On Mon, 2006-05-22 at 14:59 +0200, Paul de Vrieze wrote:
On Monday 22 May 2006 10:47, Thomas Cort wrote:
I definitely agree that Gentoo needs a team of people to deal with the
primary package manager, it is one of the most important tools in a
Linux system. It is especially important in
On 22/05/06, Thomas Cort [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Since Gentoo will never depend upon a
piece of non-Free software[1], it is safe to assume that the package
manager is Free software (aka open source). Because of this, we will
never be locked-in, helpless, or under the control of an external
On Mon, 22 May 2006 14:59:03 +0200
Paul de Vrieze [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
While it is desirable that the primary package manager be
maintained on official gentoo infrastructure, under the control of
gentoo developers, it is not required. During the path to becoming
the primary package
On Mon, May 22, 2006 at 09:21:34AM -0400, Ned Ludd wrote:
First of all, I'm in limbo on this. Certainly not dead set against it. If
this were to be used, I'd like to add the following line: At least 1 of
these three must be actively involved in the development of the package
manager.
Jon Portnoy wrote: [Mon May 22 2006, 09:38:23AM CDT]
On Mon, May 22, 2006 at 09:21:34AM -0400, Ned Ludd wrote:
Please don't change your wording on that. The feel really strongly
about the primary pkg manager of Gentoo needing remain under the full
control of Gentoo Linux.
Agreed, I'm
On Monday 22 May 2006 17:29, Grant Goodyear wrote:
Jon Portnoy wrote: [Mon May 22 2006, 09:38:23AM CDT]
On Mon, May 22, 2006 at 09:21:34AM -0400, Ned Ludd wrote:
Please don't change your wording on that. The feel really strongly
about the primary pkg manager of Gentoo needing remain
Am I missing something obvious?
-g2boojum-
Probably just the blatant Ciaran hate, and the realization that people
will have to suck it up and deal with him if his package manager ever
becomes official for Gentoo. Who was it that mentioned this GLEP
stacked the desk against Paludis?
-Steve
Paul de Vrieze wrote:
On Monday 22 May 2006 17:29, Grant Goodyear wrote:
Jon Portnoy wrote: [Mon May 22 2006, 09:38:23AM CDT]
On Mon, May 22, 2006 at 09:21:34AM -0400, Ned Ludd wrote:
Please don't change your wording on that. The feel really strongly
about the primary pkg manager of Gentoo
On Mon, May 22, 2006 at 11:54:25AM -0400, Stephen P. Becker wrote:
Am I missing something obvious?
-g2boojum-
Probably just the blatant Ciaran hate, and the realization that people
will have to suck it up and deal with him if his package manager ever
becomes official for Gentoo. Who
Brian Harring wrote:
On Mon, May 22, 2006 at 11:54:25AM -0400, Stephen P. Becker wrote:
Am I missing something obvious?
-g2boojum-
Probably just the blatant Ciaran hate, and the realization that people
will have to suck it up and deal with him if his package manager ever
becomes official
On 22/05/06, Paul de Vrieze [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There are serious costs involved with forking something. For gentoo this
would include image problems by being seen as evil forkers.
Surely such decisions should be based on technical merit, and not
political? The technical cost of forking
On Mon, May 22, 2006 at 08:47:22AM +, Thomas Cort wrote:
So what I suggest is the following:
While it is desirable that the primary package manager be maintained
on official gentoo infrastructure, under the control of gentoo
developers, it is not required. During the path to becoming the
On Mon, 22 May 2006 16:31:40 +
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tim Yamin) wrote:
Maybe I'm reading it wrong but the above sounds like if there's less
than 3 Gentoo developers that understand... ... ... the package
maintainers *don't* have the right to refuse and magically get sucked
into Gentoo
Marc Hildebrand zypher at gentoo.org writes:
What do you think? LC_ALL=C in portage or not?
- Stefan
Well this problem (localized error messages) exists since I know linux
and the solution has always been use per user locale settings and keep
LC_ALL=POSIX or =C as a system default.
Paul de Vrieze wrote: [Mon May 22 2006, 06:29:19AM CDT]
I have put a new revision of the alternative package manager requirements
GLEP on line. The html version can be found at:
http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/glep/glep-0049.html
It seems to me that the main concerns addressed in that GLEP are
Stephen P. Becker wrote:
Brian Harring wrote:
Pkgcore is external, and will be making a run for official also-
granted, easier to just state you're just trying to screw with
ciaranm to disprove it (rather then arguing the points).
Arguing the points aren't the issue. I just have a
On Mon, May 22, 2006 at 10:29:22AM -0500, Grant Goodyear wrote:
Agreed, I'm of the opinion it would be inappropriate to let an outside
entity steer our primary package manager.
I'm not sure I understand why. After all, mandriva, suse, ubuntu, and
many others have survived quite well.
Since there were no objections the darcs.eclass is now in the main tree.
On Thu, 2006-05-18 at 22:58 +0100, Duncan Coutts wrote:
Just like we have eclasses for cvs, tla etc, kosmikus has written one
that does the same thing but for darcs.
Darcs (dev-util/darcs) is one of the new breed of
On Mon, 22 May 2006 19:10:22 -0400 Jon Portnoy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| Well, let's take the real life example of paludis vs. portage:
| Paludis is controlled by a former developer known for being hard to
| work with, Portage (being a Gentoo project) by necessitity has to be
| controlled by
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Mon, 22 May 2006 19:10:22 -0400 Jon Portnoy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| Well, let's take the real life example of paludis vs. portage:
| Paludis is controlled by a former developer known for being hard to
| work with, Portage (being a Gentoo project) by necessitity has
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
mod_parrot hasn't been updated upstream in a *long* time, doesn't build
against an even remotely current version of parrot, and seems for all
intents to be pretty dead upstream (a nice idea that never panned out).
Unless there are objections, I will
21 matches
Mail list logo
