Re: [gentoo-dev] New global USE flag: introspection
On 21 June 2010 21:23, Arun Raghavan ford_pref...@gentoo.org wrote: [...] I'm still trying to think of a good name. I understand the concerns about introspection being too generic and non GNOME-y, but gir is likely to cause confusion. gir is not good because it gives near-zero information. I can still not think of short enough USE flag. I propose we stick to introspection. There isn't anything on the horizon that might overlap with this flag, and I don't see why we should drop using a simpler flag for the *possibility* that it might overlap with something else in the future. We can deal with this if it happens. Cheers, -- Arun Raghavan http://arunraghavan.net/ (Ford_Prefect | Gentoo) (arunsr | GNOME)
[gentoo-dev] Re: Council manifesto of sping
Arun Raghavan posted on Tue, 22 Jun 2010 10:43:42 +0530 as excerpted: b) For questions like - Should Python 3.x be stable?, isn't that for team leads to decide? And for the council to resolve in case of conflicts? Wouldn't the point for specifically pointing out python 3.x as an example, that there is in fact quite some conflict on it, as demonstrated by the threads discussing it right here? If I'm not mistaken, sping has in fact mentioned that as an example in his tone thread, as well. If I read him correctly, the implication is that before it got to the level it did, council should have voted on it, thus providing a final answer, as an alternative to the simmering level of discontent that's not quite at the boiling over point, that we seem to have with the situation now. He does, after all, make a strong statement in favor of an activist council. c) For questions like - Should developer X be banned?, would you be willing to do this if it meant a lot of washing of dirty linen in public, or protracted flamewars (and other reasons why we have a bunch of level-headed people in place to deal with this calmly and quietly)? If no, where would you draw the line? If yes, how would you deal with the fallout? Leaving the question of public or not aside (I've mixed thoughts on that), if it /is/ to be public, a list other than -dev is IMO a must. I'd also suggest that it be moderated for non-devs, with a moderator alias to which users can write, with any mod-alias-subscribed dev having the authority to forward to the list. A specific mod can volunteer/be-assigned so there's someone at home, with the understanding that other devs may subscribe to the mod alias and forward if they wish. This is based on experience with the council list, which is public but read-only (as I think is appropriate) on gmane. Occasionally, I've replied to individual authors, but a moderator alias would be useful there as well. If no one on the mod alias then believes my post (and those of other users) worth forwarding to the list, so be it. -- 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
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Council manifesto of sping
On 22 June 2010 15:32, Duncan 1i5t5.dun...@cox.net wrote: Arun Raghavan posted on Tue, 22 Jun 2010 10:43:42 +0530 as excerpted: b) For questions like - Should Python 3.x be stable?, isn't that for team leads to decide? And for the council to resolve in case of conflicts? Wouldn't the point for specifically pointing out python 3.x as an example, that there is in fact quite some conflict on it, as demonstrated by the threads discussing it right here? If I'm not mistaken, sping has in fact mentioned that as an example in his tone thread, as well. If I read him correctly, the implication is that before it got to the level it did, council should have voted on it, thus providing a final answer, as an alternative to the simmering level of discontent that's not quite at the boiling over point, that we seem to have with the situation now. He does, after all, make a strong statement in favor of an activist council. I did say questions like this one, not only this one. Also, the context of that quote was from the bit of the manifesto that advocates putting such questions to a global vote, which is what I was enquiring about. Cheers, -- Arun Raghavan http://arunraghavan.net/ (Ford_Prefect | Gentoo) (arunsr | GNOME)
[gentoo-dev] Re: New global USE flag: introspection
tis 2010-06-22 klockan 15:17 +0530 skrev Arun Raghavan: On 21 June 2010 21:23, Arun Raghavan ford_pref...@gentoo.org wrote: [...] I'm still trying to think of a good name. I understand the concerns about introspection being too generic and non GNOME-y, but gir is likely to cause confusion. gir is not good because it gives near-zero information. I can still not think of short enough USE flag. I propose we stick to introspection. There isn't anything on the horizon that might overlap with this flag, and I don't see why we should drop using a simpler flag for the *possibility* that it might overlap with something else in the future. We can deal with this if it happens. Cheers, Why not just gintrospection?
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: New global USE flag: introspection
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 22/06/10 15:33, Arun Raghavan wrote: Why not just gintrospection? I still think introspection is easier to grok. It's unlikely that it's going to be used in a completely different sense by other packages in the future, so let's stick with introspection please. Gintrospection gives more information (things starting with g are generally gnome related, which this is), and grepping for introspection will still turn it up. It also solves the concerns that all the people on this thread have voiced about introspection being too generic. I can't see why introspection is that much easier for people to grok? Gintrospection seems like a good compromise that everyone can agree on... Mike 5:) -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.15 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAkwg5d0ACgkQu7rWomwgFXqr+QCggMCbz0F9Jm/WxK080ZcVLLWV +bcAnj4A72j+T9iLmbyW+0uFDCyYg23o =vbNg -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: New global USE flag: introspection
On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 12:33, Mike Auty ike...@gentoo.org wrote: Gintrospection gives more information (things starting with g are generally gnome related, which this is), and grepping for introspection will still turn it up. It also solves the concerns that all the people on this thread have voiced about introspection being too generic. I can't see why introspection is that much easier for people to grok? Gintrospection seems like a good compromise that everyone can agree on... If you need help gathering consensus, you have this user's vote. -- Jacob For then there will be great distress, unequaled from the beginning of the world until now — and never to be equaled again. If those days had not been cut short, no one would survive, but for the sake of the elect those days will be shortened. Are you ready?
[gentoo-dev] Re: New global USE flag: introspection
On 20 June 2010 20:12, Arun Raghavan ford_pref...@gentoo.org wrote: [...] Any objections? I'll wait till Wed (June 23rd) before adding this if there aren't any. Is anyone here vehemently against introspection. -- Arun Raghavan http://arunraghavan.net/ (Ford_Prefect | Gentoo) (arunsr | GNOME)
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: New global USE flag: introspection
On 22 June 2010 22:03, Mike Auty ike...@gentoo.org wrote: [...] I still think introspection is easier to grok. It's unlikely that it's going to be used in a completely different sense by other packages in the future, so let's stick with introspection please. Gintrospection gives more information (things starting with g are generally gnome related, which this is), and grepping for introspection It is not a GNOME-only flag. It affects several non-GNOME-only packages as well (udev, upower, udisks, dbus, gstreamer, other freedesktop projects, pulseaudio). will still turn it up. It also solves the concerns that all the people on this thread have voiced about introspection being too generic. I Which should not be an issue since any library that has some sort of introspection can use this flag (and the use.desc can be changed appropriately at that time if it does not use gobject-introspection). -- Arun Raghavan http://arunraghavan.net/ (Ford_Prefect | Gentoo) (arunsr | GNOME)
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: New global USE flag: introspection
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 22/06/10 18:11, Arun Raghavan wrote: It is not a GNOME-only flag. A general introspection flag may not be, but this isn't a general introspection flag, this is specific to gobject and the suggestions try to clarify that. People who want gobject-introspection (which concerns gobject, and is therefore appropriate for a g prefix) will not want to have to manually differentiate between arbitrary-library-introspection and gobject-introspection by fiddling around with a package.use file to individually turn it on and off. It should be an easy, global USE flag to enable once in make.conf and forget about. Which should not be an issue since any library that has some sort of introspection can use this flag (and the use.desc can be changed appropriately at that time if it does not use gobject-introspection). Why have to change it in the future (and probably split it into two flags then), when the choice hasn't been made yet? Or, to put your own question to you, why are you vehemently for introspection when others have shown concern with the choice? As far as I can see, the only difference is requiring a slightly longer use_enable line. In the end, it's not a big issue and whichever is chosen it'll work out. I'm just trying to figure out why the compromise solutions aren't good enough to satisfy everyone? Mike 5:) -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.15 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAkwhGkAACgkQu7rWomwgFXp0dQCePjaHQn6JeBO6OrzwsIHBp8f1 +2gAoJDD4MS1spuo1DiqD96uOfX8ZBj9 =TJvC -END PGP SIGNATURE-
[gentoo-dev] ndiswrapper, anyone?
there's nothing usable left in tree, it's bitrotted for too long. will be masked for removal in 30 days if nobody wants to pick it up.
Re: [gentoo-dev] ndiswrapper, anyone?
On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 10:42 PM, Samuli Suominen ssuomi...@gentoo.org wrote: there's nothing usable left in tree, it's bitrotted for too long. will be masked for removal in 30 days if nobody wants to pick it up. Well, I'm not using it, but I'd hate to see it go since I remember how I was forced to use it, so... let me take it
Re: [gentoo-dev] ndiswrapper, anyone?
On 06/22/2010 11:45 PM, Christoph Mende wrote: On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 10:42 PM, Samuli Suominenssuomi...@gentoo.org wrote: there's nothing usable left in tree, it's bitrotted for too long. will be masked for removal in 30 days if nobody wants to pick it up. Well, I'm not using it, but I'd hate to see it go since I remember how I was forced to use it, so... let me take it thanks angelos :)
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: New global USE flag: introspection
On 23 June 2010 01:47, Mike Auty ike...@gentoo.org wrote: [...] Which should not be an issue since any library that has some sort of introspection can use this flag (and the use.desc can be changed appropriately at that time if it does not use gobject-introspection). Why have to change it in the future (and probably split it into two flags then), when the choice hasn't been made yet? Or, to put your own question to you, why are you vehemently for introspection when others have shown concern with the choice? As far as I can see, the only difference is requiring a slightly longer use_enable line. Mostly because I don't want to coin a new term if it's not absolutely necessary. That said, you're right - more people seem to be comfortable with gintrospection than plain introspection. If no further objections arise, we'll go with gintrospection. Thanks, -- Arun Raghavan http://arunraghavan.net/ (Ford_Prefect | Gentoo) (arunsr | GNOME)
