieb: 9. Most of this mail has been on policies, expected behavior and perceived behavior. I would like to get this discussion back to technical issues wrt to generating stages/seeds and livecd's. That's what I wanted to say. releng shouldn't feel useless or anything, you have the right to start a project, but I still think releng is right you two should cooperate. Seeds is in a very early phase, so you can still get in sync with releng and talk about using all knowledge/skills for the good of both. There is no actual need to be a subproject, but both should really share their experiences and communicate a lot, that is the main request (I think). As I just read, releng feels a bit stepped on their toes, because they planned something similar, so you see the overlapping area of interest. And as seemant said: Step back a little, forget about everything and start again. V-Li -- Fingerprint: 68C5 D381 B69A A777 6A91 E999 350A AD7C 2B85 9DE3 http://www.gnupg.org/ -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
[gentoo-dev] Re: compiz
Tach Hanno, 0x2B859DE3 (PGP-PK-ID) Hanno Böck schrieb: Now, with the release of mesa 6.5.1 and the xorg-server-1.1.1-r1 ebuild we have a well-working aiglx-implementation in gentoo. So Gnome 2.16 will use AIGLX in Metacity? V-Li -- Fingerprint: 68C5 D381 B69A A777 6A91 E999 350A AD7C 2B85 9DE3 http://www.gnupg.org/ -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
[gentoo-dev] Re: compiz
Tach Joshua, 0x2B859DE3 (PGP-PK-ID) Joshua Baergen schrieb: Christian 'Opfer' Faulhammer wrote: So Gnome 2.16 will use AIGLX in Metacity? Not by default. The support wasn't deemed 100% yet and thus slipped to 2.18. No problem, I can wait. V-Li -- Fingerprint: 68C5 D381 B69A A777 6A91 E999 350A AD7C 2B85 9DE3 http://www.gnupg.org/ -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
[gentoo-dev] Re: Why you use Gentoo
Tach Chris, 0x2B859DE3 (PGP-PK-ID) Chris White schrieb: So, wondering why people use Gentoo. Put [dev] or something if you're an actual gentoo dev and [user] if you're a user. Doesn't need to be fancy, you can put community or something if that's all you want. All responses off list please. Thanks. [user] I wanted to switch to Linux for a long time. Always had Debian in mind (because of their FOSS attitude and community), then I asked a friend of mine to help me migrate. He was a Gentoo user and offered to install that...was ok for me, it was just for testing. So now I am stuck. Why I stayed? Because of help available, because of the command line integration that is better than others I know (I even liked the MS DOS command line better than Windows 3.11), because of portage (despite all its short-comings). And now because of the fun with the x86 project. V-Li -- Fingerprint: 68C5 D381 B69A A777 6A91 E999 350A AD7C 2B85 9DE3 http://www.gnupg.org/ -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
[gentoo-dev] Re: cdrtools license issues
Tach Diego, 0x2B859DE3 (PGP-PK-ID) Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò schrieb: as well as linking mkisofs to libscg, which he relicensed to CDDL lately. This is a bit more debatable, he *can* link it, if he can change mkisofs license to allow linking to non-GPL-compatible code. Of that, I'm not sure tho. As Schily is not the only one who has contributed code to mkisofs he can't change its license all on his own. V-Li -- Fingerprint: 68C5 D381 B69A A777 6A91 E999 350A AD7C 2B85 9DE3 http://www.gnupg.org/ -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
[gentoo-dev] Re: Future of tetex
Tach Gabriel, 0x2B859DE3 (PGP-PK-ID) Gabriel Lavoie schrieb: About the texmf tree, is there really many packages that would be included in each distributions? Would a modular ebuild system like the one used by Gnome (emerge gnome and emerge gnome-lite) and X.org would be nice for TeXLive? Each packages in the texmf tree could be updated independently if needed and the packages like beamer could be also included in the dependencies. You know the maintenance that will need? Yearly updates of TeXLive should be sufficient. V-Li -- Fingerprint: 68C5 D381 B69A A777 6A91 E999 350A AD7C 2B85 9DE3 http://www.gnupg.org/ -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
[gentoo-dev] Re: Xmms needs to die.
Tach Luis, 0x2B859DE3 (PGP-PK-ID) Luis Medinas schrieb: If noone takes it will be saved on overlays.gentoo.org. Everyone needs to know that xmms is old and tired (obsolete). Having discussed Gentoo Status in this list: Maybe you should announce that in GWN to prepare the last users (quite a lot I fear, we need Gentoo stats) that xmms will be removed and they should think about switching if possible or watch out for overlays. V-Li -- Fingerprint: 68C5 D381 B69A A777 6A91 E999 350A AD7C 2B85 9DE3 http://www.gnupg.org/ -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
[gentoo-dev] Re: Make FEATURES=test the default
Tach Hanno, 0x2B859DE3 (PGP-PK-ID) Hanno Böck schrieb: I'm all for making more use of features like test and collision-protect, though in the past I noticed that many devs don't seem to care much. I even think to remember of bugs getting closed invalid with a we don't care about-comment. But if FEATURES=test is considered more importand in the future, I'll continue bugging you with related bugs. I would also recommend all ATs not only FEATURES=collision-protect but also to activated the test suites. I normally report failing tests on all bugs I test (which are a few :), but these tests are sometimes to dependent on specific versions of other packages or the environment they nearly have no use. However I think we have a long way to go till we can even think of enabling it by default. Right. V-Li -- Fingerprint: 68C5 D381 B69A A777 6A91 E999 350A AD7C 2B85 9DE3 http://www.gnupg.org/ -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
[gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: AT emerge info cruft attachments on bugs.g.o
Tach Matti, 0x2B859DE3 (PGP-PK-ID) Matti Bickel schrieb: Once there was the idea of putting AT testing system specs somewhere, so arch devs could actually see what we're running. Is this still needed or is the number of ATs small enough to keep that in head-RAM? The problem is that at least USE flags change relatively fast overtime and there are slight differences. When you compare a bug from July 06 and have a look at the emerge --info that has been updated August 06, it can be somewhat misleading. Anyways, I agree that posting emerge --info to a highly frequented stable bug is annoying and should be abolished. Do you have a proposition how to provide the same functionality? V-Li -- Fingerprint: 68C5 D381 B69A A777 6A91 E999 350A AD7C 2B85 9DE3 http://www.gnupg.org/ pgp7kIpvd7RVq.pgp Description: PGP signature
[gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: AT emerge info cruft attachments on bugs.g.o
Tach Jeroen, 0x2B859DE3 (PGP-PK-ID) Jeroen Roovers schrieb: I propose the `emerge --info` included in arch testers' comments on stabilisation bugs should rather be posted as attachments. The AT comments clog up the bugs and are usually not interesting at all to devs other than those who are arch devs for the relevant arches. It would certainly improve my RSI not to have to scroll past them. And when there is a problem, attachments have to be opened...some more steps, especially when there have been a dozen testers and their info has to be filtered out of the attachment list. On a minor note, I'd also like to see bug reporters use canonical package names in bug descriptions, including the category (and preferably the specific version, not some =foo-3*!!!one, not to mention specifying no version at all). Including the category means arch devs won't need to guess/discover which of a few hundred categories a package is meant to reside in. Seconded. V-Li -- Fingerprint: 68C5 D381 B69A A777 6A91 E999 350A AD7C 2B85 9DE3 http://www.gnupg.org/ pgpM6yPkvrYCR.pgp Description: PGP signature
[gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: AT emerge info cruft attachments on bugs.g.o
Tach Jeroen, 0x2B859DE3 (PGP-PK-ID) Jeroen Roovers schrieb: Inlining emerge info in comments bloats the e-mail message to roughly 2.5 times the normal size. I could have spoken out to get AT comments banned altogether or to urge arches with AT teams to find a proper technical solution to communicate outside of bugs.g.o. I think using attachments instead of inlining is a pretty good temporary solution to a communication problem that has for now been solved by making every stabilisation bug report a dumping ground for a ton of information that becomes obsolete within a few days. Basically you are right about cruft, but the information the ATs submit should be accessible to everyone so the actual solution without attachments (because of more work) is the bestTM. What other ways of communication between ATs and devs do you propose? Some kind of arch Bugzilla? IMO it should be permanent with a link from the stabilisation bug so that everyone (devs, users, ATs) can follow the path of stabilisation. V-Li -- Fingerprint: 68C5 D381 B69A A777 6A91 E999 350A AD7C 2B85 9DE3 http://www.gnupg.org/ pgp756JUdHV3A.pgp Description: PGP signature
[gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: AT emerge info cruft attachments on bugs.g.o
Tach Jeroen, 0x2B859DE3 (PGP-PK-ID) Jeroen Roovers schrieb: One solution might be to open your own AT bug, make the stabilisation bug depend on it, and use the AT bug to have ATs post their `emerge info`. Then, when testing and stabilisation is finished for your arch, close the AT bug and remove your alias from the stabilisation bug's CC list. I for one could live with this solution to the problem, which I hope you understand by now. This sounds quite interesting...maybe some arch devs should comment on that. The only problem I see is when two ATs test at the same time and open two separate bugs for the same arch. And another problem: Other arches don't see the problems in the depending bug and are unlikely to comment on it. V-Li -- Fingerprint: 68C5 D381 B69A A777 6A91 E999 350A AD7C 2B85 9DE3 http://www.gnupg.org/ -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
