[gentoo-dev] Re: Re: Re: [RFC]: gentoo-politics ML

2007-06-13 Thread Steve Long
Stephen P. Becker wrote: So (without a Portage tree) it replaces the oldgrown single-liner wget foo; tar -xzf foo; cd foo; ./configure; make; make install Are you implying that there would be much more involved with anything currently in the gentoo tree in the absence of portage? /me

OT: gentoo-kindergarten (was: Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC]: gentoo-politics ML)

2007-06-13 Thread Thilo Bangert
I want a gentoo-kindergarten list, where useless discussions like this (sub)thread can be directed to. kids, grow up! pgpJFDJFTgIVf.pgp Description: PGP signature

[gentoo-dev] Re: OT: gentoo-kindergarten

2007-06-13 Thread Vlastimil Babka
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Thilo Bangert wrote: I want a gentoo-kindergarten list, where useless discussions like this (sub)thread can be directed to. kids, grow up! right s/gentoo-// - -- Vlastimil Babka (Caster) Gentoo/Java -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: Re: [RFC]: gentoo-politics ML

2007-06-13 Thread Stephen P. Becker
On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 10:16:43 +0100 Steve Long [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Stephen P. Becker wrote: So (without a Portage tree) it replaces the oldgrown single-liner wget foo; tar -xzf foo; cd foo; ./configure; make; make install Are you implying that there would be much more involved with

Re: OT: gentoo-kindergarten (was: Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC]: gentoo-politics ML)

2007-06-13 Thread Kent Fredric
On 6/13/07, Thilo Bangert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I want a gentoo-kindergarten list, where useless discussions like this (sub)thread can be directed to. kids, grow up! *cries in his corner* Yes mummy :] -- Kent ruby -e '[1, 2, 4, 7, 0, 9, 5, 8, 3, 10, 11, 6, 12, 13].each{|x| print

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: guidline to set a timeline of removal of ebuild from stable tree

2007-06-13 Thread banym tuxaner
Hi, my opinion is to make the sync machanism more intelligent in this way. I don't want to have a tree with 2 stable versions or old versions of ebuilds. My idea is to let the actual(old) installed ebuild version untouched so you are able to downgrade after an update, and you are although able

Re: [gentoo-dev] guidline to set a timeline of removal of ebuild from stable tree

2007-06-13 Thread Robert Buchholz
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Am 12.06.2007 um 13:29 schrieb Christoph Mende: On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 12:59:42 +0200 cilly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Jun 12, 2007, at 12:53 PM, cilly wrote: Additional: Sometimes the chance for the users to place the ebuild comfortably into

Re: [gentoo-dev] guidline to set a timeline of removal of ebuild from stable tree

2007-06-13 Thread Brian Harring
On Wed, Jun 13, 2007 at 04:35:31PM +0200, Robert Buchholz wrote: The problem is rather that the patches are gone from the distfiles mirror after two weeks. The sources often stay upstream, but could also be gone. Is there an archive for these files I missed? That archive ('purgatory' being

[gentoo-dev] QA issue: No stable skype in Tree

2007-06-13 Thread Gustavo Felisberto
A little background info: Right now there are three versions of net-im/skype in the tree: 1 - the 1.2 series (with a stable version) 2- the 1.3 series also with a stable version 3- the 1.4 series with a ~/hardmask version Also the skype license states that we cannot mirror it's files (this will

Re: [gentoo-dev] QA issue: No stable skype in Tree

2007-06-13 Thread Vlastimil Babka
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Gustavo Felisberto wrote: Any alternatives? Drop it from stable completely, possibly package.mask or move to overlay. Why should this closed-source rootkit be in stable? - -- Vlastimil Babka (Caster) Gentoo/Java -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-

Re: [gentoo-dev] QA issue: No stable skype in Tree

2007-06-13 Thread Daniel Gryniewicz
On Wed, 2007-06-13 at 17:36 +0100, Gustavo Felisberto wrote: A little background info: Right now there are three versions of net-im/skype in the tree: 1 - the 1.2 series (with a stable version) 2- the 1.3 series also with a stable version 3- the 1.4 series with a ~/hardmask version Also

Re: [gentoo-dev] QA issue: No stable skype in Tree

2007-06-13 Thread Steev Klimaszewski
Vlastimil Babka wrote: Gustavo Felisberto wrote: Any alternatives? Drop it from stable completely, possibly package.mask or move to overlay. Why should this closed-source rootkit be in stable? Said the java dev Personally, I'd say if upstream doesn't provide downloads, nothing we can

Re: [gentoo-dev] QA issue: No stable skype in Tree

2007-06-13 Thread George Shapovalov
Wednesday, 13. June 2007, Daniel Gryniewicz Ви написали: The first option will trigger portage errors and prompt users to open bugs until we have a stable 1.4, the second gives us a chance to explain the issue. Any alternatives? 3. Mask 1.4 on the 19th with a descriptive message.

Re: [gentoo-dev] QA issue: No stable skype in Tree

2007-06-13 Thread Petteri Räty
Steev Klimaszewski kirjoitti: Vlastimil Babka wrote: Gustavo Felisberto wrote: Any alternatives? Drop it from stable completely, possibly package.mask or move to overlay. Why should this closed-source rootkit be in stable? Said the java dev We all use OpenJDK nowadays, don't we :)

Re: [gentoo-dev] QA issue: No stable skype in Tree

2007-06-13 Thread Vlastimil Babka
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 George Shapovalov wrote: Wednesday, 13. June 2007, Daniel Gryniewicz Ви написали: The first option will trigger portage errors and prompt users to open bugs until we have a stable 1.4, the second gives us a chance to explain the issue. Any

Re: [gentoo-dev] QA issue: No stable skype in Tree

2007-06-13 Thread Marijn Schouten (hkBst)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Vlastimil Babka wrote: Gustavo Felisberto wrote: Any alternatives? Drop it from stable completely, possibly package.mask or move to overlay. Why should this closed-source rootkit be in stable? ++ Marijn -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version:

Re: [gentoo-dev] QA issue: No stable skype in Tree

2007-06-13 Thread Abhay Kedia
On Wednesday 13 Jun 2007 10:11:24 pm Vlastimil Babka wrote: Drop it from stable completely, possibly package.mask or move to overlay. Why should this closed-source rootkit be in stable? If closed source is the criteria of getting dropped from stable status or tree, than are we dropping

Re: [gentoo-dev] QA issue: No stable skype in Tree

2007-06-13 Thread Luca Barbato
Abhay Kedia wrote: On Wednesday 13 Jun 2007 10:11:24 pm Vlastimil Babka wrote: Drop it from stable completely, possibly package.mask or move to overlay. Why should this closed-source rootkit be in stable? If closed source is the criteria of getting dropped from stable status or tree, than

Re: [gentoo-dev] QA issue: No stable skype in Tree

2007-06-13 Thread Vlastimil Babka
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Abhay Kedia wrote: On Wednesday 13 Jun 2007 10:11:24 pm Vlastimil Babka wrote: Drop it from stable completely, possibly package.mask or move to overlay. Why should this closed-source rootkit be in stable? If closed source is the criteria of

Re: [gentoo-dev] QA issue: No stable skype in Tree

2007-06-13 Thread Kent Fredric
On 6/14/07, Vlastimil Babka [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Also, ion3 was IIRC removed recently also for upstream trying to force new versions against our stable policy. And that was opensource. [U] x11-wm/ion3 Available versions: (~)20060326 (~)20061223 (~)20070318-r2 (~)20070506-r1 {doc

Re: [gentoo-dev] QA issue: No stable skype in Tree

2007-06-13 Thread Vlastimil Babka
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Kent Fredric wrote: On 6/14/07, Vlastimil Babka [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Also, ion3 was IIRC removed recently also for upstream trying to force new versions against our stable policy. And that was opensource. [U] x11-wm/ion3 Available

[gentoo-dev] Are you guys for real?

2007-06-13 Thread Jayson Vaughn
Ok, Gentoo is over. As an outsider who has been following gentoo-dev and other gentoo lists for a while, this is just completely nuts. Is there any order or clear idea anymore for this distro? No other distro seems to be as lost or confused as Gentoo is. And WTF is this list going to discuss

Re: [gentoo-dev] Are you guys for real?

2007-06-13 Thread Steev Klimaszewski
Jayson Vaughn wrote: Ok, Gentoo is over. As an outsider who has been following gentoo-dev and other gentoo lists for a while, this is just completely nuts. Is there any order or clear idea anymore for this distro? No other distro seems to be as lost or confused as Gentoo is. And WTF is

Re: [gentoo-dev] Are you guys for real?

2007-06-13 Thread Raúl Porcel
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Are you for real? Normally its the dev's who scream and rant on the way out, not the users... Touché :D -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

Re: [gentoo-dev] Are you guys for real?

2007-06-13 Thread Mike Owen
On 6/13/07, Jayson Vaughn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ok, Gentoo is over. As an outsider who has been following gentoo-dev and other gentoo lists for a while, this is just completely nuts. Is there any order or clear idea anymore for this distro? No other distro seems to be as lost or confused as

Re: [gentoo-dev] Are you guys for real?

2007-06-13 Thread Vlastimil Babka
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Jayson Vaughn wrote: Ok, Gentoo is over. Hardly :) As an outsider who has been following gentoo-dev and other gentoo lists for a while, this is just completely nuts. Seen worse :) Is there any order or clear idea anymore for this distro? No

Re: [gentoo-dev] Are you guys for real?

2007-06-13 Thread Hélder Máximo Botter Ribas
I don't agree. Gentoo is not over. But, is hard to believe that gentoo are going to survive. Fights, public discussions, complains about proctors, CoC draft, so many good developers retiring and bad publicity (or fights in this list are good thing?? ) Nowadays, this list looks more like a

[gentoo-dev] Re: Are you guys for real?

2007-06-13 Thread Markus Ullmann
Some numbers to back Vlastimil up Yep there's still development going on, devs commit ebuilds and stuff. http://cia.vc/stats/project/gentoo Also, as said many times, number of devs participating in flamewars here is pretty low compared to number of all devs... considering

Re: [gentoo-dev] Are you guys for real?

2007-06-13 Thread Peter Weller
On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 16:17:37 -0500 Jayson Vaughn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ok, Gentoo is over. As an outsider who has been following gentoo-dev and other gentoo lists for a while, this is just completely nuts. Is there any order or clear idea anymore for this distro? No other distro seems

Re: [gentoo-dev] Are you guys for real?

2007-06-13 Thread Peter Weller
On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 22:53:40 +0100 Peter Weller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [..snip..] Oh, also, some of us can bitch and develop at once. Y'know. We have like 8 arms. And we control like 4 computers at once *nod*. Kinda like this dude here:

Re: [gentoo-dev] QA issue: No stable skype in Tree

2007-06-13 Thread Abhay Kedia
On Thursday 14 Jun 2007 1:54:51 am Vlastimil Babka wrote: But maybe Skype is not so pressing to upgrade, just doesn't provide distfiles anymore. Then maybe we don't have to obey, but still it's really questionable if it should be marked stable at all. Then don't mark it stable but dropping it

Re: [gentoo-dev] Are you guys for real?

2007-06-13 Thread Preston Cody
On 6/13/07, Jayson Vaughn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ok, Gentoo is over. Gentoo can't be over! I still have $10 riding on Gentoo having a larger market share than Windows Vista in 5 years! I still think I will win :) -Codeman -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list