On Fri, 2006-06-09 at 02:53 +0200, Stefan Schweizer wrote:
Stefan Schweizer wrote:
it is actually encouraged to update bugzilla when changes are made in the
overlay.
Encouraged? If you leave it at that, people will forget, and things will
get out of sync. At the very least you should supply
Hi Kumba,
In a similar vein, will this eselect tool eventually supplant the
functionality of binutils-config as well (and thus need its own
wrapper script)?
Have a look at eselect binutils please, which is shipped with
app-admin/eselect.
Danny
--
Danny van Dyk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Friday 09 June 2006 10:15, Danny van Dyk wrote:
Have a look at eselect binutils please, which is shipped with
app-admin/eselect.
It's sub-optimal compared to eselect compiler, x86_64 ld does not work with
i686.
--
Diego Flameeyes Pettenò - http://farragut.flameeyes.is-a-geek.org/
On Thu, 2006-06-08 at 20:06 -0400, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
You don't need a subversion client, you perhaps notice the http in front
of the url.. just open it up in your browser and you get the source
immediately.
Umm... so now I need to go and instead of clicking a nice link in
bugzilla,
Hi again
as written below I think it makes more sense for Project sunrise to redefine
it a bit. It seems to be clear that currently noone is happy with the
Sunrise Project.
There is one huge disadvantage for end users like me:
If we decide to use an overlay package (because we need / want
Hi Diego,
It's sub-optimal compared to eselect compiler, x86_64 ld does not
work with i686.
eselect binutils should be as capable as binutils-config. AFAIK the
stated behaviour is no regression. If it is a regression, please file a
bug against it. If it isn't, file a bug for an enhancement
On 6/9/06, Chris Gianelloni [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Wouldn't this process be *infinitely* easier if instead of sunrise
there was a pam overlay with *only* the pam stuff?
I agree that it would make sense for the the sunrise overlay to
contain smaller package trees, with each package tree aimed
Patrick Lauer wrote:
On Thu, 2006-06-08 at 20:06 -0400, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
Again, read what I wrote. I said that the developer would see sunrise
in the PORTDIR_OVERLAY of the user's emerge --info, which you reiterated
without considering. This is a login bug. At no point did they make
On Friday 09 June 2006 11:06, Jakub Moc wrote:
The thing has been sitting in bugzilla for ages, I've asked Flameeyes to
commit it and he said he's not going to put any mode pam stuff into the
tree unless he's using the modules himself.
Or if somebody wants to help with PAM and related...
Hi,
One of the issues that the o.g.o project has brought to a head is the
definition of what is official and what is not official when it
comes to Gentoo. The term is already being thrown about in the
Project Sunrise thread; I'm sure it'll come up again in future.
It's an issue I think we
Ah, you're right, there should be an env-update in there. Thanks for
the report.
As for sourcing /etc/profile, you don't need to do that with eselect-
compiler because your $PATH doesn't change like it did with gcc-
config-1.x.
--Jeremy
On Jun 8, 2006, at 11:27 , Donnie Berkholz wrote:
On Thu, Jun 08, 2006 at 07:00:33PM -0700, Drake Wyrm wrote:
I just took a look at that. It's asking that you don't relay mail
through dev.gentoo.org unless you can't send mail through your usual
means of sending mail. For example, if your ISP blocks mail if the From:
header indicates something
On Fri, 2006-06-09 at 10:28 +0200, Patrick Lauer wrote:
Except that I can *look* at an ebuild without having to break out a
subversion client currently.
See my answer in 3)
See mine. ;]
Hmmm ... bugzilla.
Instead of a simple cvs up; cd /usr/local/portage/category/package I
need to
On 09/06/06, Luis Francisco Araujo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Chris Bainbridge wrote:
There are already loads of semi-official overlays. Besides the stuff
actually hosted by gentoo (random example
http://dev.gentoo.org/~flameeyes/bzr/overlay/) there are official
groups (again, not picking on
On 09/06/06, Edward Catmur [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And what if they do know what they're doing, and what they're doing is
subverting Gentoo systems en masse? You're proposing to hand out commit
access to anyone who makes a case on IRC; you have no way to tell that
they aren't an attacker.
On 09/06/06, Luis Francisco Araujo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yes, i agree, writting and maintaining ebuilds is a hard and
*time-consuming* task.
So if an user can't even take the time to fix a digest, why we should
support him
officially?.
The point is that there are lots of users who are
On 6/9/06, Edward Catmur [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
With an overlay: search sunrice.gentoo.org for the package
If you want people to debate seriously with you, stop calling this
project 'sunrice'.
If you can't discuss this topic respectfully with others on this list,
please stop using our
Edward Catmur wrote:
On Fri, 2006-06-09 at 10:28 +0200, Patrick Lauer wrote:
Instead of a simple cvs up; cd /usr/local/portage/category/package I
need to search for ALL bugs with $name in it, look which one it is,
curse bugzilla for falling asleep again, see which attachments are
relevant,
On Thu, Jun 08, 2006 at 06:31:43PM -0400, Peter wrote:
And, for me again as a user, using a gentoo-hosted overlay is preferable
to a third party repository. This is a personal bias on my part -- and
maybe unwarranted.
This is actually my main concern with the Sunrice project. You say you
would
On Friday 09 June 2006 12:12, Chris Bainbridge wrote:
This larger group of users are the ones that would benefit
from an overlay.
And this larger group of people is exactly the same one, that doesn't know to
help itself, if necessary and will suffer the most, when something goes
wrong. This
In my eyes only the main tree is official. The overlays are development niches
(and as such perfectly fine), to speed up development without causing much
trouble in the main tree. The problem is that overlay.g.o is seemingly
official, because we host it. It should be made more clear that this
On Friday 09 June 2006 02:53, Stefan Schweizer wrote:
It also doesn't answer the questions of security and maintenance. Are
genstef and jokey going to be responsible for the security of every
single package in the overlay?
Yes, we will be acting upon all issues that we hear about.
...
This may work for Apache or PHP, but an overlay with arbitrary maintainer
wanted ebuilds would need an extra bugzilla account. The problem is that
this won't really help, since (some) users will see oh, an kde app crashed
and file a bug at [EMAIL PROTECTED] Then /me looks at the tree, doesn't
On Fri, 09 Jun 2006 13:08:01 +0200, Henrik Brix Andersen wrote:
On Thu, Jun 08, 2006 at 06:31:43PM -0400, Peter wrote:
And, for me again as a user, using a gentoo-hosted overlay is
preferable to a third party repository. This is a personal bias on my
part -- and maybe unwarranted.
This is
Keeping it simple...
If it's hosted on gentoo infrastructure it's official.
If it's hosted on gentooexp.org/SF/Non infra then it's not official.
On Fri, 2006-06-09 at 10:32 +0100, Stuart Herbert wrote:
Hi,
One of the issues that the o.g.o project has brought to a head is the
definition of
On Friday 09 June 2006 13:44, Peter wrote:
And, anyone who
goes through the trouble to svn the overlay, edit make.conf, etc., would
not be an ignorant newbie (no disrespect to newbies intended).
I had a bug from an users unable to build kdesktop with gcc 4.1. I built it
fine I told him, and
Carsten Lohrke wrote:
You should at least make it visible in bold letters on the overlay.g.o
front page, what the conditions of each overlay are and which [EMAIL
PROTECTED]
address bugs have to be assigned to.
Please, do not assume our users being stupid. They know that they are using
an
On Fri, 2006-06-09 at 02:49 +0200, Markus Ullmann wrote:
Excellent. So we're moving the history from being in a single location
(the bug) to being in multiple locations. That will definitely improve
the development process. Another thing that people tend to miss is that
not all improved
On Fri, 9 Jun 2006 11:05:56 +0100 Chris Bainbridge
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| On 09/06/06, Edward Catmur [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| And what if they do know what they're doing, and what they're doing
| is subverting Gentoo systems en masse? You're proposing to hand out
| commit access to anyone
On Fri, Jun 09, 2006 at 08:16:32AM -0400, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
On Fri, 2006-06-09 at 02:49 +0200, Markus Ullmann wrote:
This is a bug for an ebuild that the user does not think is related to
the pam_skey. Go back and read what I wrote.
it was agreed upon that we don't keep
On Fri, Jun 09, 2006 at 07:44:38AM -0400, Peter wrote:
Firstly, I think it is very clear that anything in sunrise is experimental
or not supported in the main gentoo tree. That's fine! I don't think any
user who goes through the trouble to set up an overlay would miss that
point. You can't go
On Thu, Jun 08, 2006 at 11:08:55PM -0400, Stephen P. Becker wrote:
Starting a new thread here for a new angle...
As Stuart mentioned, bugs for any ebuild on o.g.o would go through
Gentoo bugzilla. It seems like genstef and jokey have completely
ignored support from arch teams for this
On Fri, Jun 09, 2006 at 05:42:01AM -0700, Brian Harring wrote:
Curious, how will the wrangler know in general? *cough* they won't.
You're using a generic arguement against a specific target- iow, apply
it to overlays.g.o in general instead of singling sunrise out via it.
Well, the other
Some packages provide both a client and a server. As such, users usually only
want one or the other - and rarely both.
A good candidate is net-misc/dhcp as it installs a DHCP client and server.
Which makes no sense really, so I'd like to put some USE flags here to show
what I want, or not want
Stephen P. Becker wrote:
Starting a new thread here for a new angle...
As Stuart mentioned, bugs for any ebuild on o.g.o would go through
Gentoo bugzilla.
Yeah, as there is usually a bug report for maintainer-wanted and
maintainer-needed bugs it wont hurt anyone.
It seems like genstef and
Where else would these bugs go except for arch
teams, seeing as we clearly can't assign them to end users who
originally submitted the maintainer-wanted ebuilds?
These are not expected to be filed as bugs, they should be fixed by the
users in question.
Apparently, this is not the case.
Stuart Herbert wrote:
Hi,
One of the issues that the o.g.o project has brought to a head is the
definition of what is official and what is not official when it
comes to Gentoo. The term is already being thrown about in the
Project Sunrise thread; I'm sure it'll come up again in future.
п'ятниця, 9. червень 2006 15:10, Roy Marples Ви написали:
Some packages provide both a client and a server. As such, users usually
only want one or the other - and rarely both.
[skip]
USE client server
client - just build the client - duh
server - just build the server - duh
client and
Roy Marples wrote:
Some packages provide both a client and a server. As such, users usually only
want one or the other - and rarely both.
A good candidate is net-misc/dhcp as it installs a DHCP client and server.
Which makes no sense really, so I'd like to put some USE flags here to show
Hi,
so as I was told that I avoid the questions regarding this project
several times now, please repost all open issues you have with this
project clearly, each in one or max two short sentences here.
I'll answer them all the same way to keep out all non-belonging stuff.
Maybe that way we avoid
Roy Marples wrote:
USE client server
client - just build the client - duh
server - just build the server - duh
client and server OR neither then build both.
Other packages to possably beneift
udhcp
mldonkey
samhain
bacula
boxbackup
finger, telnet and ssh are probably other
On 6/9/06, Stephen P. Becker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Apparently, this is not the case. Policy for overlays.gentoo.org stipulates
that all bugs in overlays must use our bugzilla.
The intention of the policy is to prevent the use of third-party bug
trackers for tracking problems w/ ebuilds in
Portage-2.1 final is released,
RELEASE-NOTES[1]
NEWS[2]
BUGS-FIXED[3]
STABLIZING BUG[4]
[1]http://sources.gentoo.org/viewcvs.py/portage/main/trunk/RELEASE-NOTES?view=markup
[2]http://sources.gentoo.org/viewcvs.py/portage/main/trunk/NEWS?view=markup
On Friday 09 June 2006 13:44, Peter wrote:
Secondly, my bias against a third party repository is perhaps unwarranted.
I am sure the bmg site is excellent and the people running it are
well-intentioned and experienced. However, that said, as a user, I have a
higher comfort level staying in the
Alec Warner wrote:
Portage-2.1 final is released,
Is that the 4th horseman I see off in the distance?
--
Andrew Gaffneyhttp://dev.gentoo.org/~agaffney/
Gentoo Linux Developer Installer Project
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
On Friday 09 June 2006 14:04, Stefan Schweizer wrote:
Please, do not assume our users being stupid. They know that they are using
an ebuild from the sunrise overlay with zero support. They deliberately
typed
You have said stupid, not me. Some won't care enough, I'm quite sure about
that. We
On Fri, Jun 09, 2006 at 12:12:31PM -0400, Alec Warner wrote:
Portage-2.1 final is released,
Congrats to the portage team!
While i'm at it, may i ask which files are affected by these changes /
which docs i missed to read?
* config files as directories enabling more flexible settings
management.
On Fri, 2006-06-09 at 10:28 +0200, Patrick Lauer wrote:
On Thu, 2006-06-08 at 20:06 -0400, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
You don't need a subversion client, you perhaps notice the http in front
of the url.. just open it up in your browser and you get the source
immediately.
Umm... so now
On Fri, 2006-06-09 at 11:06 +0200, Jakub Moc wrote:
The thing has been sitting in bugzilla for ages, I've asked Flameeyes to
commit it and he said he's not going to put any mode pam stuff into the
tree unless he's using the modules himself. Nothing wrong w/ that. So, I
can either keep on
Patrick McLean wrote:
finger, telnet and ssh are probably other candidates. (though not too
many people set up boxes without a ssh server these days).
++ to this, I have always found it a little absurd having dhcpd
installed on my laptop just for dhclient.
dhcpcd could be a better temp
Chris Gianelloni wrote:
snipped lots and lots of valid points
Well, I am going to do everything within my power to stop it. I will
not back down until this project is dead. It really is that simple.
*golf-clap*
--
Andrew Gaffneyhttp://dev.gentoo.org/~agaffney/
On Fri, 2006-06-09 at 11:01 +0100, Edward Catmur wrote:
Hmmm. I think an overlay does have some advantages there ...
Advantages? With bugzilla I: search for the bug, cc myself on it,
download the relevant files, look over them, note a style error, try to
merge it, fix a compilation bug,
Wernfried Haas wrote:
On Fri, Jun 09, 2006 at 12:12:31PM -0400, Alec Warner wrote:
Portage-2.1 final is released,
Congrats to the portage team!
While i'm at it, may i ask which files are affected by these changes /
which docs i missed to read?
* config files as directories enabling more
On Fri, 2006-06-09 at 12:33 +0200, Jakub Moc wrote:
well. A couple of examples:
http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=122500
And again, you use my project of an example. Perhaps you should try
looking at something that actually supports your argument?
A subversion repository was built for
Chris Gianelloni wrote:
With an overlay: search sunrice.gentoo.org for the package (no, I don't
know category/name), sync that directory (no, I'm not syncing the whole
sunrice tree), check it over, note some mistakes, compile it if I feel
OK with it, it fails, I fix it - and what then? Where
Markus Ullmann wrote:
Maybe that way we avoid any misunderstandings, nearly doubled posts and
repeating ourselves over and over again.
The problem is that some questions and answers easily get lost in a mailing
list. To solve this shortcoming, I am starting to make a FAQ page in the
trac wiki:
Am Freitag, 9. Juni 2006 14:04 schrieb Stefan Schweizer:
And also there are only applications from maintainer-wanted or
maintainer-needed allowed in the overlay. Because packages are not
supposed to overwrite files from other ebuilds it is unlikely that
they can cause any damage to
Am Freitag, 9. Juni 2006 14:04 schrieb Stefan Schweizer:
And also there are only applications from maintainer-wanted or
maintainer-needed allowed in the overlay. Because packages are not
supposed to overwrite files from other ebuilds it is unlikely that
they can cause any damage to
On Fri, 2006-06-09 at 13:28 +0200, Carsten Lohrke wrote:
we do support it security wise, we will be reacting upon security issues.
We do have package.mask support in the overlay and we are going to use it.
The ebuilds have a quality, repoman is required to be run. Also
contributors should
Am Freitag, 9. Juni 2006 14:04 schrieb Stefan Schweizer:
And also there are only applications from maintainer-wanted or
maintainer-needed allowed in the overlay. Because packages are not
supposed to overwrite files from other ebuilds it is unlikely that
they can cause any damage to
well. A couple of examples:
http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=122500
And again, you use my project of an example. Perhaps you should try
looking at something that actually supports your argument?
I think it's an example of how user-friendly is bugzilla...
--
Best Regards,
Piotr
On Fri, 2006-06-09 at 02:08 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Fri, 09 Jun 2006 02:49:14 +0200 Markus Ullmann [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| No. It clearly says that you would be doing the basic QA checks and
| repoman checking on initial commit. You even said it right above
| where I
Everything maintained by the Gentoo project, instead than for the Gentoo
project.
Stuart Herbert wrote:
Hi,
One of the issues that the o.g.o project has brought to a head is the
definition of what is official and what is not official when it
comes to Gentoo. The term is already being thrown
Peper wrote:
well. A couple of examples:
http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=122500
And again, you use my project of an example. Perhaps you should try
looking at something that actually supports your argument?
I think it's an example of how user-friendly is bugzilla...
Yeah,
On Fri, 2006-06-09 at 07:44 -0400, Peter wrote:
Firstly, I think it is very clear that anything in sunrise is experimental
or not supported in the main gentoo tree. That's fine! I don't think any
user who goes through the trouble to set up an overlay would miss that
point. You can't go to
On Fri, 2006-06-09 at 20:12 +0200, Jakub Moc wrote:
Peper wrote:
well. A couple of examples:
http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=122500
And again, you use my project of an example. Perhaps you should try
looking at something that actually supports your argument?
I think it's an
On Fri, 2006-06-09 at 14:04 +0200, Stefan Schweizer wrote:
Carsten Lohrke wrote:
You should at least make it visible in bold letters on the overlay.g.o
front page, what the conditions of each overlay are and which [EMAIL
PROTECTED]
address bugs have to be assigned to.
Please, do
Chris Bainbridge wrote:
On 09/06/06, Luis Francisco Araujo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Chris Bainbridge wrote:
There are already loads of semi-official overlays. Besides the stuff
actually hosted by gentoo (random example
http://dev.gentoo.org/~flameeyes/bzr/overlay/) there are official
groups
Chris Bainbridge wrote:
On 09/06/06, Luis Francisco Araujo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yes, i agree, writting and maintaining ebuilds is a hard and
*time-consuming* task.
So if an user can't even take the time to fix a digest, why we should
support him
officially?.
The point is that there are
On Fri, 2006-06-09 at 05:42 -0700, Brian Harring wrote:
On Fri, Jun 09, 2006 at 08:16:32AM -0400, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
On Fri, 2006-06-09 at 02:49 +0200, Markus Ullmann wrote:
This is a bug for an ebuild that the user does not think is related to
the pam_skey. Go back and read what
On Fri, 9 Jun 2006 14:10:51 +0100
Roy Marples [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Some packages provide both a client and a server. As such, users
usually only want one or the other - and rarely both.
A good candidate is net-misc/dhcp as it installs a DHCP client and
server. Which makes no sense
On Fri, 09 Jun 2006 14:15:01 -0400, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
Chris, I am not familiar enough about gentoo's hierarchy, politics, or
team responsibilities to question your sincerity or authority to say
something like: Sorry, but if it isn't supported, it doesn't belong on
Gentoo infrastructure.
I
On Fri, 2006-06-09 at 14:10 +0100, Roy Marples wrote:
Some packages provide both a client and a server. As such, users usually only
want one or the other - and rarely both.
A good candidate is net-misc/dhcp as it installs a DHCP client and server.
Which makes no sense really, so I'd like
On Fri, 2006-06-09 at 15:35 +0200, Stefan Schweizer wrote:
It seems like genstef and jokey have completely
ignored support from arch teams for this overlay. What are you
proposing with respect to arch keywords and package.mask?
users are supported to do everything themselves in the
Chris Gianelloni wrote:
The truth is that we don't ever want to become like the binary
distributions. We don't want to have to have separate
client/server/common/devel as it removes many of the advantages that
Gentoo has. The default should *always* be to install the package as it
was
Chris Gianelloni wrote:
Everyone that you happen to include as allowed to actually commit, you
mean. As opposed to everyone that can sign themselves up for
bugzilla?
It is designed to be more open and more easily fixable.
Sure. More open then a self-registering system. Gotcha.
We
On Fri, 2006-06-09 at 11:12 -0400, Alec Warner wrote:
Portage-2.1 final is released,
RELEASE-NOTES[1]
NEWS[2]
BUGS-FIXED[3]
STABLIZING BUG[4]
[1]http://sources.gentoo.org/viewcvs.py/portage/main/trunk/RELEASE-NOTES?view=markup
On Fri, 2006-06-09 at 17:43 +0100, Roy Marples wrote:
On Friday 09 June 2006 14:10, Roy Marples wrote:
Some packages provide both a client and a server. As such, users usually
only want one or the other - and rarely both.
Thanks to wolf31o2 for pointing out that current policy dictates
On Fri, 09 Jun 2006 07:50:27 -0400
Ned Ludd [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Keeping it simple...
If it's hosted on gentoo infrastructure it's official.
If it's hosted on gentooexp.org/SF/Non infra then it's not official.
I think this is the best way to define it. Anything on Gentoo
infrastructure
On Fri, 2006-06-09 at 10:05 -0700, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
Chris Gianelloni wrote:
With an overlay: search sunrice.gentoo.org for the package (no, I don't
know category/name), sync that directory (no, I'm not syncing the whole
sunrice tree), check it over, note some mistakes, compile it if
On Fri, 2006-06-09 at 19:10 +0200, Stefan Schweizer wrote:
Markus Ullmann wrote:
Maybe that way we avoid any misunderstandings, nearly doubled posts and
repeating ourselves over and over again.
The problem is that some questions and answers easily get lost in a mailing
list. To solve this
Chris Gianelloni wrote:
Not policy (I don't think) but current accepted practice.
Should this become a policy?
I'd say so, since this discussion regularly comes up again, and how we
do it is really an expression of the Gentoo philosophy and our
differences from a typical binary distribution.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Chris Gianelloni wrote:
On Fri, 2006-06-09 at 11:12 -0400, Alec Warner wrote:
Portage-2.1 final is released,
RELEASE-NOTES[1] NEWS[2] BUGS-FIXED[3] STABLIZING BUG[4]
On Friday 09 June 2006 20:04, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
On Fri, 2006-06-09 at 17:43 +0100, Roy Marples wrote:
On Friday 09 June 2006 14:10, Roy Marples wrote:
Some packages provide both a client and a server. As such, users
usually only want one or the other - and rarely both.
Thanks to
Chris Gianelloni wrote:
Initially, yes. What happens once the user gets complete access to the
repository, though? Are we going to be keeping people from adding
packages without bugs?
Absolutely. This is for maintainer-wanted stuff, so it should be
documented in Bugzilla and assigned to
On Fri, 09 Jun 2006 20:06:04 +0100 Christel Dahlskjaer
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| I'd say that it's entirely possibly for some non-dev to sneak
| malicious code into the tree as is now, just as it will be possible
| to do in an overlay.
|
| It's not like it's particulary difficult to have
Luis Francisco Araujo wrote:
Fine. I highly agree on that, now my question is,
why this needs to be officially supported?
See
Why does this have to be on official gentoo hardware?
http://overlays.gentoo.org/proj/sunrise/wiki/SunriseFaq
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
On 6/9/06, Chris Gianelloni [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 2006-06-09 at 19:10 +0200, Stefan Schweizer wrote:
Markus Ullmann wrote:
Maybe that way we avoid any misunderstandings, nearly doubled posts and
repeating ourselves over and over again.
The problem is that some questions and
On 6/9/06, Stefan Schweizer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Markus Ullmann wrote:
Maybe that way we avoid any misunderstandings, nearly doubled posts and
repeating ourselves over and over again.
The problem is that some questions and answers easily get lost in a mailing
list. To solve this
James Potts wrote:
I do have a question: If you're allowing just anybody who asks to
have commit access to the repo, what guarantees can you give me that
they won't commit something deliberately malicious or which will break
the entire overlay to the overlay?
I have added this to the FAQ:
On Thursday 08 June 2006 21:08, Brian Harring wrote:
One additional to this- the location for the file in the tree *should*
be metadata/ - shoving it into profiles is the wrong location (it's
not profile data, it's repo metadata).
that is the correct location for it but we have no metadata
On Fri, 2006-06-09 at 19:41 +0200, Patrick Lauer wrote:
This *will* affect *every* ebuild developer.
Maybe you don't realize that taking ebuilds for packages that are _not in
portage_ and providing them in a nice bundle does not affect every developer?
I'm sorry for the language, but I call
On Fri, 2006-06-09 at 14:46 -0500, James Potts wrote:
On 6/9/06, Chris Gianelloni [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 2006-06-09 at 19:10 +0200, Stefan Schweizer wrote:
Markus Ullmann wrote:
Maybe that way we avoid any misunderstandings, nearly doubled posts and
repeating ourselves over
On Fri, Jun 09, 2006 at 01:55:44PM -0400, Alec Warner wrote:
Wernfried Haas wrote:
* config files as directories enabling more flexible settings
management.
/etc/portage/package.mask/* fex, assuming I am remembering correctly.
Then you can maintain:
/etc/portage/package.unmask/xorg
On Friday 09 June 2006 15:04, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
On Fri, 2006-06-09 at 17:43 +0100, Roy Marples wrote:
On Friday 09 June 2006 14:10, Roy Marples wrote:
Some packages provide both a client and a server. As such, users
usually only want one or the other - and rarely both.
Thanks to
On Thursday 08 June 2006 08:35, Roy Marples wrote:
On Thursday 08 June 2006 11:00, Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Thursday 08 June 2006 02:58, Roy Marples wrote:
On Wednesday 07 June 2006 12:03, Mike Frysinger wrote:
you guys have had plenty of time to do this ... so last call before i
Chris Gianelloni wrote:
Since when was overlays.gentoo.org supposed to even be a service to our
users? As I understand it, the goal was to ease development, not to
provide an easy method for half-working ebuilds to make it to our user's
machines.
Our users are our biggest base of testers,
This is the official (hehe) request for comments on making a policy of
how to handle ebuilds than can be used for either client or server and
how to allow for building client-only.
The idea is quite simple.
Gentoo's standard operating procedure is to build packages as they were
intended and
about this? I think so.
After all, it is good PR when something as major as this happens.
indeed we should do this.
CIA-14 wolf31o2 * gentoo/xml/htdocs/news/20060609-portage.xml:
Announce portage 2.1's release.
Done.
--
Chris Gianelloni
Release Engineering - Strategic Lead
x86 Architecture
On Fri, 2006-06-09 at 20:32 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
Huge difference between committing a few things for a person you know,
where you have time to review code, and bulk committing random stuff
where you don't have time to check anything. That's the deal here -- if
a large number of
1 - 100 of 135 matches
Mail list logo
