Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposed addition to the Social Contract
On Saturday 24 March 2007, Christel Dahlskjaer wrote: > It looks like our social contract doesn't prohibit Gentoo from being > dependent upon a single sponsor or corporation. In the interests of > keeping Gentoo run by the developers rather than any outside party, how > about the following addition to the Social Contract? > > We will be run by the Development Community > Gentoo will be run by the development community. We will never allow > ourselves to be reliant upon a single sponsor or corporation. i dont see why this is required ? ignoring the fact that the wording is way too vague to do anything but cause confusion and people to spout long winded rants, seems like useless nitpicking about an issue that doesnt exist -mike pgp3dlspleY6f.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Suggestion: INVALID -> NOCHANGE in bugzilla
On Sunday 25 March 2007, Jakub Moc wrote: > Hmmm, I'm not sure how much of an regression this is. AFAICT bugzilla > always required to prefix the search with ALL if you want to search for > resolved bugs as well. There's even a note about this directly on the > homepage, below the search box. :) yeah, quick search should retain normal behavior of needing the "ALL" keyword > BTW, the tracker bug got closed on last upgrade, and this hasn't been > raised there at all. You've mentioned [1] a different issue, that was > about the advanced search which not too many users are using, I'd say. re-opened -mike pgpiN3vlJmsUi.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Everyone developer should downgrade back to gentoolkit-dev-0.2.6.2
Mike Frysinger kirjoitti: > > isnt this what package mask is for ? and/or just put out a quick -r1 that > reverts echangelog > -mike I did package.mask it, but not everyone syncs daily. Regards, Petteri signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposed addition to the Social Contract
Christel Dahlskjaer wrote: > It looks like our social contract doesn't prohibit Gentoo from being > dependent upon a single sponsor or corporation. In the interests of > keeping Gentoo run by the developers rather than any outside party, how > about the following addition to the Social Contract? Not necessary, if something like that happens would be easy fork away =P lu -- Luca Barbato Gentoo/linux Gentoo/PPC http://dev.gentoo.org/~lu_zero -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposed addition to the Social Contract
On Sun, 2007-03-25 at 04:54 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote: > On Saturday 24 March 2007, Christel Dahlskjaer wrote: > > It looks like our social contract doesn't prohibit Gentoo from being > > dependent upon a single sponsor or corporation. In the interests of > > keeping Gentoo run by the developers rather than any outside party, how > > about the following addition to the Social Contract? > > > > We will be run by the Development Community > > Gentoo will be run by the development community. We will never allow > > ourselves to be reliant upon a single sponsor or corporation. > > i dont see why this is required ? ignoring the fact that the wording is way > too vague to do anything but cause confusion and people to spout long winded > rants, seems like useless nitpicking about an issue that doesnt exist Supposedly >80% of our stuff is hosted in one building, where would we find ourselves were this building to building to burn to the ground? Get flooded? signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposed addition to the Social Contract
On Sunday 25 March 2007, Christel Dahlskjaer wrote: > On Sun, 2007-03-25 at 04:54 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote: > > On Saturday 24 March 2007, Christel Dahlskjaer wrote: > > > It looks like our social contract doesn't prohibit Gentoo from being > > > dependent upon a single sponsor or corporation. In the interests of > > > keeping Gentoo run by the developers rather than any outside party, how > > > about the following addition to the Social Contract? > > > > > > We will be run by the Development Community > > > Gentoo will be run by the development community. We will never allow > > > ourselves to be reliant upon a single sponsor or corporation. > > > > i dont see why this is required ? ignoring the fact that the wording is > > way too vague to do anything but cause confusion and people to spout long > > winded rants, seems like useless nitpicking about an issue that doesnt > > exist > > Supposedly >80% of our stuff is hosted in one building, where would we > find ourselves were this building to building to burn to the ground? Get > flooded? and how does writing a vague rule into our Social Contract propose to help the situation ? just because we have a rule that says our infrastructure needs to be spread out among sponsors doesnt mean sponsors are going to materialize out of nowhere to make this happen our machines live where people have been so kind as to offer space/electricity/bandwidth/etc... -mike pgpjLYRHPtRnx.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] [soc] Python bindings for Paludis
On Saturday 24 March 2007, Matthias Langer wrote: > In my opinion, any project that has reasonable potential to improve > Gentoo as a whole which doesnt apply here -mike pgpkZMxj5OVdW.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] [soc] Python bindings for Paludis
On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 10:40:51 -0400 Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Saturday 24 March 2007, Matthias Langer wrote: > > In my opinion, any project that has reasonable potential to improve > > Gentoo as a whole > > which doesnt apply here Did you not say that finding alternatives to Portage is one of Gentoo's priorities? -- Ciaran McCreesh -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Cultural Differences (was: Suggestion: INVALID -> NOCHANGE in bugzilla)
On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 09:37:04 +0200 "Denis Dupeyron" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 3/25/07, Alec Warner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Well I'm a native speaker [...] > > Yeah, right. May I remind you that you're a USian ? > > :o) > > Denis. Hi, May be a little OT, but just two of four ancient-sayings: 1.Never accept things personaly (everyone is acting on his own motives); 2.Try not to make assumptions (just ask questions, till you get it). Clearly (from above, etc.) i'm not a native speaker, so forgive my wording. Hope you get the meaning ;) Better try to find common grounds, that assume something which (very often) isn't true at all. Rumen -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposed addition to the Social Contract
On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 04:54:33 -0400 Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > i dont see why this is required ? ignoring the fact that the wording > is way too vague to do anything but cause confusion and people to > spout long winded rants, seems like useless nitpicking about an issue > that doesnt exist Well, I believe one hypothetical situation which it would address would be something like this: Gentoo, for whatever reason, ends up relying upon $sponsor for, say, two thirds of its hardware. $sponsor employs a Gentoo developer who has certain political views that aren't in line with Gentoo policy. Said developer uses his influence as an employee of $sponsor to get $sponsor to say to the Council "either you change policy to say blah within a month or we're going to stop sponsoring you". Now, something like that, were it to happen, would put Gentoo in a very tricky situation. The Council can't easily say no, since losing two thirds of its hardware would effectively halt development. Equally, however, it's not exactly a good idea for the Council to establish a precedent of rushing through policy changes that most people don't want because of outside pressure. *shrug* I guess that's the intention behind the proposal, anyway. If it is, I agree that Christel's wording isn't as clear as it could be... -- Ciaran McCreesh -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] [soc] Python bindings for Paludis
On Sunday 25 March 2007, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Saturday 24 March 2007, Matthias Langer wrote: > > > In my opinion, any project that has reasonable potential to improve > > > Gentoo as a whole > > > > which doesnt apply here > > Did you not say that finding alternatives to Portage is one of Gentoo's > priorities? no i did not, nor does that apply here the idea that "Python bindings for Paludis" improves Gentoo as a whole is laughable and completely irrelevant to the topic of PMS -mike pgp2vOwgYkjnT.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposed addition to the Social Contract
On Sunday 25 March 2007, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > i dont see why this is required ? ignoring the fact that the wording > > is way too vague to do anything but cause confusion and people to > > spout long winded rants, seems like useless nitpicking about an issue > > that doesnt exist > > Well, I believe one hypothetical situation which it would address would > be something like this: blow your conspiracy theories somewhere else -mike pgpfXLHvJfQBs.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposed addition to the Social Contract
On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 11:00:00 -0400 Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sunday 25 March 2007, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > > Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > i dont see why this is required ? ignoring the fact that the > > > wording is way too vague to do anything but cause confusion and > > > people to spout long winded rants, seems like useless nitpicking > > > about an issue that doesnt exist > > > > Well, I believe one hypothetical situation which it would address > > would be something like this: > > blow your conspiracy theories somewhere else Hm? Like I said, it was a hypothetical situation. I'm not suggesting that anything like that has ever happened, merely that Christel's idea of protecting Gentoo from that kind of thing in the future isn't a bad thing... -- Ciaran McCreesh -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposed addition to the Social Contract
On Sunday 25 March 2007, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 11:00:00 -0400 > > Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Sunday 25 March 2007, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > > > Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > i dont see why this is required ? ignoring the fact that the > > > > wording is way too vague to do anything but cause confusion and > > > > people to spout long winded rants, seems like useless nitpicking > > > > about an issue that doesnt exist > > > > > > Well, I believe one hypothetical situation which it would address > > > would be something like this: > > > > blow your conspiracy theories somewhere else > > Hm? Like I said, it was a hypothetical situation. I'm not suggesting > that anything like that has ever happened, merely that Christel's idea > of protecting Gentoo from that kind of thing in the future isn't a bad > thing... well, while we're protecting Gentoo from hypothetical situations that dont exist now but could in the future, we should add a clause that bans collusion with Lucifer as that would of course give us a bad rep -mike pgpSvm1symcIA.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposed addition to the Social Contract
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 11:00:00 -0400 > Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> On Sunday 25 March 2007, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: >> >>> Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> i dont see why this is required ? ignoring the fact that the wording is way too vague to do anything but cause confusion and people to spout long winded rants, seems like useless nitpicking about an issue that doesnt exist >>> Well, I believe one hypothetical situation which it would address >>> would be something like this: >>> >> blow your conspiracy theories somewhere else >> > > Hm? Like I said, it was a hypothetical situation. I'm not suggesting > that anything like that has ever happened, merely that Christel's idea > of protecting Gentoo from that kind of thing in the future isn't a bad > thing... > > As a lowly user, I agree. Gentoo should not put all its eggs in one basket. Dale :-) :-) :-) -- www.myspace.com/-remove-me-dalek1967
Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposed addition to the Social Contract
Christel Dahlskjaer wrote: [Sun Mar 25 2007, 07:35:33AM CDT] > Supposedly >80% of our stuff is hosted in one building, where would we > find ourselves were this building to building to burn to the ground? Get > flooded? Looking through http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/infrastructure/server-specs.xml, that 80% number doesn't seem right. Where's your number coming from? Now it is true that 100% of our CVS server (presumably our most critical resource) is located in one place (Global Netoptex, it seems), but I have a hard time seeing how that could be otherwise, given the nature of CVS. I assume that infra regularly backs up the repository to an alternative site, so disaster there would be survivable. *Shrug* From what I can tell, our resources aren't really all that localized. Incidentally, the language of the proposed change would probably prevent us from relying on freenode as our sole IRC host, since freenode would certainly count as a single vendor. -g2boojum- -- Grant Goodyear Gentoo Developer [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.gentoo.org/~g2boojum GPG Fingerprint: D706 9802 1663 DEF5 81B0 9573 A6DC 7152 E0F6 5B76 pgpigXWRG4cU1.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposed addition to the Social Contract
On Sun, 2007-03-25 at 09:27 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote: > On Sunday 25 March 2007, Christel Dahlskjaer wrote: > > On Sun, 2007-03-25 at 04:54 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote: > > > On Saturday 24 March 2007, Christel Dahlskjaer wrote: > > > > It looks like our social contract doesn't prohibit Gentoo from being > > > > dependent upon a single sponsor or corporation. In the interests of > > > > keeping Gentoo run by the developers rather than any outside party, how > > > > about the following addition to the Social Contract? > > > > > > > > We will be run by the Development Community > > > > Gentoo will be run by the development community. We will never allow > > > > ourselves to be reliant upon a single sponsor or corporation. > > > > > > i dont see why this is required ? ignoring the fact that the wording is > > > way too vague to do anything but cause confusion and people to spout long > > > winded rants, seems like useless nitpicking about an issue that doesnt > > > exist > > > > Supposedly >80% of our stuff is hosted in one building, where would we > > find ourselves were this building to building to burn to the ground? Get > > flooded? > > and how does writing a vague rule into our Social Contract propose to help > the > situation ? just because we have a rule that says our infrastructure needs > to be spread out among sponsors doesnt mean sponsors are going to materialize > out of nowhere to make this happen > > our machines live where people have been so kind as to offer > space/electricity/bandwidth/etc... I was simply suggesting that perhaps we need to try make sure that when we able to we try ensure that we aren't too reliant upon one single fascility. Perhaps bad wording. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] [soc] Python bindings for Paludis
On Sunday 25 of March 2007 16:58:10 Mike Frysinger wrote: > > Did you not say that finding alternatives to Portage is one of Gentoo's > > priorities? > > no i did not, nor does that apply here not to put anything in your mouth, but I am a little confused: http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/46648 -- Best Regards, Piotr Jaroszyński -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposed addition to the Social Contract
Dale wrote: > > As a lowly user, I agree. Gentoo should not put all its eggs in one basket. > Gentoo should use whichever basket could fit... -- Luca Barbato Gentoo/linux Gentoo/PPC http://dev.gentoo.org/~lu_zero -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposed addition to the Social Contract
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > Which of the following do you think is most likely to happen? > > * That Gentoo relicences everything under a proprietary licence GPL-3 you mean? > * That Gentoo colludes with Lucifer Cough... > * That Gentoo comes under pressure from a sponsor with an agenda > > Remember that several archs rely upon hardware donations from sponsors. > What would happen if some of those sponsors said "we'll stop giving you > the kit you need unless you agree not to support $chinese_cloned_cpu"? That either the former sponsor won't support you because you aren't supporting him and the $chinese_cloned_cpu manufacturer will sponsor you or you get something back from this sponsor so you can make up for the missed opportunity with the other vendor. It's pretty much that. Whoever provides the toys for us to play could ask something back, if one of the 2 parties isn't happy you can find others to play with... Obviously you may have other reasons to help one of the two parties. That proposal about the social contract won't change that. lu -- Luca Barbato Gentoo/linux Gentoo/PPC http://dev.gentoo.org/~lu_zero -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
[gentoo-dev] Re: Suggestion: INVALID -> NOCHANGE in bugzilla
Ryan Hill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted [EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Sat, 24 Mar 2007 12:40:28 -0600: > Marius Mauch wrote: >> "Kevin F. Quinn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >>> Arguably no bug is invalid in the normal sense - if someone raises an >>> issue, they have an issue, regardless what we think of it. To that >>> end I'd like to propose bugzilla be reconfigured to use the phrase >>> "NOCHANGE" instead of "INVALID". NOCHANGE would indicate that >>> whatever the original issue, no change is needed on our part to >>> resolve the issue. >> >> _If_ it's changed then please to something else, NOCHANGE would overlap >> with other values (WONTFIX, CANTFIX, WORKSFORME) and isn't that obvious >> to me at least. A fake resolution that's mentioned on IRC from time to >> time is NOTABUG which would fit better here. > > I like freedesktop.org's bugzilla, which has INVALID, NOTABUG and > NOTOURBUG. ;) But yeah, NOTABUG is used by a few different projects and > seems to work. As one who was offended when one of my first bugs got INVALIDated... NOTABUG would have been better. It may suffer some of the same issues, but is better, and at least here, wouldn't have the discouraging connotations due to the minor variation in meaning. Invalid (to me) implies a judgement of the work of the submitter, while NOTABUG (to me) implies more a simple variance of opinion, recognizing the other viewpoint as possibly valid (not invalid), but simply choosing a different route, making a different choice. After looking the word and a couple related words up in kdict and paying special attention to the thesaurus, I came up with a couple other suggestions as well: NULL or VOID. As with NOTABUG, these would imply (to me) more a choice to go a different way, as opposed to the implication that the opinion and/or work of the filer is INVALID. I recognize that's a nuance of meaning that may not hold worldwide, and one or both of the above might be even worse to some people, but it seems to me that what we are really looking for is a way to "nullify" the bug, without implying the filer is a moron, and at least here, any of the three alternatives (NOTABUG, NULL, VOID) are less offensive than INVALID. If the description of resolution could be specifically worded to mention we are NOT calling the work and/or opinion invalid, simply not choosing that viewpoint/solution at this point, it might help as well, especially if there's some way to cause the bug-mailing script to include the resolution definition in the mail, so it would be seen there, not just if someone went to the site. What do others think of NULL or VOID vs. NOTABUG vs. INVALID? Personally, I'd lean toward NULL, as I think the computer-speak definition quite works, but for the non-dev-types, particularly of other cultures, it's entirely possible there's an even worse offensive connotation I'm not aware of. -- 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 -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposed addition to the Social Contract
On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 17:35:21 +0200 Luca Barbato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Gentoo should use whichever basket could fit... Just because there is a basket that can fit all our eggs should not prevent us from looking, where possible, for other baskets that would let us distribute them more evenly. -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
[gentoo-dev] Re: Proposed addition to the Social Contract
On Sunday 25 March 2007, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > Which of the following do you think is most likely to happen? and which of the following do you think is most likely to happen ? * Ridiculous scenario #1 * Ridiculous scenario #2 * Spin of recent events to look like a conspiracy obviously the last one is most likely since the other two are clearly ridiculous ... perhaps we should have each dev out there contribute tuples of scenarios and then we can write up rules that clearly lay down the law for the most likely of each group > Remember that several archs rely upon hardware donations from sponsors. > What would happen if some of those sponsors said "we'll stop giving you > the kit you need unless you agree not to support $chinese_cloned_cpu"? i dont need to be reminded, i have plenty of hardware donations laying around me which i utilize quite often we write up rules for things that are actual problems, not hypothetical scenarios that random people dream up if you cant logically balance common sense, then you dont deserve to be a developer ... obviously you would tell sponsor who is attempting to blackmail you that they can blow it out their rectum -mike pgprF3vt9aVAx.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] ANN: PMS public release
Looks like a good job to me. -- Best Regards, Piotr Jaroszyński -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Suggestion: INVALID -> NOCHANGE in bugzilla
On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 15:27:11 + (UTC) Duncan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Invalid (to me) implies a judgement of the work of the submitter, > while NOTABUG (to me) implies more a simple variance of opinion, > recognizing the other viewpoint as possibly valid (not invalid), but > simply choosing a different route, making a different choice. Then you're reading the wrong implication into it, which can happen with any word you care to name. -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] [soc] Python bindings for Paludis
Piotr Jaroszyński wrote: On Sunday 25 of March 2007 16:58:10 Mike Frysinger wrote: Did you not say that finding alternatives to Portage is one of Gentoo's priorities? no i did not, nor does that apply here not to put anything in your mouth, but I am a little confused: http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/46648 Support for an alternative package manager != language bindings for said package manager :P -- Andrew Gaffneyhttp://dev.gentoo.org/~agaffney/ Gentoo Linux Developer Installer Project -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
[gentoo-dev] Re: [soc] Python bindings for Paludis
Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted [EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Sun, 25 Mar 2007 15:46:36 +0100: > On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 10:40:51 -0400 > Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> On Saturday 24 March 2007, Matthias Langer wrote: >> > In my opinion, any project that has reasonable potential to improve >> > Gentoo as a whole >> >> which doesnt apply here > > Did you not say that finding alternatives to Portage is one of Gentoo's > priorities? An equally likely meaning (and the one I read into it) is that it might benefit a particular segment of Gentoo users, but as it's not the currently default/official package manager, it'd be a relatively small segment, made proportionally even smaller by the fact that these bindings would at least in the near term impact an even smaller segment of /that/ segment. A segment of an already minor segment (certainly currently, tho that /may/ eventually change), not likely to be something that can reasonably be characterized as benefiting Gentoo as a whole, at least in the near to medium term, and beyond that, well, things remain up for grabs. -- 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 -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
[gentoo-dev] Re: Proposed addition to the Social Contract
Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted [EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Sun, 25 Mar 2007 11:16:13 -0400: > well, while we're protecting Gentoo from hypothetical situations that > dont exist now but could in the future, we should add a clause that bans > collusion with Lucifer as that would of course give us a bad rep Umm... let's not go where this seems to be heading... -- 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 -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] [soc] Python bindings for Paludis
On Sunday 25 of March 2007 17:54:24 Andrew Gaffney wrote: > Support for an alternative package manager != language bindings for said > package manager :P heh, I just wanted a clarification of the Council standpoint in the matter of finding alternatives to portage, which became quite vague after reading two contrary answers to the same question. Anyway tbh I hoped to get some technical comments, but it seems most of the people haven't even read my application :/ At least no one is saying it would hurt Gentoo, which makes me partly happy. P.S. maybe we should start gathering project ideas for the next year already to not look so miserable in comparison with other orgs? -- Best Regards, Piotr Jaroszyński -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Proposed addition to the Social Contract
I'd like to ask what are the negative side-effects of adding such paragraph. Are there any true negative side-effects to a specification like that? A different topic is the way the paragraph is written. If we don't like how it is written, we can change it and problem solved. To be honest, protecting ourselves from things that now seem improbable, isn't such a bad idea. On 3/25/07, Duncan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted [EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Sun, 25 Mar 2007 11:16:13 -0400: > well, while we're protecting Gentoo from hypothetical situations that > dont exist now but could in the future, we should add a clause that bans > collusion with Lucifer as that would of course give us a bad rep Umm... let's not go where this seems to be heading... -- 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 -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list -- Ioannis Aslanidis 0xB9B11F4E -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] [soc] Python bindings for Paludis
On Sunday 25 March 2007, Piotr Jaroszyński wrote: > On Sunday 25 of March 2007 17:54:24 Andrew Gaffney wrote: > > Support for an alternative package manager != language bindings for said > > package manager :P > > heh, I just wanted a clarification of the Council standpoint in the matter > of finding alternatives to portage, which became quite vague after reading > two contrary answers to the same question. the werent the same question nor were they the same answer -mike pgp35U6tQPqhf.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Proposed addition to the Social Contract
> I'd like to ask what are the negative side-effects of adding such > paragraph. Are there any true negative side-effects to a specification > like that? > > A different topic is the way the paragraph is written. If we don't > like how it is written, we can change it and problem solved. > > To be honest, protecting ourselves from things that now seem > improbable, isn't such a bad idea. At best, we can only make some sort of effort to meet it. Enforcing something like 'not relying on one vendor' requires basically either money from us or good will from others. It's not like we can co-locate our machines whereever we want or use any software that we wish or use as much bandwidth as we wish. The OSL and GNi and Indiana State University have been kind enough to host many of our machines. I don't think anyone claims it's easy (except maybe patrick) to find new hosting providers or new machines. We have new machines coming; I have no idea where they are being hosted. I assume Infra isn't dumb enough to put all our machines in one place, I trust them to make intelligent choices about our Infrastructure, thats why they exist. -Alec -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Proposed addition to the Social Contract
On Sunday 25 March 2007, Ioannis Aslanidis wrote: > I'd like to ask what are the negative side-effects of adding such > paragraph. Are there any true negative side-effects to a specification > like that? > > A different topic is the way the paragraph is written. If we don't > like how it is written, we can change it and problem solved. it isnt a different topic because as pointed out, it's very easy to skew the meaning to apply to anything and then screw ourselves there's also the matter that if some more sponsors were to drop us, we'd then have to worry about our infrastructure being "evenly" spaced out among the remaining sponsors ... and then we could run into situations where sponsors offered more resources and we were forced to say no because our social contract was too restrictive considering the pita this adds to address an issue that doesnt exist, seems like a no brainer to me: dont do it > To be honest, protecting ourselves from things that now seem > improbable, isn't such a bad idea. and where exactly do you stop ? -mike pgpywoh95McdB.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Suggestion: INVALID -> NOCHANGE in bugzilla
On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 15:27:11 + (UTC) Duncan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > What do others think of NULL or VOID vs. NOTABUG vs. INVALID? I'd object against NULL or VOID, they don't make much sense to me. NOTABUG seems to be the best fit as it's very specific and doesn't leave much room for interpretation, but I don't think a change is really necessary. Marius -- Public Key at http://www.genone.de/info/gpg-key.pub In the beginning, there was nothing. And God said, 'Let there be Light.' And there was still nothing, but you could see a bit better. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] [soc] Python bindings for Paludis
> the werent the same question nor were they the same answer They weren't the same, but the second answer was definitely wrong: > > So is alternative package manager support something that's considered > > important and a priority by the Council? > > yes > > Did you not say that finding alternatives to Portage is one of Gentoo's > > > priorities? > > no i did not, nor does that apply here because it explicitly states that you *did not* say it (and the wording doesn't differ enough to justify it), not only that it doesn't apply. The latter circumstance, though, renders the whole dispute useless pedantry. Love, H -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
[gentoo-dev] Re: ANN: PMS public release
Piotr Jaroszy?ski wrote: > Looks like a good job to me. > ++ -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Proposed addition to the Social Contract
On 3/25/07, Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > To be honest, protecting ourselves from things that now seem > improbable, isn't such a bad idea. and where exactly do you stop ? -mike That's a good question, but I am not appropriate to answer to that yet. :) -- Ioannis Aslanidis 0xB9B11F4E -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
[gentoo-dev] Re: [soc] Python bindings for Paludis
Duncan wrote: > A segment of an already minor segment (certainly currently, tho that > /may/ eventually change), not likely to be something that can reasonably > be characterized as benefiting Gentoo as a whole, at least in the near to > medium term, and beyond that, well, things remain up for grabs. > Hear hear, although i do tend to agree with Mr Goodyear's assessment; if not Gentoo, then who? And hasn't Paludis improved Gentoo's QA already? At the end of the day, some poor student is going to volunteer to do this because they find it interesting (if it were to go ahead.) In that case, I'd peronsally say let them. But I don't know the ins and outs of the Council's thinking obviously. And TBH you lot voted them in to make this kind of call. Why not let them? -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
[gentoo-dev] Re: Suggestion: INVALID -> NOCHANGE in bugzilla
Duncan wrote: > As one who was offended when one of my first bugs got INVALIDated... > I know the feeling, mate :) > NOTABUG would have been better. It may suffer some of the same issues, > but is better, and at least here, wouldn't have the discouraging > connotations due to the minor variation in meaning. Invalid (to me) > implies a judgement of the work of the submitter, while NOTABUG (to me) > implies more a simple variance of opinion, recognizing the other > viewpoint as possibly valid (not invalid), but simply choosing a > different route, making a different choice. > Agreed. Let's face it, this is a question of how it makes users feel about getting involved with helping Gentoo. > After looking the word and a couple related words up in kdict and paying > special attention to the thesaurus, I came up with a couple other > suggestions as well: > > NULL or VOID. > Yuck! Personally I understand the computer word well, and if i were to get a NUL it would mean no signal (yes, i know it's a zero). Void has bad connotations too for some reason, like a dustbin, er. I'd stick with NOTABUG. After all, it's not like other projects haven't got anything to teach about user involvement.. what's wrong with standards? ;) -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
[gentoo-dev] Re: Proposed addition to the Social Contract
Christel Dahlskjaer wrote: > It looks like our social contract doesn't prohibit Gentoo from being > dependent upon a single sponsor or corporation. In the interests of > keeping Gentoo run by the developers rather than any outside party, how > about the following addition to the Social Contract? > > We will be run by the Development Community > Gentoo will be run by the development community. We will never allow > ourselves to be reliant upon a single sponsor or corporation. > Er personally I think it's a nice mission statement, but it doesn't have much meaning, and consequently little place in a `Social Contract'. After all, Gentoo _is_ run by the devs, and I don't actually see how that could change. Any corporation would firstly be mad to try and take it over since the devs wouldn't have it. They don't even accept the authority of people they voted for ;) Additionally, the consequent negative publicity would be a PR nightmare; imagine the blog entries and the malevolence they'd unleash! As for getting into a situation of over-reliance, that's a good stance to take, as an objective- not a statement of fact. Again, I don't think the Council would let it get to that. Maybe it would be useful as one of your objectives tho'. -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
[gentoo-dev] 2.6.20 to go stable in 1-2 weeks
I'm planning to request the latest revision of gentoo-sources-2.6.20 go stable on x86 and amd64 in 1-2 weeks from now. Other arches will probably follow soon after. There are still a few new bugs with external modules: https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=163825 I've commented on every one of these that I can. Please fix your packages in the stable tree asap. If they are unfixable, make pkg_setup bail out on 2.6.20 as a last resort. In terms of actual kernel bugs, there are no significant 2.6.20 regressions reported. There are a couple of smaller bugs which I will do my best to get solved before it goes stable. Daniel -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposed addition to the Social Contract
Christel Dahlskjaer wrote: It looks like our social contract doesn't prohibit Gentoo from being dependent upon a single sponsor or corporation. In the interests of keeping Gentoo run by the developers rather than any outside party, how about the following addition to the Social Contract? We will be run by the Development Community Gentoo will be run by the development community. We will never allow ourselves to be reliant upon a single sponsor or corporation. As I understand it, Gentoo is a "tax-exempt foundation" registered in the state of New Mexico. As a result, there are legal restrictions on "sponsorship", etc. Before modifying the "Social Contract", I'd recommend consulting an attorney with expertise in such matters. The last thing Gentoo needs is major legal hassles. -- M. Edward (Ed) Borasky, FBG, AB, PTA, PGS, MS, MNLP, NST, ACMC(P) http://borasky-research.blogspot.com/ If God had meant for carrots to be eaten cooked, He would have given rabbits fire. -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] 2.6.20 to go stable in 1-2 weeks
Daniel Drake kirjoitti: > I'm planning to request the latest revision of gentoo-sources-2.6.20 go > stable on x86 and amd64 in 1-2 weeks from now. Other arches will > probably follow soon after. > > There are still a few new bugs with external modules: > https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=163825 > I've commented on every one of these that I can. Please fix your > packages in the stable tree asap. If they are unfixable, make pkg_setup > bail out on 2.6.20 as a last resort. > > In terms of actual kernel bugs, there are no significant 2.6.20 > regressions reported. There are a couple of smaller bugs which I will do > my best to get solved before it goes stable. > > Daniel Is Alsa OK too? I remember Diego talking something about it being broken when he as still around. Might be fixed since with 2.6.20.X though. Regards, Petteri signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] 2.6.20 to go stable in 1-2 weeks
Daniel Drake wrote: I'm planning to request the latest revision of gentoo-sources-2.6.20 go stable on x86 and amd64 in 1-2 weeks from now. Other arches will probably follow soon after. There are still a few new bugs with external modules: https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=163825 I've commented on every one of these that I can. Please fix your packages in the stable tree asap. If they are unfixable, make pkg_setup bail out on 2.6.20 as a last resort. In terms of actual kernel bugs, there are no significant 2.6.20 regressions reported. There are a couple of smaller bugs which I will do my best to get solved before it goes stable. Daniel Will you be marking linux-headers-2.6.19 stable as well? I really think http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=160381 needs some serious attention. -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Cultural Differences (was: Suggestion: INVALID -> NOCHANGE in bugzilla)
On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 17:53:51 +0300 Rumen Yotov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > May be a little OT, but just two of four ancient-sayings: > 1.Never accept things personaly (everyone is acting on his own > motives); 2.Try not to make assumptions (just ask questions, till you > get it). Clearly (from above, etc.) i'm not a native speaker, so > forgive my wording. Hope you get the meaning ;) > Better try to find common grounds, that assume something which (very > often) isn't true at all. Very true. My favourite approach is the traditional TCP/IP adage, "be conservative in what you send, liberal in what you receive". -- Kevin F. Quinn signature.asc Description: PGP signature
[gentoo-dev] [last rites] virtual/x11
Hi, virtual/x11 has been deprecated for some time and now that all packages that only use it have been removed it is time to mask and remove it. I have put it in package.mask now - please fix your overlays in case you still use virtual/x11 somewhere. It will be removed in 30 days as per the usual schedule. Best regards, Stefan -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Suggestion: INVALID -> NOCHANGE in bugzilla
Kevin F. Quinn wrote: > I know I've seen many instances where the word INVALID has got > peoples hackles up, [...] This is the same issue I have with > "NOTABUG" - it's like saying, "you're wrong, shouldn't have raised > the report", just perhaps not as in-your-face as INVALID. Precisely. "NOTABUG" sounds less harsh than "INVALID" (for some just a little, for others a lot), it is less likely to irk people, and it is also used elsewhere, so why not use it instead? (But don't use "NOCHANGE", that is too cryptic.) Benno -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposed addition to the Social Contract
On Sunday 25 March 2007, M. Edward (Ed) Borasky wrote: > Christel Dahlskjaer wrote: > > It looks like our social contract doesn't prohibit Gentoo from being > > dependent upon a single sponsor or corporation. In the interests of > > keeping Gentoo run by the developers rather than any outside party, how > > about the following addition to the Social Contract? > > > > We will be run by the Development Community > > Gentoo will be run by the development community. We will never allow > > ourselves to be reliant upon a single sponsor or corporation. > > As I understand it, Gentoo is a "tax-exempt foundation" registered in > the state of New Mexico. As a result, there are legal restrictions on > "sponsorship", etc. Before modifying the "Social Contract", I'd > recommend consulting an attorney with expertise in such matters. The > last thing Gentoo needs is major legal hassles. your information is dated ... Gentoo is not a tax-exempt foundation specifically so that we dont have to worry about getting screwed when a single entity decided to donate a ton of cash ... in other words, most foundations choose to be a 501(c)(3) so that donaters can have tax write offs while Gentoo is a 501(c)(1) -mike pgpP86nwAURQM.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposed addition to the Social Contract
On Saturday 24 March 2007, Christel Dahlskjaer wrote: > It looks like our social contract doesn't prohibit Gentoo from being > dependent upon a single sponsor or corporation. In the interests of > keeping Gentoo run by the developers rather than any outside party, how > about the following addition to the Social Contract? > > We will be run by the Development Community > Gentoo will be run by the development community. We will never allow > ourselves to be reliant upon a single sponsor or corporation. i think this whole idea is a moot point anyways ... go visit the Gentoo Foundation web site and see Chapter 2 Section 5 -mike pgpE9bsjeWJhJ.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] 2.6.20 to go stable in 1-2 weeks
Warwick Bruce Chapman wrote: Will you be marking linux-headers-2.6.19 stable as well? I really think http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=160381 needs some serious attention. linux-headers isnt anything to do with me or the kernel herd. I can't comment on when it will go stable. Daniel -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] 2.6.20 to go stable in 1-2 weeks
Petteri Räty wrote: Is Alsa OK too? I remember Diego talking something about it being broken when he as still around. Might be fixed since with 2.6.20.X though. No known significant problems. I think we may have a single occurance of a hda regression to take care of. Daniel -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Suggestion: INVALID -> NOCHANGE in bugzilla
On 2007/03/25, Benno Schulenberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Precisely. "NOTABUG" sounds less harsh than "INVALID" (for some > just a little, for others a lot), it is less likely to irk people, > and it is also used elsewhere, so why not use it instead? > Not that i care that much, but imho INVALID is more accurate in some cases. For instance, if one reports about app/foo being broken but happens to have ricer CFLAGS in his "emerge info", his report will be closed as INVALID... which is exactly what it is: an invalid report, because not made in sane conditions. This resolution usualy comes with a note which tell to reopen if the bug still happen after app/foo has been recompiled with sane CFLAGS. The possibity that there is a real bug in app/foo is left open. At the contrary, NOTABUG sounds to me like a definitive answer. -- TGL. -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposed addition to the Social Contract
On Sun, 2007-03-25 at 16:47 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote: > On Saturday 24 March 2007, Christel Dahlskjaer wrote: > > It looks like our social contract doesn't prohibit Gentoo from being > > dependent upon a single sponsor or corporation. In the interests of > > keeping Gentoo run by the developers rather than any outside party, how > > about the following addition to the Social Contract? > > > > We will be run by the Development Community > > Gentoo will be run by the development community. We will never allow > > ourselves to be reliant upon a single sponsor or corporation. > > i think this whole idea is a moot point anyways ... go visit the Gentoo > Foundation web site and see Chapter 2 Section 5 And how exactly does this help us in the event of say the OSL burning down or the GNi suffering flooding? :) My point was simply that I think we would be wise to research whether there is the possibility of spreading our critical infrastructure a bit better so that in the event of an Act of God or suchlike we wouldn't find ourselves losing everything to, say, water damage. I agree, adding a line to the social contract won't magically send our servers across the world and into the homes^Wdatacenters of hundreds of wonderful new sponsors. Would be nice if it did though! signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposed addition to the Social Contract
On Sunday 25 March 2007, Christel Dahlskjaer wrote: > On Sun, 2007-03-25 at 16:47 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote: > > i think this whole idea is a moot point anyways ... go visit the Gentoo > > Foundation web site and see Chapter 2 Section 5 > > And how exactly does this help us in the event of say the OSL burning > down or the GNi suffering flooding? :) it addresses ciaranm's conspiracy theory > My point was simply that I think we would be wise to research whether > there is the possibility of spreading our critical infrastructure a bit > better so that in the event of an Act of God or suchlike we wouldn't > find ourselves losing everything to, say, water damage. > > I agree, adding a line to the social contract won't magically send our > servers across the world and into the homes^Wdatacenters of hundreds of > wonderful new sponsors. Would be nice if it did though! right ... addressing this specifically can really only be done via a suggestion (please try to spread our infrastructure around the world) and by then, might as well not bother ... plus, this is kind of overkill for the Social Contract i think ... -mike pgpf99dnUmppd.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposed addition to the Social Contract
On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 17:59:41 -0400 Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sunday 25 March 2007, Christel Dahlskjaer wrote: > > On Sun, 2007-03-25 at 16:47 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote: > > > i think this whole idea is a moot point anyways ... go visit the > > > Gentoo Foundation web site and see Chapter 2 Section 5 > > > > And how exactly does this help us in the event of say the OSL > > burning down or the GNi suffering flooding? :) > > it addresses ciaranm's conspiracy theory Like I said, it was a purely hypothetical example. You're being awfully touchy about this... -- Ciaran McCreesh signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [soc] Python bindings for Paludis
> Duncan wrote: >> A segment of an already minor segment (certainly currently, tho that >> /may/ eventually change), not likely to be something that can reasonably >> be characterized as benefiting Gentoo as a whole, at least in the near >> to >> medium term, and beyond that, well, things remain up for grabs. >> > Hear hear, although i do tend to agree with Mr Goodyear's assessment; if > not > Gentoo, then who? And hasn't Paludis improved Gentoo's QA already? > > At the end of the day, some poor student is going to volunteer to do this > because they find it interesting (if it were to go ahead.) In that case, > I'd peronsally say let them. But I don't know the ins and outs of the > Council's thinking obviously. And TBH you lot voted them in to make this > kind of call. > > Why not let them? Because IMHO it's not their place. We have a Summer of Code Project. We know there are issues. We plan to address them. The council is the *last place* to take issues in my mind. Think Supreme Court (bad analogy but whatever). If you have a problem with the way the summer of code is handling (or perhaps will handle) this situation feel free to talk to us, e-mail us, find us on irc ([EMAIL PROTECTED] and #gentoo-soc respectively). I get really irritated when people just say 'well go talk to the council' when they haven't even talked to the project members, or the project lead, or god forbid, the ombudsman. -Alec -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposed addition to the Social Contract
On Sunday 25 March 2007, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Sunday 25 March 2007, Christel Dahlskjaer wrote: > > > On Sun, 2007-03-25 at 16:47 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote: > > > > i think this whole idea is a moot point anyways ... go visit the > > > > Gentoo Foundation web site and see Chapter 2 Section 5 > > > > > > And how exactly does this help us in the event of say the OSL > > > burning down or the GNi suffering flooding? :) > > > > it addresses ciaranm's conspiracy theory > > Like I said, it was a purely hypothetical example. You're being awfully > touchy about this... you're right, i get touchy when people throw bs onto the lists and simply waste developer time -mike pgpBt5kfQXct3.pgp Description: PGP signature
[gentoo-dev] Re: [last rites] virtual/x11
I commented this out of package.mask. x11-libs/fox-1.2.6-r2 still uses it. Need to fix that up before masking it. Michael Sterrett -Mr. Bones.- [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Sun, 25 Mar 2007, Stefan Schweizer wrote: Hi, virtual/x11 has been deprecated for some time and now that all packages that only use it have been removed it is time to mask and remove it. I have put it in package.mask now - please fix your overlays in case you still use virtual/x11 somewhere. It will be removed in 30 days as per the usual schedule. Best regards, Stefan -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
[gentoo-dev] Automated Package Removal and Addition Tracker, for the week ending 2007-03-25 23h59 UTC
The attached list notes all of the packages that were added or removed from the tree, for the week ending 2007-03-25 23h59 UTC. Removals: app-portage/emool 2007-03-19 10:17:22 blubb www-client/mozilla 2007-03-19 10:25:35 armin76 www-client/mozilla-bin 2007-03-19 10:25:35 armin76 games-fps/cube 2007-03-20 02:44:00 mr_bones_ media-sound/mute2007-03-20 14:57:26 hanno games-emulation/mupen64-jttl_sound 2007-03-20 19:42:15 nyhm games-emulation/mupen64-glN64 2007-03-20 19:46:36 nyhm games-emulation/mupen64-blight-input2007-03-20 19:46:56 nyhm xfce-extra/xfce4-artwork2007-03-22 14:31:51 drac xfce-extra/xfce4-bglist-editor 2007-03-22 14:31:51 drac xfce-extra/xfce4-megahertz 2007-03-22 14:31:51 drac xfce-extra/xfce4-modemlights2007-03-22 14:31:51 drac xfce-extra/xfce4-panelmenu 2007-03-22 14:31:51 drac xfce-extra/xfce4-websearch 2007-03-22 14:31:51 drac net-analyzer/netwatch 2007-03-22 16:54:08 jokey media-libs/libhydrogen 2007-03-24 08:32:59 genstef media-video/xiron 2007-03-24 08:34:19 genstef app-i18n/skkinput 2007-03-24 08:35:44 genstef dev-perl/Text-ChaSen2007-03-24 13:21:16 mcummings Additions: sci-chemistry/bodr 2007-03-19 17:43:01 cryos sci-mathematics/pspp2007-03-19 19:39:44 bicatali media-libs/libzzub 2007-03-20 14:48:07 hanno dev-python/pyzzub 2007-03-20 14:50:39 hanno media-sound/aldrin 2007-03-20 14:54:06 hanno dev-libs/libmowgli 2007-03-20 15:35:41 chainsaw x11-misc/beryl-settings-bindings2007-03-21 02:52:28 tsunam x11-wm/aquamarine 2007-03-21 03:02:38 tsunam profiles/selinux/alpha 2007-03-22 04:58:35 beandog profiles/selinux/sparc 2007-03-22 05:01:28 beandog profiles/default-bsd2007-03-22 05:04:43 beandog sci-libs/arpack 2007-03-22 16:24:55 bicatali media-sound/shell-fm2007-03-23 20:31:03 pioto games-arcade/openbubbles2007-03-24 00:08:46 tupone gnome-base/libgnomekbd 2007-03-24 03:03:45 dang sys-devel/remake2007-03-24 08:08:29 vapier games-arcade/afternoonstalker 2007-03-24 10:06:11 tupone dev-python/pp 2007-03-24 12:09:13 dev-zero sys-auth/consolekit 2007-03-24 17:09:06 steev sci-geosciences/marble 2007-03-24 20:47:30 cryos games-sports/toycars2007-03-25 13:37:22 tupone xfce-base/libxfce4menu 2007-03-25 14:17:28 drac media-video/gtk-recordmydesktop 2007-03-25 16:26:33 aballier dev-java/bcmail 2007-03-25 17:26:43 wltjr -- Robin Hugh Johnson Gentoo Linux Developer E-Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] GnuPG FP : 11AC BA4F 4778 E3F6 E4ED F38E B27B 944E 3488 4E85 Removed Packages: app-portage/emool,removed,blubb,2007-03-19 10:17:22 www-client/mozilla,removed,armin76,2007-03-19 10:25:35 www-client/mozilla-bin,removed,armin76,2007-03-19 10:25:35 games-fps/cube,removed,mr_bones_,2007-03-20 02:44:00 media-sound/mute,removed,hanno,2007-03-20 14:57:26 games-emulation/mupen64-jttl_sound,removed,nyhm,2007-03-20 19:42:15 games-emulation/mupen64-glN64,removed,nyhm,2007-03-20 19:46:36 games-emulation/mupen64-blight-input,removed,nyhm,2007-03-20 19:46:56 xfce-extra/xfce4-artwork,removed,drac,2007-03-22 14:31:51 xfce-extra/xfce4-bglist-editor,removed,drac,2007-03-22 14:31:51 xfce-extra/xfce4-megahertz,removed,drac,2007-03-22 14:31:51 xfce-extra/xfce4-modemlights,removed,drac,2007-03-22 14:31:51 xfce-extra/xfce4-panelmenu,removed,drac,2007-03-22 14:31:51 xfce-extra/xfce4-websearch,removed,drac,2007-03-22 14:31:51 net-analyzer/netwatch,removed,jokey,2007-03-22 16:54:08 media-libs/libhydrogen,removed,genstef,2007-03-24 08:32:59 media-video/xiron,removed,genstef,2007-03-24 08:34:19 app-i18n/skkinput,removed,genstef,2007-03-24 08:35:44 dev-perl/Text-ChaSen,removed,mcummings,2007-03-24 13:21:16 Added Packages: sci-chemistry/bodr,added,cryos,2007-03-19 17:43:01 sci-mathematics/pspp,added,bicatali,2007-03-19 19:39:44 media-libs/libzzub,added,hanno,2007-03-20 14:48:07 dev-python/pyzzub,added,hanno,2007-03-20 14:50:39 media-sound/aldrin,added,hanno,2007-03-20 14:54:06 dev-libs/libmowgli,added,chainsaw,2007-03-20 15:35:41 x11-misc/beryl-settings-bindings,added,tsunam,2007-03-21 02:52:28 x11-wm/aquamarine,added,tsunam,2007-03-21 03:02:38 profiles/selinux/alpha,added,beandog,2007-03-22 04:58:35 profiles/selinux/sparc,ad
[gentoo-dev] Last rites for NX components split ebuilds
Hi, the following packages have been superseded by/merged into net-misc/nx, the last ebuild in portage that used them (nxserver-freenx-0.5.0) was removed 4 months ago: net-misc/nxcomp net-misc/nxesd net-misc/nxproxy net-misc/nxssh net-misc/nx-x11 net-misc/nx-x11-bin They are now package.masked, pending removal in 30 days Regards, Voyageur -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] [last rites] virtual/x11
"Michael Sterrett -Mr. Bones.-" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> napisał: > I commented this out of package.mask. x11-libs/fox-1.2.6-r2 still uses it. > Need to fix that up before masking it. These not numerous packages still using virtual/x11 can be fixed after masking it. Almost nobody uses them. Masking virtual/x11 could urge some developers to fix these packages. -- Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] [last rites] virtual/x11
On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 03:45:38 +0200 arfrever <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > "Michael Sterrett -Mr. Bones.-" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> napisał: > > I commented this out of package.mask. x11-libs/fox-1.2.6-r2 still > > uses it. Need to fix that up before masking it. > > These not numerous packages still using virtual/x11 can be fixed > after masking it. Almost nobody uses them. Masking virtual/x11 could > urge some developers to fix these packages. Breaking the tree, and thus end user systems, is not an acceptable way of getting people to fix things. It doesn't make any difference to developers who haven't fixed their packages, only to users. -- Ciaran McCreesh signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] [last rites] virtual/x11
> On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 03:45:38 +0200 > arfrever <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> "Michael Sterrett -Mr. Bones.-" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> napisał: >> > I commented this out of package.mask. x11-libs/fox-1.2.6-r2 still >> > uses it. Need to fix that up before masking it. >> >> These not numerous packages still using virtual/x11 can be fixed >> after masking it. Almost nobody uses them. Masking virtual/x11 could >> urge some developers to fix these packages. > > Breaking the tree, and thus end user systems, is not an acceptable way > of getting people to fix things. It doesn't make any difference to > developers who haven't fixed their packages, only to users. It's acceptable to me. I'd rather see us make progress than postpone changes for months while devs bicker about changes to be made. That would not be the case if say, people had the balls to just fix things in the tree. However we have this fun system where you have to incessantly contact the maintainer in order to get anything done lest they cry and moan and run to the council because 'you touched their precious package'. -Alec PS: For those non-native speakers, portions of my reply were tongue-in-cheek. -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] [last rites] virtual/x11
On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 19:08:01 -0700 (PDT) "Alec Warner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Breaking the tree, and thus end user systems, is not an acceptable > > way of getting people to fix things. It doesn't make any difference > > to developers who haven't fixed their packages, only to users. > > It's acceptable to me. I'd rather see us make progress than postpone > changes for months while devs bicker about changes to be made. That > would not be the case if say, people had the balls to just fix things > in the tree. However we have this fun system where you have to > incessantly contact the maintainer in order to get anything done lest > they cry and moan and run to the council because 'you touched their > precious package'. Well, if it's reached the "take drastic action" stage (which, let's face it, it has at this point), why not go and fix the tree? It's a better solution than breaking it, and anyone who moans now isn't going to get any sympathy from anyone. Get QA to issue an official proclamation first if you'd like to legitimise it completely -- the Council has already given them authority to do that... -- Ciaran McCreesh signature.asc Description: PGP signature
[gentoo-dev] Re: [last rites] virtual/x11
Michael Sterrett -Mr. Bones.- wrote: > I commented this out of package.mask. x11-libs/fox-1.2.6-r2 still uses it. > Need to fix that up before masking it. It doesn't seem to build. FXColorSelector.cpp: In member function 'long int FX::FXColorSelector::onUpdAlphaText(FX::FXObject*, FX::FXSelector, void*)': FXColorSelector.cpp:446: error: 'FXStringVal' was not declared in this scope FXColorSelector.cpp: In member function 'long int FX::FXColorSelector::onUpdRGBText(FX::FXObject*, FX::FXSelector, void*)': FXColorSelector.cpp:551: error: 'FXStringVal' was not declared in this scope FXColorSelector.cpp: In member function 'long int FX::FXColorSelector::onUpdHSVText(FX::FXObject*, FX::FXSelector, void*)': FXColorSelector.cpp:597: error: 'FXStringVal' was not declared in this scope FXColorSelector.cpp: In member function 'long int FX::FXColorSelector::onUpdCMYText(FX::FXObject*, FX::FXSelector, void*)': FXColorSelector.cpp:642: error: 'FXStringVal' was not declared in this scope I'll have a look. -- where to now? if i had to guess dirtyepic gentoo orgi'm afraid to say antarctica's next 9B81 6C9F E791 83BB 3AB3 5B2D E625 A073 8379 37E8 (0x837937E8) -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] [last rites] virtual/x11
Alec Warner wrote: [Sun Mar 25 2007, 09:08:01PM CDT] > It's acceptable to me. I'd rather see us make progress than postpone > changes for months while devs bicker about changes to be made. That would > not be the case if say, people had the balls to just fix things in the > tree. However we have this fun system where you have to incessantly > contact the maintainer in order to get anything done lest they cry and > moan and run to the council because 'you touched their precious package'. Just for the record, that's not supposed to be "the system". The reason we give such sweeping CVS privs is precisely so that people can fix broken packages. Just don't break anything when you do it. If you do, then you deserve to have the council thump you. -g2boojum- -- Grant Goodyear Gentoo Developer [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.gentoo.org/~g2boojum GPG Fingerprint: D706 9802 1663 DEF5 81B0 9573 A6DC 7152 E0F6 5B76 pgppQqyBf4H2A.pgp Description: PGP signature
[gentoo-dev] Re: [last rites] virtual/x11
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > Well, if it's reached the "take drastic action" stage (which, let's > face it, it has at this point), why not go and fix the tree? It's a > better solution than breaking it, and anyone who moans now isn't going > to get any sympathy from anyone. I'm fixing it now. The breakage wasn't intentional since it looks like this issue was known and fixed and later regressed. -- where to now? if i had to guess dirtyepic gentoo orgi'm afraid to say antarctica's next 9B81 6C9F E791 83BB 3AB3 5B2D E625 A073 8379 37E8 (0x837937E8) -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] [last rites] virtual/x11
On Mon, 2007-03-26 at 03:21 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> Well, if it's reached the "take drastic action" stage (which, let's
> face it, it has at this point), why not go and fix the tree? It's a
> better solution than breaking it, and anyone who moans now isn't going
> to get any sympathy from anyone. Get QA to issue an official
> proclamation first if you'd like to legitimise it completely -- the
> Council has already given them authority to do that...
+1 on this, Ciaran.
Honestly, *breaking* the tree knowingly should be a no-no. In fact, it
should be more of a no-no than pissing ${tribal-possessive-developer}
off. If someone gets miffed because you (QA and/or treecleaners) *fix*
their package after they've been non-responsive, then I reckon the
problem is *entirely* on that developer and not on QA.
Ciaran has brought attention to a very important thing -- QA seems to
take a backseat to a few things, and it is actually a little disturbing
that it does.
Thanks,
Seemant
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
[gentoo-dev] Re: [last rites] virtual/x11
Ryan Hill wrote: > Michael Sterrett -Mr. Bones.- wrote: >> I commented this out of package.mask. x11-libs/fox-1.2.6-r2 still uses it. >> Need to fix that up before masking it. > I'll have a look. Okay, x11-libs/fox-1.2.6-r3 was added to the tree which fixed the virtual/x11 and GCC 4.1 compile issues. It was marked stable on all archs except alpha. Someone doing some cleanup accidentally removed it from the tree instead of the broken -r2. We could restore -r3, but considering nothing in the tree depends on 1.2.6 and the number of months gone by without anyone even noticing -r2 doesn't build, I think it might be better to just remove it along with virtual/x11. fox fell into treecleaner territory until recently but it looks like mabi has taken over as maintainer, so it's up to him. ;) -- where to now? if i had to guess dirtyepic gentoo orgi'm afraid to say antarctica's next 9B81 6C9F E791 83BB 3AB3 5B2D E625 A073 8379 37E8 (0x837937E8) -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [last rites] virtual/x11
Ryan Hill napsal(a): > Ryan Hill wrote: >> Michael Sterrett -Mr. Bones.- wrote: > >>> I commented this out of package.mask. x11-libs/fox-1.2.6-r2 still uses it. >>> Need to fix that up before masking it. > >> I'll have a look. > > Okay, x11-libs/fox-1.2.6-r3 was added to the tree which fixed the > virtual/x11 and GCC 4.1 compile issues. It was marked stable on all > archs except alpha. Someone doing some cleanup accidentally removed it > from the tree instead of the broken -r2. > > We could restore -r3, but considering nothing in the tree depends on > 1.2.6 and the number of months gone by without anyone even noticing -r2 > doesn't build, I think it might be better to just remove it along with > virtual/x11. fox fell into treecleaner territory until recently but it > looks like mabi has taken over as maintainer, so it's up to him. ;) Indeed... Don't re-unmask junk that breaks tons of things just because an unused library version happens to depend on such junk. The whole virtual/x11 dumpspace for missing deps was a horrible idea since the very beginning and needs to die, now. It's already pretty overdue. It's caused hundreds and hundreds of pointless bugs about 'missing' dependencies and it's still breaking users. I could care less about fox-1.2.6-r2, having this darned virtual unmasked breaks lots more things than fox. There's no need for official QA proclamations about this. -- Best regards, Jakub Moc mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG signature: http://subkeys.pgp.net:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xCEBA3D9E Primary key fingerprint: D2D7 933C 9BA1 C95B 2C95 B30F 8717 D5FD CEBA 3D9E ... still no signature ;) signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] 2.6.20 to go stable in 1-2 weeks
linux-headers isnt anything to do with me or the kernel herd. I can't comment on when it will go stable. k, my bad, who should I be speaking to about what I can do to get it sorted? -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
