On Sat, Jun 10, 2006 at 04:28:36AM +0100, Christel Dahlskjaer wrote:
I would like to ask that the Council discuss the current state and
future of the GWN at their next meeting.
Council? Why escalate things? Have you talked to Ulrich about the
problems mentioned below? Isn't the GWN somehow a
First of all, someone from infra/recruiters might please revoke my write
access to gentoo/xml/htdocs/news/gwn. I'm no longer interested in
contributing to the GWN.
I also believe that when posting an article or interview, a copy should
be sent to the relevant people to ensure that they are ok
Congratulations. I just unsubscribed from the
gwn-feedback-alias after reading your mail.
* Christel Dahlskjaer [EMAIL PROTECTED] [06/06/10 04:28 +0100]:
1. Reliability. The GWN claims to be a weekly publication, yet it
frequently fails to publish without prior warning. There was no edition
On Sat, 10 Jun 2006 02:01:25 +0100
Roy Marples [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Saturday 10 June 2006 01:33, Alec Warner wrote:
So we have two use flags - client and server. Here are the
possabilities
-client -server
+client -server
+client +server
-client +server
Do we
субота, 10. червень 2006 04:28, Christel Dahlskjaer Ви написали:
I would like to ask that the Council discuss the current state and
future of the GWN at their next meeting.
Hah? What has concil to do with this? Is it going to mandate GWN be better
and it magically turns into some other thing?
On Sat, 2006-06-10 at 03:28 +0100, Christel Dahlskjaer wrote:
I would like to ask that the Council discuss the current state and
future of the GWN at their next meeting.
I don't think you have to escalate that far. We should be able to discuss
things without the thermonuclear option ;-)
1.
On Saturday 10 June 2006 09:32, Kevin F. Quinn wrote:
Suggestion was:
net-misc/dhcp-client
net-misc/dhcp-server
net-misc/dhcp - RDEPEND on -client and -server
You would also need net-misc/dhcp-common then to stop client and server
installing the same required libraries and headers. In this
Donnie Berkholz wrote:
Chris Gianelloni wrote:
Since when was overlays.gentoo.org supposed to even be a service to our
users? As I understand it, the goal was to ease development, not to
provide an easy method for half-working ebuilds to make it to our user's
machines.
Our users are
On Friday 09 June 2006 21:27, Ned Ludd wrote:
Maybe along the same lines as what you are pointing out here it should
also be noted that built_with_use is semi faulty and can return wrong
results when no /var/db/pkg/$CATEGORY/$PVR/USE exists.
this is done on purpose
-mike
pgpkeT3VMXksr.pgp
Stefan Schweizer wrote:
Luis Francisco Araujo wrote:
Fine. I highly agree on that, now my question is,
why this needs to be officially supported?
See
Why does this have to be on official gentoo hardware?
http://overlays.gentoo.org/proj/sunrise/wiki/SunriseFaq
The FAQ is offline
On Saturday 10 June 2006 04:32, Kevin F. Quinn wrote:
I do think we should avoid built_with_use where we can, as it causes
emerge to abort.
no it doesnt ... the ebuild maintainer makes the package abort based upon the
results of built_with_use ...
-mike
pgpIaYYFHjNYa.pgp
Description: PGP
On Friday 09 June 2006 20:25, Andrew Ross wrote:
Apologies if this has been addressed previously,
i dont believe it has ever come up before
Is there any sort of policy covering how an ebuild should deal with
/var/cache during unmerge?
maybe give ebuilds a way to maintain a list of files that
Chris Gianelloni wrote:
On Fri, 2006-06-09 at 22:05 +0100, Stuart Herbert wrote:
On 6/9/06, Chris Gianelloni [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Gentoo's standard operating procedure is to build packages as they were
intended and packaged from upstream.
+1
This means if the client
Lack of content and poorly written or incorrect articles are often
justified by the GWN team on grounds of overwork and insufficient
manpower. When I asked why they were not recruiting, I was informed that
no-one has any interest in contributing.
There's a big difference between one-off
On Sat, 10 Jun 2006 05:44:41 -0400
Mike Frysinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Saturday 10 June 2006 04:32, Kevin F. Quinn wrote:
I do think we should avoid built_with_use where we can, as it causes
emerge to abort.
no it doesnt ... the ebuild maintainer makes the package abort based
upon
Christel Dahlskjaer wrote:
I would like to ask that the Council discuss the current state and
future of the GWN at their next meeting.
This is an open project. The solution to the problems you raise is
incredibly simple: Contribute on a regular basis, or find other people
who will do so.
So, let's rephrase it a bit. The following items represent my view about
the i18n team's responsibilities:
a) Translation of metadata.xml stuff in our tree (Is there any method to
keep them up-to-date when the English text changes? Something like
revision attribute that gets bumped when the
On Sat, 2006-06-10 at 11:37 -0400, Alec Warner wrote:
Have the GWN posted to -core in a sane time period prior to it's
release. I seriously doubt anyone cares about whether the publication
is always on time (whatever that may be).
So what would a sane time period be? 12h? 24h?
The problem
On Sat, 2006-06-10 at 10:27 +0200, George Shapovalov wrote:
субота, 10. червень 2006 04:28, Christel Dahlskjaer Ви написали:
I would like to ask that the Council discuss the current state and
future of the GWN at their next meeting.
Hah? What has concil to do with this? Is it going to
On 6/9/06, Peter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Firstly, I think it is very clear that anything in sunrise is experimental
or not supported in the main gentoo tree. That's fine! I don't think any
user who goes through the trouble to set up an overlay would miss that
point. You can't go to o.g.o and
Peter wrote:
Chris, I am not familiar enough about gentoo's hierarchy, politics, or
team responsibilities to question your sincerity or authority to say
something like: Sorry, but if it isn't supported, it doesn't belong on
Gentoo infrastructure.
Then please trust that these people who are
On Sat, 2006-06-10 at 11:40 +0100, Daniel Drake wrote:
Christel Dahlskjaer wrote:
I would like to ask that the Council discuss the current state and
future of the GWN at their next meeting.
This is an open project. The solution to the problems you raise is
incredibly simple: Contribute
On Sat, 2006-06-10 at 09:35 +0200, Tobias Scherbaum wrote:
First of all, someone from infra/recruiters might please revoke my write
access to gentoo/xml/htdocs/news/gwn. I'm no longer interested in
contributing to the GWN.
I also believe that when posting an article or interview, a copy
Okay, so after figuring out open problems (thanks to kloeri and various
other people for help here), we now have a resolution that should
satisfy all involved parties here. This should adress dostrow's demands
as well.
1) m-w / m-n requirement
Only ebuilds that are reported to bugzie (valid
First off, I would like to apologize to everyone who has to read this
thread. I know that it is long. I know that it can be frustrating.
That being said, I also ask for your patience in this matter, as I am
not going to back down on this. I will not roll over and let something
I see as this
On Fri, 2006-06-09 at 18:34 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Friday 09 June 2006 16:35, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
This is the official (hehe) request for comments on making a policy of
how to handle ebuilds than can be used for either client or server and
how to allow for building client-only.
On Sat, 2006-06-10 at 01:24 +0100, Roy Marples wrote:
Do we read -client -server and +client +server to mean the same thing?
We could, yes.
If so the logic can read
if use client || ! use server ; then
# build client
fi
if use server || ! use client ; then
# build server
fi
Mike Frysinger wrote:
maybe give ebuilds a way to maintain a list of files that portage should nuke
when unmerging the package ...
Something similar to this would be useful for kernel ebuilds, as simply
unmerging kernel source will leave a load of temporary and object files
on the
On Sat, 10 Jun 2006 15:11:50 +0200
Jan Kundrát [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
b) Localization of Gentoo-developed applications (portage,
gentoolkit,...) including their manpages
I don't really like this one. Documentation, sure, but for the tools
themselves I think it could cause more problems than
On Saturday 10 June 2006 10:29, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
On Fri, 2006-06-09 at 18:34 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Friday 09 June 2006 16:35, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
This is the official (hehe) request for comments on making a policy
of how to handle ebuilds than can be used for either
Markus Ullmann wrote:
2) Not one large tree but subdirs, one per herd
to help herds better keeping track of which parts are alive in the
overlay, each herd's ebuilds are grouped in a subdir, e.g. there will be
a netmon/ dir with net-analyzer/specialapp below it.
A better solution is
On Sun, 11 Jun 2006 01:00:43 +0200
Patrick Lauer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, 2006-06-10 at 11:37 -0400, Alec Warner wrote:
Have the GWN posted to -core in a sane time period prior to it's
release. I seriously doubt anyone cares about whether the
publication is always on time
On 6/10/06, Markus Ullmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Okay, so after figuring out open problems (thanks to kloeri and various
other people for help here), we now have a resolution that should
satisfy all involved parties here. This should adress dostrow's demands
as well.
1) m-w / m-n requirement
On Friday 09 June 2006 11:57, Wernfried Haas wrote:
Oh, and -U has finally been killed :-)
too bad there is no usuable solution in its place for developers
-mike
pgpju0pwm1363.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Fri, Jun 09, 2006 at 05:08:23PM -0400, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
On Fri, 2006-06-09 at 16:19 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Thursday 08 June 2006 21:08, Brian Harring wrote:
One additional to this- the location for the file in the tree *should*
be metadata/ - shoving it into profiles is
George Shapovalov wrote:
субота, 10. червень 2006 04:28, Christel Dahlskjaer Ви написали:
I would like to ask that the Council discuss the current state and
future of the GWN at their next meeting.
Hah? What has concil to do with this? Is it going to mandate GWN be better
and it
Comments inline ...
On Sat, 2006-06-10 at 13:37 +0200, Markus Ullmann wrote:
Okay, so after figuring out open problems (thanks to kloeri and various
other people for help here), we now have a resolution that should
satisfy all involved parties here. This should adress dostrow's demands
as
Marius Mauch wrote:
On Sat, 10 Jun 2006 13:37:15 +0200
Markus Ullmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Okay, so after figuring out open problems (thanks to kloeri and
various other people for help here), we now have a resolution that
should satisfy all involved parties here. This should adress
38 matches
Mail list logo
