On 5/17/06, Christian Hartmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
With respect to the hey support omg! comments i say stick a big fat
README about being an experimental profile or something like that and
that's it. Usually bug reports require emerge --info so it'll be easy
to flag invalid ones anyway.
Matthijs van der Vleuten wrote:
On 5/17/06, Christian Hartmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
With respect to the hey support omg! comments i say stick a big fat
README about being an experimental profile or something like that and
that's it. Usually bug reports require emerge --info so it'll be
On Tue, 2006-05-16 at 13:14 -0500, Mike Doty wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
All-
Take a moment to welcome our newest staffer, beandog. Steve will be
helping dsd with planet/universe administration.
In his own words, Hi there, I'm Steve from Utah. Lots of Linux
On Tue, 2006-05-16 at 19:33 +0200, Sven Vermeulen wrote:
Hi all,
For some time now, the idea of a Gentoo Knowledge Base, like RedHat [1]
and Microsoft [2] do, has been brewing in Andrés Pereira and my minds. Not
only that, but a feature request was also filed some time ago [3] and just
On Tue, May 16, 2006 at 10:16:32PM +0200, Wernfried Haas wrote:
This is not only about adding a profile, but if paludis is officially
supported by being in the tree and profiles, fixes for paludis get
into the tree etc, this sounds like paludis is a Gentoo project and users
will expect it to
On Wednesday 17 May 2006 10:23, Wernfried Haas wrote:
On Tue, May 16, 2006 at 10:16:32PM +0200, Wernfried Haas wrote:
This is not only about adding a profile, but if paludis is officially
supported by being in the tree and profiles, fixes for paludis get
into the tree etc, this sounds like
On Tuesday 16 May 2006 23:47, Stephen Bennett wrote:
On Tue, 16 May 2006 22:59:59 +0200
Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Okay, then I suppose you might want first to create a project to
handle the profile and the whole bugs load that might come out of
that.
Does every
On Wednesday 17 May 2006 01:15, Danny van Dyk wrote:
There are several reasons to handle it slightly different:
a) Paludis is a new package manager, not a different kernel nor
userland.
b) We don't need additional packages that need to go into the tree and
which aren't used by any other arch
On Wednesday 17 May 2006 02:42, Stephen Bennett wrote:
paludis/packages:
-*=sys-apps/portage-2.0.51.22
*sys-apps/paludis
Is there any reason that portage and paludis can not live together. As
this basically blocks any kind of migration or backwards compatibility I
see this as a very serious
Paul de Vrieze wrote:
On Wednesday 17 May 2006 02:42, Stephen Bennett wrote:
paludis/packages:
-*=sys-apps/portage-2.0.51.22
*sys-apps/paludis
Is there any reason that portage and paludis can not live together. As
this basically blocks any kind of migration or backwards compatibility I
On Wed, May 17, 2006 at 11:42:14AM +0100, Roy Marples wrote:
On Wednesday 17 May 2006 10:23, Wernfried Haas wrote:
On Tue, May 16, 2006 at 10:16:32PM +0200, Wernfried Haas wrote:
This is not only about adding a profile, but if paludis is officially
supported by being in the tree and
On Wed, 17 May 2006 12:14:37 +0200
Paul de Vrieze [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Using the normal profiles would also establish paludis as a possible
replacement of portage as primary package manager. Refraining from
doing so disqualifies paludis from becoming a replacement for
portage. As the
On Wed, May 17, 2006 at 01:42:53AM +0100, Stephen Bennett wrote:
OK, since several people have asked what is going to be in this profile
if it gets added, i had in mind something like the following (all
filenames relative to gentoo-x86/profiles/):
paludis/deprecated:
# DO NOT USE THIS
On Wednesday 17 May 2006 13:11, Stephen Bennett wrote:
On Wed, 17 May 2006 12:14:37 +0200
Paul de Vrieze [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Using the normal profiles would also establish paludis as a possible
replacement of portage as primary package manager. Refraining from
doing so disqualifies
On Wed, 17 May 2006 13:40:18 +0200
Paul de Vrieze [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is there a problem about both of them being there?
You can't use both on the same ROOT. The VDB format is subtly different.
I don't see a problem in changing the profiles to include
virtual/portage though where
Mike Doty [EMAIL PROTECTED] posted [EMAIL PROTECTED],
excerpted below, on Tue, 16 May 2006 13:14:57 -0500:
Take a moment to welcome our newest staffer, beandog. Steve will be
helping dsd with planet/universe administration.
In his own words, Hi there, I'm Steve from Utah. Lots of Linux
Sven Vermeulen wrote:
Hi all,
For some time now, the idea of a Gentoo Knowledge Base, like RedHat [1]
and Microsoft [2] do, has been brewing in Andrés Pereira and my minds. Not
only that, but a feature request was also filed some time ago [3] and just
recently a forum thread was started for it
On Wednesday 17 May 2006 15:17, Kristian Gavran wrote:
Why reinvent the wheel?!?
Because it's not the same thing, gentoo-wiki is not and can't be official,
there are many things there that are totally unsupported.
What Sven is proposing is (as far as I can see it) is something official and
On Tue, 2006-05-16 at 22:47 +0100, Stephen Bennett wrote:
On Tue, 16 May 2006 22:59:59 +0200
Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Okay, then I suppose you might want first to create a project to
handle the profile and the whole bugs load that might come out of
that.
Does
On Wed, 17 May 2006 07:03:27 +0200 Christian Hartmann [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| Please try to come up with something sliiightly more plausible than
| that when you're trying to attack something based upon your personal
| prejudices. Or is that really the best criticism you can find?
|
| Uh
On Wed, 17 May 2006 01:58:02 +0200 Carsten Lohrke [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| I haven't had a look at Paludis (the name sucks as much as the name
| eselect had, before it was named eselect, btw.) yet, so I don't have
| an opinion on it
Aah, and this sums up this entire thread. The name sucks. I
On Wed, 17 May 2006 12:04:33 +0200 Paul de Vrieze [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| - Paludis must be able to handle a standard portage /var/db/pkg tree.
| This means that paludis can read it, and write it. Enabling mixing
| portage and paludis up to some degree.
Paludis can read a Portage-generated
On Tue, 2006-05-16 at 23:22 +0100, Stephen Bennett wrote:
1) Is bugsy ready for this, with appropriate categories in place?
Paludis-related bugs can be marked as invalid and the user directed to
Paludis' bug tracker on berlios.de. Alternatively, if our friendly
Bugzilla admins want to
On Wed, 17 May 2006 09:42:50 -0400
Chris Gianelloni [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I would say it wouldn't hurt to start a project for ensuring Paludis
support in the Portage tree. It would give a bit more credibility to
your cause.
The problem that I see with this is that it would tend to
On Wed, 17 May 2006 13:40:18 +0200 Paul de Vrieze [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| Using the normal profiles isn't an option unless they're changed to
| include virtual/portage in the system set instead of
| sys-apps/portage. That's the key change we're interested in here --
| that the system set
On Wed, 17 May 2006 12:14:37 +0200 Paul de Vrieze [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| On Wednesday 17 May 2006 02:42, Stephen Bennett wrote:
| paludis/packages:
| -*=sys-apps/portage-2.0.51.22
| *sys-apps/paludis
|
| Is there any reason that portage and paludis can not live together.
Sure they can.
On Wed, 2006-05-17 at 01:42 +0100, Stephen Bennett wrote:
paludis/packages:
-*=sys-apps/portage-2.0.51.22
-*sys-apps/portage would be best
--
Chris Gianelloni
Release Engineering - Strategic Lead
x86 Architecture Team
Games - Developer
Gentoo Linux
signature.asc
Description: This is a
On Tue, 16 May 2006 15:56:38 -0700 Brian Harring [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| This whole thing seems a bit dumb; it's not that far off from someone
| coming along with a non-compliant c compiler, and arguing that
| they're still compliant, they just dropped the stupid stuff they
| didn't like.
And
Chris Gianelloni wrote:
On Tue, 2006-05-16 at 23:22 +0100, Stephen Bennett wrote:
This is the exact reason why I would disagree with having this profile
in the tree. It *is* going to cause more work for bug-wranglers, no
matter how many places you put warnings and notices. If the profile
On Wednesday 17 May 2006 15:50, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Wed, 17 May 2006 01:58:02 +0200 Carsten Lohrke [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| I haven't had a look at Paludis (the name sucks as much as the name
| eselect had, before it was named eselect, btw.) yet, so I don't have
| an opinion on it
Why risk anything by changing the tree to suit the package? It just
seems like asking for trouble. The overlay ability is there for a
reason. Paludis isn't being used and should be kept out of the sphere
of users use until it is usable, wont break systems and is trustworthy enough to be near the
On Wed, 17 May 2006 09:58:41 -0400 Chris Gianelloni
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| Paludis supports multiple repositories correctly, right? So why is
| it a big deal to provide the profiles in their own
| overlay/repository? I haven't heard a good reason why the profiles
| need to be in the portage
On Wednesday 17 May 2006 16:17, Patrick McLean wrote:
Deprecated profiles are considered unsupported, as are most of the
gentoo-alt profiles
default-bsd *is* supported. Gentoo/FreeBSD project (that would be myself)
takes care of all the bugs related as fast as possible. The unsupported
On 15:17 Wed 17 May , Kristian Gavran wrote:
Sven Vermeulen wrote:
Hi all,
For some time now, the idea of a Gentoo Knowledge Base, like RedHat [1]
and Microsoft [2] do, has been brewing in Andrés Pereira and my minds. Not
only that, but a feature request was also filed some time ago [3]
On Wed, 17 May 2006 15:25:08 +0100
George Prowse [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why risk anything by changing the tree to suit the package?
We're not risking anything, except upsetting a few people. We're not
changing anything either, just adding a few files.
It just
seems like asking for
On Wed, May 17, 2006 at 10:06:54AM -0400, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
On Wed, 2006-05-17 at 01:42 +0100, Stephen Bennett wrote:
paludis/packages:
-*=sys-apps/portage-2.0.51.22
-*sys-apps/portage would be best
Everything after the - must be *exactly* what is already specified in
base/packages,
On 17/05/06, Stephen Bennett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 17 May 2006 15:25:08 +0100George Prowse [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Why risk anything by changing the tree to suit the package?We're not risking anything, except upsetting a few people. We're not
changing anything either, just adding a few
On Wed, 2006-05-17 at 12:04 +0200, Paul de Vrieze wrote:
- It would be greatly beneficial if paludis would create and use .tbz2
packages, but this is not essential.
It *is* essential if paludis were to ever be used for release building.
Otherwise, it isn't required.
--
Chris Gianelloni
On Wed, 17 May 2006 16:21:13 +0200 Carsten Lohrke [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| Nice idea in theory. In reality, Portage is a big incestuous mess
| and can't have that kind of change made to it
|
| The former yes, the latter statement is questionable.
Not really. It's why everyone is busy
On Wed, 17 May 2006 10:06:54 -0400 Chris Gianelloni
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| On Wed, 2006-05-17 at 01:42 +0100, Stephen Bennett wrote:
| paludis/packages:
| -*=sys-apps/portage-2.0.51.22
|
| -*sys-apps/portage would be best
Unless our code is wrong, that won't work. My understanding of
On Wed, 17 May 2006 10:57:55 -0400 Chris Gianelloni
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| On Wed, 2006-05-17 at 12:04 +0200, Paul de Vrieze wrote:
| - It would be greatly beneficial if paludis would create and
| use .tbz2 packages, but this is not essential.
|
| It *is* essential if paludis were to ever
On Wednesday 17 May 2006 15:57, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Wed, 17 May 2006 12:04:33 +0200 Paul de Vrieze [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| - Paludis must be able to handle a standard portage /var/db/pkg tree.
| This means that paludis can read it, and write it. Enabling mixing
| portage and paludis
On Wed, 17 May 2006 15:57:51 +0100
George Prowse [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Any adding is increasing the risk.
No it's not. The only risk comes from the user choosing an
inappropriate profile for his system, which is already present.
So good working practice is to introduce a variable where
On Wednesday 17 May 2006 14:24, Stephen Bennett wrote:
On Wed, 17 May 2006 13:40:18 +0200
Paul de Vrieze [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is there a problem about both of them being there?
You can't use both on the same ROOT. The VDB format is subtly
different.
So this would be an effort to
On Wed, 17 May 2006 17:13:31 +0200 Paul de Vrieze [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| At this point I don't see that paludis is ready for such thing.
How would you know?
| In any case I think that optimally a package manager does not require
| its own profile.
Perhaps you should look at how much Portage
On Wed, 17 May 2006 17:13:31 +0200
Paul de Vrieze [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At this point I don't see that paludis is ready for such thing. In
any case I think that optimally a package manager does not require
its own profile.
It doesn't require its own profile. What does require a new profile
On Wed, 17 May 2006 17:11:04 +0200 Paul de Vrieze [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| Let me clarify my statement. I don't care about candy spinners.
| Paludis (or any other package manager that is to be integrated into
| gentoo) should basically be able to allow a level of mix and match.
| This means that
On Wednesday 17 May 2006 16:08, Stephen Bennett wrote:
On Wed, 17 May 2006 09:42:50 -0400
Chris Gianelloni [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I would say it wouldn't hurt to start a project for ensuring Paludis
support in the Portage tree. It would give a bit more credibility to
your cause.
The
On Wednesday 17 May 2006 17:21, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Wed, 17 May 2006 17:13:31 +0200 Paul de Vrieze [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| At this point I don't see that paludis is ready for such thing.
How would you know?
| In any case I think that optimally a package manager does not require
|
On Wednesday 17 May 2006 17:30, Stephen Bennett wrote:
On Wed, 17 May 2006 17:13:31 +0200
Paul de Vrieze [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At this point I don't see that paludis is ready for such thing. In
any case I think that optimally a package manager does not require
its own profile.
It
On Wed, 17 May 2006 10:17:16 -0400
Patrick McLean [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Last time I checked, we don't support *everything* in the tree, for
example everything in package.mask and/or keyworded -* is considered
unsupported (or are you trying to tell me that
sys-devel/gcc-4.2.0_alpha20060513
Matthijs van der Vleuten [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
I'd say that's exactly the intention of INVALID. If I were to file,
say, a bug in GCC at Gentoo's Bugzilla instead of GCC's, it would be
marked INVALID. (Unless, of course, the bug is caused by Gentoo's
patches.)
No, I would get a testcase for
On Wednesday 17 May 2006 17:26, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Wed, 17 May 2006 17:11:04 +0200 Paul de Vrieze [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| Let me clarify my statement. I don't care about candy spinners.
| Paludis (or any other package manager that is to be integrated into
| gentoo) should basically
Not realistic. It means that any new package manager can't do anything
new. I'd also like to point out that you can't upgrade to a new Portage
version, install some things, downgrade to an older Portage version and
expect things to carry on working.
This, funnily enough, is what people
On Wed, 2006-05-17 at 10:17 -0400, Patrick McLean wrote:
Last time I checked, we don't support *everything* in the tree, for
example everything in package.mask and/or keyworded -* is considered
unsupported (or are you trying to tell me that
sys-devel/gcc-4.2.0_alpha20060513 is officially
Paul de Vrieze [EMAIL PROTECTED] posted
[EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Wed, 17 May
2006 17:11:04 +0200:
Let's make clear why I put this in. Basically I am of the opinion that
until a decision is made to make (in this case) paludis the primary
package manager, all official packages
Patrick McLean [EMAIL PROTECTED] posted [EMAIL PROTECTED],
excerpted below, on Wed, 17 May 2006 10:17:16 -0400:
Deprecated profiles are considered unsupported, as are most of the
gentoo-alt profiles. Also most arches have development profiles which
are considered unsupported (on amd64 we add
On Wed, 17 May 2006 11:23:19 +0200
Wernfried Haas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We really should figure that stuff out before we start integrating an
externally written package manager we have no influence on whatsoever
No influence? Last I checked, the number of Gentoo developers on the project
On Wed, 17 May 2006 17:48:32 +0200 Paul de Vrieze [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| This is basically to protect the official package manager. This is
| not because I like portage that much, but to provide some kind of
| unified direction. I am afraid that allowing various competing
| package managers
On Wed, 2006-05-17 at 16:09 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Wed, 17 May 2006 10:57:55 -0400 Chris Gianelloni
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| On Wed, 2006-05-17 at 12:04 +0200, Paul de Vrieze wrote:
| - It would be greatly beneficial if paludis would create and
| use .tbz2 packages, but this is
Brian Harring [EMAIL PROTECTED] posted
[EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Tue, 16 May 2006
15:56:38 -0700:
This whole thing seems a bit dumb; it's not that far off from someone
coming along with a non-compliant c compiler, and arguing that they're
still compliant, they just dropped the
On Wed, 17 May 2006 15:57:39 + (UTC) Duncan
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| Patrick McLean [EMAIL PROTECTED] posted
| [EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Wed, 17 May 2006
| 10:17:16 -0400:
|
| Deprecated profiles are considered unsupported, as are most of the
| gentoo-alt profiles. Also most
On Wednesday 17 May 2006 14:02, Thomas Cort wrote:
No influence? Last I checked, the number of Gentoo developers on the
project out numbered the number of non-Gentoo developers 5 to 1. See
http://paludis.berlios.de/Authors.html
Uh we don't _work_ for Gentoo. I'm the sole author of unieject and
On Wed, 17 May 2006 17:29:11 +0200
Paul de Vrieze [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The problem that I see with this is that it would tend to reinforce
the view that Paludis is becoming an officially supported package
manager, which at the moment at least it isn't. If people are
amenable to the
On Wed, 17 May 2006 17:54:36 +0200 Christian Hartmann [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| Not realistic. It means that any new package manager can't do
| anything new. I'd also like to point out that you can't upgrade to
| a new Portage version, install some things, downgrade to an older
| Portage
Hi!
I propose the creation of a new herd - vdr.
It will combine the program media-video/vdr, its plugins (87 plugins now in
portage under media-plugins), some programs and some supplementary ebuilds
(scripts ...).
Most of the ebuilds are at the moment member of media-tv herd.
At the
Stephen Bennett [EMAIL PROTECTED] posted [EMAIL PROTECTED],
excerpted below, on Tue, 16 May 2006 17:41:24 +:
Alec Warner wrote:
I would prefer to see the profile you are commiting then; do you have a
link?
I haven't written it yet.
Herein lies the crux of the problem, IMO.
On Wed, 17 May 2006 12:05:23 -0400 Chris Gianelloni
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| We ship .tbz2 files on our GRP release media.
|
| Until we either:
|
| a) stop shipping .tbz2 files
|
| -or-
|
| b) switch to paludis support only
Which is a rather large difference from what you said originally.
On Wed, 17 May 2006 11:23:19 +0200 Wernfried Haas [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| We really should figure that stuff out before we start integrating an
| externally written package manager we have no influence on whatsoever
How much influence does your typical Gentoo developer or user have over
the
On Wed, 17 May 2006 17:39:02 +0200
Paul de Vrieze [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Wouldn't the introduction of the virtual not fix that. This
introduction could be done independent of anything related to
paludis. The introduction of such a virtual would also help other
package managers like pkgcore.
On 17/05/06, Stephen Bennett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 17 May 2006 15:57:51 +0100George Prowse [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So good working practice is to introduce a variable where breakages
could come from two directions rather than stick with what works? Let the project mature before
On Wed, 17 May 2006 17:37:07 +0100
George Prowse [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What it is saying is why introduce anything or change anything just
for your package? Why introduce the possibility of a problem on
either the program or the tree side?
Profile changes are made all the time for the
On Wed, 17 May 2006 16:28:21 + (UTC)
Duncan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Herein lies the crux of the problem, IMO. Regardless of all the other
arguments made, I simply cannot believe it is reasonable to ask that
Gentoo devs give their blessing to add to the tree something that
hasn't yet
On Wed, 2006-05-17 at 18:22 +0200, Matthias Schwarzott wrote:
Hi!
I propose the creation of a new herd - vdr.
It will combine the program media-video/vdr, its plugins (87 plugins now in
portage under media-plugins), some programs and some supplementary ebuilds
(scripts ...).
You are
On Wed, May 17, 2006 at 05:54:36PM +0200, Christian Hartmann wrote:
Not realistic. It means that any new package manager can't do anything
new. I'd also like to point out that you can't upgrade to a new Portage
version, install some things, downgrade to an older Portage version and
expect
Ned Ludd wrote:
Whats wrong with the existing herd?
Maybe the question should rather be:
'Will it allow you to manage the vdr-related packages and it's bugs
easier and more efficient than before?'
media-tv seems like the right place.
I'd say that heavily depends on the answer of the
On Wed, May 17, 2006 at 12:11:34PM +0100, Stephen Bennett wrote:
On Wed, 17 May 2006 12:14:37 +0200
Paul de Vrieze [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Using the normal profiles would also establish paludis as a possible
replacement of portage as primary package manager. Refraining from
doing so
Simon Stelling wrote:
'Will it allow you to manage the vdr-related packages and it's bugs
s/it's/its/
*sigh*
--
Kind Regards,
Simon Stelling
Gentoo/AMD64 Developer
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
On Wed, May 17, 2006 at 06:32:38PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Wed, 17 May 2006 11:23:19 +0200 Wernfried Haas [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| We really should figure that stuff out before we start integrating an
| externally written package manager we have no influence on whatsoever
How
On Wed, May 17, 2006 at 02:57:05PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Wed, 17 May 2006 12:04:33 +0200 Paul de Vrieze [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| - Paludis must be able to handle a standard portage /var/db/pkg tree.
| This means that paludis can read it, and write it. Enabling mixing
| portage
On Wed, 2006-05-17 at 17:29 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Wed, 17 May 2006 12:05:23 -0400 Chris Gianelloni
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| We ship .tbz2 files on our GRP release media.
|
| Until we either:
|
| a) stop shipping .tbz2 files
|
| -or-
|
| b) switch to paludis support only
On Wed, May 17, 2006 at 04:26:28PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Wed, 17 May 2006 17:11:04 +0200 Paul de Vrieze [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| Let me clarify my statement. I don't care about candy spinners.
| Paludis (or any other package manager that is to be integrated into
| gentoo) should
On Wed, May 17, 2006 at 05:32:38PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Wed, 17 May 2006 11:23:19 +0200 Wernfried Haas [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| We really should figure that stuff out before we start integrating an
| externally written package manager we have no influence on whatsoever
How
That whole discussion reminds me of a word we have in the german language:
Kindergarten.
http://gallery.benjamin-judas.de/albums/funnystuff/arg.jpg
So can these peope who intend to leave the project stop making noise and
simply leave instead of putting the cat among the pigeons?
Thanks.
--
Stephen Bennett [EMAIL PROTECTED] posted [EMAIL PROTECTED],
excerpted below, on Wed, 17 May 2006 17:56:22 +0100:
On Wed, 17 May 2006 16:28:21 + (UTC) Duncan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Herein lies the crux of the problem, IMO. Regardless of all the other
arguments made, I simply cannot
On Wed, May 17, 2006 at 03:17:33PM +0200, Kristian Gavran wrote:
Why reinvent the wheel?!?
Gentoo has a really nice wiki: http://gentoo-wiki.com/Main_Page
A wiki is more of a documentation system than a knowledge base. I think some
KBs could very well employ a wiki as back-technology for
On Wed, 17 May 2006 20:11:57 +0200 Wernfried Haas [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| That's not the point as i wasn't talking about single developers but
| Gentoo as an organisation. Paludis is not in any way under Gentoo's
| control. If the paludis devs decide to change the license for paludis
| 1.0 to a
| While you are at it, why don't you just fork the portage tree? By
| doing so you would have the freedom to do whatever you want to do
| without keeping gentoo busy reading your mails.
Know why this thread's so big? People like you posting crap to it and
interfering with what would
On Wed, 17 May 2006 11:13:09 -0700 Brian Harring [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| Paludis can read a Portage-generated VDB. Portage can't read a
| Paludis-generated VDB, because Paludis has more features.
|
| What features? You're tracking CONFIG_PROTECT_*, and saving a copy
| of the eclass (icky
On Wed, 17 May 2006 14:12:52 -0400 Chris Gianelloni
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| No. It isn't. I said that it can not build a Gentoo release, and
| paludis can not.[1] Are you trying to tell me that I am wrong and
| that paludis *can* build a Gentoo release? I'm really interested to
| hear what
On Wed, May 17, 2006 at 07:44:16PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Wed, 17 May 2006 11:13:09 -0700 Brian Harring [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| Paludis can read a Portage-generated VDB. Portage can't read a
| Paludis-generated VDB, because Paludis has more features.
|
| What features?
On Wednesday 17 May 2006 18:19, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
Know why this thread's so big? People like you posting crap to it and
interfering with what would otherwise be a technical discussion.
It should not be a technical discussion. I am sure that adding a profile to
the tree is not a technical
On Wednesday 17 May 2006 18:05, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Wed, 17 May 2006 17:48:32 +0200 Paul de Vrieze [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| This is basically to protect the official package manager. This is
| not because I like portage that much, but to provide some kind of
| unified direction. I am
On Wednesday 17 May 2006 17:55, Duncan wrote:
Paul de Vrieze [EMAIL PROTECTED] posted
[EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Wed, 17 May
2006 17:11:04 +0200:
Let's make clear why I put this in. Basically I am of the opinion that
until a decision is made to make (in this case) paludis the
On Wed, May 17, 2006 at 08:34:52PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Wed, 17 May 2006 20:11:57 +0200 Wernfried Haas [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| That's not the point as i wasn't talking about single developers but
| Gentoo as an organisation. Paludis is not in any way under Gentoo's
| control.
On Wednesday 17 May 2006 20:44, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
Portage still relies upon being able to source ebuilds, even if their
EAPI isn't supported.
Currently, nothing except the ability to parse bash directly would make it
otherwise. Against my advise, there are no restrictions upon the EAPI
On Wednesday 17 May 2006 20:50, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Wed, 17 May 2006 14:12:52 -0400 Chris Gianelloni
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| No. It isn't. I said that it can not build a Gentoo release, and
| paludis can not.[1] Are you trying to tell me that I am wrong and
| that paludis *can*
On Wednesday 17 May 2006 17:59, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Wed, 17 May 2006 17:37:35 +0200 Paul de Vrieze [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| I couldn't find anything in the default-linux/x86 profile. Could
| you perhaps point something out for me. I realise that there is a lot
| of *ebuild* specific
On Wed, 17 May 2006 21:17:55 +0200
Paul de Vrieze [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No, these packages are available to paludis, but not to portage.
Basically making a case for the use of paludis. I don't think that
the decision to replace portage should be made in that way.
To reiterate here, we're
On Wednesday 17 May 2006 18:56, Stephen Bennett wrote:
On Wed, 17 May 2006 16:28:21 + (UTC)
Duncan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Herein lies the crux of the problem, IMO. Regardless of all the other
arguments made, I simply cannot believe it is reasonable to ask that
Gentoo devs give
1 - 100 of 154 matches
Mail list logo
