Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC Package name additions

2007-03-16 Thread Harald van Dijk
On Fri, Mar 16, 2007 at 09:24:33PM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote: > On Friday 16 March 2007, Miroslav Šulc (fordfrog) wrote: > > Just a note to this. I'm co-maintainer of netbeans ebuild. Netbeans does > > milestone releases. These are pretty stable and usable since milestone 7 > > of netbeans 6.0 wi

[gentoo-dev] Re: Summary for 15 March 2007 special council meeting on CoC

2007-03-16 Thread Duncan
Chris Gianelloni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted [EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Fri, 16 Mar 2007 09:30:41 -0400: > On Fri, 2007-03-16 at 09:28 +, Duncan wrote: >> If it's not correct, that they are staff and /not/ devs, therefore >> /not/ eligible for council, then I've misunderstood. Apo

[gentoo-dev] Re: Summary for 15 March 2007 special council meeting on CoC

2007-03-16 Thread Duncan
Chris Gianelloni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted [EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Fri, 16 Mar 2007 09:23:31 -0400: > On Fri, 2007-03-16 at 04:35 +, Duncan wrote: >> * "If you perceive a breach of the Code of Conduct guidelines, let the >> proctors know." How? [N]o general proctor address i

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC Package name additions

2007-03-16 Thread Alec Warner
William L. Thomson Jr. wrote: > On Sat, 2007-03-17 at 03:11 +0100, Marius Mauch wrote: >> On Fri, 16 Mar 2007 18:25:17 -0400 >> "William L. Thomson Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >>> Hierarchy would be the following >>> >>> snapshot -> dev -> build -> alpha -> beta >> And that's where the

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC Package name additions

2007-03-16 Thread William L. Thomson Jr.
On Sat, 2007-03-17 at 03:11 +0100, Marius Mauch wrote: > On Fri, 16 Mar 2007 18:25:17 -0400 > "William L. Thomson Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Hierarchy would be the following > > > > snapshot -> dev -> build -> alpha -> beta > > And that's where the problems start. As you said you

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC Package name additions

2007-03-16 Thread William L. Thomson Jr.
On Fri, 2007-03-16 at 21:23 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote: > On Friday 16 March 2007, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote: > > Well that's the problem. When I use say _pre instead of _dev it gives > > off the wrong impression to users judging package by it's name. Since > > it's not a pre-release. A user ma

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC Package name additions

2007-03-16 Thread Marius Mauch
On Fri, 16 Mar 2007 18:25:17 -0400 "William L. Thomson Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hierarchy would be the following > > snapshot -> dev -> build -> alpha -> beta And that's where the problems start. As you said yourself _snapshot is something universal so it doesn't really fit anywher

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Distrowatch

2007-03-16 Thread Mike Frysinger
On Wednesday 14 March 2007, Caleb Cushing wrote: > > Perhaps they're more > > interested in generating ad revenue from whipped-up scandals... > > or maybe they have a point. distrowatch hpd ranking show's us down from a > few years ago we were those rankings are less significant/accurate than sl

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC Package name additions

2007-03-16 Thread Mike Frysinger
On Friday 16 March 2007, Miroslav Šulc (fordfrog) wrote: > Just a note to this. I'm co-maintainer of netbeans ebuild. Netbeans does > milestone releases. These are pretty stable and usable since milestone 7 > of netbeans 6.0 with many new features that make sense to use the > milestone releases. I

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC Package name additions

2007-03-16 Thread Mike Frysinger
On Friday 16 March 2007, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote: > Well that's the problem. When I use say _pre instead of _dev it gives > off the wrong impression to users judging package by it's name. Since > it's not a pre-release. A user may go upstream looking for some sort of > pre-release. Which they

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC Package name additions

2007-03-16 Thread Neal McConachie
William L. Thomson Jr. said the following: > > Well that's the problem. When I use say _pre instead of _dev it gives > off the wrong impression to users judging package by it's name. Since > it's not a pre-release. A user may go upstream looking for some sort of > pre-release. Which they won't find

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC Package name additions

2007-03-16 Thread Stephen Bennett
On Fri, 16 Mar 2007 20:00:51 -0400 "William L. Thomson Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Understandable for sure. Thus not really putting any sort of time > frame on implementation. Maybe EAPI=1 or beyond. Up to others that > would implement it. Just was tossing it out there, providing some > feed

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC Package name additions

2007-03-16 Thread William L. Thomson Jr.
On Fri, 2007-03-16 at 23:46 +, Stephen Bennett wrote: > On Sat, 17 Mar 2007 00:11:43 +0100 > Carsten Lohrke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > There's absolutely no reason to absorb every single version naming > > scheme on earth. Gentoo's does work nicely and more than we have > > would only be

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC Package name additions

2007-03-16 Thread Miroslav Šulc (fordfrog)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Just a note to this. I'm co-maintainer of netbeans ebuild. Netbeans does milestone releases. These are pretty stable and usable since milestone 7 of netbeans 6.0 with many new features that make sense to use the milestone releases. I have to name the e

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC Package name additions

2007-03-16 Thread Stephen Bennett
On Sat, 17 Mar 2007 00:11:43 +0100 Carsten Lohrke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > There's absolutely no reason to absorb every single version naming > scheme on earth. Gentoo's does work nicely and more than we have > would only be irritating to the user. Simply use _pre or > whatever fits, but exte

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC Package name additions

2007-03-16 Thread William L. Thomson Jr.
On Sat, 2007-03-17 at 00:11 +0100, Carsten Lohrke wrote: > There's absolutely no reason to absorb every single version naming scheme on > earth. Gentoo's does work nicely and more than we have would only be > irritating to the user. Simply use _pre or whatever fits, but > extending our naming s

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC Package name additions

2007-03-16 Thread Carsten Lohrke
There's absolutely no reason to absorb every single version naming scheme on earth. Gentoo's does work nicely and more than we have would only be irritating to the user. Simply use _pre or whatever fits, but extending our naming scheme is unneeded and pointless. Carsten pgpcLcObgCmuK.pgp De

Re: [gentoo-dev] Removing of package games-rpg/planeshift

2007-03-16 Thread Mike Frysinger
On Wednesday 14 March 2007, Christian Bricart wrote: > Tupone Alfredo schrieb: > > games-rpg has been masked on 18 jul 2006 and there is a pending bug > > #167547 Broken dependancies in "games-rpg/planeshift-0.3.011" > > Removing is planned for this end of week: 17 Mar 2007. > > 0.3.011 is wy t

Re: [gentoo-dev] dont use `which` in ebuilds

2007-03-16 Thread Luca Longinotti
Ned Ludd wrote: > Here are the remaining offenders for sync 1174037821 that match > '$(which ' or '`which ' in eclasses and ebuilds. > > eclass/mysql.eclass:529: > eclass/mysql.eclass:530: > media-libs/pdflib/pdflib-5.0.4_p1-r1.ebuild:39: > media-libs/pdflib/pdflib-6.0.3-r1.ebuild:48: > media-lib

Re: [gentoo-dev] dont use `which` in ebuilds

2007-03-16 Thread Danny van Dyk
Am Freitag, 16. März 2007 23:16 schrieb Ned Ludd: > On Mon, 2007-03-12 at 19:15 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote: > > On Monday 12 March 2007, Mike Frysinger wrote: > > Here are the remaining offenders for sync 1174037821 that match > '$(which ' or '`which ' in eclasses and ebuilds. > > sci-mathematics

[gentoo-dev] RFC Package name additions

2007-03-16 Thread William L. Thomson Jr.
After reviewing http://devmanual.gentoo.org/ebuild-writing/file-format/index.html#file-naming-rules I still seem to be having to finagle version names for some packages. At the moment it would be nice if we also had the following suffixes available _dev Apache upstream, specifically Tomcat/mod

Re: [gentoo-dev] dont use `which` in ebuilds

2007-03-16 Thread Petteri Räty
Ned Ludd wrote: > Here are the remaining offenders for sync 1174037821 that match > '$(which ' or '`which ' in eclasses and ebuilds. > dev-db/hsqldb/hsqldb-1.7.3.1-r1.ebuild:48: This one just echos which to a script so it's safe I think. Regards, Petteri signature.asc Description: OpenPGP d

Re: [gentoo-dev] dont use `which` in ebuilds

2007-03-16 Thread Ned Ludd
On Mon, 2007-03-12 at 19:15 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote: > On Monday 12 March 2007, Mike Frysinger wrote: > > instead, since we require bash for our ebuilds, use the builtin `type -p` > > err i botched that ;) > > `type -p` is almost a complete drop in replacement for which ... it does not > wor

[gentoo-dev] Re: gentoo-dev vs lkml?

2007-03-16 Thread Michael Krelin
Also part of the "maturity" point. Perhaps we all just need to grow up? ;) Very likely, but how? I think my own opinion was best expressed by John Galsworthy (or Soames Forsyte of the Forsyte Saga): "One of these days they’d try and bring in Prohibition, he shouldn’t wonder; but that cock

Re: [gentoo-dev] A User's View of the Code of Conduct

2007-03-16 Thread Larry Lines
On Wed, 2007-03-14 at 13:45 -0700, M. Edward (Ed) Borasky wrote: > Larry Lines wrote: > > I learned Linux by > > installing and hacking and suffering over Gentoo. Exactly one year > > after installing Gentoo, I was in Hong Kong building and programming for > > a Linux cluster. There is no other d

Re: [gentoo-dev] dont use `which` in ebuilds

2007-03-16 Thread Lars Weiler
* Ned Ludd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [07/03/12 16:36 -0700]: > app-cdr/cdrkit/cdrkit-1.0.ebuild:26: > app-cdr/cdrkit/cdrkit-1.1.2.ebuild:28: Those are fixed. Regards, Lars -- Lars Weiler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> +49-171-1963258 Instant Messaging : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Gentoo Linux PowerPC : Strategica

[gentoo-dev] Summer of Code 2007

2007-03-16 Thread Christel Dahlskjaer
Hiya all, It is that time of the year again, and we have yet once more been accepted as a mentoring organisation for SoC. Interested mentors (current Gentoo developers) should fill in the mentor application (link sent to -core). Interested mentors, co-mentors, people with project ideas and pros

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Summary for 15 March 2007 special council meeting on CoC

2007-03-16 Thread Chris Gianelloni
On Fri, 2007-03-16 at 09:28 +, Duncan wrote: > If it's not correct, that they are staff and /not/ devs, therefore /not/ > eligible for council, then I've misunderstood. Apologies for the noise. Staff are "devs" and are eligible for the Council just as much as Infra are "staff" and eligible f

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Summary for 15 March 2007 special council meeting on CoC

2007-03-16 Thread Chris Gianelloni
On Fri, 2007-03-16 at 04:35 +, Duncan wrote: > * "If you perceive a breach of the Code of Conduct guidelines, let the > proctors know." How? The council's email address is given for appeals, > but no general proctor address is listed. (At least none that I saw, even > after searching, so i

Re: [gentoo-dev] gentoo-dev vs lkml?

2007-03-16 Thread Chris Gianelloni
On Fri, 2007-03-16 at 13:33 +0900, Jason Stubbs wrote: > Also part of the "maturity" point. Perhaps we all just need to grow up? ;) I do think we have a significantly lower average age than the Linux Kernel developer group. This probably plays a significant role in how things go on around here.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Gentoo's problems

2007-03-16 Thread Chris Gianelloni
On Fri, 2007-03-16 at 00:50 +, Steve Long wrote: > Jakob Buchgraber wrote: > > So I just think something has to be changed e.g. making paludis an > > official gentoo project and mentioning it in the docs, but keep portage > > as the default pm. > > If portage can't get improved, then people hav

Re: [gentoo-dev] gentoo-dev vs lkml?

2007-03-16 Thread Chris Gianelloni
On Thu, 2007-03-15 at 20:17 -0400, Daniel Drake wrote: > Now look at the LKML. It's often hard to find general discussion behind > the truckloads of patches and river of technical review emails. A large > proportion of the content is not "understandable" unless you have a good > knowledge of C,

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo's problems

2007-03-16 Thread Dale
darren kirby wrote: > > > Exactly. LSBs insistence on using RPM as the "One True Package Manager" seems > incredibly daft to me. It was RPM-hell that steered me towards Gentoo all > those years ago in the first place. I cannot put into words how much I loathe > RPM. > > Seems to me if Gentoo who

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: Re: Gentoo's problems

2007-03-16 Thread Ciaran McCreesh
On Fri, 16 Mar 2007 08:44:02 + Steve Long <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > There's a difference between UI improvements like FEATURES=candy > > and UI improvements like ability to do dependency-based uninstalls > > (merely one example). UI improvements that improve user experience > > substantial

[gentoo-dev] Emacs Project Overlay

2007-03-16 Thread Christian Faulhammer
Hi all, Yesterday the Emacs Project Overlay has been created on overlays.gentoo.org and is accessible through Layman $(layman -a emacs). What's new? * An eselect module for Emacs to control the version of Emacs you use ** changes the target of /usr/bin/emacs which up to now simply took the mos

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo's problems

2007-03-16 Thread Jason Stubbs
On Friday 16 March 2007 18:58, Luca Barbato wrote: > Jason Stubbs wrote: > > That's not entirely true. The main trouble with refactoring portage code > > is that there is no defined public API and so even the littlest changes > > are likely to break things in gentoolkit and several of the portage g

Re: [gentoo-dev] Summary for 15 March 2007 special council meeting on CoC

2007-03-16 Thread Kevin F. Quinn
I'd just like to say good job and thanks, to all involved in the CoC. -- Kevin F. Quinn signature.asc Description: PGP signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Gentoo's problems

2007-03-16 Thread Kevin F. Quinn
On Fri, 16 Mar 2007 08:41:50 + Steve Long <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > IMO ciaran has definitely been trolling this list and it's doing my > head in. Is there anyone else who feels the same, strongly enough to > risk his ire? If you think Ciaran is trolling, just ignore him. Be part of the s

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Gentoo's problems

2007-03-16 Thread Jeff Rollin
On 16/03/07, Steve Long <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Mauricio Lima Pilla wrote: > We are always ready to listen to feedback and constructive criticism, but > your constant trolling against the forums can't be classified as such. > IMO ciaran has definitely been trolling this list and it's doing my

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo's problems

2007-03-16 Thread Luca Barbato
Jason Stubbs wrote: > That's not entirely true. The main trouble with refactoring portage code is > that there is no defined public API and so even the littlest changes are > likely to break things in gentoolkit and several of the portage gui front end > packages. What about branching, doing t

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo's problems

2007-03-16 Thread Luca Barbato
Jakob Buchgraber wrote: > > Why don't you join the portage team and try to persuade the current > portage devs and help to implement the "killer features"? The main problem with such projects is that you cannot do some stuff in an easy way, that's the reason you have from scratch rewrite of 2.0 c

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Gentoo's problems

2007-03-16 Thread Marijn Schouten (hkBst)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Steve Long wrote: > Mauricio Lima Pilla wrote: >> We are always ready to listen to feedback and constructive criticism, but >> your constant trolling against the forums can't be classified as such. >> > IMO ciaran has definitely been trolling this list

[gentoo-dev] Re: Gentoo's problems

2007-03-16 Thread Duncan
Steve Long <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted [EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Fri, 16 Mar 2007 08:41:50 +: > Mauricio Lima Pilla wrote: >> We are always ready to listen to feedback and constructive criticism, >> but your constant trolling against the forums can't be classified as >> such. >>

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Summary for 15 March 2007 special council meeting on CoC

2007-03-16 Thread Robin H. Johnson
On Fri, Mar 16, 2007 at 09:28:10AM +, Duncan wrote: > > I think you missed one thing. From the council page: "Only Gentoo > > developers may be nominated" Thus your corner-case of a moderator that > > does nothing else wanting to become a council member is not valid, > > because the moderator i

[gentoo-dev] Re: Summary for 15 March 2007 special council meeting on CoC

2007-03-16 Thread Duncan
"Robin H. Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted [EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Thu, 15 Mar 2007 22:07:45 -0700: > I think you missed one thing. From the council page: "Only Gentoo > developers may be nominated" Thus your corner-case of a moderator that > does nothing else wanting to become

[gentoo-dev] Re: Re: Re: Gentoo's problems

2007-03-16 Thread Steve Long
> There's a difference between UI improvements like FEATURES=candy and UI > improvements like ability to do dependency-based uninstalls (merely one > example). UI improvements that improve user experience substantially > are fine. Minor UI improvements are good too, but not when they're > being tou

[gentoo-dev] Re: Gentoo's problems

2007-03-16 Thread Steve Long
Mauricio Lima Pilla wrote: > We are always ready to listen to feedback and constructive criticism, but > your constant trolling against the forums can't be classified as such. > IMO ciaran has definitely been trolling this list and it's doing my head in. Is there anyone else who feels the same, st

[gentoo-dev] Re: Re: Summary for 15 March 2007 special council meeting on CoC

2007-03-16 Thread Steve Long
Robin H. Johnson wrote: > There isn't one yet, but proctors@ or reporting on BugZilla will > probably work fine as soon as kingtaco and kloeri actually get the > initial proctors together. > In all seriousness I propose [EMAIL PROTECTED] - I am not trying to start a bidding war here for names, so p