Mike Frysinger napsal(a):
On Saturday 24 March 2007, Caleb Cushing wrote:
could bugzilla be changed so that the default search includes bugs in all
status. instead of just open bugs. I know sometimes I'll miss closed bugs
because I'll forget to do an advanced search.
there is an open
On 3/25/07, Alec Warner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well I'm a native speaker [...]
Yeah, right. May I remind you that you're a USian ?
obligatory_smiley :o) /obligatory_smiley
Denis.
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
On Saturday 24 March 2007, Christel Dahlskjaer wrote:
It looks like our social contract doesn't prohibit Gentoo from being
dependent upon a single sponsor or corporation. In the interests of
keeping Gentoo run by the developers rather than any outside party, how
about the following addition to
On Sunday 25 March 2007, Jakub Moc wrote:
Hmmm, I'm not sure how much of an regression this is. AFAICT bugzilla
always required to prefix the search with ALL if you want to search for
resolved bugs as well. There's even a note about this directly on the
homepage, below the search box. :)
Mike Frysinger kirjoitti:
isnt this what package mask is for ? and/or just put out a quick -r1 that
reverts echangelog
-mike
I did package.mask it, but not everyone syncs daily.
Regards,
Petteri
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Christel Dahlskjaer wrote:
It looks like our social contract doesn't prohibit Gentoo from being
dependent upon a single sponsor or corporation. In the interests of
keeping Gentoo run by the developers rather than any outside party, how
about the following addition to the Social Contract?
Not
On Sun, 2007-03-25 at 04:54 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Saturday 24 March 2007, Christel Dahlskjaer wrote:
It looks like our social contract doesn't prohibit Gentoo from being
dependent upon a single sponsor or corporation. In the interests of
keeping Gentoo run by the developers rather
On Sunday 25 March 2007, Christel Dahlskjaer wrote:
On Sun, 2007-03-25 at 04:54 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Saturday 24 March 2007, Christel Dahlskjaer wrote:
It looks like our social contract doesn't prohibit Gentoo from being
dependent upon a single sponsor or corporation. In the
On Saturday 24 March 2007, Matthias Langer wrote:
In my opinion, any project that has reasonable potential to improve
Gentoo as a whole
which doesnt apply here
-mike
pgpkZMxj5OVdW.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 10:40:51 -0400
Mike Frysinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Saturday 24 March 2007, Matthias Langer wrote:
In my opinion, any project that has reasonable potential to improve
Gentoo as a whole
which doesnt apply here
Did you not say that finding alternatives to Portage
On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 09:37:04 +0200
Denis Dupeyron [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 3/25/07, Alec Warner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well I'm a native speaker [...]
Yeah, right. May I remind you that you're a USian ?
obligatory_smiley :o) /obligatory_smiley
Denis.
Hi,
May be a little OT, but
On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 04:54:33 -0400
Mike Frysinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
i dont see why this is required ? ignoring the fact that the wording
is way too vague to do anything but cause confusion and people to
spout long winded rants, seems like useless nitpicking about an issue
that doesnt
On Sunday 25 March 2007, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
Mike Frysinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Saturday 24 March 2007, Matthias Langer wrote:
In my opinion, any project that has reasonable potential to improve
Gentoo as a whole
which doesnt apply here
Did you not say that finding
On Sunday 25 March 2007, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
Mike Frysinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
i dont see why this is required ? ignoring the fact that the wording
is way too vague to do anything but cause confusion and people to
spout long winded rants, seems like useless nitpicking about an
On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 11:00:00 -0400
Mike Frysinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sunday 25 March 2007, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
Mike Frysinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
i dont see why this is required ? ignoring the fact that the
wording is way too vague to do anything but cause confusion and
On Sunday 25 March 2007, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 11:00:00 -0400
Mike Frysinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sunday 25 March 2007, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
Mike Frysinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
i dont see why this is required ? ignoring the fact that the
wording
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 11:00:00 -0400
Mike Frysinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sunday 25 March 2007, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
Mike Frysinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
i dont see why this is required ? ignoring the fact that the
wording is way too vague
Christel Dahlskjaer wrote: [Sun Mar 25 2007, 07:35:33AM CDT]
Supposedly 80% of our stuff is hosted in one building, where would we
find ourselves were this building to building to burn to the ground? Get
flooded?
Looking through
http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/infrastructure/server-specs.xml,
On Sun, 2007-03-25 at 09:27 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Sunday 25 March 2007, Christel Dahlskjaer wrote:
On Sun, 2007-03-25 at 04:54 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Saturday 24 March 2007, Christel Dahlskjaer wrote:
It looks like our social contract doesn't prohibit Gentoo from being
On Sunday 25 of March 2007 16:58:10 Mike Frysinger wrote:
Did you not say that finding alternatives to Portage is one of Gentoo's
priorities?
no i did not, nor does that apply here
not to put anything in your mouth, but I am a little confused:
Dale wrote:
As a lowly user, I agree. Gentoo should not put all its eggs in one basket.
Gentoo should use whichever basket could fit...
--
Luca Barbato
Gentoo/linux Gentoo/PPC
http://dev.gentoo.org/~lu_zero
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
Which of the following do you think is most likely to happen?
* That Gentoo relicences everything under a proprietary licence
GPL-3 you mean?
* That Gentoo colludes with Lucifer
Cough...
* That Gentoo comes under pressure from a sponsor with an agenda
Remember
On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 17:35:21 +0200
Luca Barbato [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Gentoo should use whichever basket could fit...
Just because there is a basket that can fit all our eggs should not
prevent us from looking, where possible, for other baskets that would
let us distribute them more evenly.
On Sunday 25 March 2007, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
Which of the following do you think is most likely to happen?
and which of the following do you think is most likely to happen ?
* Ridiculous scenario #1
* Ridiculous scenario #2
* Spin of recent events to look like a conspiracy
obviously the
Looks like a good job to me.
--
Best Regards,
Piotr Jaroszyński
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 15:27:11 + (UTC)
Duncan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Invalid (to me) implies a judgement of the work of the submitter,
while NOTABUG (to me) implies more a simple variance of opinion,
recognizing the other viewpoint as possibly valid (not invalid), but
simply choosing a
Piotr Jaroszyński wrote:
On Sunday 25 of March 2007 16:58:10 Mike Frysinger wrote:
Did you not say that finding alternatives to Portage is one of Gentoo's
priorities?
no i did not, nor does that apply here
not to put anything in your mouth, but I am a little confused:
Ciaran McCreesh [EMAIL PROTECTED] posted
[EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Sun, 25 Mar 2007
15:46:36 +0100:
On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 10:40:51 -0400
Mike Frysinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Saturday 24 March 2007, Matthias Langer wrote:
In my opinion, any project that has reasonable
Mike Frysinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] posted
[EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Sun, 25 Mar
2007 11:16:13 -0400:
well, while we're protecting Gentoo from hypothetical situations that
dont exist now but could in the future, we should add a clause that bans
collusion with Lucifer as that would
On Sunday 25 of March 2007 17:54:24 Andrew Gaffney wrote:
Support for an alternative package manager != language bindings for said
package manager :P
heh, I just wanted a clarification of the Council standpoint in the matter of
finding alternatives to portage, which became quite vague after
I'd like to ask what are the negative side-effects of adding such
paragraph. Are there any true negative side-effects to a specification
like that?
A different topic is the way the paragraph is written. If we don't
like how it is written, we can change it and problem solved.
To be honest,
On Sunday 25 March 2007, Piotr Jaroszyński wrote:
On Sunday 25 of March 2007 17:54:24 Andrew Gaffney wrote:
Support for an alternative package manager != language bindings for said
package manager :P
heh, I just wanted a clarification of the Council standpoint in the matter
of finding
I'd like to ask what are the negative side-effects of adding such
paragraph. Are there any true negative side-effects to a specification
like that?
A different topic is the way the paragraph is written. If we don't
like how it is written, we can change it and problem solved.
To be honest,
On Sunday 25 March 2007, Ioannis Aslanidis wrote:
I'd like to ask what are the negative side-effects of adding such
paragraph. Are there any true negative side-effects to a specification
like that?
A different topic is the way the paragraph is written. If we don't
like how it is written, we
On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 15:27:11 + (UTC)
Duncan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What do others think of NULL or VOID vs. NOTABUG vs. INVALID?
I'd object against NULL or VOID, they don't make much sense to me.
NOTABUG seems to be the best fit as it's very specific and doesn't
leave much room for
the werent the same question nor were they the same answer
They weren't the same, but the second answer was definitely wrong:
So is alternative package manager support something that's considered
important and a priority by the Council?
yes
Did you not say that finding alternatives to
Piotr Jaroszy?ski wrote:
Looks like a good job to me.
++
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
On 3/25/07, Mike Frysinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
To be honest, protecting ourselves from things that now seem
improbable, isn't such a bad idea.
and where exactly do you stop ?
-mike
That's a good question, but I am not appropriate to answer to that yet. :)
--
Ioannis Aslanidis
Duncan wrote:
A segment of an already minor segment (certainly currently, tho that
/may/ eventually change), not likely to be something that can reasonably
be characterized as benefiting Gentoo as a whole, at least in the near to
medium term, and beyond that, well, things remain up for grabs.
Duncan wrote:
As one who was offended when one of my first bugs got INVALIDated...
I know the feeling, mate :)
NOTABUG would have been better. It may suffer some of the same issues,
but is better, and at least here, wouldn't have the discouraging
connotations due to the minor variation in
Christel Dahlskjaer wrote:
It looks like our social contract doesn't prohibit Gentoo from being
dependent upon a single sponsor or corporation. In the interests of
keeping Gentoo run by the developers rather than any outside party, how
about the following addition to the Social Contract?
I'm planning to request the latest revision of gentoo-sources-2.6.20 go
stable on x86 and amd64 in 1-2 weeks from now. Other arches will
probably follow soon after.
There are still a few new bugs with external modules:
https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=163825
I've commented on every one
Christel Dahlskjaer wrote:
It looks like our social contract doesn't prohibit Gentoo from being
dependent upon a single sponsor or corporation. In the interests of
keeping Gentoo run by the developers rather than any outside party, how
about the following addition to the Social Contract?
Daniel Drake kirjoitti:
I'm planning to request the latest revision of gentoo-sources-2.6.20 go
stable on x86 and amd64 in 1-2 weeks from now. Other arches will
probably follow soon after.
There are still a few new bugs with external modules:
https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=163825
Daniel Drake wrote:
I'm planning to request the latest revision of gentoo-sources-2.6.20
go stable on x86 and amd64 in 1-2 weeks from now. Other arches will
probably follow soon after.
There are still a few new bugs with external modules:
https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=163825
I've
On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 17:53:51 +0300
Rumen Yotov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
May be a little OT, but just two of four ancient-sayings:
1.Never accept things personaly (everyone is acting on his own
motives); 2.Try not to make assumptions (just ask questions, till you
get it). Clearly (from above,
Hi,
virtual/x11 has been deprecated for some time and now that all packages
that only use it have been removed it is time to mask and remove it. I
have put it in package.mask now - please fix your overlays in case you
still use virtual/x11 somewhere. It will be removed in 30 days as per
the
Kevin F. Quinn wrote:
I know I've seen many instances where the word INVALID has got
peoples hackles up, [...] This is the same issue I have with
NOTABUG - it's like saying, you're wrong, shouldn't have raised
the report, just perhaps not as in-your-face as INVALID.
Precisely. NOTABUG
On Sunday 25 March 2007, M. Edward (Ed) Borasky wrote:
Christel Dahlskjaer wrote:
It looks like our social contract doesn't prohibit Gentoo from being
dependent upon a single sponsor or corporation. In the interests of
keeping Gentoo run by the developers rather than any outside party, how
On Saturday 24 March 2007, Christel Dahlskjaer wrote:
It looks like our social contract doesn't prohibit Gentoo from being
dependent upon a single sponsor or corporation. In the interests of
keeping Gentoo run by the developers rather than any outside party, how
about the following addition to
Warwick Bruce Chapman wrote:
Will you be marking linux-headers-2.6.19 stable as well? I really think
http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=160381 needs some serious attention.
linux-headers isnt anything to do with me or the kernel herd. I can't
comment on when it will go stable.
Daniel
On 2007/03/25, Benno Schulenberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Precisely. NOTABUG sounds less harsh than INVALID (for some
just a little, for others a lot), it is less likely to irk people,
and it is also used elsewhere, so why not use it instead?
Not that i care that much, but imho INVALID
On Sun, 2007-03-25 at 16:47 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Saturday 24 March 2007, Christel Dahlskjaer wrote:
It looks like our social contract doesn't prohibit Gentoo from being
dependent upon a single sponsor or corporation. In the interests of
keeping Gentoo run by the developers rather
On Sunday 25 March 2007, Christel Dahlskjaer wrote:
On Sun, 2007-03-25 at 16:47 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
i think this whole idea is a moot point anyways ... go visit the Gentoo
Foundation web site and see Chapter 2 Section 5
And how exactly does this help us in the event of say the OSL
On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 17:59:41 -0400
Mike Frysinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sunday 25 March 2007, Christel Dahlskjaer wrote:
On Sun, 2007-03-25 at 16:47 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
i think this whole idea is a moot point anyways ... go visit the
Gentoo Foundation web site and see
Duncan wrote:
A segment of an already minor segment (certainly currently, tho that
/may/ eventually change), not likely to be something that can reasonably
be characterized as benefiting Gentoo as a whole, at least in the near
to
medium term, and beyond that, well, things remain up for
On Sunday 25 March 2007, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
Mike Frysinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sunday 25 March 2007, Christel Dahlskjaer wrote:
On Sun, 2007-03-25 at 16:47 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
i think this whole idea is a moot point anyways ... go visit the
Gentoo Foundation web
I commented this out of package.mask. x11-libs/fox-1.2.6-r2 still uses it.
Need to fix that up before masking it.
Michael Sterrett
-Mr. Bones.-
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sun, 25 Mar 2007, Stefan Schweizer wrote:
Hi,
virtual/x11 has been deprecated for some time and now that all packages that
The attached list notes all of the packages that were added or removed
from the tree, for the week ending 2007-03-25 23h59 UTC.
Removals:
app-portage/emool 2007-03-19 10:17:22 blubb
www-client/mozilla 2007-03-19 10:25:35 armin76
Hi,
the following packages have been superseded by/merged into net-misc/nx,
the last ebuild in portage that used them (nxserver-freenx-0.5.0) was
removed 4 months ago:
net-misc/nxcomp
net-misc/nxesd
net-misc/nxproxy
net-misc/nxssh
net-misc/nx-x11
net-misc/nx-x11-bin
They are now package.masked,
Michael Sterrett -Mr. Bones.- [EMAIL PROTECTED] napisał:
I commented this out of package.mask. x11-libs/fox-1.2.6-r2 still uses it.
Need to fix that up before masking it.
These not numerous packages still using virtual/x11 can be fixed after masking
it. Almost nobody uses them. Masking
On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 03:45:38 +0200
arfrever [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Michael Sterrett -Mr. Bones.- [EMAIL PROTECTED] napisał:
I commented this out of package.mask. x11-libs/fox-1.2.6-r2 still
uses it. Need to fix that up before masking it.
These not numerous packages still using
On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 03:45:38 +0200
arfrever [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Michael Sterrett -Mr. Bones.- [EMAIL PROTECTED] napisaÅ#8218;:
I commented this out of package.mask. x11-libs/fox-1.2.6-r2 still
uses it. Need to fix that up before masking it.
These not numerous packages still using
Michael Sterrett -Mr. Bones.- wrote:
I commented this out of package.mask. x11-libs/fox-1.2.6-r2 still uses it.
Need to fix that up before masking it.
It doesn't seem to build.
FXColorSelector.cpp: In member function 'long int
FX::FXColorSelector::onUpdAlphaText(FX::FXObject*, FX::FXSelector,
Alec Warner wrote: [Sun Mar 25 2007, 09:08:01PM CDT]
It's acceptable to me. I'd rather see us make progress than postpone
changes for months while devs bicker about changes to be made. That would
not be the case if say, people had the balls to just fix things in the
tree. However we have
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
Well, if it's reached the take drastic action stage (which, let's
face it, it has at this point), why not go and fix the tree? It's a
better solution than breaking it, and anyone who moans now isn't going
to get any sympathy from anyone.
I'm fixing it now. The
On Mon, 2007-03-26 at 03:21 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
Well, if it's reached the take drastic action stage (which, let's
face it, it has at this point), why not go and fix the tree? It's a
better solution than breaking it, and anyone who moans now isn't going
to get any sympathy from
Ryan Hill wrote:
Michael Sterrett -Mr. Bones.- wrote:
I commented this out of package.mask. x11-libs/fox-1.2.6-r2 still uses it.
Need to fix that up before masking it.
I'll have a look.
Okay, x11-libs/fox-1.2.6-r3 was added to the tree which fixed the
virtual/x11 and GCC 4.1 compile
On 2007/03/25, Mike Frysinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
=foo/bar-1.2.* has never been valid and still isnt valid in current
portage ... i dont see a reason to force it in for EAPI=0 considering
we've gotten by so far without it being a big deal
Sure. I've probably not been clear, i was not
On Sunday 25 March 2007, Thomas de Grenier de Latour wrote:
My suggestion is only about dropping the substring-match semantics, to
replace it with something more restrictive, and that, it's doable for
EAPI=0 if decided now.
i'd be on the fence about that ... i feel like some of your examples
On Sunday 25 March 2007, Thomas de Grenier de Latour wrote:
On 2007/03/25, Mike Frysinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
=app-dicts/aspell-en-0.5*
---
app-dicts/aspell-en-0.51.0
app-dicts/aspell-en-0.51.1
you'd have to add more atoms to match 0.51.0, 0.52.1, 0.53.3, etc...
Yes and
71 matches
Mail list logo
