Seemant Kulleen wrote:
> Dear Gentoo Devs and Users,
> The time has finally come for me to resign from Gentoo. I've been
Seemant,
Thanks a lot for everything you've done for Gentoo. It's been really
amazing to have you around and you'll be missed. Take care my friend and
do stick around on IRC.
On Dec 25, 2007 2:38 AM, Roy Marples <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 2007-12-25 at 02:26 -0500, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > On Dec 24, 2007 7:53 AM, Roy Marples <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > So to obtain EAPI from .ebuild you would always do
> > > EAPI=`. /path/to/ebuild.ebuild; echo "${EAPI
On Tue, 2007-12-25 at 02:26 -0500, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Dec 24, 2007 7:53 AM, Roy Marples <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > So to obtain EAPI from .ebuild you would always do
> > EAPI=`. /path/to/ebuild.ebuild; echo "${EAPI}"`
>
> Doesn't work with current ebuilds, nor future ebuilds. No point
On Dec 24, 2007 7:53 AM, Roy Marples <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So to obtain EAPI from .ebuild you would always do
> EAPI=`. /path/to/ebuild.ebuild; echo "${EAPI}"`
Doesn't work with current ebuilds, nor future ebuilds. No points!
--
Ciaran McCreesh
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
On Mon, 2007-12-24 at 19:52 -0800, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
> The CVS stuff should have been locked out already, not sure how you
> tested that.
I didn't.
I assumed that as I had access to d.g.o, I had CVS access too.
My bad.
> The Git stuff is coming very shortly (probably as a Christmas gift fro
On Mon, Dec 24, 2007 at 11:00:44PM +, Roy Marples wrote:
> On Mon, 2007-12-24 at 21:39 +, Duncan wrote:
> > Apparently, at present, pretty much the only one with access
> > is the one who actually did the port, and he's hasn't done much with it
> > since.
>
> I beg to differ - I've down
Roy Marples <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted
[EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Mon, 24
Dec 2007 23:00:44 +:
> On Mon, 2007-12-24 at 21:39 +, Duncan wrote:
>> Apparently, at present, pretty much the only one with access is the one
>> who actually did the port, and he's hasn't done much with
On Mon, 2007-12-24 at 21:39 +, Duncan wrote:
> Apparently, at present, pretty much the only one with access
> is the one who actually did the port, and he's hasn't done much with it
> since.
I beg to differ - I've down an awful lot with the code.
It now installs and works cleanly on a vanill
Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted
[EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Mon, 24 Dec
2007 08:38:19 +:
> Even if any of the PMS contributors *wanted* to commit to an official
> Gentoo repository, they couldn't because neither the Council nor
> whoever did the setting up have bothered
# Raúl Porcel (24 Dec 2007)
# Mask for removal on 24 Feb 2008 for treecleaners
# Bug 195228, merged with net-tools
sys-apps/mii-diag
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Confirm unsubscribe from [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Just picked this particular email to reply with my thoughts on this
thread.
On Mon, 2007-12-24 at 10:52 +, Steve Long wrote:
> But they come under the scope of this discussion, since this is about the
> long-term future of *every* EAPI. So let's discuss them
Impossible. History has proven aga
On Mon, 24 Dec 2007 11:19:18 +
Steve Long <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Which is fine. But then, the majority of devs shouldn't expect to be
> > able to provide opinions when it comes to the more technical
> > aspects.
> >
> Yes, but they can smell a nasty hack when they see one; starting with
On Mon, 24 Dec 2007 10:52:53 +
Steve Long <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > On Mon, 24 Dec 2007 06:03:12 +
> > Steve Long <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> * Set the EAPI inside the ebuild in a way that makes it easy to
> >> fetch it This is ok as atm only EAPI=1 is in
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 14:29:25 +0100
>> The majority of devs don't want to know how portage or paludis work
>> internally, that's not what interests most of us.
>
> Which is fine. But then, the majority of devs shouldn't expect to be
> able to provide opinions when it comes
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Dec 2007 06:03:12 +
> Steve Long <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> * Set the EAPI inside the ebuild in a way that makes it easy to
>> fetch it This is ok as atm only EAPI=1 is in the tree, so there is no
>> backward compatibility issue.
>
> It's both a backward
On Mon, 24 Dec 2007 08:27:39 + (UTC)
Duncan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The problem right now is that while you are correct, that's the
> official list, due to technical/political issues, the Gentoo-official
> PMS repo doesn't (or didn't as of the last council meeting, according
> to the log)
Steve Long <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted
[EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Sun, 23 Dec 2007 21:01:15
+:
> I don't accept that I took it to that level, but I apologise
> unreservedly for responding to it.
Thanks. Now to leave it behind.
--
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs.
Steve Long <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted
[EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Mon, 24 Dec 2007 05:51:34
+:
>> The most basic issue, which we didn't even discuss yet, afaik, is how
>> to make every developer aware which feature belongs to which EAPI. I
>> freely admit, I do not know that. Is th
19 matches
Mail list logo
