Carsten Lohrke posted [EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted
below, on Thu, 05 Jan 2006 20:30:27 +0100:
On Thursday 05 January 2006 16:46, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
Yeah ok, let me end up these holidays, and I'll prepare a written request
to change the Linux part in something else
You should
Chris Bainbridge posted [EMAIL PROTECTED],
excerpted below, on Fri, 06 Jan 2006 09:00:59 +:
The problems being:
1) Manpower. There are already 10,000 open bugs in bugzilla (and
growing) without adding more.
2) Lack of interest. Most developers aren't interested in supporting
old
On Fri, Jan 06, 2006 at 01:37:45AM -0700, Duncan wrote:
What word to use in place of distribution, when one wants to include the
BSDs and other non-distributions as well, other than
Linux/BSD[/*ix]][/OSX], or simply *ix... *IS* there such a term?
Well we could say meta operating system if
On Friday 06 January 2006 09:37, Duncan wrote:
Well, for that matter, distribution is considered at least by my *BSD
friends, to be a peculiarly Linux term. From their perspective, Linux has
1001 distributions, but they only have the one *BSD they choose to use.
That's what we started
Given the lack of interest manifested by mips team regarding
net-proxy/squid and its security bumps, I propose to remove the last
mips-stable version of this package - 2.5.10-r2 - marked as such by
hardave on September the 4th 2005.
Objections anyone?
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital
On Fri, 2006-01-06 at 02:36 -0700, Duncan wrote:
OTOH, it's entirely possible a Gentoo /based/ enterprise distribution may
emerge at some point. IMO, however, there's enough conflict with what
makes Gentoo great at what it does today, that such efforts should be
separate from Gentoo itself.
Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò posted
[EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below,
on Fri, 06 Jan 2006 12:23:52 +0100:
On Friday 06 January 2006 09:37, Duncan wrote:
Well, for that matter, distribution is considered at least by my *BSD
friends, to be a peculiarly Linux term. From their perspective, Linux
On Friday 06 January 2006 16:15, Duncan wrote:
And I definitely wish you well in your G/FBSD efforts, but when I
mentioned them on my local ISP's unix (*ix) group, the FBSD groupies
reaction was Yuck!
Same for FreeBSD devs that tries to hinder us. But why? They think to be the
keeper of The
Chris Gianelloni wrote:
On Fri, 2006-01-06 at 02:36 -0700, Duncan wrote:
OTOH, it's entirely possible a Gentoo /based/ enterprise distribution may
emerge at some point. IMO, however, there's enough conflict with what
makes Gentoo great at what it does today, that such efforts should be
You better bring this up on the gentoo-alt mailing list. Please
consider posting it there instead of going in a private discussion.
On 06-01-2006 08:15:42 -0700, Duncan wrote:
And I definitely wish you well in your G/FBSD efforts, but when I
mentioned them on my local ISP's unix (*ix) group,
On Fri, Jan 06, 2006 at 08:15:42AM -0700, Duncan wrote:
Tell me, from someone who obviously has some FBSD experience, what
advantages does Gentoo/FreeBSD have over the normal FreeBSD? Why would
someone use it who is currently using regular FreeBSD, and why are you
spending the time? There
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
* Removed --ask message, apparently it's superfluous.
Why? I haven't found any conclusion about that in the last thread. It
doesn't make sense to show the message in both `emerge -p foo` and
`emerge foo`, but not in `emerge -a foo`, IMHO.
WKR,
-jkt
--
cd /local/pub
On Friday 06 January 2006 16:27, Lance Albertson wrote:
As seen from the discussion earlier this week, I don't think Gentoo has
the proper open-mindness to create a proper enterprise distro.
This has nothing to with open-mindness, but having enough people doing the
general maintenance of a
Lance Albertson wrote: [Fri Jan 06 2006, 09:27:23AM CST]
As seen from the discussion earlier this week, I don't think Gentoo has
the proper open-mindness to create a proper enterprise distro. There are
too many things that would get in the way of Gentoo proper to make it
work right. I agree
Jan Kundrát posted [EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on
Fri, 06 Jan 2006 17:10:52 +0100:
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
* Removed --ask message, apparently it's superfluous.
Why? I haven't found any conclusion about that in the last thread. It
doesn't make sense to show the message in both
Duncan wrote:
My thinking too, until I saw the portage dev (JStubbs?) mention it wasn't
needed.
I believe the thinking is that emerge --ask is basically emerge --pretend
with an opportunity to continue stuck on the end, thus eliminating running
the same command only without the --pretend
Grobian posted [EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on
Fri, 06 Jan 2006 16:33:46 +0100:
[reply to my question on the purpose of G/FBSD]
You better bring this up on the gentoo-alt mailing list. Please
consider posting it there instead of going in a private discussion.
You sure you want my
Duncan wrote: [Fri Jan 06 2006, 09:15:42AM CST]
Tell me, from someone who obviously has some FBSD experience, what
advantages does Gentoo/FreeBSD have over the normal FreeBSD? Why would
someone use it who is currently using regular FreeBSD, and why are you
spending the time? There are
Grant Goodyear wrote: [Fri Jan 06 2006, 10:46:55AM CST]
Addressing your point about Enterprise Gentoo, I think you're probably
right about it needing focus, direction, and a leader, but that's quite
different from needing Gentoo as a whole to have any of those. The
Gentoo *BSD work is a good
On Fri, Jan 06, 2006 at 09:27:23AM -0600, Lance Albertson wrote:
Chris Gianelloni wrote:
On Fri, 2006-01-06 at 02:36 -0700, Duncan wrote:
OTOH, it's entirely possible a Gentoo /based/ enterprise distribution may
emerge at some point. IMO, however, there's enough conflict with what
makes
On Fri, Jan 06, 2006 at 10:05:49AM -0500, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
On Fri, 2006-01-06 at 09:00 +, Chris Bainbridge wrote:
On 06/01/06, Brian Harring [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Probably better to iron out what y'all actually need and what the dev
community is willing to put up with.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Lance Albertson wrote:
| As seen from the discussion earlier this week, I don't think Gentoo has
| the proper open-mindness to create a proper enterprise distro. There are
| too many things that would get in the way of Gentoo proper to make it
| work
Lance Albertson wrote:
I never meant that each subproject can't have their own goals. They need
to have those of course! I was more directed that there isn't a person
in charge of all the subprojects just to keep track of them (Not
governing them). i.e. if subproject foo is working on adding
On Fri, 2006-01-06 at 09:27 -0600, Lance Albertson wrote:
Chris Gianelloni wrote:
On Fri, 2006-01-06 at 02:36 -0700, Duncan wrote:
OTOH, it's entirely possible a Gentoo /based/ enterprise distribution may
emerge at some point. IMO, however, there's enough conflict with what
makes Gentoo
On Fri, 2006-01-06 at 17:19 +0100, Carsten Lohrke wrote:
On Friday 06 January 2006 16:27, Lance Albertson wrote:
As seen from the discussion earlier this week, I don't think Gentoo has
the proper open-mindness to create a proper enterprise distro.
This has nothing to with open-mindness,
Matthew Marlowe wrote:
1) enterprise devs form their own mailing list and/or herd and spend the
next several
weeks attempting to come up with a consensus on a GLEP that might
realistically
address their needs. There is no need for the details to be worked out on
the -dev
ml. Once a
I'm thinking about adding the srvdir[1] global useflag.
Scream if I miss some discussion preventing it.
(fenice[2] will use it, that's why I'm adding it)
lu
[1] http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/glep/glep-0020.html#implementation
[2] http://packages.gentoo.org/search/?sstring=fenice
--
Luca
On Fri, 2006-06-01 at 09:39 -0800, Brian Harring wrote:
On Fri, Jan 06, 2006 at 10:05:49AM -0500, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
On Fri, 2006-01-06 at 09:00 +, Chris Bainbridge wrote:
On 06/01/06, Brian Harring [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
1) Manpower. There are already 10,000 open bugs in
On Friday 06 January 2006 16:13, Christian Heim wrote:
devs who contributed/touched the ebuilds:
- Ned Ludd [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Mike Frysinger [EMAIL PROTECTED]
i regret ever touching this package ... and i'm pretty sure Ned feels the same
way ... i'm 100% uClibc now ;)
If no one complains,
On Friday 06 January 2006 08:07, Alin Nastac wrote:
Given the lack of interest manifested by mips team regarding
net-proxy/squid and its security bumps, I propose to remove the last
mips-stable version of this package - 2.5.10-r2 - marked as such by
hardave on September the 4th 2005.
On Friday 06 January 2006 12:30, Thomas Cort wrote:
When emerging wxGTK-2.4.2-r4 on alpha I get a QA message about
executable stacks ( http://bugs.gentoo.org/113119#c10 ). I read the
GNU Stack Quickstart (
http://gentoo.org/proj/en/hardened/gnu-stack.xml ).
well you didnt read far enough down
Duncan wrote:
Chris Gianelloni posted [EMAIL PROTECTED],
excerpted below, on Fri, 06 Jan 2006 14:30:28 -0500:
Perhaps a good explanation of the binpkg format would be in order to
give us a chance to determine what could/should be changed?
As I regularly use the binpkg features on
Duncan wrote: [Wed Jan 04 2006, 02:49:39PM EST]
Forget formal logic, it still begs the question, in that it begs
that the question be asked.
No, the reason you used the expression begs the question is because
it sounds familiar to you. Otherwise you would have said something
like brings up
Aron Griffis wrote:
Duncan wrote: [Wed Jan 04 2006, 02:49:39PM EST]
Forget formal logic, it still begs the question, in that it begs
that the question be asked.
No, the reason you used the expression begs the question is because
it sounds familiar to you. Otherwise you would have said
Hello Christian
On Fri, Jan 06, 2006 at 10:13:39PM +0100, Christian Heim wrote:
devs who contributed/touched the ebuilds:
- Michael Hanselmann [EMAIL PROTECTED]
If no one complains, I'll take this package.
I don't mind if you do that.
Greets,
Michael
--
Gentoo Linux Developer using
Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Friday 06 January 2006 08:07, Alin Nastac wrote:
Given the lack of interest manifested by mips team regarding
net-proxy/squid and its security bumps, I propose to remove the last
mips-stable version of this package - 2.5.10-r2 - marked as such by
hardave on September
On Sat, 7 Jan 2006 10:19 am, Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Friday 06 January 2006 16:13, Christian Heim wrote:
devs who contributed/touched the ebuilds:
- Ned Ludd [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Mike Frysinger [EMAIL PROTECTED]
i regret ever touching this package ... and i'm pretty sure Ned feels the
37 matches
Mail list logo
