On Tue, 19 Sep 2006 21:11:17 -0400
Mike Frysinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
why does it need to be part of releng ?
releng and seeds will be doing similar tasks, releasing stage tarballs.
-Thomas
pgpIH4JTTufWm.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On 9/20/06, Daniel Ostrow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 2006-09-20 at 00:56 +0200, Carsten Lohrke wrote:
First step should imho be, that you work with the Portage team on having
proper set support implemented. Current meta ebuilds do suck, really.
No need for meta ebuilds...stage4 specs +
Hello all,
I would like you to share your comments on the attached GLEP with me.
Thanks in advance!
--
Kind Regards,
Simon Stelling
Gentoo/AMD64 developer
GLEP: 52
Title: License Managment in Portage
Version: $Revision: $
Last-Modified: $Date: $
Author: Simon Stelling [EMAIL PROTECTED]
hi everybody,i am from bangladesh. Have some knowledge on *nix (linux and unix). I like gentoo very much.And runing gentoo x86 on a EM64T (i will install amd64 tonight).I am very much interested to join with you (gentoo developer team).
What is the procedure??By the way, i applied for em64t, that
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Simon Stelling wrote:
Hello all,
I would like you to share your comments on the attached GLEP with me.
Thanks in advance!
snip
I think it is over engineering of a non-issue.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Steev Klimaszewski wrote:
Simon Stelling wrote:
Hello all,
I would like you to share your comments on the attached GLEP with me.
Thanks in advance!
snip
I think it is over engineering of a non-issue.
And to expand, per blubb's request, all
Steev Klimaszewski wrote:
I think it is over engineering of a non-issue.
Which non-issue in particular?
--
Kind Regards,
Simon Stelling
Gentoo/AMD64 developer
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Krzysiek Pawlik wrote:
# Simon Stelling [EMAIL PROTECTED] (20 Sep 2006)
# This license needs to be agreed on explicitly to be considered
# legally binding.
# By unmasking and installing the package you agree with its terms.
txt-licenses/wierd-license
Why not make
On Tue, 2006-09-19 at 20:00 +0100, Stuart Herbert wrote:
Hi,
I've created a new project, called Gentoo Seeds [1]. The aim of the project
is to create stage4 tarballs which can be used to 'seed' new boxes with
ready-built Gentoo solutions.
Uhh... seeds?
Until we've gone through a few
On Tue, 2006-09-19 at 01:05 -0700, Matthew Marlowe wrote:
I would see the workflow proceed in the following manner:
Releng herd makes available new official gentoo releases
Uhh... we aren't a herd.
--
Chris Gianelloni
Release Engineering Strategic Lead
Alpha/AMD64/x86 Architecture Teams
On Wed, 2006-09-20 at 13:36 +0200, Simon Stelling wrote:
Every license which a package in the portage tree depends on gets a package in
the ``txt-licenses/`` category. Its ebuild must install the license text to
``/usr/shared/licenses/``. The initial version shall be 1 if there is no
Chris Gianelloni wrote:
bring the work to the main tree?
As in... duplicate functionality already provided by catalyst for quite
some time?
Catalyst doesn't provide ongoing maintenance or migration of installed
systems ... you need more than just a spec file for one of these seeds.
Why
On 9/20/06, Chris Gianelloni [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Uhh... seeds?
Yes, seeds. Seems to describe what we're working towards as well as
any other name.
bring the work to the main tree?
As in... duplicate functionality already provided by catalyst for quite
some time?
No. As in, bring
On Tue, 2006-09-19 at 21:11 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
why does it need to be part of releng ? GNAP does releases with catalyst,
but
it's part of embedded
We also consider Koon to be a part of Release Engineering and he works
with us and we work with him for GNAP. He even has access to
On Wed, 2006-09-20 at 07:04 -0700, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
Chris Gianelloni wrote:
bring the work to the main tree?
As in... duplicate functionality already provided by catalyst for quite
some time?
Catalyst doesn't provide ongoing maintenance or migration of installed
systems ...
On 9/20/06, Chris Gianelloni [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Catalyst doesn't provide ongoing maintenance or migration of installed
systems ... you need more than just a spec file for one of these seeds.
Like what? It sounds like they aren't providing anything but tarballs.
Tarballs, VMware
Chris Gianelloni wrote:
I apologise to everyone for my responses to this.
Thank you.
Donnie
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Simon Stelling wrote:
GLEP: 52
I don't like it: too complex, glep 23 is fine.
lu
--
Luca Barbato
Gentoo/linux Gentoo/PPC
http://dev.gentoo.org/~lu_zero
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
S. M. Ibrahim (Lavlu) [EMAIL PROTECTED] posted
[EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted
below, on Wed, 20 Sep 2006 18:05:52 +0600:
hi everybody,
i am from bangladesh. Have some knowledge on *nix (linux and unix). I
like gentoo very much.
And runing gentoo x86 on a EM64T (i will install amd64 tonight).
Michael Cummings wrote:
This doesn't make sense to me. I have a copy of every license used in
the portage tree already in /usr/portage/licenses - why dup that again?
We already have an existing LICENSE keywording in the ebuilds, why not
just focus on patching portage to allow a make.conf
On Wednesday 20 September 2006 07:36, Simon Stelling wrote:
I would like you to share your comments on the attached GLEP with me.
why not just implement GLEP 23
-mike
pgpZSKauYbIhF.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Hi,
I'm one of the people working on seeds.
It's not a new project afaic i produce seed-alike things anyway because
I need to run a large serverpark on gentoo and I can't hand-install
servers anymore. We generate custom stage4's tailored to our environment.
One of the reasons i was/am
On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 13:36:11 +0200
Simon Stelling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I would like you to share your comments on the attached GLEP with me.
It seems to me to be an attempt to move what is obviously the package
manager's job into the tree, and making it far more complex than it
needs to be
On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 10:05:00 -0400
Michael Cummings [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 2006-09-20 at 13:36 +0200, Simon Stelling wrote:
Every license which a package in the portage tree depends on gets a
package in the ``txt-licenses/`` category. Its ebuild must install
the license text to
On Wednesday 20 September 2006 12:38, Alec Warner wrote:
I think Chris's primary concern is one of Tell us whats up before it
happens.
why should he care ? some Gentoo guys take catalyst and produce stage4s
directed at certain applications
they arent talking about any of the tools releng
On Wednesday 20 September 2006 12:43, Kevin F. Quinn wrote:
Michael Cummings [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We already have an existing LICENSE keywording in the ebuilds,
why not just focus on patching portage to allow a make.conf variable
for allowed licenses and block based on that?
Sounds
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Simon Stelling wrote:
Hello all,
I would like you to share your comments on the attached GLEP with me.
Thanks in advance!
While this has a novel approach to the problem (at least, I haven't seen
anything else that tries to solve the LICENSE
oss is dead, why bother going with it in default USE anymore ? alsa forever !
-mike
pgpVBY4JRJGLM.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Wed, Sep 20, 2006 at 10:49:40AM -0400, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
Because it's *REALLY* stupid and shows just how unprofessional we are
when we have multiple groups doing the *EXACT* same thing using
different policies and procedures and all pushing it as if it were
*OFFICIAL* for the
Thanks for this cool answer . Ok, i will try my best. going join in amd64 mailing list.Yep, i am interesting on documentation. I done lot's of work on google translation and also member of
http://ekushey.org which a group that works for bengla localization.again thanks for ur suggestion.On
Danny van Dyk wrote:
* How do you want to implement the profiles?
* Re: the meta-ebuilds you'd been talking about in this thread: Have you
yet considered to use the profiles' packages file?
I've mentioned this idea to Stuart. Thanks for bringing it up again. Do
you think it's the best way
Joshua Jackson wrote:
However, as
Chris stated loudly, that this is something that falls directly in
line with Release Engineerings goal. Its not a top level project that
creates something entirely new. Its a extension of the release of
images that allow you to install a system.
Sure,
Donnie Berkholz wrote:
Andrew Gaffney wrote:
Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Wednesday 20 September 2006 12:38, Alec Warner wrote:
I think Chris's primary concern is one of Tell us whats up before it
happens.
why should he care ? some Gentoo guys take catalyst and produce
stage4s directed at
On 9/20/06, Matthew Marlowe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
3) We are where we are at today. Stuart comes up with a great idea for the
seeds project which might help address the virtualization address image and
it appears releng doesnt like it, so progress could be delayed by another 6
months to year.
Stuart Herbert wrote:
Besides, I'm sure we'll delay our own progress whilst we figure out
how to make seeds work well ;-) I think folks are getting carried
away here! Let's get stuff working first, eh?
I think its also worth mentioning that the whole thing is also currently
in *planning*
On Wednesday 20 September 2006 15:26, Andrew Gaffney wrote:
That's not the issue. The issue is that there should *already* be a releng
liason, but nobody from releng seems to know anything about this project.
they havent even started releasing anything yet, they're just getting started
why are
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Andrew Gaffney wrote:
That's not the issue. The issue is that there should *already* be a
releng liason, but nobody from releng seems to know anything about this
project.
I dunno . . . does releng really need to be involved, except if these
Christian 'Opfer' Faulhammer wrote:
Tach Andrew, 0x2B859DE3 (PGP-PK-ID)
Andrew Gaffney schrieb:
As somebody's already mentioned, the embedded project releases GNAP and
has a releng liaison. There's no reason the seeds project couldn't also
have a releng
On Wednesday 20 September 2006 16:01, Andrew Gaffney wrote:
Well, now it's gotten to the point where people are being sneaky and
underhanded about this whole thing.
jesus give over and stop nit picking
when they're ready to actually make a release and they dont go through releng,
feel free to
Stuart Herbert wrote:
To delay progress, Chris will need to make a formal complaint
to the Council.
About what? Our own metastructure proposal explicitly says competing
projects are allowed. There is no complaint, there's just attempts to
convince each other that a formal hierarchy is
On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 20:27:50 +0100 Stuart Herbert
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| I was hoping to avoid having to say this - actually I was hoping to
| avoid this whole drama - but we _don't_ need releng's approval to do
| this. To delay progress, Chris will need to make a formal complaint
| to the
On 9/20/06, Danny van Dyk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Stuart,
The pages are correct.
Cool.
He didn't called you a liar.
You haven't spoken to anyone on the genkernel or catalyst development
teams. - was in response to me saying that I had. It's difficult to
interpret that as anything
On 9/20/06, Danny van Dyk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As long as we have no package sets support in portage, I do indeed think
that this is the best way to go. Didn't realize that you mentioned it,
too.
@Stuart: What do you think?
Right now, I'm not too concerned about the lack of package set
On Wednesday 20 September 2006 16:27, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 20:27:50 +0100 Stuart Herbert
| I was hoping to avoid having to say this - actually I was hoping to
| avoid this whole drama - but we _don't_ need releng's approval to do
| this. To delay progress, Chris will
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Tue, 19 Sep 2006 20:00:59 +0100 Stuart Herbert [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| I've created a new project, called Gentoo Seeds [1]. The aim of the
| project is to create stage4 tarballs which can be used to 'seed' new
|
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
I was under the impression that you were supposed to GLEP anything of
this scope and get council approval... The anyone can make a project
rule doesn't replace the requirement to GLEP large changes.
http://dev.gentoo.org/~chriswhite/xml_source/flame.xml - Code Listing
On Wednesday 20 September 2006 15:33, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Tue, 19 Sep 2006 20:00:59 +0100 Stuart Herbert [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| I've created a new project, called Gentoo Seeds [1]. The aim of the
| project is to create stage4 tarballs which can be used to 'seed' new
| boxes with
On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 16:45:24 -0400 Seemant Kulleen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| On Wed, 2006-09-20 at 20:33 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
| On Tue, 19 Sep 2006 20:00:59 +0100 Stuart Herbert
| [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| | I've created a new project, called Gentoo Seeds [1]. The aim of
| | the
On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 22:41:11 +0200 Jakub Moc [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
| I was under the impression that you were supposed to GLEP anything
| of this scope and get council approval... The anyone can make a
| project rule doesn't replace the requirement to GLEP large
On Wednesday 20 September 2006 13:27, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
I was under the impression that you were supposed to GLEP anything of
this scope and get council approval... The anyone can make a project
rule doesn't replace the requirement to GLEP large changes.
Why? It's in an overlay so it's
On Wed, 2006-09-20 at 21:27 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 20:27:50 +0100 Stuart Herbert
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| I was hoping to avoid having to say this - actually I was hoping to
| avoid this whole drama - but we _don't_ need releng's approval to do
| this. To delay
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 22:41:11 +0200 Jakub Moc [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
| I was under the impression that you were supposed to GLEP anything
| of this scope and get council approval... The anyone can make a
| project rule doesn't replace the
On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 23:42:02 +0200 Jakub Moc [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| Not that bugging people w/ pointless paperwork would contribute
| anything useful to this new project or get any work done... What
| exactly is there to GLEP at this point?
A GLEP is not pointless paperwork if done correctly.
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 23:42:02 +0200 Jakub Moc [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| Not that bugging people w/ pointless paperwork would contribute
| anything useful to this new project or get any work done... What
| exactly is there to GLEP at this point?
A GLEP is not pointless
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 23:42:02 +0200 Jakub Moc [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| Not that bugging people w/ pointless paperwork would contribute
| anything useful to this new project or get any work done... What
| exactly is there to
On 9/20/06, Andrew Gaffney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well, now it's gotten to the point where people are being sneaky and underhanded
about this whole thing. Stuart (I believe) said that they had talked to members
of releng about this, but the truth seems to be that Stuart talked with rocket
and
Am Mittwoch, 20. September 2006 23:33 schrieb Chris White:
On Wednesday 20 September 2006 13:27, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
I was under the impression that you were supposed to GLEP anything
of this scope and get council approval... The anyone can make a
project rule doesn't replace the
This whole thread is quite disappointing to me. Someone comes up with a
new way to use Gentoo; to make it a viable tool for a job; to make it
USEFUL. This is what we are about here (or were?).
Put another way, the Gentoo philosophy is to create better tools.
On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 18:42:13 -0400 Alec Warner [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| As Donnie said; if this is the thanks one gets for trying out a new
| idea; then why try at all.
The complaints are not that Stuart tried a new idea. Stop trying to
spin things that way. The complaints are that he allegedly
Stuart Herbert wrote:
On 9/20/06, Andrew Gaffney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well, now it's gotten to the point where people are being sneaky and
underhanded
about this whole thing. Stuart (I believe) said that they had talked
to members
of releng about this, but the truth seems to be that Stuart
On Wednesday 20 September 2006 18:53, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
The complaints are that he allegedly did it
without consultation, and that he sprang this unexpectedly.
he started a new project and he announced, whoopity do
stop making a big deal over nothing
-mike
pgppKe9FuRp5z.pgp
Description:
On Wed, 2006-09-20 at 18:42 -0400, Alec Warner wrote:
This whole thread is quite disappointing to me. Someone comes up with a
new way to use Gentoo; to make it a viable tool for a job; to make it
USEFUL. This is what we are about here (or were?).
Put another way, the Gentoo philosophy is
Stuart Herbert wrote:
Hi,
I've created a new project, called Gentoo Seeds [1]. The aim of the project
is to create stage4 tarballs which can be used to 'seed' new boxes with
ready-built Gentoo solutions.
Interestingly enough releng was planning some stage4 support for the
next release and
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 18:42:13 -0400 Alec Warner [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| As Donnie said; if this is the thanks one gets for trying out a new
| idea; then why try at all.
The complaints are not that Stuart tried a new idea. Stop trying to
spin things that way. The
In that case, why don't we just consider Stuart's initial mail on this
thing to *be* the effing announcement and be done with it? Fact is, no
matter how something is brought up, there is a dependable group of
people who will have something against it (oh fuck it, we know I'm
referring to Ciaran
On Thu, 21 Sep 2006 01:29:58 +0200
Jakub Moc [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Oh noes! Someone had an unexpected and unconsulted idea that he wanted
to share with others, shoot him!!!111! OMG, so much for inovation and
progress...
Sharing the idea and looking for consultation is one thing. Saying
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Oh look, we just got Slashdotted by someone doing their level best to create a
smear campaign, or at least to spread FUD:
http://linux.slashdot.org/linux/06/09/20/2246231.shtml
As I said on IRC, new project, new whiteboard. why don't we leave it up
On Wednesday 20 September 2006 19:50, Stephen Bennett wrote:
Sharing the idea and looking for consultation is one thing. Saying
Gentoo is now doing this, like it or not is quite another.
funny, i dont recall him forcing anyone to help him
-mike
pgp1ZuNPbbA3B.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Hi All,
It's always interesting to be part of a project that seems to be
in-focus considering the reply's, especially if it's your first within a
OSS-group. It's a long reply, but please bear with me (is that correct
english ?)
Stuart Herbert wrote:
On 9/20/06, Andrew Gaffney [EMAIL
On 9/21/06, Luca Barbato [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Could you please planning something about acting as liason between
projects touched by seeds?
E.G. random guy starts contributing a media seed, I'd like to be
notified and maybe have also x11 people notified, just in case the seed
overlay is
Ok, so we had a rather interesting debate (which quickly went out of control)
today on the whole Gentoo seed project. One of the recommendations that came
through the flames was a liaison to help communicate between the two parties,
the people running the seed project and release engineering.
Chris White wrote:
1) Weekly summary of the project provided about Saturday my time, as that's
about the only guaranteed free time I can provide
More communication in Gentoo is always good. We're nowhere near the
tipping point of too much communication.
2) Working with both sides to produce
On Wednesday 20 September 2006 22:43, Chris White wrote:
1) Weekly summary of the project provided about Saturday my time, as that's
about the only guaranteed free time I can provide
for a project just getting started, seems like a lot ... but i'm not part of
said project so i cant really say
Chris Seed Project Devs,
I'm only a lowly user of Gentoo (some of you may remember us, we're the
reason for ever writing a GLEP or committing an ebuild in the first place).
I just wanted to say, in a place where other devs could see, that I think
this is an excellent idea. Reading the gentoo-dev
On Wednesday 20 September 2006 23:15, Daniel Watkins wrote:
And I don't use a LAMP server (and have only the vaguest grasp on what they
are) and, I've gotta say, I'm pretty excited by it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LAMP_%28software_bundle%29
-mike
pgpC38qyNsX96.pgp
Description: PGP
75 matches
Mail list logo
