On Saturday 03 March 2007, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
I'd like it spelt out please.
stop playing games
So why not start by imposing deadlines upon more important projects
like Portage USE deps, a Portage GLEP 42 implementation, a Portage GLEP
23 implementation, a stable Portage API, tree-wide
Mike Frysinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Saturday 03 March 2007, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
There is absolutely nothing Paludis specific in PMS. Nor is there
anything Pkgcore specific, and the only Portage specific content is
where we feel it's necessary to explain *why* something is a
On Sat, 3 Mar 2007 03:09:33 -0500 Mike Frysinger [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Saturday 03 March 2007, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
I'd like it spelt out please.
stop playing games
No, I'm being entirely serious here. Everything I've heard about what
PMS is supposed to achieve has been discussing
Denis Dupeyron wrote:
On 3/3/07, Daniel Robbins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Right now, installing Gentoo is a chore, and the many wonderful
choices of Gentoo end up making the install rather complicated. So I
definitely support ideas to help make our installation process
better/streamlined and
On 3/3/07, Denis Dupeyron [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What do you think of a simplified handbook ? One that presents a lot
fewer choices to the user, in order to be less confusing.
YES, it's needed. The handbook didn't turn out quite as I expected it
to. It should document a typical installation
On Saturday 03 March 2007, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
If there's some value to be
found in having PMS ready in the short term that I'm missing then I
want to hear it so that I can spend more time working on PMS and less
on other things.
where did anyone say short term ? in fact, the portion of
On Sat, 3 Mar 2007 01:26:07 -0700 Daniel Robbins
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 3/3/07, Ciaran McCreesh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But you appear to act as the project lead for PMS.
No, I'm just the one who isn't yet sufficiently jaded by the whole
people who don't know what PMS is jumping in
On Sat, 3 Mar 2007 01:34:36 -0700 Daniel Robbins
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 3/3/07, Denis Dupeyron [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What do you think of a simplified handbook ? One that presents a lot
fewer choices to the user, in order to be less confusing.
YES, it's needed. The handbook didn't
On Sat, 3 Mar 2007 03:34:49 -0500 Mike Frysinger [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Saturday 03 March 2007, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
If there's some value to be
found in having PMS ready in the short term that I'm missing then I
want to hear it so that I can spend more time working on PMS and
less
On Saturday 03 March 2007, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
If there's some value to be found in having PMS ready by a particular
date that I'm missing then I want to hear it so that I can spend more
time working on PMS and less on other things.
semantics aside, how much time you dedicate is entirely up
On Sat, 3 Mar 2007 04:02:50 -0500 Mike Frysinger [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Saturday 03 March 2007, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
If there's some value to be found in having PMS ready by a
particular date that I'm missing then I want to hear it so that I
can spend more time working on PMS and
On 3/3/07, Ciaran McCreesh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Also, you are at least a developer of PMS, if not the lead. If PMS is
an official Gentoo project, then since when can official Gentoo
projects have non-dev devs?
How many non-developers contribute to the tree? How many non-developers
have
On 3/3/07, Ciaran McCreesh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I asked for this approach back when the handbook was first created. It
was rejected by the docs team for being too complicated to maintain.
Following Sven's (I think...) suggestion, I instead ported the quick
install guide (which is one page,
On Sat, 3 Mar 2007 02:12:48 -0700 Daniel Robbins
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It's one thing to make a contribution or submit a patch - it's quite
another to be actively and very significantly involved in a key
technical project that is supposedly defining an interoperability spec
for the key
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
(Pkgcore is in parts based upon Portage code -- whether or not this is
a good thing is irrelevant to this discussion)
Nice way of adding in that little cover my ass so's I can snipe at a
competing project parenthetical statement.
That statement is in itself irrelevant to
On Sat, 3 Mar 2007 02:12:48 -0700 Daniel Robbins
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
Right now, you're effectively doing an end-run around the entire
Gentoo management structure. Fortunately for you, it doesn't look like
anyone cares.
Not really. We're working on a document, as requested by the Gentoo
Daniel Robbins wrote:
Yes, that was my request and I was told that this was the plan of
attack, but the end result looked nothing like this.
Just to be clear, I think the *official* documentation should be
simple, with a linear path and non-intrusive links for non-standard
stuff, and should
On Sat, 03 Mar 2007 01:54:30 -0800 Josh Saddler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
(Pkgcore is in parts based upon Portage code -- whether or not this
is a good thing is irrelevant to this discussion)
Nice way of adding in that little cover my ass so's I can snipe at a
On Fri, 2 Mar 2007 23:28:56 -0700
Daniel Robbins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
OK, but it appears that PMS is not hosted on Gentoo infrastructure,
and its development is not controlled by Gentoo. Therefore it is not a
Gentoo project, and therefore the Council, QA, etc. should not be
treating it if
On Fri, 2 Mar 2007 23:51:42 -0700
Daniel Robbins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Gentoo projects are controlled by and generally run entirely by Gentoo
developers. You are not a Gentoo developer, yet you define the
direction of PMS and Paludis. Therefore, PMS and Paludis can't be
considered official
On Sat, 3 Mar 2007 01:58:30 -0800 (PST) Alec Warner
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So you are saying you cannot see Daniel's point of view at all? That
Gentoo should perhaps have input on a specification whose goal is to
essentially define what a Gentoo Package Manager should be? Because
right now
Daniel Robbins wrote:
And it should be one (web) page.
http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/handbook/handbook-x86.xml?full=1
--
Kind Regards,
Simon Stelling
Gentoo/AMD64
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
On 3/3/07, Ciaran McCreesh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why does it matter whether it's written by Gentoo developers? What
matters is that it's written by people who know what they're talking
about and who can write reasonably decent technical material, and as the
primary author of the devmanual, a
Daniel Robbins wrote:
1) Any material created by Gentoo developers, as part of an official
Gentoo Project, needs to have copyright assigned to the Gentoo
Foundation, whether or not it is currently included in the Portage
tree. This protects all of our collective contributions against
misuse,
On 03/03/07, Ciaran McCreesh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Because it is difficult to determine 'people who know what they are
talking about'. I would say Brian Harring is one of those, but I
have a feeling you would disagree with me. All I really know is that
I am not one of those people. I
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
I find it amusing that no-one complaining about this has actually asked
to see it.
I think ferringb did, just not very successfully.
--
Kind Regards,
Simon Stelling
Gentoo/AMD64
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
I think that would be a more useful default view of the docs, but
still doesn't quite get it perfect.
Here is what I think would be ideal: One shorter Web page covering the
installation process, with links to supplemental information that is
currently cluttering everything up. I don't need to
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
I'd like it spelt out please.
Here we go:
So why not start by imposing deadlines upon more important projects
like Portage USE deps, [snip]
USE deps can't be used anyway in EAPI=0 because it would break current
versions of portage. So we need EAPI=1, but you can't
Daniel Robbins wrote:
On 3/3/07, Ciaran McCreesh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why does it matter whether it's written by Gentoo developers? What
matters is that it's written by people who know what they're talking
about and who can write reasonably decent technical material, and as the
primary
On Sat, 3 Mar 2007 01:58:30 -0800 (PST)
Alec Warner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So you are saying you cannot see Daniel's point of view at all? That
Gentoo should perhaps have input on a specification whose goal is to
essentially define what a Gentoo Package Manager should be?
Gentoo, and any
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Daniel Robbins wrote:
I think that would be a more useful default view of the docs, but
still doesn't quite get it perfect.
Here is what I think would be ideal: One shorter Web page covering the
installation process, with links to supplemental
On 3/3/07, Josh Saddler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Next time, read the documentation first.
http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/list.xml
We've several quickstart/faq-type guides, and an alternate installation
howto. Man, I wish more developers would read the documentation, or at
least bother to get a
Dňa Fri, 2 Mar 2007 21:02:54 -0700
Daniel Robbins [EMAIL PROTECTED] napísal:
#3 It's ok to add themes to Portage if they are part of an official
theme collection for a particular package. That way we have all the
official themes - everything else would be up to the user to install.
What if
On Sat, 03 Mar 2007 11:35:51 +0100 Simon Stelling [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
I find it amusing that no-one complaining about this has actually
asked to see it.
I think ferringb did, just not very successfully.
Not so far as I've heard...
--
Ciaran McCreesh
Mail
On Sat, 03 Mar 2007 11:51:27 +0100 Simon Stelling [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
I'd like it spelt out please.
Here we go:
So why not start by imposing deadlines upon more important projects
like Portage USE deps, [snip]
USE deps can't be used anyway in EAPI=0
On Sat, Mar 03, 2007 at 01:44:24PM +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Sat, 03 Mar 2007 11:35:51 +0100 Simon Stelling [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
I find it amusing that no-one complaining about this has actually
asked to see it.
I think ferringb did, just not very
On Sat, Mar 03, 2007 at 01:46:56PM +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Sat, 03 Mar 2007 11:51:27 +0100 Simon Stelling [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
I'd like it spelt out please.
Here we go:
So why not start by imposing deadlines upon more important projects
like
On Sat, 3 Mar 2007 05:57:35 -0800 Brian Harring [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Sat, Mar 03, 2007 at 01:44:24PM +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Sat, 03 Mar 2007 11:35:51 +0100 Simon Stelling [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
I find it amusing that no-one complaining about
On Sat, 3 Mar 2007 03:27:37 -0700 Daniel Robbins
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If those reasons no longer apply, then your developer status should be
handed back. You can't sorta participate - you're either in or
you're not, and it looks like you're in. Right now it seems like you
are fully engaged
On Sat, 3 Mar 2007 06:00:32 -0800 Brian Harring [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I disagree. It's very easy and probably the best way of doing
things to say If ebuilds want to use slot deps, use deps or blah,
they set EAPI=1. Otherwise, continue as normal.. So far as I'm
aware, everything
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
I was kicked for suggesting that a) ppc-macos was breaking the tree,
staffed by people who don't know what they're doing, a QA nightmare and
damaging to the project, b) that pathspec was vapourware and
conceptually completely broken, c) that the forums were encouraging
On 2/27/07, Andrej Kacian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 12:24:15 -0500
Chris Gianelloni [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
For anything else, let the user download what they want and use it as
they see fit. There's not much reason to track them in the package
manager. That being said,
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
.Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
No, I'm just the one who isn't yet sufficiently jaded by the whole
people who don't know what PMS is jumping in and trying to derail it
thing to have given up discussing it in public yet.
Mike Frysinger wrote:
i consider
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Ryan Hill wrote:
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
I was kicked for suggesting that a) ppc-macos was breaking the tree,
staffed by people who don't know what they're doing, a QA nightmare and
damaging to the project, b) that pathspec was vapourware and
On Sat, 03 Mar 2007 15:44:17 +0100 Marijn Schouten (hkBst)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Mike Frysinger wrote:
i consider having a spelled out EAPI=0 spec to be quite valuable
and worth spending time on and i have to say that i get the feeling
that i'm not alone on this point
I don't think
General suggestion ciaran, calm the hell down and just wait for the
council. Not helping your case for why you think I shouldn't see the
stupid thing at all with rants like this (not saying I want you to
succeed in blocking me from the doc mind you).
On Sat, Mar 03, 2007 at 02:14:11PM +,
On Sat, 03 Mar 2007 08:33:38 -0600 Ryan Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
I was kicked for suggesting that a) ppc-macos was breaking the tree,
staffed by people who don't know what they're doing, a QA nightmare
and damaging to the project, b) that pathspec was vapourware
On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 19:08:34 +0100
Andrej Kacian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Because it's much more convenient to just go emerge theme instead of
googling up the upstream website, finding the link to download,
download it, unpack and figure out how to install.
I don't know about that. One reason
On Sat, 3 Mar 2007 06:59:02 -0800 Brian Harring [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
as evidenced by
every previous time you've gotten involved with anything I've done,
and given how badly you tried to screw up GLEP 42 and how much of
my time you wasted doing so, I really don't want to deal with your
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
You like to think it, but it doesn't make it true. But hey, it's so
much easier to think that I'm the great Gentoo boogeyman, isn't it?
We need a scary entity and Vapier isn't scary enough...
lu
--
Luca Barbato
Gentoo/linux Gentoo/PPC
http://dev.gentoo.org/~lu_zero
On Saturday 03 March 2007 23:14, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Sat, 3 Mar 2007 05:57:35 -0800 Brian Harring [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Two angles on the behaviour BS; either related to the fact I'm dead
set on the spec reflecting portage behaviour, and being finished, or
it's related to the fact the
On Sun, 4 Mar 2007 01:51:39 +0900 Jason Stubbs [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
There were two separate specifications - glep42 and multiple
repositories - that should have been discussed seperately. On a
seperate thread, Marius said something to the effect of specs are
much easier to extend than to
On Sunday 04 March 2007 02:05, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Sun, 4 Mar 2007 01:51:39 +0900 Jason Stubbs [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
There were two separate specifications - glep42 and multiple
repositories - that should have been discussed seperately. On a
seperate thread, Marius said something
Hi Daniel,
I'm also curious as to why people should be expected to assign
copyright to a group that is known for licence violations and
removing attribution from documents. How does this protect
anything?
Copyright assignment (first to Gentoo Technologies, Inc., then to
Gentoo
Danny van Dyk wrote:
2) There are countries who acutally adhere to the Berne Convention
(1886). This means even the deed of commiting sources with a Copyright
(C) Gentoo Foundation is useless in most countries of the EU.
Hi,
Danny van Dyk schrieb:
2) There are countries who acutally adhere to the Berne Convention
(1886). This means even the deed of commiting sources with a Copyright
(C) Gentoo Foundation is useless in most countries of the EU.
E.g, *none* of the stuff that I ever commited to Gentoo's
On Sun, 4 Mar 2007 03:13:45 +0900 Jason Stubbs [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I don't remember the specifics, but I remember that there was
something that didn't seem to go along with our vision.
We disagreed over whether repositories should be named by the user or
the repository itself.
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
If it's later on, there won't be lots
of holes that we know are there that he can use as some kind of twisted
proof that PMS sucks.
zOMG Cabal conspiracy!!1oneone!
So, who'se conspiring against you now? Devrel? The Council? Oh...*Brian*
this time. Or just anyone whom
On Sat, 03 Mar 2007 11:40:39 -0800 Josh Saddler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
If it's later on, there won't be lots
of holes that we know are there that he can use as some kind of
twisted proof that PMS sucks.
zOMG Cabal conspiracy!!1oneone!
No, just a few noisy people
On 3/3/07, Ciaran McCreesh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Which would be worth what, for me? As far as I can see, there's
absolutely nothing for me to gain by being labelled an official Gentoo
developer, and an awful lot to lose.
I think you're missing the point - I am not trying to convince you to
On Sat, 03 Mar 2007 11:40:39 -0800
Josh Saddler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Keep your spewing
on-topic: technical issues, not on your personal issues.
Please do.
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
On Sat, 3 Mar 2007 13:17:56 -0700
Daniel Robbins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So, again, since you are participating as a key member in an official
Gentoo project, which is a developer-only privilege
While this was no doubt true a while ago, a lot of people have been
trying hard over the last year
On Sat, 3 Mar 2007 13:17:56 -0700 Daniel Robbins
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So, again, since you are participating as a key member in an official
Gentoo project, which is a developer-only privilege
Why is it a developer-only privilege? You just made that up.
and should be removed from PMS.
Thibaut Fernagut wrote:
It sure makes sense !
You mean a web page with options per choise pointing to a section when
that choise is made (consolidate existing install installs)
example :
Select the arch do you want to install gentoo on :
[X]x86 []arm []x86_64
-- go to url of
On Sat, 2007-03-03 at 02:50 -0500, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
[snip]
Remember, we switched from quarterly to bi-annual releases for a reason.
FYI.
This archived copy was from 2004
http://staff.osuosl.org/~cshields/gentoosurvey/#doc_chap8
We may wish to consider rerunning this survey annually to
Am Samstag, 3. März 2007 19:48 schrieb Thomas Rösner:
Hi,
Danny van Dyk schrieb:
2) There are countries who acutally adhere to the Berne Convention
(1886). This means even the deed of commiting sources with a
Copyright (C) Gentoo Foundation is useless in most countries
of the EU.
On Sat, Mar 03, 2007 at 08:24:23PM +0100, Danny van Dyk wrote:
Am Samstag, 3. M?rz 2007 19:48 schrieb Thomas R?sner:
Hi,
Danny van Dyk schrieb:
2) There are countries who acutally adhere to the Berne Convention
(1886). This means even the deed of commiting sources with a
Copyright
On 3/3/07, Ciaran McCreesh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why is it a developer-only privilege? You just made that up.
To co-lead a Gentoo project? You need to be a dev to do that. I
couldn't join any projects even as a member until I became a dev, and
I created the distro. You are effectively
On Sat, 3 Mar 2007 06:00:32 -0800
Brian Harring [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thats off the top of the head, and just the stuff I've had on hold
for EAPI=1. Would expect user/group management (glep27 off the top
of the head) would be on the radar also, although thats firmly in
pioto's court.
69 matches
Mail list logo
