On 6/23/06, Donnie Berkholz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm amazingly confused about why technical policy decisions (and even
discussions about them) are being made by devrel in a devrel-specific
channel. Could someone clear me up on this?
Thanks,
Donnie
Sorry, but I must second this, especially
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Fri, 23 Jun 2006, Stuart Herbert wrote:
On 6/23/06, Donnie Berkholz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm amazingly confused about why technical policy decisions (and even
discussions about them) are being made by devrel in a devrel-specific
channel.
Anders Hellgren wrote:
On Fri, 23 Jun 2006, Stuart Herbert wrote:
On 6/23/06, Donnie Berkholz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm amazingly confused about why technical policy decisions (and even
discussions about them) are being made by devrel in a devrel-specific
channel. Could someone clear
Daniel Drake wrote:
Testing of 2.6.17 is very much appreciated, please also file bugs
against problems you have with the kernel itself :)
For the e1000 driver to work on my new ThinkPad X60s I had to patch
Linux 2.6.17. It would be nice if this patch that I found in a
bugtracker (IIRC, in
Jakub Moc wrote:
Anders Hellgren wrote:
On Fri, 23 Jun 2006, Stuart Herbert wrote:
On 6/23/06, Donnie Berkholz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm amazingly confused about why technical policy decisions (and even
discussions about them) are being made by devrel in a devrel-specific
channel.
Ok, so there are two fundamental ideas here:
1) Keep the qt use flag, use it if a package offers qt3 or qt4 support.
If both, then make it for the more recent version and add a local flag for
qt3 support.
A few of us like this one, including me. The downside to this is you get
a USE that may
First of all, I'm not sure why devrel was involved in a technical
decision without actually having all the interested parties there, but
aside from that, when Gentoo developers become a bunch of 5 year olds?
What is this absolute nonsense of you don't like my toy, you can't have
your toy going on
On Fri, 2006-06-23 at 22:18 +1000, Andrew Cowie wrote:
On Fri, 2006-06-23 at 06:50 -0500, Joshua Nichols wrote:
OK, so - java folks, please, take your java migration overlay bugs
somewhere else from bugzilla.
The gentoo-java developers have been working their tails off for over a
year
Seemant Kulleen wrote:
First of all, I'm not sure why devrel was involved in a technical
decision without actually having all the interested parties there, but
aside from that, when Gentoo developers become a bunch of 5 year olds?
Not sure either, maybe brix will be able to answer your
Seemant Kulleen wrote:
This childishness from *all* sides is getting really old, really fast.
People need to grow the hell up, and quit with the melodrama.
+1 (with gusto!)
--
Andrew Gaffneyhttp://dev.gentoo.org/~agaffney/
Gentoo Linux Developer
Patrick Lauer wrote:
No, it just shows that two different standards are applied and jakub (as
well as some others) do not wish for any discrimination.
If sunrise gets blocked with the argument it's an overlay then, by
logic, the Java overlay should get the same treatment, even if this is
Stephen P. Becker wrote:
Patrick Lauer wrote:
No, it just shows that two different standards are applied and jakub (as
well as some others) do not wish for any discrimination.
If sunrise gets blocked with the argument it's an overlay then, by
logic, the Java overlay should get the same
On Thu, 2006-06-22 at 19:05 -0500, Mike Doty wrote:
All-
We've had a discussion about sunrise and have reached a compromise.
Someone will summarize it later, I've attached the raw logs for now.
Until the council makes a firm decision about non-gentoo hosted
overlays, this will be the
Donnie Berkholz wrote:
Mike Doty wrote:
All-
We've had a discussion about sunrise and have reached a compromise.
Someone will summarize it later, I've attached the raw logs for now.
Until the council makes a firm decision about non-gentoo hosted
overlays, this will be the defining method of
On Fri, Jun 23, 2006 at 08:43:23AM -0400, Seemant Kulleen wrote:
First of all, I'm not sure why devrel was involved in a technical
decision without actually having all the interested parties there, but
aside from that, when Gentoo developers become a bunch of 5 year olds?
What is this
Stuart Herbert wrote:
On 6/23/06, Donnie Berkholz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm amazingly confused about why technical policy decisions (and even
discussions about them) are being made by devrel in a devrel-specific
channel. Could someone clear me up on this?
Thanks,
Donnie
Sorry, but I
Seemant Kulleen wrote:
First of all, I'm not sure why devrel was involved in a technical
decision without actually having all the interested parties there, but
aside from that, when Gentoo developers become a bunch of 5 year olds?
What is this absolute nonsense of you don't like my toy, you
This was originally supposed to go into another thread, but hey - this is a
perfect illustration of what I am going to talk about (to unconfuse Seemant
right away - this is not related to your posting but rather to the situation
that lead to it). I really was considering sending this as a
On Fri, 2006-06-23 at 09:58 -0400, Ned Ludd wrote:
With respects to Gentoo trademarks. That is a foundation issue and
would have to be raised with them.
Well, if it doesn't follow the guidelines[1], then it is improper usage
and would either need to adhere to the guidelines or quit using our
Patrick Lauer wrote:
No, it just shows that two different standards are applied and jakub (as
well as some others) do not wish for any discrimination.
If sunrise gets blocked with the argument it's an overlay then, by
logic, the Java overlay should get the same treatment, even if this is
On Fri, 23 Jun 2006 15:09:24 +0200 Harald van Dijk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| You're suggesting jakub maybe shouldn't even be a Gentoo dev because
| he *doesn't* give one unofficial overlay special treatment over
| another?
One unofficial project that has screwed up so badly that the council
has
On Fri, 2006-06-23 at 15:50 +0200, Jakub Moc wrote:
Frankly said, neither council nor devrel have any say in suspending
projects hosted outside of gentoo, be it sunrise, gentopia,
java-migration, java-experimental, BMG, or whatever else. You just can't
dictate unpaid people what are they going
Mike Doty wrote:
It is devrels place to attempt to stop the fighting. This is what I
did. I clearly indicate that this is temporary and when the council is
willing to clear this nonsense up, it will supersede anything I put
forth yesterday.
I agree that it is devrel's place to help people
Joshua Nichols wrote:
Umm maybe it's just to early in the morning, but I don't see
anything in the logs regarding using bugzilla for overlays not on
overlays.gentoo.org. I only see references to sunrise specifically, not
a blanket statement for all non-overlays.gentoo.org overlays
Or
Alec Warner wrote:
I believe that jakub finds this devrel decision a step out of bounds
(not sure if anyone else detected the that in his statement) and saying
that to the java folks is moreso a way of pointing out just how silly it
is :) I mean if he was serious, he would have addressed the
On Fri, Jun 23, 2006 at 10:20:44AM -0400, Joshua Nichols wrote:
Unless there's more discussions going on than I'm privy too... what I
grokked out of the IRC log was that the argument was that it's an
'unofficial overlay'.
No, this is about a project that was supposed to be suspended until
its
Chris Gianelloni wrote:
On Fri, 2006-06-23 at 15:50 +0200, Jakub Moc wrote:
Perhaps it is a few developers trying to actually enforce the council's
decision and make sure that the 100% unofficial project doesn't *look*
official. Using InOverlay as if Sunrise is some sort of Gentoo
official
On Fri, Jun 23, 2006 at 03:27:53PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Fri, 23 Jun 2006 15:09:24 +0200 Harald van Dijk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| You're suggesting jakub maybe shouldn't even be a Gentoo dev because
| he *doesn't* give one unofficial overlay special treatment over
| another?
On Fri, 2006-06-23 at 15:09 +0200, Harald van Dijk wrote:
You're suggesting jakub maybe shouldn't even be a Gentoo dev because he
*doesn't* give one unofficial overlay special treatment over another?
The jave unofficial overlay is well on its way to becoming an official
and officially hosted
Also, just so I'm clear on my stance on this:
I don't care one whit about whether those keywords are used in bugzilla
or not. Keywords are a way to help bugzilla users use bugzilla. As for
perceptions about it -- as long sunrise is clear on their pages that
they are absolutely not official as
On Fri, Jun 23, 2006 at 11:11:15AM -0400, Seemant Kulleen wrote:
On Fri, 2006-06-23 at 15:09 +0200, Harald van Dijk wrote:
You're suggesting jakub maybe shouldn't even be a Gentoo dev because he
*doesn't* give one unofficial overlay special treatment over another?
The jave unofficial
Donnie Berkholz wrote:
Mike Doty wrote:
It is devrels place to attempt to stop the fighting. This is what I
did. I clearly indicate that this is temporary and when the council is
willing to clear this nonsense up, it will supersede anything I put
forth yesterday.
I agree that it is
On Friday 23 June 2006 14:16, Tuan Van wrote:
I don't really object to #2 but please do inform current users so
thing still work after an `emerge world -Du`
That's why we're going to ask them to be added to default useflags :)
--
Diego Flameeyes Pettenò -
Donnie Berkholz wrote:
Alec Warner wrote:
I believe that jakub finds this devrel decision a step out of bounds
(not sure if anyone else detected the that in his statement) and saying
that to the java folks is moreso a way of pointing out just how silly it
is :) I mean if he was serious, he
Executive summary:
There is a (by now) well established knowledge on group dynamics depending on
its size, involving parameters such as Dubnar's number for example. Two
references I spotted just recently (well, Ok, they are from 2004 actually :))
can be found below:
On Fri, Jun 23, 2006 at 01:33:21PM -0400, Seemant Kulleen wrote:
On Fri, 2006-06-23 at 18:07 +0200, Harald van Dijk wrote:
On Fri, Jun 23, 2006 at 11:11:15AM -0400, Seemant Kulleen wrote:
On Fri, 2006-06-23 at 15:09 +0200, Harald van Dijk wrote:
You're suggesting jakub maybe shouldn't even
On Fri, 23 Jun 2006 07:56:00 -0400 (EDT)
Caleb Tennis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I suppose I'm not really big on one versus the other. I was for #1
simply because it required the least amount of effort to implement,
however the people who are in favor of #2 have volunteered to do the
work to
I've been thinking about Solar's email. I believe Solar is actually
very correct in his assessment.
I think I'll recant my initial statement about devrel. To KingTaco and
the gang: my apologies, you guys did the right thing at the time.
Thanks,
Seemant
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Donnie Berkholz wrote:
Not really, tightvnc isn't on this list ... is there some reason you
can't use it instead?
tightvnc doesn't provide the vnc.so module for X. x11vnc can do the
job, but it's unstable for me and quite sluggish...
-BEGIN
* Andrew Cowie [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb:
Hi,
It may or may not be what you want, but what you've described sounds
very close to what Mark Shuttleworth articulated as the vision behind
launchpad.
https://launchpad.net/
on a short view, I didn't see any parallels to my source-db project.
LT
Greg KH wrote:
Have a link for this patch?
Sorry, I forgot to give it in my original posting:
http://lists.osdl.org/pipermail/bugme-new/2006-June/006422.html
Best,
Sebastian
--
Sebastian Bergmann http://www.sebastian-bergmann.de/
GnuPG Key: 0xB85B5D69 / 27A7 2B14
On Sat, Jun 24, 2006 at 12:43:49AM +0200, Sebastian Bergmann wrote:
Greg KH wrote:
Have a link for this patch?
Sorry, I forgot to give it in my original posting:
http://lists.osdl.org/pipermail/bugme-new/2006-June/006422.html
That bug does not include a patch that has been accepted
Hmm...Are thre any packages out there which *must* be built against
the same qt as (the rest of) kde? If so, I don't think qt4 should be
in the default use flags until KDE4 hits arch. This keeps people from
reporting issues with KDE apps built against the wrong version of QT.
--Arek
On
There is a problem here for the java folks...Technically, their
migration-overlay is an overlay, and technically, that overlay is
currently unofficial. Therefore, technically, if it is against the
rules for projects and/or devs to use bugzilla for unofficial
overlays, then it is against the
44 matches
Mail list logo
