Re: [gentoo-dev] Nominations open for the Gentoo Council 2008/2009

[Panagiotis Christopoulos]

On 02:00 Thu 05 Jun , Łukasz Damentko wrote:
> Hi guys,
> 
> Nominations for the Gentoo Council 2008/2009 are open now and will be
> open for the next two weeks (until 23:59 UTC, 18/06/2008).
> 
I want to nominate:

1. Marijn Schouten (hkBst)
2. Ulrich Müller (ulm)

-- 
Panagiotis Christopoulos(pchrist)
-- Gentoo Lisp Project --


pgpVRFC5eSzpn.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] Nominations open for the Gentoo Council 2008/2009

[Marijn Schouten (hkBst)]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

Panagiotis Christopoulos wrote:
| On 02:00 Thu 05 Jun , Łukasz Damentko wrote:
|> Hi guys,
|>
|> Nominations for the Gentoo Council 2008/2009 are open now and will be
|> open for the next two weeks (until 23:59 UTC, 18/06/2008).
|>
| I want to nominate:
|
| 1. Marijn Schouten (hkBst)

I accept.

| 2. Ulrich Müller (ulm)

- --
Marijn Schouten (hkBst), Gentoo Lisp project, Gentoo ML
, #gentoo-{lisp,ml} on FreeNode
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iEYEARECAAYFAkhZABIACgkQp/VmCx0OL2yo5gCghRY3IHt/NDbytCSxnp1wdrBk
ResAn2NvnoLoc17TZHZhlpvwWD2o8dei
=dMmo
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
--
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Nominations open for the Gentoo Council 2008/2009

[Ulrich Mueller]

> On Wed, 18 Jun 2008, Panagiotis Christopoulos wrote:

> I want to nominate:

> 1. Marijn Schouten (hkBst)
> 2. Ulrich Müller (ulm)

I accept.

Ulrich


pgp4Cl437iZ97.pgp
Description: PGP signature

[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in media-libs/opencv: opencv-1.0.0.ebuild metadata.xml Manifest ChangeLog

[Thomas Anderson]

On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 05:24:34AM +, Josh Glover (jmglov) wrote:
> LICENSE="Intel"
Check configure output, GPL-2 license is enabled if v4l and/or xine USE
flags are on.

> SLOT="0"
> KEYWORDS="~x86"
> IUSE="ffmpeg gtk ieee1394 python swig v4l v4l2 xine"
> 
> DEPEND="
>   dev-util/pkgconfig

With the code below, pkgconfig ends up in RDEPEND, and we don't want
that. Try using COMMON_DEPEND for things like this.
>   media-libs/jasper
>   media-libs/jpeg
>   media-libs/libpng
>   media-libs/tiff
>   sys-libs/zlib
>   ffmpeg?   ( >=media-video/ffmpeg-0.4.9 )
>   ieee1394? ( media-libs/libdc1394   )
Check configure output, this package needs a version of libdc1394 in
SLOT 1.
>   ieee1394? ( sys-libs/libraw1394)
Check configure output, this package needs a version >=1.2.0
>   gtk?  ( >=x11-libs/gtk+-2  )
This could be better done with SLOT dependencies.
>   python?   ( >=dev-lang/python-2.3  )
>   swig? ( dev-lang/swig  )
Check configure output, this package needs swig >=1.3.30
>   xine? ( media-libs/xine-lib)
> "
> RDEPEND="${DEPEND}"
> 

You're missing OpenEXR as a runtime/buildtime dependency
> src_compile() {
>   local myconf="--without-quicktime"
> 
>   if   use ffmpeg ; then
>   ## TODO: jmglov 2008/06/18
>   ## Remove this junk once bug # 227975 is resolved
>   ewarn "${PN} currently will not build with ffmpeg support"
>   ewarn "Please enable the 'xine' USE flag instead"
>   ewarn "Working on this in bug # 227975"
>   die "configuration failed; see above"
>   ## TODO: jmglov 2008/06/18

You can use.mask ffmpeg for the time being, so users don't get killed by
this in the meantime, before you pull my patches from the science
overlay
> 
>   myconf="${myconf} --with-ffmpeg --without-xine"
>   elif use xine   ; then
>   myconf="${myconf} --with-xine --without-ffmpeg"
>   else
>   die "You must set one of the 'ffmpeg' or 'xine' USE flags"
>   fi
That doesn't seem right, it's working in the science overlay with
neither of them set.
>   myconf="${myconf} $(use_with ieee1394 1394libs)"
>   myconf="${myconf} $(use_with python)"
>   myconf="${myconf} $(use_with swig)"
>   myconf="${myconf} $(use_with v4l)"
> 
>   econf ${myconf} || die "econf failed"
> 
>   emake || die "emake failed"
> }
Beware of automagic dependencies, they're fixed in the science overlay!
> 
> 
> 
> 1.1  media-libs/opencv/metadata.xml
> 
> file : 
> http://sources.gentoo.org/viewcvs.py/gentoo-x86/media-libs/opencv/metadata.xml?rev=1.1&view=markup
> plain: 
> http://sources.gentoo.org/viewcvs.py/gentoo-x86/media-libs/opencv/metadata.xml?rev=1.1&content-type=text/plain
> 
> Index: metadata.xml
> ===
> 
> http://www.gentoo.org/dtd/metadata.dtd";>
> 
> 
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Josh Glover
> 
> OpenCV (Open Source Computer Vision) is a library of 
> programming functions mainly aimed at real time computer vision.
> 
> Example applications of the OpenCV library are Human-Computer Interaction 
> (HCI); Object Identification, Segmentation and Recognition; Face Recognition; 
> Gesture Recognition; Motion Tracking, Ego Motion, Motion Understanding; 
> Structure From Motion (SFM); and Mobile Robotics.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1.1  media-libs/opencv/Manifest
> 
> file : 
> http://sources.gentoo.org/viewcvs.py/gentoo-x86/media-libs/opencv/Manifest?rev=1.1&view=markup
> plain: 
> http://sources.gentoo.org/viewcvs.py/gentoo-x86/media-libs/opencv/Manifest?rev=1.1&content-type=text/plain
> 
> Index: Manifest
> ===
> DIST opencv-1.0.0.tar.gz 11146334 RMD160 
> f041798ea63101b90e945957e0d0ad3f7497dcd4 SHA1 
> c7dd500703b0060cedfa049fcb33de0846e631fb SHA256 
> 3a6ee888e4dd4ab7f2bc80d046688c099c6a95d1267af554b7c8f1543b66f21e
> EBUILD opencv-1.0.0.ebuild 1687 RMD160 
> 84b439cc4a0bc06723b3ccec129cd84071e82e48 SHA1 
> d296fb7057e192ee0c0b424a9577cb25f79dca0e SHA256 
> aa1521a657e1fe352a596d261a24497ea012962aac03d2eba6abcfa22fa01b6f
> MISC ChangeLog 258 RMD160 8c6fcc66840ee3c1aa26e27c5bc640e7d63ed85b SHA1 
> 4558d511042c00854b070b236424da03a90b1c37 SHA256 
> 52d247930ecb833cd9f34552c2aa8f931435578c0081e7a00fd56dece8318ce1
> MISC metadata.xml 652 RMD160 5cfb86ff65264086bc032c406763d3cc46b075d2 SHA1 
> 771ee2dc24641518bbacc47bbffa356d0c071a35 SHA256 
> b63ce92a359d882b519ef92ef358a73ce854bd875e19c283c72217b0d7965bdc
> 
> 
> 
> 1.1  media-libs/opencv/ChangeLog
> 
> file : 
> http://sources.gentoo.org/viewcvs.py/gentoo-x86/media-libs/opencv/ChangeLog?rev=1.1&view=markup
> plain: 
> http://sources.gentoo.org/viewcvs.py/gentoo-x86/media-libs/opencv/ChangeLog?rev=1.1&content-type=text/plain
> 
> Index: ChangeLog
> ==

Re: [gentoo-dev] Nominations open for the Gentoo Council 2008/2009

[Chris Gianelloni]

On Sat, 2008-06-07 at 14:46 +0100, Alex Howells wrote:
> I agree with both of these and also think both agaffney and wolf31o2
> would serve us excellently on Council.  Consider them nominated too :)

Thanks, but I no longer have the time nor the desire to dedicate to the
Council.

-- 
Chris Gianelloni
Release Engineering Strategic Lead
Games Developer


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo Council 2008/2009 Nominations end TODAY 23:59 UTC

[George Prowse]

Although he has been nominated already and thus declined I would still 
like amne to change his mind and run for council again.


George
--
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo Council 2008/2009 Nominations end TODAY 23:59 UTC

[Robin H. Johnson]

On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 07:50:01AM +0200, ??ukasz Damentko wrote:
>   Robin H. Johnsonrobbat2 
Nope, I won't be running this time around.

I've got a lot more done in the past year that I wasn't a council member
than the preceding year when I was.

I think tsunam and kingtaco are the same, but I'll wait for them to make
those statements themselves.

-- 
Robin Hugh Johnson
Gentoo Linux Developer & Infra Guy
E-Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
GnuPG FP   : 11AC BA4F 4778 E3F6 E4ED  F38E B27B 944E 3488 4E85


pgp4bcwGZGmxn.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo Council 2008/2009 Nominations end TODAY 23:59 UTC

[Joshua Jackson]

> I think tsunam and kingtaco are the same, but I'll wait for them to make
> those statements themselves.

While I thank those who nominated me, as in past years I've declined the
nomination in favor of working on other possibilities. I wish those who
are running the best of luck.

So yes I decline the nomination.

-- 
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo Council 2008/2009 Nominations end TODAY 23:59 UTC

[Zac Medico]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

Łukasz Damentko wrote:  
>   Zac Medico  zmedico

Thank you for the nomination. However, I will decline because there
other things that I would prefer to focus on.

Zac
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAkhZhNcACgkQ/ejvha5XGaP0kwCfYLH0I+V5zZY9jRaWNTzzeH2M
k0oAoOf7grAlLrCK2rQUlTDkzh5ZeukB
=g0Uw
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
-- 
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Removing .la files...

[Alexis Ballier]

On Sat, 19 Apr 2008 22:18:19 +0200
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò) wrote:

> libogg and popt are now masked, and they'll wait a bit before return
> to ~arch that way.

2 months later, any news on this ? I've been using the unmasked
versions so long; are we going to wait forever ? It's probably better
to unmask it or revert the change at this point.


Alexis.


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]

[Chris Gianelloni]

On Fri, 2008-06-13 at 11:14 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> But some EAPI-0 accepting Portage versions don't accept inline
> comments. Using inline comments in the tree will break those Portage
> versions.

Yes, and EAPI=0 accepting Portage versions also didn't accept things
like package.use and use.mask in the profiles, considering that EAPI=0
doesn't have a set definition and was based upon a particular portage
version that did have the required support.  So should we ban those from
the tree, too?

Oh yeah, PMS isn't approved, anyway, so there's no policy *at all*
within Gentoo that denies a package manager from being used that doesn't
conform to your idea of how things should work.

> This one's especially an issue when you consider how long it's been
> since Gentoo has released official stage tarballs...

Wow.  Your second stab at my team in 3 days, without me even responding.

I should probably be blushing if it weren't for the fact that I really
don't give a damn about you or anything that you say.

Quite honestly, the same goes for pretty much anybody who works with
you.  You are a poisonous person to Gentoo and I sincerely wish that
some day people around here will grow a pair and realize that your
incessant self-absorbed bullshit simply isn't something we really want
around here.  I mean, we've already thrown out you and three of your
cronies because your attitude sucks and you're all a pain in the ass to
work with.  What exactly do we need to do here?  Ban you all?

I find it massively amusing that most of the traffic on this list over
the past 3 days has come from people that have been *FORCIBLY* removed
from the Gentoo project.

Oh yeah, don't bother responding to me.  I've decided to put you and all
of your little cohorts into my killfile so I no longer have to read your
constant barrage of bullshit.

Seriously, you're a complete fucking waste.

-- 
Chris Gianelloni
Release Engineering Strategic Lead
Games Developer


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]

[Chris Gianelloni]

On Fri, 2008-06-13 at 11:22 +0100, David Leverton wrote:
> > PS: An example of something in PMS that is different from Portage:
> > inline comments are disallowed. The only reason I can think for
> doing
> > this is to not make Paludis change it's behaviour.
> 
> Fortunately you don't have to think, you can just read Ciaran's
> explanation.

Yes, because we all should stop thinking for ourselves and let Ciaran
tell us what to think.  After all, we all want to be like the cool
Paludis developers.

-- 
Chris Gianelloni
Release Engineering Strategic Lead
Games Developer


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]

[Chris Gianelloni]

On Fri, 2008-06-13 at 12:22 +0200, Luca Barbato wrote:
> David Leverton wrote:
> > On Friday 13 June 2008 11:10:46 Nirbheek Chauhan wrote:
> >> Interesting to note, however, that Paludis doesn't accept inline
> >> comments, and this behaviour predates PMS.
> > 
> > There's a reason for Paludis not accepting them, and the same reason 
> > applies 
> > to the question of allowing them in PMS or not, therefore PMS doesn't allow 
> > them.  There's no evil conspiracy here, just pure logic.
> 
> Care to share the logic and wise reasoning ?

[ "${IDEA_ORIGIN}" != "Ciaran" ] && die

-- 
Chris Gianelloni
Release Engineering Strategic Lead
Games Developer


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]

[Chris Gianelloni]

On Fri, 2008-06-13 at 11:23 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> Did you check whether Portage that's included in current Gentoo
> releases supports inline comments in profiles?

Yeah, the version in 2008.0_beta2 surely does.  Perhaps you meant
something else?  Well, either that, or you're just posting more of your
bullshit where you obscure or otherwise lie about the facts to suit
yourself.

-- 
Chris Gianelloni
Release Engineering Strategic Lead
Games Developer


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]

[Chris Gianelloni]

On Fri, 2008-06-13 at 11:27 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > Well, then it should be updated to match current Portage behaviour.
> > PMS is not supposed to document "How portage worked at one point of
> > time" or "The intersection of the capabilities of Portage and
> > Paludis". It should follow the current portage's behaviour as closely
> > as possible.
> 
> Do you really want to make it impossible to install Gentoo using the
> most recent official release? Because that's what will happen if we do
> what you're suggesting...

Considering that the "most recent official release" is 2008.0_beta2, I
don't see where you have a point, at all.

Sure, you're going to mention something about being labeled a beta, to
which my response will be that you're simply backpedaling and changing
the facts to suit your needs.  After all, looking at /releases on the
mirrors, I see a nice and shiny 2008.0_beta2 on all of the
officially-supported arches.

Isn't it about time that you gave up on your little mission to
consistently undermine the hard work put in by a community of
volunteers?

Of course not... You need to stroke your ego some more.  Pfft...

-- 
Chris Gianelloni
Release Engineering Strategic Lead
Games Developer


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]

[Chris Gianelloni]

On Fri, 2008-06-13 at 12:44 +, Duncan wrote:
> Ciaran's right on this one.  It may have been a bug in portage, now 
> fixed, but at least until a stable current release media set, a working 
> PMS can't change the EAPI-0 definition to fail with portage on the old 
> release media, however stale it might be.  If a current release happens 
> before PMS EAPI-0 finalization, this could possibly be subject to debate, 
> but until then, it just doesn't work, however much we might wish it could.

No, he isn't.  For one, we're talking make.conf, not the profiles.
Second, there's a newer official (and stable) media set.  Sorry if you
don't like the "beta" moniker, which applies to the media set.  After
all, does a package suddenly become less stable because it is included
in a tarball that has "beta" in the *FILE NAME* ?  I don't think so.

-- 
Chris Gianelloni
Release Engineering Strategic Lead
Games Developer


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

[gentoo-dev] Gentoo Council nominations are now closed

[Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

Hello.

The nominations for the Gentoo Council 2008 election were closed at
23:59:59 UTC June 18th, 2008. The voting for the new council will begin
at 00:00 UTC June 21st, 2008 and will end at 23:59:59 UTC July 4th.
There were 36 nominees to the council, of which 19 will run on this
election. All details about the nominations can be checked at
http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/council/voting-logs/council-2008-nominees.xml
The nominees who have accepted their nominations for this election are:

- - astinus
- - Betelgeuse
- - cardoe
- - dberkholz
- - dertobi123
- - dev-zero
- - ferdy
- - Flameeyes
- - fmccor
- - Halcy0n
- - hkBst
- - jer
- - Jokey
- - leio
- - lu_zero
- - peper
- - ulm
- - welp
- - zlin


~From the election officials

- --
Regards,

Jorge Vicetto (jmbsvicetto) - jmbsvicetto at gentoo dot org
Gentoo- forums / Userrel / SPARC / KDE
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iEYEARECAAYFAkhZsc4ACgkQcAWygvVEyALcggCgl+LsyHAA+HqxMXBx98lQLJST
RIcAoJvdA1tlgJ605FXb758TXGaNXC2M
=ao6w
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
--
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]

[Chris Gianelloni]

On Sun, 2008-06-15 at 15:50 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> Do you think that the differences between the proportion of patches
> from 'Paludis people' that are accepted or rejected and the proportion
> of patches from 'Portage people' or 'Pkgcore people' indicates a
> problem?

Nope.   What I see as a problem is that the primary author and current
de facto maintainer is so much of an asshole that he was forcibly
removed from the Gentoo project, which PMS is supposed to be written
for, and has ostracized (at least) one of the package manager's
development team with his constant not-so-subtle attacks.  Quite
frankly, I'd prefer see Gentoo take control over the specification that
defines the most important single feature of Gentoo and remove the
non-Gentoo developers from its development.  No offense, but you're not
a Gentoo developer any longer and you shouldn't have a say in how *we*
manage ourselves.  You're more than welcome to contribute code, fork, or
whatever the hell you want.  This is open source, after all, but that
doesn't mean you should be allowed to hold the position of power over
Gentoo that you've been granted.

-- 
Chris Gianelloni
Release Engineering Strategic Lead
Games Developer


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]

[Chris Gianelloni]

On Sun, 2008-06-15 at 16:04 +0100, David Leverton wrote:
> On Sunday 15 June 2008 15:42:28 Peter Volkov wrote:
> > For example, currently, PMS team does not include anybody from portage
> > team - official PM team and thus this team can't represent Gentoo
> > interests.
> 
> The Portage team is perfectly welcome to contribute if they wish.  zmedico is 
> on the alias, although he seems to have been focussing on working on Portage 
> itself.  genone, from what I've seen, seems to be indifferent at best to the 
> idea of PMS.
> 
> I'm curious as to why you think the actively contributing members of the PMS 
> team aren't acting in Gentoo's interests, though.

Maybe because they were booted from Gentoo for not acting in Gentoo's
best interest?

-- 
Chris Gianelloni
Release Engineering Strategic Lead
Games Developer


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Re: [gentoo-dev] Packages broken by phase ordering change

[Chris Gianelloni]

On Sat, 2008-06-14 at 15:09 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 21:55:29 +0200
> "Santiago M. Mola" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > As discussed in bug #222721, portage has changed the execution order
> > of phases. It seems the change was introduced in portage-2.1.5 and it
> > makes that, when upgrading a package, pkg_postinst is run after the
> > old version has been removed. This breaks packages which use
> > has_version in pkg_postinst to detect upgrades/downgrades. It can also
> > break packages in more subtle ways.
> 
> Given that the number of affected ebuilds is so high, I'd say Portage
> should have to revert the changes...

Of course, you would.  What else would we expect from you?

> This is an EAPI scope change, if anything. Although even then the
> implications are a bit messy since you're talking the interaction of
> two different EAPIs.

It seems that everything these days is an EAPI scope change.  That's not
very useful for Gentoo, considering it's been quite some time since PMS
was proposed and we've not seen approval for either EAPI=0 or EAPI=1 (or
PMS, for that matter).  What we have gotten is a half-assed "you can use
EAPI=1 in the tree to get these enumerated features" from the Council,
but that's nothing like acceptance of a spec.  Perhaps if you spent a
little more time doing something more constructive than being an asshat
on the lists, PMS would have been approved long ago.  Of course, that
doesn't mesh well with your apparent need to be a complete dick to
people, so continue on with the status quo.

-- 
Chris Gianelloni
Release Engineering Strategic Lead
Games Developer


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]

[Mauricio Lima Pilla]

Chris++

On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 10:43 PM, Chris Gianelloni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:

> On Sun, 2008-06-15 at 15:50 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > Do you think that the differences between the proportion of patches
> > from 'Paludis people' that are accepted or rejected and the proportion
> > of patches from 'Portage people' or 'Pkgcore people' indicates a
> > problem?
>
> Nope.   What I see as a problem is that the primary author and current
> de facto maintainer is so much of an asshole that he was forcibly
> removed from the Gentoo project, which PMS is supposed to be written
> for, and has ostracized (at least) one of the package manager's
> development team with his constant not-so-subtle attacks.  Quite
> frankly, I'd prefer see Gentoo take control over the specification that
> defines the most important single feature of Gentoo and remove the
> non-Gentoo developers from its development.  No offense, but you're not
> a Gentoo developer any longer and you shouldn't have a say in how *we*
> manage ourselves.  You're more than welcome to contribute code, fork, or
> whatever the hell you want.  This is open source, after all, but that
> doesn't mean you should be allowed to hold the position of power over
> Gentoo that you've been granted.
>
> --
> Chris Gianelloni
> Release Engineering Strategic Lead
> Games Developer
>



-- 
Mauricio Lima Pilla
Polytechnic Center - UCPEL

[EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://g3pd.ucpel.tche.br/~pilla
key 0x37705BE0

"I'm just very selective about the reality I choose to accept."
-- Calvin

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Shiny new stuff

[Jeroen Roovers]

On Tue, 17 Jun 2008 22:29:07 +0200
Christian Faulhammer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>  Gentoo Arch Testing Tool: http://gatt.sourceforge.net/> for all
> arch workers and testers.

I call SPAM! (Now keyworded ~hppa.)


Kind regards,
 JeR
-- 
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Packages broken by phase ordering change

[Jeroen Roovers]

On Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:21:24 -0700
Chris Gianelloni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> It seems that everything these days is an EAPI scope change.  That's
> not very useful for Gentoo, considering it's been quite some time
> since PMS was proposed and we've not seen approval for either EAPI=0
> or EAPI=1 (or PMS, for that matter).  What we have gotten is a
> half-assed "you can use EAPI=1 in the tree to get these enumerated
> features" from the Council, but that's nothing like acceptance of a
> spec.  Perhaps if you spent a little more time doing something more
> constructive than being an asshat on the lists, PMS would have been
> approved long ago.  Of course, that doesn't mesh well with your
> apparent need to be a complete dick to people, so continue on with
> the status quo.

+1


Kind regards,
 JeR
-- 
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]

[George Prowse]

++

It's about time someone said this and I honestly think that lots of 
developers will be thinking the same.


In the end, PMS is just a way for them to spread their own agenda and 
force it on both the developers and the users so maybe it would be best 
for all if paludis and it's developers were to concentrate on making 
paludis for a different distro. Trollix may be a good place to start...


Mauricio Lima Pilla wrote:

Chris++

On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 10:43 PM, Chris Gianelloni <[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> wrote:


On Sun, 2008-06-15 at 15:50 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
 > Do you think that the differences between the proportion of patches
 > from 'Paludis people' that are accepted or rejected and the
proportion
 > of patches from 'Portage people' or 'Pkgcore people' indicates a
 > problem?

Nope.   What I see as a problem is that the primary author and current
de facto maintainer is so much of an asshole that he was forcibly
removed from the Gentoo project, which PMS is supposed to be written
for, and has ostracized (at least) one of the package manager's
development team with his constant not-so-subtle attacks.  Quite
frankly, I'd prefer see Gentoo take control over the specification that
defines the most important single feature of Gentoo and remove the
non-Gentoo developers from its development.  No offense, but you're not
a Gentoo developer any longer and you shouldn't have a say in how *we*
manage ourselves.  You're more than welcome to contribute code, fork, or
whatever the hell you want.  This is open source, after all, but that
doesn't mean you should be allowed to hold the position of power over
Gentoo that you've been granted.

--
Chris Gianelloni
Release Engineering Strategic Lead
Games Developer




--
Mauricio Lima Pilla
Polytechnic Center - UCPEL

[EMAIL PROTECTED] , 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 

http://g3pd.ucpel.tche.br/~pilla
key 0x37705BE0

"I'm just very selective about the reality I choose to accept."
-- Calvin


--
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]

[David Leverton]

On Thursday 19 June 2008 04:09:26 George Prowse wrote:
> In the end, PMS is just a way for them to spread their own agenda

Lies and FUD.

> maybe it would be best for all if paludis and it's developers were to
> concentrate on making paludis for a different distro. Trollix may be a
> good place to start... 

Oh look, speaking of agendas
-- 
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

[gentoo-dev] Re: Packages broken by phase ordering change

[Ryan Hill]

On Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:21:24 -0700
Chris Gianelloni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> On Sat, 2008-06-14 at 15:09 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 21:55:29 +0200
> > "Santiago M. Mola" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > As discussed in bug #222721, portage has changed the execution
> > > order of phases. It seems the change was introduced in
> > > portage-2.1.5 and it makes that, when upgrading a package,
> > > pkg_postinst is run after the old version has been removed. This
> > > breaks packages which use has_version in pkg_postinst to detect
> > > upgrades/downgrades. It can also break packages in more subtle
> > > ways.
> > 
> > Given that the number of affected ebuilds is so high, I'd say
> > Portage should have to revert the changes...
> 
> Of course, you would.  What else would we expect from you?
> 
> > This is an EAPI scope change, if anything. Although even then the
> > implications are a bit messy since you're talking the interaction of
> > two different EAPIs.
> 
> It seems that everything these days is an EAPI scope change.  That's
> not very useful for Gentoo, considering it's been quite some time
> since PMS was proposed and we've not seen approval for either EAPI=0
> or EAPI=1 (or PMS, for that matter).  What we have gotten is a
> half-assed "you can use EAPI=1 in the tree to get these enumerated
> features" from the Council, but that's nothing like acceptance of a
> spec.  Perhaps if you spent a little more time doing something more
> constructive than being an asshat on the lists, PMS would have been
> approved long ago.  Of course, that doesn't mesh well with your
> apparent need to be a complete dick to people, so continue on with
> the status quo.

I don't want to start yet another hundred post thread here[i], but our
etiquette policy applies to everyone here, and I would have hoped that
as a senior developer you could at least try to take the high road and
set an example.

I know this is hypocritical coming from someone who recently called you
a giant flaming asshole, but I've been trying hard since to be more
civil because I realize that kind of behaviour is unacceptable and
nonconstructive (and again I apologize).

I'm not picking you out here, this applies to all of us (you too
Ciaran).  I mean c'mon, let's quit the bitching and get shit done
already.

[i] IOW don't reply to this mail please  :P


-- 
gcc-porting,  by design, by neglect
treecleaner,  for a fact or just for effect
wxwidgets @ gentoo EFFD 380E 047A 4B51 D2BD C64F 8AA8 8346 F9A4 0662


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]

[David Leverton]

On Thursday 19 June 2008 01:23:33 Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> Considering that the "most recent official release" is 2008.0_beta2, I
> don't see where you have a point, at all.

http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/releng/#doc_chap5

"The latest release of Gentoo Linux is:

"Gentoo Linux 2007.0 for Alpha, AMD64, HPPA, IA64, MIPS, PPC, S390, SH, SPARC, 
and x86 architectures. "

2007.0 is also the first version listed at 
http://www.gentoo.org/main/en/where.xml

The point is to avoid breaking Portage versions that users might reasonably be 
using, even if only briefly.  Do you really expect /all/ users doing a new 
installation to choose the scary beta instead of the nice safe release?  
Perhaps we all know that the beta is better because it's so much more up to 
date.  Maybe it's even just as stable, if not more so (I wouldn't know, I 
haven't tried it).  But as long as it's labelled "beta", at least some people 
are going to avoid it in favour of 2007.0, and breaking the tree for those 
people such that they can't upgrade is unacceptable.
-- 
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Packages broken by phase ordering change

[David Leverton]

On Thursday 19 June 2008 02:21:24 Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> It seems that everything these days is an EAPI scope change.

Everything change that has the potential to break existing packages, or to 
make new packages incompatible with existing package managers, is an EAPI 
scope change.  That is the very purpose of EAPI.

> Perhaps if you spent a little more time doing something more constructive
> than being an asshat on the lists, PMS would have been approved long ago.
> Of course, that doesn't mesh well with your apparent need to be a complete
> dick to people, so continue on with the status quo.

This thread was entirely technical until now.  Are such attacks really 
necessary?
-- 
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list