Hi!
On Mon, 19 Jun 2006, George Prowse wrote:
I'd like to propose some form of ability to post user comments
to GWN stories. I suppose a full blown CMS system would work,
but for the ease of time I'm suggesting that perhaps we open up
a GWN section on the forums and post the text of the
On Tue, Jun 20, 2006 at 11:12:21AM +0200, Tobias Klausmann wrote:
Okay, I put it a bit strangely. What I meant was that a blog does
not need registration (if it has sufficient anti-spam measures).
A forum usually does.
Well, moderators on a blog could do that too: most blogs allow
comments
On Mon, Jun 19, 2006 at 11:32:39PM -0400, Alec Warner wrote:
CAPTCHA
Unluckily Captchas don't solve all problems. Don't remember who it
was, but someone recently showed me a link to a page describing which
captchas can easily be broken by automated tools. Iirc the summary
was, that the only good
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, 20 Jun 2006, Wernfried Haas wrote:
On Mon, Jun 19, 2006 at 11:32:39PM -0400, Alec Warner wrote:
CAPTCHA
Unluckily Captchas don't solve all problems. Don't remember who it
was, but someone recently showed me a link to a page describing
Patrick Lauer patrick at gentoo.org writes:
I'd like to propose some form of ability to post user comments to GWN
stories. I suppose a full blown CMS system would work,
(Ab)using a blog for that might work
Well, the Gentoo Forums users are already used to its commenting system.
Especially
This is a COOL idea! A global forum with a text-only copy of current GWN
would enable more users to actually read it. And adding comments would be
even more beneficial. I think that it would be best to place it near the
top
of forums listing, like this:
Agreed. I think this would be a good
On Tuesday 20 June 2006 04:02, Andrew Cowie wrote:
I'm not sure if any other distros besides Ubuntu are using it yet, but
certainly things will improve geometrically as they start to.
Considering it's not Free Software nor Open Source for the most part, I would
be surprised.
--
Diego
On Tuesday 20 June 2006 04:32, Alec Warner wrote:
CAPTCHA
Those are evil. You use one, I'm personally going to track you down and send
you a thousand photos of Chris White and Jeffrey's goats circus stars
together.. with a pole!
--
Diego Flameeyes Pettenò -
On Tue, Jun 20, 2006 at 12:06:25PM +, Wiktor Wandachowicz wrote:
The only problem
could be to prevent creating topics in this forum by regular users, and giving
the ability to post comments only.
(Again not a comment on the idea in general from me as i still haven't
talked to the others of
On Tue, Jun 20, 2006 at 04:14:19PM +0200, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
Those are evil. You use one, I'm personally going to track you down and send
you a thousand photos of Chris White and Jeffrey's goats circus stars
together.. with a pole!
Let's see if you can solve this one...
3
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
With all the talk about forums and comments, that got me thinking: Heck, why not
just have it posted to the forums? That way it and the comments can be viewed by
the general public, but if you want to comment, you can just use your existing
forum
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
On Tuesday 20 June 2006 04:02, Andrew Cowie wrote:
I'm not sure if any other distros besides Ubuntu are using it yet, but
certainly things will improve geometrically as they start to.
Considering it's not Free
Josh Saddler wrote:
With all the talk about forums and comments, that got me thinking: Heck, why
not
just have it posted to the forums? That way it and the comments can be viewed
by
the general public, but if you want to comment, you can just use your existing
forum account. No additional
Hi,
I'm hoping to be able to mark 2.6.17 stable on or around July 11th. I'll
give around a weeks notice here when that is to happen. Hopefully we'll
use this for the 2006.1 release too.
If you find packages (e.g. out-of-tree drivers) in the stable tree which
do not compile against 2.6.17
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Donnie Berkholz wrote:
Josh Saddler wrote:
With all the talk about forums and comments, that got me thinking: Heck, why
not
just have it posted to the forums? That way it and the comments can be
viewed by
the general public, but if you want to
Hi,
with kde4 approaching and the new Qt-4 being in the tree we suddenly see the
same problems that gtk had with the gtk2 flag again.
I am currently using the flags that way:
[ebuild R ] app-text/poppler-bindings-0.5.3 USE=cairo gtk qt qt4 0 kB
so qt = qt3. Now that scheme will sure break
On Tuesday 20 June 2006 18:40, Stefan Schweizer wrote:
3) split the qt flag into a qt3 and a qt4 flag. This allows users to
specifically pick qt3 or qt4 and the flag meanings are obvious - downsides
are it is a lot of work.
I would like migration to this idea, that would have been what I've
On Tue, Jun 20, 2006 at 06:56:58PM +0200, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
On Tuesday 20 June 2006 18:40, Stefan Schweizer wrote:
3) split the qt flag into a qt3 and a qt4 flag. This allows users to
specifically pick qt3 or qt4 and the flag meanings are obvious - downsides
are it is a lot
On Tuesday 20 June 2006 19:10, Joshua Jackson wrote:
I don't want to go down the path again of having two nearly identical
flags for a different slotted version of a framework. I'd like to see
just qt with a maintainer deciding if its going to be qt3 or qt4.
Unfeasible. GTK 1.2 was deprecated
I don't know all the details, but assuming no app supports qt3 and qt4 at the
same time (i.e. you have two interfaces, one against each, which is pretty
senseless), wouldn't something like
qt? ( || (=x11-libs/qt-3* =x11-libs/qt-4*))
be the best solution? It would allow the maintainer to set a
On Tuesday 20 June 2006 19:41, Simon Stelling wrote:
I don't know all the details, but assuming no app supports qt3 and qt4 at
the same time (i.e. you have two interfaces, one against each, which is
pretty senseless), wouldn't something like
We're not talking about interfaces, but more likely
Henrik Brix Andersen wrote:
On Tue, Jun 20, 2006 at 03:11:38PM -0400, Caleb Tennis wrote:
I would personally like to stay with just the qt use flag. The use flag
will be for support of whichever version of Qt is supported (v3 or v4) for
the particular emerge.
I would like a single 'qt' USE
On Tue, 20 Jun 2006 14:22:21 -0700
Donnie Berkholz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Henrik Brix Andersen wrote:
On Tue, Jun 20, 2006 at 03:11:38PM -0400, Caleb Tennis wrote:
I would personally like to stay with just the qt use flag. The
use flag will be for support of whichever version of Qt is
Kevin F. Quinn wrote:
Problems with having 'qt' to mean latest and 'qt3' as specifically
version 3 include:
1) Target package depends on build system (assuming 'qt' is interpreted
as 'qt3' if only that is installed, rather than pulling in qt4 if not
already present).
What? There will still
On 6/20/06, Stefan Schweizer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
with kde4 approaching and the new Qt-4 being in the tree we suddenly see the
same problems that gtk had with the gtk2 flag again.
snip
From this user's perspective, simple is better. qt3 and qt4 as use
flags are completely and
Mike Owen wrote:
From this user's perspective, simple is better. qt3 and qt4 as use
flags are completely and utterly obvious as to what they mean, and
there is no confusion about them. Adding a plain qt flag in there
brings back the gtk/gtk2 mess that we've presumably been trying to
avoid in
On Wednesday 21 June 2006 00:52, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
Yes, you will need to introduce a qt4 flag as upstreams
port packages to qt5, if they choose to also retain a qt4 frontend.
You're trying to compare gtk to qt directly. They are not the same.
gtk regards only the graphic library, qt is a
Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
On Wednesday 21 June 2006 00:52, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
Yes, you will need to introduce a qt4 flag as upstreams
port packages to qt5, if they choose to also retain a qt4 frontend.
You're trying to compare gtk to qt directly. They are not the same.
gtk regards
On Tue, Jun 20, 2006 at 08:49:41PM +0900, Georgi Georgiev wrote:
Could upstream have handled it better? Yes, most definitely. Did they?
No, not yet. We're stuck picking up the pieces.
What does upstream have to do with the decision to chmod u+s,go-r
/usr/bin/gpg or not?
If using a kernel
On Wednesday 21 June 2006 02:12, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
I disagree with this and agree with Caleb's earlier suggestion.
Presumably he has some clue what he's talking about when it comes to qt.
I suppose he has, that does not mean that I don't have any at all. Probably,
if you want to put it
Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
On Wednesday 21 June 2006 02:12, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
I disagree with this and agree with Caleb's earlier suggestion.
Presumably he has some clue what he's talking about when it comes to qt.
I suppose he has, that does not mean that I don't have any at all.
On Wednesday 21 June 2006 03:06, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
I never said you didn't. And there's no need to bring in completely
offtopic points here, we're trying to have a discussion about qt.
I am talking about qt. Maybe I wasn't clear enough, I was thinking of KDE
users, that are, casually, the
Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
I am talking about qt. Maybe I wasn't clear enough, I was thinking of KDE
users, that are, casually, the main users of Qt-related stuff.
In this particular issue, KDE (3) users are the main part, they need poppler
and other stuff built for Qt 3. There are
On 6/20/06, Donnie Berkholz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
[snip]
I don't see how any other suggestion is simpler than mine for developers
or users. Maybe I missed something in skimming the discussion.
To summarize:
- USE=qt enables support for the most current qt.
On Wednesday 21 June 2006 03:34, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
OK, so we can add qt3 to make.defaults.
Firulì Firulà (sounds of whistling in Italy at least)
-* says nothing to you? :)
I was looking at the less work possible for both users and bug wranglers.
Still, I think you took too personally the
Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
On Wednesday 21 June 2006 03:34, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
OK, so we can add qt3 to make.defaults.
Firulì Firulà (sounds of whistling in Italy at least)
-* says nothing to you? :)
Sure it does, but -* has always been unsupported and users are on their
own to
On Tuesday 20 June 2006 20:18, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
By handling it better, I mean that the code should at runtime try both
interfaces, rather than pick one to compile into the binary.
yeah, this differentiates good packages and mediocre packages ;)
-mike
pgpp6T4cBLu01.pgp
Description: PGP
37 matches
Mail list logo
