On Wednesday 16 November 2005 20:16, Mike Frysinger wrote:
you asking or telling ? didnt you learn anything in elementary school ?
Is rhetorical question a new concept for you?
--
Diego Flameeyes Pettenò - http://dev.gentoo.org/~flameeyes/
Gentoo/ALT lead, Gentoo/FreeBSD, Video, AMD64, Sound,
On Fri, Nov 18, 2005 at 01:28:02AM +0100, Diego 'Flameeyes' Petten? wrote:
On Wednesday 16 November 2005 20:16, Mike Frysinger wrote:
you asking or telling ? ?didnt you learn anything in elementary school ?
Is rhetorical question a new concept for you?
Maybe I'm daft, but this OT cruft
On Thursday 17 November 2005 22:17, Michael Cummings wrote:
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=82513
Anyone know why jstubbs closed the bug without comment? I don't see
where it was particualrly resolved.
There are several requests on the bug, the majority are
Georgi Georgiev wrote:
maillog: 16/11/2005-20:58:44(-0500): Kevin types
...
Has development stopped on webapp-config? Does it need a new maintainer?
Development has far from stopped:
http://svn.gnqs.org/projects/vhost-tools
Thanks for the pointer, but how does one make use of the
Jason Stubbs wrote:
There are several requests on the bug, the majority are now fixed and
everybody (at least within the portage team) is agreed that FEATURES
should not be added to USE_EXPAND. Essentially, I didn't take the time
to read through all the follow-ups related (and unrelated) to
Hello everyone,
would someone more competent explain to me, why
- this feature even exists
- why has a mass of things been commited in there recently
?
It's
- confusing users
- rendering /etc/portage/package.keywords useless (install a dep for one
particular ebuild and enjoy the USE flag
Jakub Moc wrote:
would someone more competent explain to me, why
- this feature even exists
It makes sense to enable support for packages you have installed. This
should be the default behavior, and it should require manually disabling.
Thanks,
Donnie
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
18.11.2005, 16:33:08, Jakub Moc wrote:
- rendering /etc/portage/package.keywords useless (install a dep for one
particular ebuild and enjoy the USE flag enabled globally) - causing unwanted
results (I did not really install app-text/recode for the purpose of enabling
Err,
18.11.2005, 16:43:12, Mike Frysinger wrote:
i see no reason to keep use.defaults around anymore, i think the rest of our
config/profile system covers for it adequately and in a manner that doesnt
confused people
Also, IIRC, saner alternatives have been suggested, like IUSE=+bleh to enable
a
On Saturday 19 November 2005 01:13, Michael Cummings wrote:
Jason Stubbs wrote:
Resolved - Fixed?
Hmmm, might have been aq epiphany quirk (wouldn't be the first) - when i
looked there was no comment indicated.
Nope. I wrote .. Bugs wrote the above for me. ;)
The last discussion that was
Now that GLEP 41 (AT/HT) has passed, we need to designate a subdomain
for their email. This will cover AT/HT's as well as forum help, so needs
to be generic. So to start with let me throw a couple out:
@staff.g.o
@assist.g.o
Thoughts, better ideas appreciated.
--
Homer Parker
On Fri, Nov 18, 2005 at 11:09:07AM -0600, Homer Parker wrote:
@staff.g.o
Staff sounds pretty good to me.
./Brix
--
Henrik Brix Andersen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Gentoo Metadistribution | Mobile computing herd
pgpMNlWblXTny.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Fri, Nov 18, 2005 at 07:31:30PM + or thereabouts, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
| Put USE=-* oneuse twouse reduse blueuse in make.conf to set the
| globals, and _then_ start tweaking in package.use.
...and then watch your system explode because you didn't set various
USE flags which should
Actually staff gives the ideal ambiguity that is needed for these
placements. The need to seperate developers from staff who have
seperate jobs to do is an acute one.
At the moment the @gentoo.org address is seen as a developer one but as
you mentioned the word staff is already used to describe
On Fri, 18 Nov 2005 19:45:25 + Kurt Lieber [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| We've been using the USE=-* foo bar method on all of our
| infrastructure servers since as far back as I can remember and have
| never had a problem as a result.
|
| Not trying to fan the flames one way or the other -- just
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
18.11.2005, 20:18:58, Drake Wyrm wrote:
Jakub Moc [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well, I don't think so... If I want to enable a feature for one
specific ebuild and a USE flag in /etc/portage/package.use pulls in a
dep, that in turn enables that use
Drake Wyrm wrote:
Jakub Moc [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well, I don't think so... If I want to enable a feature for one
specific ebuild and a USE flag in /etc/portage/package.use pulls in a
dep, that in turn enables that use flag globally, it's obviously not
what I intended and forces me to add
Hi.
On 11/18/05, Homer Parker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thoughts, better ideas appreciated.
Well, they are called testers, so why not @testers.g.o?
Max
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Henrik Brix Andersen wrote:
On Fri, Nov 18, 2005 at 11:09:07AM -0600, Homer Parker wrote:
@staff.g.o
Staff sounds pretty good to me.
./Brix
This sounds good to me as well, very professional. How easy is it going
to be to change to a normal @g.o address? As simple as a forward? For
On Fri, 2005-11-18 at 17:01 -0500, Curtis Napier wrote:
This sounds good to me as well, very professional. How easy is it
going
to be to change to a normal @g.o address? As simple as a forward? For
instance, if someone who is an AT decides to become a full dev.
That's what the GLEP
Homer Parker wrote:
On Fri, 2005-11-18 at 17:01 -0500, Curtis Napier wrote:
This sounds good to me as well, very professional. How easy is it
going
to be to change to a normal @g.o address? As simple as a forward? For
instance, if someone who is an AT decides to become a full dev.
That's
On Fri, 18 Nov 2005 17:44:53 -0500 Curtis Napier [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| Maybe a new GLEP is in order? It makes sense to do it now since infra
| is going to be setting up alias' anyway. While we're at it possibly
| an @dev.g.o as well (as someone mentioned)? That way there is no
| confusion. If
On Fri, Nov 18, 2005 at 11:18:58AM -0800, Drake Wyrm wrote:
Jakub Moc [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well, I don't think so... If I want to enable a feature for one
specific ebuild and a USE flag in /etc/portage/package.use pulls in a
dep, that in turn enables that use flag globally, it's
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Fri, 18 Nov 2005 17:44:53 -0500 Curtis Napier [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| Maybe a new GLEP is in order? It makes sense to do it now since infra
| is going to be setting up alias' anyway. While we're at it possibly
| an @dev.g.o as well (as someone mentioned)? That way
On Fri, 18 Nov 2005 18:18:12 -0500 Scott Stoddard
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| Being relatively new to the team, I speak with a bit of naivet'e
| about the whole thing, but doesn't that seem to make the most sense?
|
| @dev.gentoo.org for devs
| @herd.gentoo.org for herd ATs
| @staff.gentoo.org for
On Fri, Nov 18, 2005 at 05:44:53PM -0500 or thereabouts, Curtis Napier wrote:
Maybe a new GLEP is in order? It makes sense to do it now since infra is
going to be setting up alias' anyway. While we're at it possibly an
@dev.g.o as well (as someone mentioned)? That way there is no confusion.
19.11.2005, 0:29:24, Kurt Lieber wrote:
What purpose does this serve? This would create all sorts of confusion.
Right now, you can meet someone in IRC and make a reasonable assumption that
their email address is irc nick@gentoo.org. This would confuse things
horribly imo. What about
Kurt Lieber wrote:
On Fri, Nov 18, 2005 at 05:44:53PM -0500 or thereabouts, Curtis Napier wrote:
There is no technical reason why any of this is necessary and it doesn't
provide any tangible benefits that I can see. If a user really wants to
know someone's role within the project, they can
Hi Chris,
Sorry for the delay in replying. Having a few reliability problems with
my broadband atm.
On Mon, 2005-11-14 at 08:59 -0500, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
I thought your proposal was to get critical information to our users,
not force every user to read that $dev is going to be in
Kurt Lieber wrote:
On Fri, Nov 18, 2005 at 05:44:53PM -0500 or thereabouts, Curtis Napier wrote:
Maybe a new GLEP is in order? It makes sense to do it now since infra is
going to be setting up alias' anyway. While we're at it possibly an
@dev.g.o as well (as someone mentioned)? That way there
On Fri, 2005-11-18 at 23:29 +, Kurt Lieber wrote:
There is no technical reason why any of this is necessary and it doesn't
provide any tangible benefits that I can see. If a user really wants to
know someone's role within the project, they can go look it up on the web
site.
--kurt
+1
Curtis Napier wrote: [Fri Nov 18 2005, 04:44:53PM CST]
The problem with staff is that staff who aren't ATs/HTs won't be using
it...
I agree with this. Those of us who don't have commit rights to the tree
should have an @staff.g.o, people like me for instance. I happen to be
part of two
Kurt Lieber wrote:
On Fri, Nov 18, 2005 at 05:44:53PM -0500 or thereabouts, Curtis Napier wrote:
Maybe a new GLEP is in order? It makes sense to do it now since infra is
going to be setting up alias' anyway. While we're at it possibly an
@dev.g.o as well (as someone mentioned)? That way there
On Fri, 2005-11-18 at 23:29 +, Kurt Lieber wrote:
There is no technical reason why any of this is necessary and it
doesn't
provide any tangible benefits that I can see. If a user really wants
to
know someone's role within the project, they can go look it up on the
web
site.
19.11.2005, 0:58:29, Grant Goodyear wrote:
My preference is that the subdomain chosen should succinctly reflect the role
that arch testers serve. My personal preference would be to choose something
like aide, helper, assistant, or something similar. (Indeed, I'd have
preferred volunteer if
19.11.2005, 1:07:40, Homer Parker wrote:
On Fri, 2005-11-18 at 23:29 +, Kurt Lieber wrote:
There is no technical reason why any of this is necessary and it
doesn't
provide any tangible benefits that I can see. If a user really wants
to
know someone's role within the project, they can
On Fri, Nov 18, 2005 at 06:07:40PM -0600 or thereabouts, Homer Parker wrote:
I'm guessing you didn't read the logs from the council meeting where it
got stipulated that this be done. [1] I also apologize (again) for it
hitting the list the day before it was to be voted on, and stated that
Jakub Moc wrote: [Fri Nov 18 2005, 06:07:48PM CST]
19.11.2005, 0:58:29, Grant Goodyear wrote:
My preference is that the subdomain chosen should succinctly reflect
the role that arch testers serve. My personal preference would be
to choose something like aide, helper, assistant, or
Kurt Lieber wrote: [Fri Nov 18 2005, 06:22:28PM CST]
tester@yellowstar.gentoo.org
You can now declare godwin's law. tyvm hand
Huh?
--kurt (who finds the very idea of second-class devs revolting and
embarassing)
I happen to agree with that sentiment. It's just not clear to me that
it
Lance Albertson wrote: [Fri Nov 18 2005, 05:46:47PM CST]
Anyways, I don't see any problem with us giving them straight up
[EMAIL PROTECTED] aliases. They won't have shell access, nor cvs so we
don't have to worry about that. This makes it very simple for us infra
folks to manage. I can only
Jakub Moc wrote:
19.11.2005, 0:58:29, Grant Goodyear wrote:
My preference is that the subdomain chosen should succinctly reflect the role
that arch testers serve. My personal preference would be to choose something
like aide, helper, assistant, or something similar. (Indeed, I'd have
Grant Goodyear wrote:
Jakub Moc wrote: [Fri Nov 18 2005, 06:07:48PM CST]
19.11.2005, 0:58:29, Grant Goodyear wrote:
My preference is that the subdomain chosen should succinctly reflect
the role that arch testers serve. My personal preference would be
to choose something like aide,
Grant Goodyear wrote:
Lance Albertson wrote: [Fri Nov 18 2005, 05:46:47PM CST]
Anyways, I don't see any problem with us giving them straight up
[EMAIL PROTECTED] aliases. They won't have shell access, nor cvs so we
don't have to worry about that. This makes it very simple for us infra
folks
The only reason any of this is coming up is because some wanted to keep
the .g.org addresses to the developer staff. If the CVS access is read
only and they are working for gentoo what difference would it make?
This would sort out the AT and forums question in one swoop.
George
On 11/19/05, Grant
Having organised several Gentoo UK meetings I would like to be advised
if anyone has a problem; especially if they dont come or have no idea
when, where or what they are.
George ProwseOn 11/18/05, Stuart Herbert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Chris,Sorry for the delay in replying.Having a few
Grant Goodyear wrote:
Lance Albertson wrote: [Fri Nov 18 2005, 05:46:47PM CST]
Anyways, I don't see any problem with us giving them straight up
[EMAIL PROTECTED] aliases. They won't have shell access, nor cvs so we
don't have to worry about that. This makes it very simple for us infra
folks to
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Fri, 18 Nov 2005 21:13:51 -0400 Luis F. Araujo [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| Let's write a GLEP to clarify that @g.o addresses is for people who
| cooperates (in a direct way) with Gentoo.
Don't forget the ... and make a reasonable commitment for a
substantial
On Fri, 18 Nov 2005 21:03:26 -0500 Scott Stoddard
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| I wholeheartedly disagree. The fact that I am an AT with aspirations
| towards becoming a full dev does not in any way imply that all ATs
| fill the same mindset. I see the AT position as a wonderful
| opportunity to
19.11.2005, 1:38:03, Grant Goodyear wrote:
Incidentally, the benefit is to make users who are actively helping Gentoo
feel like they're part of the family. It was decided that a straight
@gentoo.org address would be confusing, though, since most people associate
those addresses with
As an AT... albiet a very busy/cannot help as much as I'd like one...
The only useful thing I see in here is ro-cvs access. This
facilitates testing by allowing the tester to get the ebuilds as they
are committed, instead of syncing and hoping not to get banned from
rsync servers.
I could care
19.11.2005, 3:07:41, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
Sure, recognise their contributions, by giving them credit in ChangeLogs.
How exactly does testing stuff fit into *changelogs*, have I missed something?
--
jakub
pgpd4At0gxKS4.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Friday 18 November 2005 06:15 pm, Jakub Moc wrote:
19.11.2005, 1:38:03, Grant Goodyear wrote:
Incidentally, the benefit is to make users who are actively helping
Gentoo feel like they're part of the family. It was decided that a
So we give them an email account?? Is there any other
On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 03:27:13 +0100 Jakub Moc [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| 19.11.2005, 3:07:41, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
| Sure, recognise their contributions, by giving them credit in
| ChangeLogs.
|
| How exactly does testing stuff fit into *changelogs*, have I missed
| something?
Stable on
19.11.2005, 3:49:46, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 03:27:13 +0100 Jakub Moc [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| 19.11.2005, 3:07:41, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
| Sure, recognise their contributions, by giving them credit in
| ChangeLogs.
|
| How exactly does testing stuff fit into
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 03:27:13 +0100 Jakub Moc [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| 19.11.2005, 3:07:41, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
| Sure, recognise their contributions, by giving them credit in
| ChangeLogs.
|
| How exactly does testing stuff fit into *changelogs*, have I missed
|
(apologies for the messed up time in my last message)
On Friday 18 November 2005 06:53 pm, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
We've seen why this won't work in the past... Too few users know how to
do proper testing. We've had please keyword, works for me bugs for
things that will always segfault on
On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 03:59:15 +0100 Jakub Moc [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| Thanks, no... Reminds ne of the debates on forums.g.o, why emerge
| --changelog feature is useless and why people file pointless bugs:
| too much irrelevant stuff.
Er, keywording is entirely relevant. *You* might not use it,
On Friday 18 November 2005 07:01 pm, George Prowse wrote:
As these would be @gentoo.org http://gentoo.org people they would be
easier for devrel to tackle. Making them closer under the gentoo wing just
makes them easier to dicipline.
No, you misunderstood... In the theoretical site I was
On Fri, 18 Nov 2005 19:09:57 -0800 Corey Shields [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| I think having users systems would be profiled may help ease the
| ricer issue. fex, user A has 3 systems, and marks package B as !WFM
| on one. devs can cross link that negative mark to the system profile
| and note that
On Friday 18 November 2005 07:23 pm, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
See, it's a question of quality rather than numbers. One it works
report from someone who knows what they're doing is worth far more than
a thousand it works reports from random users. Expecting a large
number of average Joe types to
On Friday 18 November 2005 07:40 pm, George Prowse wrote:
Yeah, I think a sub-domain may not be a good solution but unfortunately it
is the best at present. The site is a good idea but nothing stops it from
I disagree that it is the best idea.. Better on my list is to just not hand
out email
Of course, by being restrictive to the people who wish to help
long-term that is the greatest benefit to gentoo. If the @g.o email
addresses are a problem then the subdomain @staff.g.o has been
suggested. The staff subdomain would contain almost all relevant other
domains. If in the unlikely event
On Friday 18 November 2005 08:02 pm, George Prowse wrote:
Of course, by being restrictive to the people who wish to help long-term
that is the greatest benefit to gentoo. If the @g.o email addresses are a
problem then the subdomain @staff.g.o has been suggested. The staff
subdomain would
On Friday 18 November 2005 03:46 pm, Lance Albertson wrote:
I'm very disappointed that the council did not wait on the vote for this
considering the sudden submission of the revision of the GLEP. I'm
curious the reasoning for going ahead with this?
So.. I'm hearing that the GLEP was
Testing ebuilds when keywording/marking stable is supposed to be
mandatory and such stuff does not belong into changelogs.
Sorry, but that's a big no. People that add/remove keywords without
making note in the Changelog deserve a massive kick in the nuts. I'm
not sure if you have been
Corey Shields wrote:
On Friday 18 November 2005 03:46 pm, Lance Albertson wrote:
I'm very disappointed that the council did not wait on the vote for this
considering the sudden submission of the revision of the GLEP. I'm
curious the reasoning for going ahead with this?
So.. I'm hearing
On Friday 18 November 2005 08:31 pm, Lance Albertson wrote:
No, thats not entirely true. It was submitted a few months ago and taken
to the council where it was rejected and asked to be revised. When the
council asked for things to put on their agenda for this latest meeting,
it was asked that
--- ChangeLog extract
19 Nov 2005; Francesco Riosa [EMAIL PROTECTED] +files/mysql-slot.conf.d,
+files/mysql-slot.rc6:
These two are born for slotted MySQL, however they work as is on normal
MySQL
installations too. (require my_print_defaults)
Features added or changed
- Not using mysqld_safe
On Fri, Nov 18, 2005 at 10:06:02PM +0100, Max wrote:
On 11/18/05, Homer Parker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thoughts, better ideas appreciated.
Well, they are called testers, so why not @testers.g.o?
because the idea was to put all future 'staff' there, not just AT's
-mike
--
On Fri, Nov 18, 2005 at 09:09:29PM -0400, Luis F. Araujo wrote:
What is the problem of giving them @g.o addresses?
read the first meeting where GLEP 41 was covered ...
-mike
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
On Sat, Nov 19, 2005 at 05:33:17AM + or thereabouts, Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Fri, Nov 18, 2005 at 09:09:29PM -0400, Luis F. Araujo wrote:
What is the problem of giving them @g.o addresses?
read the first meeting where GLEP 41 was covered ...
If I'm understanding it correctly, the
George Prowse posted
[EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted
below, on Sat, 19 Nov 2005 01:44:31 +:
Having organised several Gentoo UK meetings I would like to be advised if
anyone has a problem; especially if they dont come or have no idea when,
where or what they are.
Top posting lost the
On Wednesday 16 November 2005 16:16, Alec Warner wrote:
Brian asked me to split this up, and the first patch had some
cruft...and I broke things, both from old messing around. So I started
with a clean installed of rc7, hopefully these are a bit better.
One patch is for the backend stuff,
On Wednesday 16 November 2005 04:41, solar wrote:
For those of you that do not know we Mike Frysinger and myself have
written a general purpose ELF Q/A tool called pax-utils
The tool itself can be used to preform a number of tasks. What ferringb
would like todo is take advantage of this tool
Zac Medico wrote:
Brian Harring wrote:
This makes portage go looking in two different locations for
overrides; I know from looking through the code,
/etc/portage/package.* overrides the includes, but users won't.
This behavior could be documented and possibly configurable.
Adding another
On Sat, Nov 19, 2005 at 12:46:04AM +0900, Jason Stubbs wrote:
On Wednesday 16 November 2005 04:41, solar wrote:
For those of you that do not know we Mike Frysinger and myself have
written a general purpose ELF Q/A tool called pax-utils
The tool itself can be used to preform a number of
Brian Harring wrote:
Adding another configurable to control it gets back to my point-
should be a simple, extensible *singular* method of doing this, not N
methods.
Agreed.
Not so much transactional as groupping/seperation of each apps files.
(sort of).
The type of changes you're talking
Hello,
I'm a newcomer here.
The subject deal here was originaly posted here :
http://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-t-403287.html
I have always wanted to display the keywords
involved when you emerge a package.
Per exemple, i want to know if the xchat-2.6.0 i'll emerge is a stable
version, an
Brian Harring wrote:
The modification is pretty straight forward offhand; the notable
difference this time around is rather then extending portage_exec to
have the capability to 'spawn' python funcs (something I always found
ugly), this handles the fork itself.
This patch seems to work well
On Fri, Nov 18, 2005 at 09:25:57AM -0800, Zac Medico wrote:
Brian Harring wrote:
The type of changes you're talking about could just as easily be
integrated into package.* with source command added to it.
Where's the gain in adding a secondary location for these files, when
the same can
On Wed, Nov 16, 2005 at 04:33:02AM +0100, Marius Mauch wrote:
On Wed, 16 Nov 2005 04:07:56 +0100
Marius Mauch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hey,
IIRC we (=Gentoo as a whole) pretty much agreed to drop the digest
files in favor of a extended Manifest format. Well, today I wrote some
On 11/18/05, Brian Harring [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Feedback? Well, I don't like it mainly. :)
This makes portage go looking in two different locations for
overrides; I know from looking through the code,
/etc/portage/package.* overrides the includes, but users won't.
Configuration in two
82 matches
Mail list logo
