On 04/04/07, Seemant Kulleen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Please except my apologies
I don't know about excepting them. I might accept them though. :)
--
-Charlie
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
On Tue, 03 Apr 2007 10:10:30 -0700
antarus [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think there is a difference. Take the issue with the ubuntu
installer that left the root password in a
log in /var. Who was responsible? Ubuntu. Why? Because it's their
installer, their project.
And who would be
or accepting them I suppose makes more sense.
Alright, last email from me that's flourish .. I'll let you guys get back to
what you do best.
Sorry again, I'll go through the proper channels from now on.
--
Samir
On 4/5/07, Charlie Shepherd [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 04/04/07, Seemant
On Wed, 4 Apr 2007 01:51:56 -0400
Mike Frysinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
- PMS:
- status update from spb
- moving it to Gentoo svn
- schedule for getting remaining issues settled
Same question as last time this came up:
Can you name any other projects where the Council
Ciaran McCreesh [EMAIL PROTECTED] posted
[EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Thu, 05 Apr 2007
09:28:17 +0100:
On Wed, 4 Apr 2007 01:51:56 -0400
Mike Frysinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
- PMS:
- status update from spb
- moving it to Gentoo svn
- schedule for getting
On 4/5/07, Alexandre Buisse [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well, the thing is, vote happens only once a year, and quite a lot of
things can be done during that time. I just think that not having any
rule at all concerning limitations to the council is tying our hands in
our back. If the council never
On Wed, 4 Apr 2007 15:17:18 -0500
Grant Goodyear [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Alexandre Buisse wrote: [Wed Apr 04 2007, 02:36:43PM CDT]
I won't take this to the council myself, but I think this should be
discussed at the very least: we need a way to limit the council
power, since it seems there
On Thu, 2007-04-05 at 09:16 +0100, Charlie Shepherd wrote:
On 04/04/07, Seemant Kulleen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Please except my apologies
I don't know about excepting them. I might accept them though. :)
Nice catch. My language skills are degrading rapidly :(
signature.asc
Description:
On Thu, Apr 05, 2007 at 09:26:41AM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
Unfortunately, what the GLEP doesn't do is prevent the Council from
having secret meetings and refusing to discuss not only the content of
those meetings but even the topic. Perhaps a requirement that any
Council meeting logs be
On Wed, Apr 04, 2007 at 12:27:09PM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
sorry, due to the thread (things for Council to talk about), i thought the
work you were talking about was stuff for the Council to discuss ... that
seems to not be the case
Ah, sorry about that. As you said, right now there is
On Thu, 2007-04-05 at 13:29 +0200, Denis Dupeyron wrote:
Why not simply allow trustees to veto a council decision ? This does
not give trustees enough power to be a second council, but would
permit them to stop something that they believe will damage Gentoo.
This is very little red tape IMHO.
Hi,
I'm currently the maintainer of libchipcard.
There are three slots of libchipcard in the tree at the moment. I think
there's nothing in the tree any more that deps on 1, so that is about to be
removed soon.
Now, I wanted to ask if there are any issues that would prevent us from
getting
On Fri, 06 Apr 2007 00:09:12 Wernfried Haas wrote:
On Thu, Apr 05, 2007 at 09:26:41AM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
Unfortunately, what the GLEP doesn't do is prevent the Council from
having secret meetings and refusing to discuss not only the content of
those meetings but even the topic.
On Thu, 2007-04-05 at 13:29 +0200, Denis Dupeyron wrote:
On 4/5/07, Alexandre Buisse [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well, the thing is, vote happens only once a year, and quite a lot of
things can be done during that time. I just think that not having any
rule at all concerning limitations to the
On Thu, 2007-04-05 at 08:19 -0400, Seemant Kulleen wrote:
On Thu, 2007-04-05 at 13:29 +0200, Denis Dupeyron wrote:
Why not simply allow trustees to veto a council decision ? This does
not give trustees enough power to be a second council, but would
permit them to stop something that they
On Thu, 5 Apr 2007 10:37:28 + (UTC)
Duncan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ciaran McCreesh [EMAIL PROTECTED] posted
[EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Thu, 05 Apr
2007 09:28:17 +0100:
On Wed, 4 Apr 2007 01:51:56 -0400
Mike Frysinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
- PMS:
- status
On Thu, 5 Apr 2007 14:09:12 +0200
Wernfried Haas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Apr 05, 2007 at 09:26:41AM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
Unfortunately, what the GLEP doesn't do is prevent the Council from
having secret meetings and refusing to discuss not only the content
of those
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
Unfortunately, what the GLEP doesn't do is prevent the Council from
having secret meetings and refusing to discuss not only the content of
those meetings but even the topic. Perhaps a requirement that any
Council meeting logs be made public would be useful, with a waiver
Ciaran McCreesh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If they want to have sekrit meetings with sekrit handshakes, let
them. If enough people think this is not acceptable, they'll be gone
on the next election.
Which is all very well, but it's kind of hard to evaluate the
effectiveness of Council
On Thu, 2007-04-05 at 14:51 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
details can remain private if necessary, but publishing a brief summary
along the lines of we discussed x and y and decided z *has* to be
less harmful than the current mess where people are deleting their work
and considering
On Thu, 05 Apr 2007 10:47:37 -0400
Chris Gianelloni [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I mean, all this the Council is hiding something conspiracy theory
is bullshit.
Then why are certain Council members, you included, threatening to
remove other Council members' and Gentoo developers' access if logs of
On Thu, 2007-04-05 at 16:00 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
Honestly, the only reason there is any suggestion of a conspiracy is
because of the threats being made by certain people to keep a certain
log a secret...
The log contains information that was given to us in confidence. How
much
Asking here and hoping everyone reads it may result in stable tree breakage.
Open a bug and cc all maintainers of packages which depend on it, to get a
definitive answer, please.
Carsten
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Chris Gianelloni wrote:
On Thu, 2007-04-05 at 16:00 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
Honestly, the only reason there is any suggestion of a conspiracy is
because of the threats being made by certain people to keep a certain
log a secret...
The log contains information that was given to us in
On Thu, 2007-04-05 at 09:04 -0700, Josh Saddler wrote:
Chris Gianelloni wrote:
On Thu, 2007-04-05 at 16:00 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
Honestly, the only reason there is any suggestion of a conspiracy is
because of the threats being made by certain people to keep a certain
log a
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Donnie Berkholz wrote:
Mike Doty wrote:
apparent decline of QA in our packages.
Anyone got numbers for that? Talking opinions, as in the SCM discussion,
isn't real meaningful.
Thanks,
Donnie
What metric would you use? the number of stages
On Thu, 05 Apr 2007 09:04:09 -0700
Josh Saddler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Here's how it appears to someone reading all this, though:
Ciaran *already knows* what's going on, which means that some
person(s) who *were* privy to those meetings have talked, plain and
simple. If that's true, then
On Thu, 05 Apr 2007 12:24:06 -0400
Chris Gianelloni [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well, from what I can gather, he only *thinks* he knows what was going
on and he's filled in the blanks himself with whatever ideas he's come
up with on his own. If he really does have the logs, he wouldn't be
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Thu, 05 Apr 2007 12:24:06 -0400
Chris Gianelloni [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well, from what I can gather, he only *thinks* he knows what was going
on and he's filled in the blanks himself with whatever ideas he's come
up with on his own. If he really does have the
* Mike Doty [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
apparent decline of QA in our packages.
Why do you want this to be a council topic if it wasn't even a topic
here or on gentoo-qa@ ?
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Le Wed, 04 Apr 2007 23:43:07 +0100,
Steve Long [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit :
federico wrote:
Steve Long ha scritto:
What benefits does it show; why would I want it on my machine?
because it provides a place to store those settings;
latency timer settings? the coder in me can
* Mike Doty [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Torsten Veller wrote:
* Mike Doty [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
apparent decline of QA in our packages.
Why do you want this to be a council topic if it wasn't even a topic
here or on gentoo-qa@ ?
Because our QA sucks and noone is doing a damn thing about it.
So
On Sunday 01 April 2007, Mike Frysinger wrote:
If you have something you'd wish for us to chat about, maybe even
vote on, let us know ! Simply reply to this e-mail for the whole
Gentoo dev list to see.
another one i had mentioned earlier:
- a time frame on moving gentoo-core to public
On Thu, 2007-04-05 at 19:06 +0100, Steve Long wrote:
He has already stipulated that all decisions we made were 100% public
and We do have to have all of our decisions made public, obviously.
Exactly.
Everything that was decided was done so in public and quite plainly. If
certain people have a
Am Donnerstag, 5. April 2007 14:09 schrieb Wernfried Haas:
If they want to have sekrit meetings with sekrit handshakes, let
them. If enough people think this is not acceptable, they'll be gone
on the next election.
Especially as there are council members who don't rely like any privacy
in that
On Thursday 05 April 2007, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
Unfortunately, what the GLEP doesn't do is prevent the Council from
having secret meetings and refusing to discuss not only the content of
those meetings but even the topic. Perhaps a requirement that any
Council meeting logs be made public
On Thu, 2007-04-05 at 15:20 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Sunday 01 April 2007, Mike Frysinger wrote:
If you have something you'd wish for us to chat about, maybe even
vote on, let us know ! Simply reply to this e-mail for the whole
Gentoo dev list to see.
another one i had mentioned
Am Donnerstag, 5. April 2007 20:20 schrieb Mike Doty:
Torsten Veller wrote:
* Mike Doty [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
apparent decline of QA in our packages.
Why do you want this to be a council topic if it wasn't even a
topic here or on gentoo-qa@ ?
Because our QA sucks and noone is doing a
Am Donnerstag, 5. April 2007 21:20 schrieb Mike Frysinger:
On Sunday 01 April 2007, Mike Frysinger wrote:
If you have something you'd wish for us to chat about, maybe even
vote on, let us know ! Simply reply to this e-mail for the whole
Gentoo dev list to see.
another one i had mentioned
On Thu, 2007-04-05 at 22:15 +0200, Danny van Dyk wrote:
Am Donnerstag, 5. April 2007 14:09 schrieb Wernfried Haas:
If they want to have sekrit meetings with sekrit handshakes, let
them. If enough people think this is not acceptable, they'll be gone
on the next election.
Especially as there
On Thursday 05 April 2007, Danny van Dyk wrote:
Am Donnerstag, 5. April 2007 21:20 schrieb Mike Frysinger:
On Sunday 01 April 2007, Mike Frysinger wrote:
If you have something you'd wish for us to chat about, maybe even
vote on, let us know ! Simply reply to this e-mail for the whole
On Thu, 2007-04-05 at 15:20 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Sunday 01 April 2007, Mike Frysinger wrote:
If you have something you'd wish for us to chat about, maybe even
vote on, let us know ! Simply reply to this e-mail for the whole
Gentoo dev list to see.
another one i had
On Thu, Apr 05, 2007 at 10:40:55PM +0200, Danny van Dyk wrote:
Am Donnerstag, 5. April 2007 20:20 schrieb Mike Doty:
Torsten Veller wrote:
* Mike Doty [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
apparent decline of QA in our packages.
Why do you want this to be a council topic if it wasn't even a
topic
On 4/5/07, Chris Gianelloni [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I just find this whole situation hysterical since you have so many
people saying the Council needs to grow a pair and actually try to
enact some good, and when we do, you hear a few vocal individuals
running around screaming like we killed
Ned Ludd kirjoitti:
On Thu, 2007-04-05 at 15:20 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Sunday 01 April 2007, Mike Frysinger wrote:
If you have something you'd wish for us to chat about, maybe even
vote on, let us know ! Simply reply to this e-mail for the whole
Gentoo dev list to see.
another
On Thu, Apr 05, 2007 at 02:18:40PM -0700, Ned Ludd wrote:
I object and hope this is never done. There are things said on core
that I do not wish to be public. I've sent mails myself that if they
were ever going to be published publicly I would of never sent them.
As far i remember the idea
Am Donnerstag, 5. April 2007 23:24 schrieb Brian Harring:
On Thu, Apr 05, 2007 at 10:40:55PM +0200, Danny van Dyk wrote:
Am Donnerstag, 5. April 2007 20:20 schrieb Mike Doty:
Torsten Veller wrote:
* Mike Doty [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
apparent decline of QA in our packages.
Why do
On Fri, Apr 06, 2007 at 12:16:18AM +0200, Danny van Dyk wrote:
* There is at least one outstanding QA issue that i know of which
is related to Portage and can't be fixed w/o slot deps properly.
Read: KDE's problems with ranged deps and the way it currently
breaks the vdb's RDEPEND
On Thursday 05 April 2007, Wernfried Haas wrote:
On Thu, Apr 05, 2007 at 02:18:40PM -0700, Ned Ludd wrote:
I object and hope this is never done. There are things said on core
that I do not wish to be public. I've sent mails myself that if they
were ever going to be published publicly I
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Brian Harring wrote:
Breaking EAPI=0 via pushing slot deps in isn't much of an option in
my opinion; usual needs to have been on release media for at least 6
We can push for an EAPI=1 == (EAPI=0 + slot deps)...
Can, yep, although that was
Am Freitag, 6. April 2007 00:41 schrieb Vlastimil Babka:
Brian Harring wrote:
Breaking EAPI=0 via pushing slot deps in isn't much of an option
in my opinion; usual needs to have been on release media for at
least 6
We can push for an EAPI=1 == (EAPI=0 + slot deps)...
Can, yep,
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Danny van Dyk wrote:
Not sure if slot deps themselves could even replace version ranges
hacks without also solving bug 4315 (native version ranges) in all
cases. IMHO it should be possible at least to specify slot+usual
version limit, to make it
Am Freitag, 6. April 2007 00:11 schrieb Brian Harring:
You can trigger the same issue in portage via wiping pretty much
everything in PORTDIR (switching the tree, or just a literal rm
of everything but profiles crap), but that's fairly corner case.
Don't much like the behavior
When you pop into your mail client of choice and find 50+ unread messages in the
last few hours, you know what kind of day [EMAIL PROTECTED] is having.
Don't suppose we could get on with that silly topical thing of development?
Surely there's a usenet channel where you can discuss
On Fri, Apr 06, 2007 at 12:41:50AM +0200, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
Brian Harring wrote:
Breaking EAPI=0 via pushing slot deps in isn't much of an option in
my opinion; usual needs to have been on release media for at least 6
We can push for an EAPI=1 == (EAPI=0 + slot deps)...
Can, yep,
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Michael Cummings wrote:
When you pop into your mail client of choice and find 50+ unread
messages in the
last few hours, you know what kind of day [EMAIL PROTECTED] is having.
Don't suppose we could get on with that silly topical thing of
thanks to some awesome sponsor help, we have s390 and s390x hosts now (btw, as
of two days ago, we have a port of Gentoo to s390x)
for devs who wish to help out the s390/s390x team, feel free to contact me ...
note that i mean people who wish to join the s390/s390x team, not just test
random
57 matches
Mail list logo
