On Sun, 2005-09-11 at 22:41 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
I've put together a kind of FAQ for the most common maintainer-wanted
problems:
http://dev.gentoo.org/~ciaranm/docs/mw-faq/
The idea is to replace most of my usual bullet points in the please
fix list with URLs with more complete
Aron Griffis wrote:
Alin Nastac wrote: [Sun Sep 11 2005, 05:02:27PM EDT]
Gentoo history is full of such individuals who only want to be sure
that they could become devs but are not willing to put any effort
behind it.
Gentoo's history is full of hard-working devs.
The slackers are
On Sunday, September 11, 2005 20:42, Daniel Ahlberg wrote:
The page shows results from a number of tests that are run against the
ebuilds.
Why does this script no longer include the results in the actual message? It
was helpful to have both as a reference source.
--
Anthony Gorecki
As the subject says, if nobody step up for mpeg2-video, it will go away in a
week.
It's currently masked being broken (no author nor masking date). It's
discontinued upstream, as its functionality are provided by cinelerra.
So, if nobody step up, I'll remove it..
--
Diego Flameeyes Pettenò
In what I can only describe as a random act of stupidity I put myself as
maintainer of app-shells/tcsh. The real truth is I don't care about tcsh.
Rather than let a few bugs be ignored for grossly longer than they are already
can anyone with a interest in this package please look at
On Sun, 2005-09-11 at 22:41 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
I've put together a kind of FAQ for the most common maintainer-wanted
problems:
http://dev.gentoo.org/~ciaranm/docs/mw-faq/
The idea is to replace most of my usual bullet points in the please
fix list with URLs with more complete
On Monday 12 September 2005 02:25, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
If you're not up for having your code reviewed, don't contribute to an
open source project. No-one expects you to produce perfect code
straight off (at least, we don't until we give you commit access). We
*do* expect you to be prepared
On Mon, 2005-09-12 at 14:44 +0300, Ivan Yosifov wrote:
On Sun, 2005-09-11 at 22:41 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
I've put together a kind of FAQ for the most common maintainer-wanted
problems:
http://dev.gentoo.org/~ciaranm/docs/mw-faq/
The idea is to replace most of my usual bullet
On Monday 12 September 2005 14:26, Frank Schafer wrote:
Hi,
we meet often the (faulty) notion that autoconf/automake (even a couple
of versions on gentoo) is a dependency for packages.
This is true only for development of these packages itself.
Autoconf/automake provides tools to GENERATE
On Mon, 2005-09-12 at 14:26 +0200, Frank Schafer wrote:
Hi,
we meet often the (faulty) notion that autoconf/automake (even a couple
of versions on gentoo) is a dependency for packages.
This is true only for development of these packages itself.
Autoconf/automake provides tools to GENERATE
On Monday 12 September 2005 08:26 am, Frank Schafer wrote:
we meet often the (faulty) notion that autoconf/automake (even a couple
of versions on gentoo) is a dependency for packages.
not quite sure what you mean by 'faulty', autoconf/automake is used heavily
throughout portage
I'd suggest
Hi,
It took me the whole weekend to build a stage1 system. (Took 5 hours
during last night ;)
I had to work around the bugs this way:
scripts/bootscripts.sh
emerge --oneshot --nodeps autoconf
emerge --oneshot --nodeps autoconf-wrapper
This solved the problem, that automake installed during
On Mon, 2005-09-12 at 14:41 +0200, Frank Schafer wrote:
During ``emerge system'' python-fchksum failed with a not existing
i386-pc-linux-gnu-gcc on a i686 system. I don't know if python hard
codes the native compiler to the one it was built with or if this
compiler is hard coded in setup.py
On Mon, 2005-09-12 at 14:47 +0200, Henrik Brix Andersen wrote:
On Mon, 2005-09-12 at 14:41 +0200, Frank Schafer wrote:
During ``emerge system'' python-fchksum failed with a not existing
i386-pc-linux-gnu-gcc on a i686 system. I don't know if python hard
codes the native compiler to the one
On Monday 12 September 2005 08:48 am, Frank Schafer wrote:
On Mon, 2005-09-12 at 08:41 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Monday 12 September 2005 08:26 am, Frank Schafer wrote:
we meet often the (faulty) notion that autoconf/automake (even a couple
of versions on gentoo) is a dependency for
On Monday 12 September 2005 08:49 am, Frank Schafer wrote:
On Mon, 2005-09-12 at 14:47 +0200, Henrik Brix Andersen wrote:
On Mon, 2005-09-12 at 14:41 +0200, Frank Schafer wrote:
During ``emerge system'' python-fchksum failed with a not existing
i386-pc-linux-gnu-gcc on a i686 system. I
Hi, as I mentioned, I built LFS without this (and I have coreutils on
it ;)
Not at all - if we need to modify or create configure files during build
as Paul and Martin said ... we need autoconf/automake
And furthermore, many programs (or upstream authors if you prefer) are
braindead and don't
On Mon, Sep 12, 2005 at 02:13:43PM +0200, Frank Schafer wrote:
Hi,
I fought with a stage1 install during this weekend. Today in the morning
I succeeded.
I had to move a lot in /var/log/portage.
For the content of this directory I'd suggest the following:
Remove the 4 digit number from
On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 08:01:29 -0500
Brian Harring [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You're seeing two logs due to the fact you have
FEATURES=buildpkg on;
No need to use buildpkg for that, the counter is always incremented
before pkg_postinst, creating a 2nd log for that phase (and then
pkg_*rm create a
On Mon, 2005-09-12 at 08:01 -0500, Brian Harring wrote:
On Mon, Sep 12, 2005 at 02:13:43PM +0200, Frank Schafer wrote:
Hi,
I fought with a stage1 install during this weekend. Today in the morning
I succeeded.
I had to move a lot in /var/log/portage.
For the content of this
12.9.2005, 16:03:17, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
Many users seem to think that a WONTFIX is non-negotiable. I tend to agree
with them, for the most part. Rather than WONTFIX them, simply tell them that
they won't be included as-is. WONTFIX gives the user the impression that we
are not
On Mon, Sep 12, 2005 at 10:03:17AM -0400, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
Many users seem to think
that a WONTFIX is non-negotiable. I tend to agree with them, for the
most part. Rather than WONTFIX them, simply tell them that they won't
be included as-is. WONTFIX gives the user the impression that
On Monday 12 September 2005 08:58 am, Stephen P. Becker wrote:
Hi, as I mentioned, I built LFS without this (and I have coreutils on
it ;)
Not at all - if we need to modify or create configure files during build
as Paul and Martin said ... we need autoconf/automake
And furthermore,
On Mon, 2005-09-12 at 16:28 +0200, Maurice van der Pot wrote:
On Mon, Sep 12, 2005 at 10:03:17AM -0400, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
Many users seem to think
that a WONTFIX is non-negotiable. I tend to agree with them, for the
most part. Rather than WONTFIX them, simply tell them that they
On Mon, 2005-09-12 at 10:38 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Monday 12 September 2005 08:58 am, Stephen P. Becker wrote:
Hi, as I mentioned, I built LFS without this (and I have coreutils on
it ;)
Not at all - if we need to modify or create configure files during build
as Paul and
On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 09:03:17 +0200 Martin Schlemmer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| Looks good .. any chance you can stitch it up in a guide, and we can
| get it added somewhere ?
No. GuideXML URLs utterly suck. They're impossible to memorise and the
second I changed anything every link would become
On Mon, 2005-09-12 at 18:12 +0200, Martin Schlemmer wrote:
On Mon, 2005-09-12 at 11:41 -0400, Peter Hyman wrote:
On Mon, 2005-09-12 at 16:28 +0200, Maurice van der Pot wrote:
On Mon, Sep 12, 2005 at 10:03:17AM -0400, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
Many users seem to think
that a WONTFIX is
| Is there any possibility that easier low quality contribution makes
| the high quality contributions easier?
Only to the extent that they get me to write better documentation :)
| Look at wikipedia - it's amazing that such high quality work (in
| general) can come from lightly peer review
Peter Hyman wrote:
1) what IS the status of svyatogor and lanius?
I don't know if they are active or not, but you can always try to
*unofficially* check when did they last committed something to CVS -
[1], [2].
[1] http://cia.navi.cx/stats/author/svyatogor
[2]
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
No. GuideXML URLs utterly suck. They're impossible to memorise and the
second I changed anything every link would become invalid.
Please see our XML guide [1] - you can use id attribute and make links
like file.xml#reboot.
[1]
On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 18:04:52 +0100
Ed W [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At the simplest this could be used to allow a non core developer to
bump an ebuild to a new version in response to some release. It goes
into the highly unstable section which shouldn't be seen by any
normal person, yet at the
I think you need to rethink that. Notifying a maintainer that there is
an update or new add on to an existing project is not really getting
involved. It's HELPING. I realize that maintainers cannot stay on top of
all 120,000 packages. That's where the everyday users come in. They,
selfishly,
On Monday 12 September 2005 19:03, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
The easiest way to improve those ebuilds' chances
of getting into the tree is by getting them up to a good enough
standard that whoever picks them up is very unlikely to have to do
major extra work on them.
To have even more
12.9.2005, 19:32:32, Carsten Lohrke wrote:
To have even more unmaintained packages in the tree. The tree it is that
needs QA. If maintainer-wanted bugs stay open forever - who cares.
[left for later reference]
Thanks for the pointer. :p So from the user point of view it's better to file
a
On Monday 12 September 2005 19:56, Jakub Moc wrote:
Since you said above, that you really don't care if those user-submitted
ebuilds will ever get into portage or will stay in maintainer-wanted queue
forever and that's the stuff in portage that actually matters QA-wise, I'm
missing why are you
Thierry Carrez wrote:
The first Gentoo Council meeting will be held Thursday, September 15th,
at 1900 UTC.
And the place?
Thanks,
Donnie
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 20:53:26 +0200 Carsten Lohrke [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| On Monday 12 September 2005 19:56, Jakub Moc wrote:
| 1. The biggest share of maintenance isn't getting an ebuild right,
| but the ongoing effort keeping it up to date, applying patches,
| interact with upstream
The problem is, trying to fix ebuilds in tree is a lot more
complicated.. You have to fight with multiple herds, and multiple
developers, and explain to them why it should occur, in order to get
anything to happen.. In addition, even a global gigantic one liner to
add quotes to $D and $S would
Thierry Carrez wrote: [Mon Sep 12 2005, 02:04:10PM CDT]
The first Gentoo Council meeting will be held Thursday, September 15th,
at 1900 UTC.
The deadline for agenda item submission is set to tomorrow, Tuesday,
September 13th, 1900 UTC. To submit an item, you can reply here or send
an email
Marcin 'aye' Kryczek wrote:
here's a patch for mplayer:
http://darcs.frugalware.org/repos/frugalware-current/source/xapps/mplayer/mplayer-1.0pre7-lzo2.patch.bz2
i was able to compile and run all mplayer's version from portage with it
(with USE=lzo and lzo-2 installed ofcourse).
i'll keep
Hi all,
This has been in the todo-list for quite a while, but finally it's done. I'm
curious what you think of it.
Have a nice day,
--
Simon Stelling
Gentoo/AMD64 Operational Co-Lead
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
GLEP: 41
Title: Making Arch Testers official Gentoo Staff
Version: $Revision: 1.1 $
On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 21:04:10 +0200 Thierry Carrez [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| The deadline for agenda item submission is set to tomorrow, Tuesday,
| September 13th, 1900 UTC. To submit an item, you can reply here or
| send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Could we get GLEP 31 (Character Sets for
Not that I'm against this proposal necessarily, but it seems like this
is everything short of giving them commit access to the tree. Perhaps
the arch tester job could simply be made as a probationary period for
developer recruits. The good ATs typically go on to be developers
anyway, no?
Josh M. Anders [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
subscribe
This is not the proper way to subscribe to a gentoo mailing list. Please
see this page for the correct way to subscribe.
http://www.gentoo.org/main/en/lists.xml
Thank You
curtis119
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
On Mon, 2005-09-12 at 21:04 +0200, Thierry Carrez wrote:
Added by Grant Goodyear :
glep40: Standardizing arch keywording across all archs
Added by Brian Harring :
glep33: Eclass Restructure/Redesign
glep37: Virtuals Deprecation
I'd like to see the following items added:
glep 15: script
Simon Stelling wrote:
Additionally, the mentoring period should be shortened to two weeks if an AT
wants to take the end quiz to become a developer, assuming he has been AT for
at least two weeks. Users which want to become developers should also run
through the process of an AT. The amd64
Stephen P. Becker wrote:
developer recruits. The good ATs typically go on to be developers
anyway, no? This is sort of like how many companies like to hire you
for an internship the summer before you graduate, then full time when
you graduate if you were/are good enough.
That's what the
Donnie Berkholz wrote:
Simon Stelling wrote:
Additionally, the mentoring period should be shortened to two weeks if
an AT
wants to take the end quiz to become a developer, assuming he has been
AT for
at least two weeks. Users which want to become developers should also run
through the
Grant Goodyear wrote:
Yikes, that's short notice. Of course, almost by definition the first
meeting had to have a fairly limited amount of lead time. *Shrug* Any
chance of getting a schedule for the next couple of meetings or so?
(Actually, I'd be quite happy if the date of the next meeting
Donnie Berkholz wrote:
Additionally, the mentoring period should be shortened to two weeks if
an AT
wants to take the end quiz to become a developer, assuming he has been
AT for
at least two weeks. Users which want to become developers should also run
through the process of an AT. The amd64
On Mon, 2005-09-12 at 13:13 -0700, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
Do you mean only users who wish to become arch devs need to be AT's?
It
reads as all users who want to become devs must be ATs.
That's the way we've been handling it with the amd64 team for a while
now, and it seems to work
On Mon, 2005-09-12 at 16:30 -0400, Stephen P. Becker wrote:
I guess what I'm *really* asking is
whether this GLEP is necessary?
There are those that want to help, and so become an AT. The project has
worked well for amd64 and ppc, so we are proposing the GLEP to get the
ATs recognized
Patrick Lauer wrote: [Mon Sep 12 2005, 03:08:53PM CDT]
I'd like to see the following items added:
glep 15: script repository (working prototype has existed for some time)
I'm not quite sure what you're adding. GLEP 15 was approved quite some
time ago. All that remains is to finish up the
On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 21:39:48 +0200 Simon Stelling [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| This has been in the todo-list for quite a while, but finally it's
| done. I'm curious what you think of it.
Could we get some numbers? How many arch testers have gone to become
official developers? How many have
Homer Parker wrote:
On Mon, 2005-09-12 at 16:30 -0400, Stephen P. Becker wrote:
I guess what I'm *really* asking is
whether this GLEP is necessary?
There are those that want to help, and so become an AT. The project has
worked well for amd64 and ppc, so we are proposing the GLEP to
Stephen P. Becker wrote:
business and make them an arch dev. I guess what I'm *really* asking is
whether this GLEP is necessary?
As of now, amd64 has 20 ATs, 6 of them became devs, 1 is inactive. The rest
stayed AT. The oldest of the remaining has been AT since February, the
youngest since
On Mon, Sep 12, 2005 at 09:39:48PM +0200, Simon Stelling wrote:
Arch Testers should be treated as official Gentoo staff.
Reminds me of the forums glep - and as there, people working for
Gentoo should become part of the team.
cheers,
Wernfried
--
Wernfried Haas (amne) - amne at gentoo
On Monday 12 September 2005 22:45, Homer Parker wrote:
That's the way we've been handling it with the amd64 team for a
while now, and it seems to work well. We have ATs that have no ambition of
moving to dev. But, if a dev sees an AT with the skills, he approaches him
about becoming a
On Mon, 2005-09-12 at 20:50 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 21:39:48 +0200 Simon Stelling [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| This has been in the todo-list for quite a while, but finally it's
| done. I'm curious what you think of it.
Could we get some numbers? How many arch
On Mon, 2005-12-09 at 20:50 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 21:39:48 +0200 Simon Stelling [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| This has been in the todo-list for quite a while, but finally it's
| done. I'm curious what you think of it.
Could we get some numbers? How many arch
On Mon, 2005-09-12 at 20:50 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
Could we get some numbers? How many arch testers have gone to become
official developers? How many have disappeared without trace? How many
stuck around but didn't do much?
This page has a list of all of the amd64 ATs, and
On Mon, 2005-09-12 at 16:57 -0400, Stephen P. Becker wrote:
If they don't want to become devs, then why give them more privileges
than some devs get even?
What would that be?
--
Homer Parker
Gentoo/AMD64 Arch Tester Strategic Lead
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org
On Mon, 2005-09-12 at 23:02 +0200, Simon Stelling wrote:
As of now, amd64 has 20 ATs, 6 of them became devs, 1 is inactive. The
rest
stayed AT. The oldest of the remaining has been AT since February,
the
youngest since Aug 23, so I think it definitively is.
And ppc has 3-4.
--
On Mon, 2005-09-12 at 15:53 -0500, Grant Goodyear wrote:
Patrick Lauer wrote: [Mon Sep 12 2005, 03:08:53PM CDT]
I'd like to see the following items added:
glep 15: script repository (working prototype has existed for some time)
I'm not quite sure what you're adding. GLEP 15 was approved
Homer Parker wrote:
On Mon, 2005-09-12 at 23:02 +0200, Simon Stelling wrote:
As of now, amd64 has 20 ATs, 6 of them became devs, 1 is inactive. The
rest
stayed AT. The oldest of the remaining has been AT since February,
the
youngest since Aug 23, so I think it definitively is.
And
On Mon, 2005-09-12 at 17:46 -0400, Joseph Jezak wrote:
We have 3 that have passed the quiz so far. Of those, 1 has become a
dev.
W00t! Time to do some more recruiting, eh? ;)
--
Homer Parker
Gentoo/AMD64 Arch Tester Strategic Lead
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing
Leave to gleps to make long threads ;).
So anyways, here's what the deal is so far:
Simon Stelling(blubb) starts out by producing the glep. For those of you that
have no idea, arch testers were something mainly promoted by the amd64 team.
Basically, arch testers are non gentoo devs that do
Alright, so here's what I think on the whole thing now that I made a nice tidy
[Summary] thread.
There seems to be some concern about AT testers having more privileges than
some other devs. First off, I hope everyone saw the readonly access, and
even so, the whole point of this thing is to
Chris White wrote:
Alright, so here's what I think on the whole thing now that I made a nice tidy
[Summary] thread.
There seems to be some concern about AT testers having more privileges than
some other devs. First off, I hope everyone saw the readonly access, and
even so, the whole point
On Mon, 2005-09-12 at 18:47 -0400, Stephen P. Becker wrote:
Chris White wrote:
Alright, so here's what I think on the whole thing now that I made a nice
tidy
[Summary] thread.
There seems to be some concern about AT testers having more privileges than
some other devs. First off,
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Stephen P. Becker wrote:
Chris White wrote:
Alright, so here's what I think on the whole thing now that I made a
nice tidy [Summary] thread.
There seems to be some concern about AT testers having more privileges
than some other devs. First
Let me clarify here. I'm not concerned about ATs having more privileges
at all. I just want to know why if we're making them full developers
for all intents and purposes, we don't go the extra step and get them
commit access after a probationary period? It seems like this is
supposed to be the
On Mon, 2005-09-12 at 18:47 -0400, Stephen P. Becker wrote:
Let me clarify here. I'm not concerned about ATs having more
privileges
at all. I just want to know why if we're making them full developers
for all intents and purposes, we don't go the extra step and get them
commit access
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
And as for taking it as a PISSOFF... We've had exactly one person do
that so far. All the rest of the feedback we receive -- which is a heck
of a lot -- is of the thanks for the pointers, please could someone
check this
On Mon, 2005-09-12 at 19:34 -0400, Alec Warner wrote:
For once agreeing with Ciaran, the less people who aren't seasoned
developers with commit access the better? Some don't want commit
access, most of them really don't need it. Those that want it can ask
for it and take any requisite
On Mon, 2005-09-12 at 19:53 -0400, Stephen P. Becker wrote:
Let me clarify here. I'm not concerned about ATs having more privileges
at all. I just want to know why if we're making them full developers
for all intents and purposes, we don't go the extra step and get them
commit access after a
This is a summary of maintainer-wanted packages which are tagged as
REVIEWED. Please take a few moments to glance over this list and see
if there are any packages which your herd would like.
The REVIEWED tag is used for ebuilds which have been checked for basic
syntax and style issues. It does
On Tue, 2005-09-13 at 00:05 +0100, Daniel Drake wrote:
Simon Stelling wrote:
This has been in the todo-list for quite a while, but finally it's done.
I'm curious what you think of it.
I'm curious how much change this would involve for the people involved.
Perhaps you could explain how
maillog: 13/09/2005-00:50:47(+0200): Stefaan types
snip
So I'm wondering, what would be a clean solution for this problem?
The same way that gtk-1 / gtk-2 goes -- add a bunch of useflags and
force the package to use a particular version. :)
So for heimdal it becomes:
db1? ( sys-libs/db-1* )
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Stephen P. Becker wrote:
You're somehow implying that being an AT is not as good as being a dev.
Wrong.
My understanding is that this GLEP is supposed to make AT as good as
being a dev, but with a different role, one that doesn't need commit
On Monday 12 September 2005 06:00 pm, Grant Goodyear wrote:
Patrick Lauer wrote: [Mon Sep 12 2005, 04:29:45PM CDT]
I'm not quite sure what you're adding. GLEP 15 was approved quite some
time ago. All that remains is to finish up the implementation.
or rather move it from
On Tue, Sep 13, 2005 at 12:50:47AM +0200, Stefaan wrote:
Hi all!!
Here's an issue Seemant and I have been struggling with, and doesn't
seem as easy to solve as like touching one ebuild.
You're making the problem seem much larger than it is.
Pauldv and myself have been managing berkdb pretty
Top posting, since trying to make a point here in relation to
everything that follows from your email.
define exactly how one proves themself, and in what context.
It's the arguement against (essentially) having AT's on the same level
as ebuild devs, so it best be defined.
On Tue, Sep 13,
On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 22:51:38 -0500 Brian Harring [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| define exactly how one proves themself, and in what context.
Repeated good contributions.
| It's the arguement against (essentially) having AT's on the same
| level as ebuild devs, so it best be defined.
ATs are welcome
Grant Goodyear wrote:
Patrick Lauer wrote: [Mon Sep 12 2005, 04:29:45PM CDT]
I'm not quite sure what you're adding. GLEP 15 was approved quite some
time ago. All that remains is to finish up the implementation.
or rather move it from gentooexperimental.org to official gentoo
infrastructure
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
All-
Take a moment to say hi to our newest infra dev, Mark Mahle. Mark will
be helping out infra with web, security and nagios related things.
A little about mark, I live in Silicon Valley, work insane hours and
have a 1 year old son. Times are
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Mike Frysinger wrote:
right ... once a GLEP has been hammered out and approved, there isnt really
anything left for managers/council to do ... it's then up to whoever to get
it done ;)
They *could* do some 'creative re-org' a.k.a. remove some
With the 'proven' definition being repeated contributions, and
explicit in the previous email the view AT's are lesser, but can move
'up' to the level of an ebuild dev, back to this email...
On Tue, Sep 13, 2005 at 04:14:34AM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 23:01:20 -0400
88 matches
Mail list logo
