Jan Kundrát wrote:
The GDP has zero control over /proj/en/releng (well, in fact any
developer can commit to that area, but you generally aren't supposed to
change a project's web page without their approval). This document is
maintained by releng.
Ok
Additionally, if you really expect any ac
Jeroen Roovers wrote:
PS: I wanted to respond to many more of your comments, but then I
always thought: who is this man anyway and does he perhaps contribute
to Gentoo in some obscure way? Now I tend to think you don't.
David seems to be a PMS contributor [1].
Cheers,
-jkt
[1] http://git.over
Luca Barbato wrote:
http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/releng/#doc_chap5
"The latest release of Gentoo Linux is:
"Gentoo Linux 2007.0 for Alpha, AMD64, HPPA, IA64, MIPS, PPC, S390,
SH, SPARC, and x86 architectures. "
Good point, doc team please update those places.
The GDP has zero control over
On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 20:45:45 +
"Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The userrel team has decided to request a 5 day ban to the -dev ml for
> rbrown for his repeated misbehaviour, as noticed above, and that' now
> in place.
It's good to see the userrel team is active. Will
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Arun Raghavan wrote:
| On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 6:51 PM, Richard Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
|> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idiot
|
| This is the second time in 8 days that you are doing this. Please stop
| filling our inboxes with this puerile t
On Thursday 19 June 2008 18:06:17 Jeroen Roovers wrote:
> In this case the attacks seem to be targeting a person who has been
> attacking an entire ~300 person project for a few years now.
Is it considered acceptable to attack someone as long as the attacker thinks
they deserve it?
> I honestly
On Thu, 2008-06-19 at 18:28 +0100, Robert Bridge wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 12:11:11 +0100
> Roy Marples <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Thursday 19 June 2008 02:43:12 Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> > > Nope. What I see as a problem is that the primary author and
> > > current de facto maintai
On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 12:11:11 +0100
Roy Marples <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thursday 19 June 2008 02:43:12 Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> > Nope. What I see as a problem is that the primary author and
> > current de facto maintainer is so much of an asshole that he was
> > forcibly removed from th
On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 09:06:21 +0100
David Leverton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The reason has already been explained multiple times, kindly stop
> with the personal attacks and silly conspiracy theories.
In this case the attacks seem to be targeting a person who has been
attacking an entire ~300
On 2008-06-19 18:32, Nirbheek Chauhan uttered these thoughts:
> On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 5:58 PM, Patrick Börjesson
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 2008-06-19 04:09, George Prowse uttered these thoughts:
> >> In the end, PMS is just a way for them to spread their own agenda and force
> >> it on
On Thursday 19 June 2008 14:52:01 Nirbheek Chauhan wrote:
> "oh noes, too many posts with the same 3 people replying everywhere
> and spreading their minority irrelevant opinion as though it really
> mattered! What a gargantuan waste of time and energy11!~"
If you disagree with people's opinio
On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 6:51 PM, Richard Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idiot
This is the second time in 8 days that you are doing this. Please stop
filling our inboxes with this puerile trolling.
Devrel team: I do appreciate that the Gentoo Way has been to keep t
On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 6:56 PM, David Leverton
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thursday 19 June 2008 14:19:32 Nirbheek Chauhan wrote:
>> On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 6:40 PM, David Leverton
>> > On Thursday 19 June 2008 14:02:13 Nirbheek Chauhan wrote:
>> >> The point is that their replies to the maili
On Thursday 19 June 2008 14:19:32 Nirbheek Chauhan wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 6:40 PM, David Leverton
>
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Thursday 19 June 2008 14:02:13 Nirbheek Chauhan wrote:
> >> The point is that their replies to the mailing list waste a lot of
> >> time and energy since
On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 14:19, Nirbheek Chauhan
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 6:40 PM, David Leverton
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Thursday 19 June 2008 14:02:13 Nirbheek Chauhan wrote:
>>> The point is that their replies to the mailing list waste a lot of
>>> time and
On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 6:40 PM, David Leverton
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thursday 19 June 2008 14:02:13 Nirbheek Chauhan wrote:
>> The point is that their replies to the mailing list waste a lot of
>> time and energy since people will *always* reply to them.
>
> Replies? On a mailing list?
On Thursday 19 June 2008 14:02:13 Nirbheek Chauhan wrote:
> The point is that their replies to the mailing list waste a lot of
> time and energy since people will *always* reply to them.
Replies? On a mailing list? Whatever is the world coming to?
> I completely agree. They should stop pushing
On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 5:58 PM, Patrick Börjesson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 2008-06-19 04:09, George Prowse uttered these thoughts:
>> In the end, PMS is just a way for them to spread their own agenda and force
>> it on both the developers and the users so maybe it would be best for all
>> i
On 2008-06-19 04:09, George Prowse uttered these thoughts:
> In the end, PMS is just a way for them to spread their own agenda and force
> it on both the developers and the users so maybe it would be best for all
> if paludis and it's developers were to concentrate on making paludis for a
> diff
On Thursday 19 June 2008 02:43:12 Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> Nope. What I see as a problem is that the primary author and current
> de facto maintainer is so much of an asshole that he was forcibly
> removed from the Gentoo project, which PMS is supposed to be written
> for, and has ostracized (at
Chris Gianelloni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted
[EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Wed, 18
Jun 2008 18:43:12 -0700:
> Quite frankly, I'd prefer see Gentoo
> take control over the specification that defines the most important
> single feature of Gentoo and remove the non-Gentoo developers from its
On Thursday 19 June 2008 08:46:02 Luca Barbato wrote:
> David Leverton wrote:
> > On Thursday 19 June 2008 04:09:26 George Prowse wrote:
> >> In the end, PMS is just a way for them to spread their own agenda
> >
> > Lies and FUD.
>
> No
Yes.
> ...are you issuing a press release for exherbo?
What
On Thursday 19 June 2008 08:44:41 Luca Barbato wrote:
> Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> > On Fri, 2008-06-13 at 12:22 +0200, Luca Barbato wrote:
> >> Care to share the logic and wise reasoning ?
> >
> > [ "${IDEA_ORIGIN}" != "Ciaran" ] && die
>
> I tend to agree.
The reason has already been explained mu
On Thursday 19 June 2008 08:41:34 Luca Barbato wrote:
> > The point is to avoid breaking Portage versions that users might
> > reasonably be using, even if only briefly. Do you really expect /all/
> > users doing a new installation to choose the scary beta instead of the
> > nice safe release?
>
>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 8:39 AM, George Prowse wrote:
> ++
>
> It's about time someone said this and I honestly think that lots of
> developers will be thinking the same.
++
I'm not a developer, but I'm a Gentoo Summer of Code student[0] so
maybe my
David Leverton wrote:
On Thursday 19 June 2008 04:09:26 George Prowse wrote:
In the end, PMS is just a way for them to spread their own agenda
Lies and FUD.
No
maybe it would be best for all if paludis and it's developers were to
concentrate on making paludis for a different distro. Trolli
Chris Gianelloni wrote:
On Fri, 2008-06-13 at 12:22 +0200, Luca Barbato wrote:
David Leverton wrote:
On Friday 13 June 2008 11:10:46 Nirbheek Chauhan wrote:
Interesting to note, however, that Paludis doesn't accept inline
comments, and this behaviour predates PMS.
There's a reason for Paludis
David Leverton wrote:
On Thursday 19 June 2008 01:23:33 Chris Gianelloni wrote:
Considering that the "most recent official release" is 2008.0_beta2, I
don't see where you have a point, at all.
http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/releng/#doc_chap5
"The latest release of Gentoo Linux is:
"Gentoo Lin
On Thursday 19 June 2008 01:23:33 Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> Considering that the "most recent official release" is 2008.0_beta2, I
> don't see where you have a point, at all.
http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/releng/#doc_chap5
"The latest release of Gentoo Linux is:
"Gentoo Linux 2007.0 for Alpha, A
On Thursday 19 June 2008 04:09:26 George Prowse wrote:
> In the end, PMS is just a way for them to spread their own agenda
Lies and FUD.
> maybe it would be best for all if paludis and it's developers were to
> concentrate on making paludis for a different distro. Trollix may be a
> good place to
++
It's about time someone said this and I honestly think that lots of
developers will be thinking the same.
In the end, PMS is just a way for them to spread their own agenda and
force it on both the developers and the users so maybe it would be best
for all if paludis and it's developers we
Chris++
On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 10:43 PM, Chris Gianelloni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> On Sun, 2008-06-15 at 15:50 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > Do you think that the differences between the proportion of patches
> > from 'Paludis people' that are accepted or rejected and the proportion
> >
On Sun, 2008-06-15 at 16:04 +0100, David Leverton wrote:
> On Sunday 15 June 2008 15:42:28 Peter Volkov wrote:
> > For example, currently, PMS team does not include anybody from portage
> > team - official PM team and thus this team can't represent Gentoo
> > interests.
>
> The Portage team is per
On Sun, 2008-06-15 at 15:50 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> Do you think that the differences between the proportion of patches
> from 'Paludis people' that are accepted or rejected and the proportion
> of patches from 'Portage people' or 'Pkgcore people' indicates a
> problem?
Nope. What I see
On Fri, 2008-06-13 at 12:44 +, Duncan wrote:
> Ciaran's right on this one. It may have been a bug in portage, now
> fixed, but at least until a stable current release media set, a working
> PMS can't change the EAPI-0 definition to fail with portage on the old
> release media, however stale
On Fri, 2008-06-13 at 11:27 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > Well, then it should be updated to match current Portage behaviour.
> > PMS is not supposed to document "How portage worked at one point of
> > time" or "The intersection of the capabilities of Portage and
> > Paludis". It should follow
On Fri, 2008-06-13 at 11:23 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> Did you check whether Portage that's included in current Gentoo
> releases supports inline comments in profiles?
Yeah, the version in 2008.0_beta2 surely does. Perhaps you meant
something else? Well, either that, or you're just posting
On Fri, 2008-06-13 at 12:22 +0200, Luca Barbato wrote:
> David Leverton wrote:
> > On Friday 13 June 2008 11:10:46 Nirbheek Chauhan wrote:
> >> Interesting to note, however, that Paludis doesn't accept inline
> >> comments, and this behaviour predates PMS.
> >
> > There's a reason for Paludis not
On Fri, 2008-06-13 at 11:22 +0100, David Leverton wrote:
> > PS: An example of something in PMS that is different from Portage:
> > inline comments are disallowed. The only reason I can think for
> doing
> > this is to not make Paludis change it's behaviour.
>
> Fortunately you don't have to think
On Fri, 2008-06-13 at 11:14 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> But some EAPI-0 accepting Portage versions don't accept inline
> comments. Using inline comments in the tree will break those Portage
> versions.
Yes, and EAPI=0 accepting Portage versions also didn't accept things
like package.use and us
On Sun, 15 Jun 2008 22:27:35 +0400
Peter Volkov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > How would a voting system be better than the current "if anyone
> > doesn't like it, don't commit it until whatever they don't like is
> > fixed" process?
>
> Voting makes the process converging. It helps to avoid same
В Вск, 15/06/2008 в 15:50 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh пишет:
> On Sun, 15 Jun 2008 18:42:28 +0400
> Peter Volkov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > By formalizing I mean the following: call for and form PMS team. Team
> > must represent portage developers and could paludis and pkgcore. All
> > suggestions
On Sunday 15 June 2008 15:42:28 Peter Volkov wrote:
> For example, currently, PMS team does not include anybody from portage
> team - official PM team and thus this team can't represent Gentoo
> interests.
The Portage team is perfectly welcome to contribute if they wish. zmedico is
on the alias,
On Sun, 15 Jun 2008 18:42:28 +0400
Peter Volkov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> By formalizing I mean the following: call for and form PMS team. Team
> must represent portage developers and could paludis and pkgcore. All
> suggestions for PMS draft must go into bugzilla and after patch for
> PMS is c
В Чтв, 12/06/2008 в 09:36 +0200, Markus Ullmann пишет:
> The PMS maintainers were withholding information on compatibility
> issues they've seen. As such we can't be sure this will pop up again
> in the future and so I strongly suggest dismissing this as something
> official for gentoo.
Dismissing
"Nirbheek Chauhan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted
[EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted
below, on Fri, 13 Jun 2008 15:52:30 +0530:
> Well, then it should be updated to match current Portage behaviour. PMS
> is not supposed to document "How portage worked at one point of time" or
> "The intersection of the cap
On Fri, Jun 13, 2008 at 11:32:20AM +0100, David Leverton wrote:
> On Friday 13 June 2008 11:23:29 Nirbheek Chauhan wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 13, 2008 at 3:49 PM, David Leverton
> > > There's a reason for Paludis not accepting them, and the same reason
> > > applies to the question of allowing them in
On Friday 13 June 2008 11:23:29 Nirbheek Chauhan wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 13, 2008 at 3:49 PM, David Leverton
> > There's a reason for Paludis not accepting them, and the same reason
> > applies to the question of allowing them in PMS or not, therefore PMS
> > doesn't allow them. There's no evil consp
On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 15:52:30 +0530
"Nirbheek Chauhan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Interesting to note, however, that Paludis doesn't accept inline
> >> comments, and this behaviour predates PMS.
> >
> > Paludis behaviour there matches Portage behaviour at the time it was
> > written, except tha
On 13 Jun 2008, at 12:18, Nirbheek Chauhan wrote:
"We're writing a spec that's somewhat like Portage, but where it
breaks Paludis, we prefer to get Portage to change it's behaviour
instead. Don't crib about this however. We could just have easily have
created a whole new spec which broke Portage
On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 15:48:53 +0530
"Nirbheek Chauhan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> PMS is supposed to be a specification which is as close to Gentoo's
> Official Package manager's behaviour as possible while (preferably)
> leaving out deprecated behaviour. But right now you're saying:
>
> "We're w
On Fri, Jun 13, 2008 at 3:49 PM, David Leverton
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Friday 13 June 2008 11:10:46 Nirbheek Chauhan wrote:
>> Interesting to note, however, that Paludis doesn't accept inline
>> comments, and this behaviour predates PMS.
>
> There's a reason for Paludis not accepting them,
David Leverton wrote:
On Friday 13 June 2008 11:10:46 Nirbheek Chauhan wrote:
Interesting to note, however, that Paludis doesn't accept inline
comments, and this behaviour predates PMS.
There's a reason for Paludis not accepting them, and the same reason applies
to the question of allowing th
On Friday 13 June 2008 11:18:53 Nirbheek Chauhan wrote:
> Wait, what?
>
> "Where possible" ?
You'd prefer us to do impossible things too?
> PMS is supposed to be a specification which is as close to Gentoo's
> Official Package manager's behaviour as possible while (preferably)
> leaving out depre
On Fri, Jun 13, 2008 at 3:44 PM, Ciaran McCreesh
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But some EAPI-0 accepting Portage versions don't accept inline
> comments. Using inline comments in the tree will break those Portage
> versions.
>
> This one's especially an issue when you consider how long it's been
> s
On Friday 13 June 2008 11:10:46 Nirbheek Chauhan wrote:
> Interesting to note, however, that Paludis doesn't accept inline
> comments, and this behaviour predates PMS.
There's a reason for Paludis not accepting them, and the same reason applies
to the question of allowing them in PMS or not, ther
On Fri, Jun 13, 2008 at 3:27 PM, Ciaran McCreesh
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Where possible, we exclude things that break Portage. Are you
> suggesting that we should instead ignore what EAPI-0-supporting Portage
> does and does not handle and just document things the way we'd like
> them to be?
On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 15:40:46 +0530
"Nirbheek Chauhan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 13, 2008 at 2:52 PM, Ciaran McCreesh
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> And why don't y'all fix a bug like that?
> >
> > We do what PMS requires regarding handling of inline comments
> > (which is the same
On Fri, Jun 13, 2008 at 2:52 PM, Ciaran McCreesh
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> And why don't y'all fix a bug like that?
>
> We do what PMS requires regarding handling of inline comments (which is
> the same as what some EAPI 0 accepting Portage versions do, so PMS
> can't allow inline comments), an
On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 11:53:02 +0200
Patrick Lauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > You didn't notice the large warning telling you not to use Portage
> > config files?
> >
> I did. But how else can I compare things or move back to portage if I
> don't like it?
You can set up a Paludis config. It'
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 11:16:31 +0200
Patrick Lauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Yes, we are aware of that bug in a feature we consider highly
experimental.
Hmm, I'd have guessed config files are moderately relevant.
You didn't notice the large warning telling
On 13 Jun 2008, at 11:16, Patrick Lauer wrote:
Then don't do it. You are doing a very bad marketing for the
pkgcore guys with your whinnings.
I'm not a pkgcore guy. If anything I'm a portage supporter. That I
accidentally host pkgcore.org doesn't mean I'm "one of them".
Were you able to
On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 11:16:31 +0200
Patrick Lauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Yes, we are aware of that bug in a feature we consider highly
> > experimental.
>
> Hmm, I'd have guessed config files are moderately relevant.
You didn't notice the large warning telling you not to use Portage
config
Fernando J. Pereda wrote:
Just to pour some oil on the flames -
Then don't do it. You are doing a very bad marketing for the pkgcore
guys with your whinnings.
Dude. Shut up.
I'm not a pkgcore guy. If anything I'm a portage supporter. That I
accidentally host pkgcore.org doesn't mean I'm "
On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 11:01:19 +0200
Patrick Lauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Just to pour some oil on the flames -
>
> Y'all are aware that paludis can't parse a valid make.conf and does
> ignore package.keywords at times, yes?
Yep. We don't claim to or aim to completely support Portage configs
On 13 Jun 2008, at 11:01, Patrick Lauer wrote:
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 09:30:54 +0530
"Arun Raghavan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
And why do you have to be plain insulting about it? Nobody can
magically spot every single bug in any piece of code presented to
them. In fact i
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 09:30:54 +0530
"Arun Raghavan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
And why do you have to be plain insulting about it? Nobody can
magically spot every single bug in any piece of code presented to
them. In fact it's why the "given enough eyes ..." adage is one
On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 08:16:57 + (UTC)
Duncan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I agree entirely. Why the pkgcore people refuse to do basic
> > automated tests is completely beyond me.
>
> That may or may not be, but it's beside the point. The point is that
> a bug was found, that fact was stated,
Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted
[EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Fri, 13 Jun
2008 06:26:12 +0100:
> On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 09:30:54 +0530
> "Arun Raghavan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> And why do you have to be plain insulting about it? Nobody can
>> magically spot every single bug
On Friday 13 June 2008 02:13:19 David Leverton wrote:
> The pkgcore was (or should have been) highly obvious to anyone who had
> so much glanced at the offending code.
Good behaviour
Hey - I found this bug in your code.
Here's a patch!
Bad behaviour
Hey guys - stop using Foo as it has a highly ob
On Fri, Jun 13, 2008 at 10:56 AM, Ciaran McCreesh
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
>> I _honestly_ do not understand why there is so much trouble in simple
>> cooperation amongst adults.
>
> I agree entirely. Why the pkgcore people refuse to do basic automated
> tests is completely beyond me.
This
On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 09:30:54 +0530
"Arun Raghavan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> And why do you have to be plain insulting about it? Nobody can
> magically spot every single bug in any piece of code presented to
> them. In fact it's why the "given enough eyes ..." adage is one of the
> bases of open
On Fri, Jun 13, 2008 at 6:43 AM, David Leverton
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 2008/6/13 Duncan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> In this instance, it's the "pulling teeth" to get info on a claimed known
>> bug from PMS folks on pkgcore, while at the same time, complaints about
>> the non-clarity of PMS is met
2008/6/13 Duncan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> In this instance, it's the "pulling teeth" to get info on a claimed known
> bug from PMS folks on pkgcore, while at the same time, complaints about
> the non-clarity of PMS is met with remarks (by the same group of people)
> of (paraphrased) "filed a patch ye
Duncan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted [EMAIL PROTECTED],
excerpted below, on Fri, 13 Jun 2008 00:42:34 +:
> Umm... pardon me for speaking my mind a bit here, and nothing personal,
> particularly since I have the utmost respect for the talent and skills
> of the people involved, but after seeing a
David Leverton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted
[EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Thu, 12
Jun 2008 22:58:26 +0100:
> On Thursday 12 June 2008 22:21:48 Wernfried Haas wrote:
>> Agreed, if this is the way PMS is done, we should either get rid of it
>> or do it differently.
>> The current status as p
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 18:32:35 +0100
George Prowse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
If the bickering is stopping development then maybe it should be
given to a 3rd party to complete and have the last word.
Considering third parties have at best contributed a few small patches,
I
On Thursday 12 June 2008 22:21:48 Wernfried Haas wrote:
> Agreed, if this is the way PMS is done, we should either get rid of it
> or do it differently.
> The current status as presented here is inacceptable.
Could someone please explain what's wrong with PMS, other than "needs moar
XML" and "I h
On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 09:36:18AM +0200, Markus Ullmann wrote:
> After investing more than two hours to just read the Mails that popped up
> yesterday regarding this stuff, I'd say we can't really take this serious.
> The PMS maintainers were withholding information on compatibility issues
> th
On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 18:32:35 +0100
George Prowse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If the bickering is stopping development then maybe it should be
> given to a 3rd party to complete and have the last word.
Considering third parties have at best contributed a few small patches,
I don't see that getting
Luca Barbato wrote:
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
Package manager maintainers refusing to do basic testing before
claiming support for a new EAPI has very messy consequences. If package
manager maintainers aren't going to do the responsible thing, the whole
point of EAPIs is lost.
Thats a circular ar
On Thursday 12 June 2008 08:36:18 Markus Ullmann wrote:
> After investing more than two hours to just read the Mails that popped
> up yesterday regarding this stuff, I'd say we can't really take this
> serious. The PMS maintainers were withholding information on
> compatibility issues they've seen.
On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 01:40:06 -0700
Brian Harring <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Are you seriously suggesting that the portage and pkgcore developers
> > think that they should be able to release a package manager that
> > claims to support an EAPI when it in fact doesn't?
>
> When paludis hit the
On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 09:16:51AM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 10:12:47 +0200
> Luca Barbato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > > Package manager maintainers refusing to do basic testing before
> > > claiming support for a new EAPI has very messy conse
On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 10:24:14 +0200
"Denis Dupeyron" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 10:16 AM, Ciaran McCreesh
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Are you seriously suggesting that the portage and pkgcore developers
> > think that they should be able to release a package manager th
On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 10:16 AM, Ciaran McCreesh
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Are you seriously suggesting that the portage and pkgcore developers
> think that they should be able to release a package manager that claims
> to support an EAPI when it in fact doesn't?
Please stop your incessant and
On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 10:12:47 +0200
Luca Barbato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > Package manager maintainers refusing to do basic testing before
> > claiming support for a new EAPI has very messy consequences. If
> > package manager maintainers aren't going to do the responsi
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
Package manager maintainers refusing to do basic testing before
claiming support for a new EAPI has very messy consequences. If package
manager maintainers aren't going to do the responsible thing, the whole
point of EAPIs is lost.
Thats a circular argument since portage
On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 09:52:13 +0200
Luca Barbato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > You should instead be asking the pkgcore guys why they should be
> > allowed to continue keeping a package in the tree when they're
> > blatantly ignoring the EAPI process.
>
> The eapi process is something not defined
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
No, we were trying to get the pkgcore people to write some frickin'
test cases for their code rather than continuing to screw up the
process by incorrectly claiming support for an EAPI.
That isn't what has been perceived.
Whoever will take the portage specification will
On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 09:36:18 +0200
Markus Ullmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> After investing more than two hours to just read the Mails that
> popped up yesterday regarding this stuff, I'd say we can't really
> take this serious. The PMS maintainers were withholding information
> on compatibility
Donnie Berkholz schrieb:
>Status of PMS
>-
>ferringb said:
> I'd like the council to please discuss the current status of PMS, if
> the running of it satisfys the councils requirements of a *neutral*
> standard, if the proposed spec actually meets said standards, and if
> said spe
92 matches
Mail list logo
