Re: [gentoo-dev] Keeping profiles/ tidy
Thomas Anderson wrote: In general, the quiz is supposed to test and educate recruits about Gentoo development practices. But if all parts of a question are asked in questions like that(where it's obvious that 'no' isn't a valid answer) it's just going to result in more googling rather than thinking hard and having knowledge about how and why it's done. I think the original wording is fine because the recruit will have to think hard about what else is needed and consult documentation without knowing exactly what he is looking for. If needed the mentor can help out with points like that, but if at all possible it should be initially answered by the recruit. So please, let's not make the quiz into a set of yes/no questions(an exaggeration I know, but still the same effect). While I agree with the sentiment, I think the original wording is too far away from the expected answer. How about: What placed should be cleaned, when removing an ebuild from the tree? Regards, Thomas signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Last rites: www-servers/apache-2.0 friends
Benedikt Böhm wrote: +# Benedikt Böhm [EMAIL PROTECTED] (12 Jan 2008) +# Masked for apache-2.0 removal, bug #203578 +dev-cpp/cppserv I'll take care of fixing cppserv ebuild one way or another in nearest few weeks. +=dev-libs/apr-0* +=dev-libs/apr-util-0* +=dev-util/subversion-1.3* +=www-servers/apache-2.0* -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC]: gentoo-politics ML
Stephen Bennett wrote: On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 23:10:32 +0200 Benjamin Judas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ...which means that he has a documented history of trolling not only on mailinglists but also in irc-channels; not only against developers but also against volunteering users. So do most people on this list. Which brings us back to actual subject of this thread (as opposed to talking about Ciaran, we all love so much), which is - we need a separate list for discussing non-technical issues, which will, hopefully, reduce amount of flames, and will allow civil technical discussion to commence. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC]: gentoo-politics ML
Steev Klimaszewski wrote: Ilya A. Volynets-Evenbakh wrote: Stephen Bennett wrote: On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 23:10:32 +0200 Benjamin Judas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ...which means that he has a documented history of trolling not only on mailinglists but also in irc-channels; not only against developers but also against volunteering users. So do most people on this list. Which brings us back to actual subject of this thread (as opposed to talking about Ciaran, we all love so much), which is - we need a separate list for discussing non-technical issues, which will, hopefully, reduce amount of flames, and will allow civil technical discussion to commence. So this other list would allow non-civil discussions to continue and rage on? I mean, you wouldn't have to be civil to others on it, you could just join and start trolling everyone? No. I would be meant for civil non-technical discussions. (Please note, when I say you here, I mean collective people, not singling any person out) We now have to point out _that_ kind of thing? Oh well... Of course, using you in generic sentences is bad literary practice (unfortunately I don't remember official term for that grammatic (mis-)structure). -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC]: gentoo-politics ML
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Sun, 10 Jun 2007 21:27:44 -0600 Ryan Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: PS. this thread is a good example of something that would belong on gentoo-project. ;) And this is why it's a bad idea: it's moving criticism away from where people will actually read it That statement presumes that gentoo-politics will not be read. I don't think this is (or should be) true. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC]: gentoo-politics ML
Marius Mauch wrote: Do you really think people would voluntarily use it? That's an honest question, maybe people are fair enough to do it, but I have serious doubts about it. It's of no use if people have to be told to move threads from -dev to that new list. We might need some sort of enforcement for that particular purpose. While I think that behavior proctors are inappropriate, I think that people with ability to say move this thread to gentoo-politics or else.. for non-technical threads, as well as stop failing to use logic in your technical discussion or else... with power to temporarily ban people for non-compliance could be a useful thing. Marius -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC]: gentoo-politics ML
Steev Klimaszewski wrote: Ilya A. Volynets-Evenbakh wrote: Marius Mauch wrote: Do you really think people would voluntarily use it? That's an honest question, maybe people are fair enough to do it, but I have serious doubts about it. It's of no use if people have to be told to move threads from -dev to that new list. We might need some sort of enforcement for that particular purpose. While I think that behavior proctors are inappropriate, I think that people with ability to say move this thread to gentoo-politics or else.. for non-technical threads, as well as stop failing to use logic in your technical discussion or else... with power to temporarily ban people for non-compliance could be a useful thing. Marius No can do - temporarily banning is a bad thing, its censorship, and we can't have that, no sir. I'll presume this to be irony. Oh. Sorry, can't have that on this list today. Please ban yourself for 24hours. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Living in a bubble [gentoo-proctor] Warning
Perhaps it would be a good time to try another approach to the problem? How about proctors that are responsible for ensuring any arguments stay within bounds of technical discussion and formal logic rules? Chris Gianelloni wrote: I really have to agree with you. The proctors have completely lost their way. They are ineffective. They tend to compound the problems they were created to stop. They are slow. They have not prevented anything, which was the reason for their creation. Rather, what they *have* done is stifle conversation, piss off people, get in the way of Developer Relations reports, and otherwise making developers feel like they don't want to participate in our official discussion channels. What do I think needs to be done? The proctors project needs to go away. It simply wasn't implemented in the way the Council had hoped and has proven to be more harmful than the original problems to morale and inter-developer trust. While the individual members might be doing what they think is best and trying their best, they've failed at the goals of improving our communications channels. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Bye2u Gentoo
Christian Faulhammer wrote: Alexander Færøy [EMAIL PROTECTED]: I am really going to miss a lot of you guys. Especially the ones I met during FOSDEM. Hope to see you there next year as well! Damn! Who can I bash now regarding MIPS? I guess you should have thought about it earlier. Now just go get yourself some MIPS hardware, and try to join one of those teams that tries to set hight QA standards, despite being totally understaffed. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Bye2u Gentoo
Grmbl Can you do us a favor and provide us with a clone, for doing MIPS keywording? Alexander Færøy wrote: Hey, It is my time to leave Gentoo as well. It has been some exciting months and I have learned a lot from many of you guys. It has been interesting to be in one of the major open source projects and I have learned a lot from it! I will move on with some new projects and see if I can become useful there. I will be around for the Bugday on Saturday and hopefully finish what we are missing in that project. Then I'll try to point out a new leader for that team. I am really going to miss a lot of you guys. Especially the ones I met during FOSDEM. Hope to see you there next year as well! Best regards, Alex -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] April Council meeting summary
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Thu, 12 Apr 2007 18:45:13 -0400 Mike Frysinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: PMS: - should be up and running on Gentoo infra by next meeting What is the justification for making this change? It's already inconvenient enough having to have someone else make bugzilla changes for me on PMS bugs that I didn't submit; what reason is there for extending this annoyance to the source too? I'd say Ciaran has to have write access to any such repository, as one of the main contributors. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Flourish Conference Reminder
Seemant Kulleen wrote: All, Please except my apologies for the strong language in my initial response to this. I've been informed that Samir is the real deal and not just a marketing droid. Apology not accepted. Your language definitely wasn't strong enough. -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] [soc] Python bindings for Paludis
Ned Ludd wrote: The correct reply should of been. I'm sorry I did not mean to offend anybody. I'll make an effort to not make any cheap shots Man, stop playing the silly Ooh, we are all so fragile and offendable game. -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC Package name additions
Rather then analyze the proposed solution, I'd like to question the problem itself. Do we really want to provide all the different intermediate development sort of releases in our tree? William L. Thomson Jr. wrote: After reviewing http://devmanual.gentoo.org/ebuild-writing/file-format/index.html#file-naming-rules I still seem to be having to finagle version names for some packages. At the moment it would be nice if we also had the following suffixes available _dev Apache upstream, specifically Tomcat/mod_jk tends to do developer snapshots that they then host out of developer space. People do fetch bins and source from there for testing. It's kinda pre-release, so I have been using _pre where I would use _dev, but _pre does not make much sense. _build Other packages seem to do constant builds (weekly) of the same version. For example Glassfish (Sun's FOSS J2EE stuff). It's sources are v2-b39. So would be nice to be able to do like glassfish-servlet-api-2_build39 _snapshot This one is kinda universal in it's name/implication. Would be for any sort of upstream snapshot release, that might not be versioned as such. Short of the name snapshot being some where. The above would then follow the rest of the normal schema, where in they could still be suffixed by a number, or not. Hierarchy would be the following snapshot - dev - build - alpha - beta Or at least that's my thoughts on it. Time for others thoughts, much less those that will make it so. Not expecting it to get done or be available any time soon. Would be suffice if they were just accepted and planned for inclusion at some point. -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC Package name additions
William L. Thomson Jr. wrote: IMHO I think it should be up to the package maintainer how close they want to follow upstream. With regard to development, progress, testing, qa, feedback. I think it's a very good thing, since it allows things to be caught before actual releases, during development. I know when I am developing stuff, it's way easier to address during the process rather than after the fact. But if there are any policies or etc. I surely do not want to be breaking them. Also this is not broken or really experimental stuff. If it was I would either p.mask, or put in an overlay. Although I feel things tend to get the greatest exposure and chance of user testing and feedback, if it's in tree There is a bit of contradiction in what you said there. Either the package is well tested, and should go into the tree, first with ~arch keywords, and then eventually with arch keywords, or it is experimental, and as such has to be outside of our main tree. Thus you can either want to test stuff by giving it more exposure, which implies the stuff is experimental, or you have stable stuff, but then you shouldn't be talking about the development cycle of the said software. -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Little respect towards Daniel please
Daniel Robbins wrote: Yep, I agree. Thanks everyone for being tolerant of my confusion and disruption while I look for a way to remove Ciaran from gentoo-dev. Daniel, Are you saying that all of your comments regarding PMS were made solely for the purpose of removing Ciaran from the gentoo-dev mailing list? -- Ilya A. Volynets-Evenbakh Total Knowledge. CTO http://www.total-knowledge.com -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Little respect towards Daniel please
Daniel Robbins wrote: However, I personally would not stay subscribed to gentoo-dev with Ciaran on the list. So, instead of quietly un-subscribing you launch in a huge flamefest, by hijacking an important discussion thread. I think there are others who have the same perspective and tend to either ignore -dev or have unsubscribed. Ciaran is also clearly wasting a lot of his own time, even before my stream of posts, so I don't consider removing him from the list as being bad for him *or* Gentoo. So, is this where end justifies all means comes in? Now, I understand you are finally unsubscribing, which is fine. I just want this on a record: you used a technical discussion for purely political purposes. I'm happy that at least you came out with explicit statement about that, and I wish more people would recognize emails, such as yours, as having no technical merit, while being loaded with political purposes on their own, without being explicitly told so. Best regards, Ilya. -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Little respect towards Daniel please
Hubert Mercier wrote: That's probably why it is so hard to renew developer pool. Why do people keep repeating this myth? As kloeri pointed out, developer base keeps growing constantly. -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
[gentoo-dev] Argument resolution [was: Re: Little respect towards Daniel please]
Alex Tarkovsky wrote: By trying to silence parties involved in a disagreement you only force their differences to manifest in less desirble ways. And when that happens, things tend to get really ugly and it inevitably reflects back on Gentoo. Also, brushing things over to private email and private blogs is not always the answer because the issues behind these disagreements often involve (and just as importantly, affect) more than 2 people. Just because Daniel Robbins might now be taking things over to his private blog doesn't mean you no longer have to deal with the issues he attempted to have a public discussion about. Gentoo should provide an official venue where developers (and ex-developers and users) can talk out their disagreements, and under a few plainly spelled-out and easily enforceable guidelines designed to keep the discourse somewhat civil. That's an interesting idea. It would be nice to have a discussion ML, which would have one simple rule enforced. Any discussion _must_ follow formal logic rules. Ensuring that rule is followed could be done in a few different ways. One example: There would be a small group overseeing discussion, and, solely on the basis of formal logic rules, would, for example, suspend a person for a day, in case of violations. Of course, enforcement rules could be slightly more complex. i.e. 2-hour ban for any ad-hominem attack. Two warnings for logic errors, day ban for third one. Or something. These are details that need to be worked out, tested, re-hashed, etc. This would result in a list that would force people to discuss the actual issue (technical, or otherwise), as opposed to do doing all sorts of mud flinging, and, due to temporary bans, would prevent any discussion from deteriorating into flame fest. -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Argument resolution [was: Re: Little respect towards Daniel please]
Oh, and another idea is to have somewhat more real-time debates on IRC. Procedure could be fairly simple: it would still have a jury group overseeing it. Participants would get voice in turn, present their arguments and counter-arguments. If a participant repeatedly fails to answer opponent's arguments according to formal logic rules, he is denied further turns to speak. Ilya A. Volynets-Evenbakh wrote: Alex Tarkovsky wrote: By trying to silence parties involved in a disagreement you only force their differences to manifest in less desirble ways. And when that happens, things tend to get really ugly and it inevitably reflects back on Gentoo. Also, brushing things over to private email and private blogs is not always the answer because the issues behind these disagreements often involve (and just as importantly, affect) more than 2 people. Just because Daniel Robbins might now be taking things over to his private blog doesn't mean you no longer have to deal with the issues he attempted to have a public discussion about. Gentoo should provide an official venue where developers (and ex-developers and users) can talk out their disagreements, and under a few plainly spelled-out and easily enforceable guidelines designed to keep the discourse somewhat civil. That's an interesting idea. It would be nice to have a discussion ML, which would have one simple rule enforced. Any discussion _must_ follow formal logic rules. Ensuring that rule is followed could be done in a few different ways. One example: There would be a small group overseeing discussion, and, solely on the basis of formal logic rules, would, for example, suspend a person for a day, in case of violations. Of course, enforcement rules could be slightly more complex. i.e. 2-hour ban for any ad-hominem attack. Two warnings for logic errors, day ban for third one. Or something. These are details that need to be worked out, tested, re-hashed, etc. This would result in a list that would force people to discuss the actual issue (technical, or otherwise), as opposed to do doing all sorts of mud flinging, and, due to temporary bans, would prevent any discussion from deteriorating into flame fest. -- Ilya A. Volynets-Evenbakh Total Knowledge. CTO http://www.total-knowledge.com -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Argument resolution [was: Re: Little respect towards Daniel please]
Angel Olivera wrote: On Sun, Mar 04 2007 19:22, Ilya A. Volynets-Evenbakh wrote: That's an interesting idea. It would be nice to have a discussion ML, which would have one simple rule enforced. Any discussion _must_ follow formal logic rules. Ensuring that rule is followed could be done in a few different ways. One example: There would be a small group overseeing discussion, and, solely on the basis of formal logic rules, would, for example, suspend a person for a day, in case of violations. Of course, enforcement rules could be slightly more complex. i.e. 2-hour ban for any ad-hominem attack. Two warnings for logic errors, day ban for third one. Or something. These are details that need to be worked out, tested, re-hashed, etc. Sounds like a lot of organization, shall we declare what weapons we will use during our encounters, or will we be able to pull anything from the bottom of our hats? I sense some sort of joke in the tone, but unfortunately don't understand what you mean there. This would result in a list that would force people to discuss the actual issue (technical, or otherwise), as opposed to do doing all sorts of mud flinging, and, due to temporary bans, would prevent any discussion from deteriorating into flame fest. Perhaps I am wrong, perhaps there *is* a collective desire to decide things in long ML threads. I don't remember saying anything about _long_ ML threads. There are very few discussions, that can be carried for a long time when logic and technical side of arguments are strictly followed. However, with that said, I see nothing wrong with long threads, as long as parties involved progress, instead of repeating their own arguments over and over again or resorting to personal attacks (both of which are against formal logic rules). Though I can't recall when it was the last time I've seen that happen, anywhere. Given that you are answering something I didn't say, this point becomes irrelevant. (simple example of logic error). IMHO, this list would just lead people to boredom and desubscription. This list wouldn't be optional. This list would be a place where final discussion on hard-to-resolve issues would occur. Cheers. -- Ilya A. Volynets-Evenbakh Total Knowledge. CTO http://www.total-knowledge.com -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Only you can prevent broken portage trees
Michael Cummings wrote: Not attempting to join this ruckus - but I'll meekly raise my hand and say that'd be awesome. I have an account on a mips box, but its connection to the internet has been unstable in recent months (which I was warned about ahead of time - that isn't a gripe). Just FYI, there is another box, faster, and running 24x7 which should be used instead of O2K now. Ping me on IRC for more info. (Oh, and sign up for the announcements list for those boxes ;-) As primarily an ebuild maintainer, I have no qualms about doing the legwork in the scope that an arch is willing to accept, I just don't have the money and space to personally house more than a handful of machines at home. -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: Gentoo Commitfests
Mike Frysinger wrote: On Sunday 22 October 2006 01:45, Ilya A. Volynets-Evenbakh wrote: Let's look at reality here, OK? any reality that includes you makes me laugh -mike Good good! Laugh is good for your health, and you'll need lot of support in that area next time I see you... -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: Gentoo Commitfests
Mike Frysinger wrote: On Sunday 22 October 2006 20:45, Ilya A. Volynets-Evenbakh wrote: Good good! Laugh is good for your health, and you'll need lot of support in that area next time I see you... what you gonna do, climb up my trunk ? -mike I'm gonna drag you to the top of a tree, and drop you on smithj's head. Solves two problems at once... -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] New Devrel Subproject: Gentoo Devmatch
As far as volunteers, I'm in! Alec Warner wrote: Purpose: To increase funding for Gentoo Infrastructure and events. Overview: Developers volunteer to dual off against other developers (including retired developers!) in the ring. We then allow betting on the outcome of the match with Gentoo taking a percentage of the profits to cover event costs and to add to our pool of enormous moneys. Special Events: Large donations are taken up for prize fights like NeddySeagoon versus Avenj, Devrel versus UserReps, and Gentoo Developers vs Users. Problems: People may not volunteer. I do not have intricate knowledge of gambling rules within the US, we may need to hold the devmatches in another country. Bonuses: Developers with long-standing conflicts will be able to voice their personal feelings via fists and feets. Source: #gentoo-dev ramblings. -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] amd64 and ia64 keywords
Simon Stelling wrote: Ilya A. Volynets-Evenbakh wrote: | No worries, there are people who even wanted to merge amd64 with x86. Yeah, that's almost as daft as suggesting a single keyword to cover both sparc v8 and sparc v9, or ip22 and ip27. Err... No, IP22 and IP27 are nearly identical as far as userland goes. (and if we did everything right, they would be completely identical) Now, if you said o32, n32, and n64 [x] You just made a fool of yourself. Eh? -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: Gentoo Commitfests
Ryan Hill wrote: Ilya A. Volynets-Evenbakh wrote: So, are you proposing to encourage people to do commits for the sake of commits? Make people do revbumps/keywording just to get their commits in, without doing proper testing? Or to hold on number of commits till commitfest? I would hope that people would be mature enough to enjoy this as a community event and have some fun, not game the system just to see their name on a graph. --de. Hopes Young and foolish have them As we say in Russian, Hope is the last thing to die Let's look at reality here, OK? -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] New Developer: Alon Bar-Lev (alonbl)
Eldad Zack wrote: Christian Heim wrote: Its my pleasure to introduce to you Alon alonbl Bar-Lev, the latest addition joining to help out with the crypto herd. He hails from Israel (hrm, they don't have cities down there ?). So far it looks like Alon is completely constrained to his computer, he doesn't have any other hobbies nor life. Oh, great, I'm not alone here anymore :) Welcome! And soon there will be three of us - I'm moving to Israel some time next year ;-) -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Setting number of parallel builds for other build-systems than 'make'
Well, O2K is up and running, so someone can go ahead and give it a shot at -j20 Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Sun, 01 Oct 2006 19:23:16 +0200 Tiziano Müller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | Ciaran McCreesh wrote: | On Sun, 01 Oct 2006 15:04:52 +0200 Tiziano Müller | [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | | Now, SCONSOPTS (BJAMOPTS respectively) could be added to make.conf | | and used whenever one of those build-systems is being used. But we | | would probably have to add a ...OPTS for every build-system. | | Does BJAM parallelisation actually work reliably these days? | | Well, it seems to work for boost. How well have you tested? It used to have issues on real SMP systems with lots of CPUs (-j32), which is why I ask... -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Package Manager Specification: configuration protection
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Tue, 12 Sep 2006 15:44:22 -0700 Zac Medico [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | 3) Prevents /etc/foo from matching /etc/foobaz or /etc/foobaz/bar. Is this really desired behaviour? Once we decide that, I'll have a testsuite we can use. It's written for Paludis, but easily portable. Yes, it's desired behavior. I can't think of half-measure as being useful - either drop it completely, or implement full wildcard support. -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
[gentoo-dev] Keys and words: ways to fail your team
Comrades! Once more, I come before you with sad tidings. Evil anti-gentoo conspirators are plotting to destroy our wonderful distribution. Yet again they tried to subvert quality and integrity of our distribution by falsely claiming that certain packages build and run *gasp* stable *gasp* on platforms said saboteurs apparently do not even have access to. This time many packages in dev-dotnet were marked testing / stable on all arches, but thanks to the valiant struggles of our tireless arch teams, at least SPARC and MIPS have now been rescued from the iniquity of the apostate traitors on the x86 monoarchist payroll. Other arches have also been warned, and hopefully will be in time to save themselves, or at least recover the damages in timely manner. Comrades! For how long will we tolerate these wreckers among us? How much more patience shall we show? It is about time to stop such behavior once and for all! Let us join against the forces of evil and deal it a crushing defeat! Death to vermin! -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Keys and words: ways to fail your team
Peter Johanson wrote: I know this is intended to be tongue in cheek, Good. but I have a dev in the dotnet herd who's really pretty upset right now as a result of such apparently scathing comments accusing him of being an evil conspirator, a wrecker, and traitor, when it wasn't even *him* who introduced the keywords in question, he did a by the book bump moving arch - ~arch for all arches listed in keywords. Book in question sort of presumes that ones who change keywords *personally* tested that package in question works. You set keyword, you sign the life of your first-born that it will work. Or at least that's the way it should be. I understand that this is a consistent problem, and that we constantly have to deal with breakages like this, but please don't send emails like this with so many accusations without at least talking to the herd lead, or viewing CVS history first. This *is* a consistent problem. But it shouldn't be. QA. Should. Be. Done. I like dealing with the mess of pissed off and enflamed developers as much as the arch teams like dealing with bad QA, so next time, please use at least a *little* subtlty before blowing things up. Grow up people, I didn't even say names. To say more - I'm far more upset about person who introduced keywords. Anyway, I'm glad all the arch teams, who are the one's that never screw up and save us all, are fixing things. Yeap. What would you do without us. At least I get yelled at only once for technical mistakes I make. /sarcasm Oh, since we have to indicate jokes/sarcasm now: LOPATA. -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
