Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [ANNOUNCE] Project Sunrise - Gentoo User Overlay

2006-06-09 Thread Edward Catmur
On Fri, 2006-06-09 at 02:53 +0200, Stefan Schweizer wrote: Stefan Schweizer wrote: it is actually encouraged to update bugzilla when changes are made in the overlay. Encouraged? If you leave it at that, people will forget, and things will get out of sync. At the very least you should supply

Re: [gentoo-dev] eselect-compiler updates and unmasking

2006-06-09 Thread Danny van Dyk
Hi Kumba, In a similar vein, will this eselect tool eventually supplant the functionality of binutils-config as well (and thus need its own wrapper script)? Have a look at eselect binutils please, which is shipped with app-admin/eselect. Danny -- Danny van Dyk [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [gentoo-dev] eselect-compiler updates and unmasking

2006-06-09 Thread Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò
On Friday 09 June 2006 10:15, Danny van Dyk wrote: Have a look at eselect binutils please, which is shipped with app-admin/eselect. It's sub-optimal compared to eselect compiler, x86_64 ld does not work with i686. -- Diego Flameeyes Pettenò - http://farragut.flameeyes.is-a-geek.org/

Re: [gentoo-dev] Project Sunrise thread -- a try of clarification

2006-06-09 Thread Patrick Lauer
On Thu, 2006-06-08 at 20:06 -0400, Chris Gianelloni wrote: You don't need a subversion client, you perhaps notice the http in front of the url.. just open it up in your browser and you get the source immediately. Umm... so now I need to go and instead of clicking a nice link in bugzilla,

[gentoo-dev] Re: [ANNOUNCE] Project Sunrise - Alternative?

2006-06-09 Thread @4u
Hi again as written below I think it makes more sense for Project sunrise to redefine it a bit. It seems to be clear that currently noone is happy with the Sunrise Project. There is one huge disadvantage for end users like me: If we decide to use an overlay package (because we need / want

Re: [gentoo-dev] eselect-compiler updates and unmasking

2006-06-09 Thread Danny van Dyk
Hi Diego, It's sub-optimal compared to eselect compiler, x86_64 ld does not work with i686. eselect binutils should be as capable as binutils-config. AFAIK the stated behaviour is no regression. If it is a regression, please file a bug against it. If it isn't, file a bug for an enhancement

Re: [gentoo-dev] Project Sunrise thread -- a try of clarification

2006-06-09 Thread Stuart Herbert
On 6/9/06, Chris Gianelloni [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Wouldn't this process be *infinitely* easier if instead of sunrise there was a pam overlay with *only* the pam stuff? I agree that it would make sense for the the sunrise overlay to contain smaller package trees, with each package tree aimed

Re: [gentoo-dev] Project Sunrise thread -- a try of clarification

2006-06-09 Thread Jakub Moc
Patrick Lauer wrote: On Thu, 2006-06-08 at 20:06 -0400, Chris Gianelloni wrote: Again, read what I wrote. I said that the developer would see sunrise in the PORTDIR_OVERLAY of the user's emerge --info, which you reiterated without considering. This is a login bug. At no point did they make

Re: [gentoo-dev] Project Sunrise thread -- a try of clarification

2006-06-09 Thread Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò
On Friday 09 June 2006 11:06, Jakub Moc wrote: The thing has been sitting in bugzilla for ages, I've asked Flameeyes to commit it and he said he's not going to put any mode pam stuff into the tree unless he's using the modules himself. Or if somebody wants to help with PAM and related...

[gentoo-dev] What is official?

2006-06-09 Thread Stuart Herbert
Hi, One of the issues that the o.g.o project has brought to a head is the definition of what is official and what is not official when it comes to Gentoo. The term is already being thrown about in the Project Sunrise thread; I'm sure it'll come up again in future. It's an issue I think we

Re: [gentoo-dev] eselect-compiler updates and unmasking

2006-06-09 Thread Jeremy Huddleston
Ah, you're right, there should be an env-update in there. Thanks for the report. As for sourcing /etc/profile, you don't need to do that with eselect- compiler because your $PATH doesn't change like it did with gcc- config-1.x. --Jeremy On Jun 8, 2006, at 11:27 , Donnie Berkholz wrote:

Re: [gentoo-dev] Shouldn't gcc-4.1-related bugs have some kind of priority as gcc-4.1 is now unmasked?

2006-06-09 Thread Wernfried Haas
On Thu, Jun 08, 2006 at 07:00:33PM -0700, Drake Wyrm wrote: I just took a look at that. It's asking that you don't relay mail through dev.gentoo.org unless you can't send mail through your usual means of sending mail. For example, if your ISP blocks mail if the From: header indicates something

Re: [gentoo-dev] Project Sunrise thread -- a try of clarification

2006-06-09 Thread Edward Catmur
On Fri, 2006-06-09 at 10:28 +0200, Patrick Lauer wrote: Except that I can *look* at an ebuild without having to break out a subversion client currently. See my answer in 3) See mine. ;] Hmmm ... bugzilla. Instead of a simple cvs up; cd /usr/local/portage/category/package I need to

Re: [gentoo-dev] [ANNOUNCE] Project Sunrise - Gentoo User Overlay

2006-06-09 Thread Chris Bainbridge
On 09/06/06, Luis Francisco Araujo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Chris Bainbridge wrote: There are already loads of semi-official overlays. Besides the stuff actually hosted by gentoo (random example http://dev.gentoo.org/~flameeyes/bzr/overlay/) there are official groups (again, not picking on

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [ANNOUNCE] Project Sunrise - Gentoo User Overlay

2006-06-09 Thread Chris Bainbridge
On 09/06/06, Edward Catmur [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And what if they do know what they're doing, and what they're doing is subverting Gentoo systems en masse? You're proposing to hand out commit access to anyone who makes a case on IRC; you have no way to tell that they aren't an attacker.

Re: [gentoo-dev] [ANNOUNCE] Project Sunrise - Gentoo User Overlay

2006-06-09 Thread Chris Bainbridge
On 09/06/06, Luis Francisco Araujo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yes, i agree, writting and maintaining ebuilds is a hard and *time-consuming* task. So if an user can't even take the time to fix a digest, why we should support him officially?. The point is that there are lots of users who are

Re: [gentoo-dev] Project Sunrise thread -- a try of clarification

2006-06-09 Thread Stuart Herbert
On 6/9/06, Edward Catmur [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: With an overlay: search sunrice.gentoo.org for the package If you want people to debate seriously with you, stop calling this project 'sunrice'. If you can't discuss this topic respectfully with others on this list, please stop using our

Re: [gentoo-dev] Project Sunrise thread -- a try of clarification

2006-06-09 Thread Jakub Moc
Edward Catmur wrote: On Fri, 2006-06-09 at 10:28 +0200, Patrick Lauer wrote: Instead of a simple cvs up; cd /usr/local/portage/category/package I need to search for ALL bugs with $name in it, look which one it is, curse bugzilla for falling asleep again, see which attachments are relevant,

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: Re: [ANNOUNCE] Project Sunrise - Gentoo User Overlay

2006-06-09 Thread Henrik Brix Andersen
On Thu, Jun 08, 2006 at 06:31:43PM -0400, Peter wrote: And, for me again as a user, using a gentoo-hosted overlay is preferable to a third party repository. This is a personal bias on my part -- and maybe unwarranted. This is actually my main concern with the Sunrice project. You say you would

Re: [gentoo-dev] [ANNOUNCE] Project Sunrise - Gentoo User Overlay

2006-06-09 Thread Carsten Lohrke
On Friday 09 June 2006 12:12, Chris Bainbridge wrote: This larger group of users are the ones that would benefit from an overlay. And this larger group of people is exactly the same one, that doesn't know to help itself, if necessary and will suffer the most, when something goes wrong. This

Re: [gentoo-dev] What is official?

2006-06-09 Thread Carsten Lohrke
In my eyes only the main tree is official. The overlays are development niches (and as such perfectly fine), to speed up development without causing much trouble in the main tree. The problem is that overlay.g.o is seemingly official, because we host it. It should be made more clear that this

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [ANNOUNCE] Project Sunrise - Gentoo User Overlay

2006-06-09 Thread Carsten Lohrke
On Friday 09 June 2006 02:53, Stefan Schweizer wrote: It also doesn't answer the questions of security and maintenance. Are genstef and jokey going to be responsible for the security of every single package in the overlay? Yes, we will be acting upon all issues that we hear about. ...

Re: [gentoo-dev] Project Sunrise thread -- a try of clarification

2006-06-09 Thread Carsten Lohrke
This may work for Apache or PHP, but an overlay with arbitrary maintainer wanted ebuilds would need an extra bugzilla account. The problem is that this won't really help, since (some) users will see oh, an kde app crashed and file a bug at [EMAIL PROTECTED] Then /me looks at the tree, doesn't

[gentoo-dev] Re: Re: Re: Re: [ANNOUNCE] Project Sunrise - Gentoo User Overlay

2006-06-09 Thread Peter
On Fri, 09 Jun 2006 13:08:01 +0200, Henrik Brix Andersen wrote: On Thu, Jun 08, 2006 at 06:31:43PM -0400, Peter wrote: And, for me again as a user, using a gentoo-hosted overlay is preferable to a third party repository. This is a personal bias on my part -- and maybe unwarranted. This is

Re: [gentoo-dev] What is official?

2006-06-09 Thread Ned Ludd
Keeping it simple... If it's hosted on gentoo infrastructure it's official. If it's hosted on gentooexp.org/SF/Non infra then it's not official. On Fri, 2006-06-09 at 10:32 +0100, Stuart Herbert wrote: Hi, One of the issues that the o.g.o project has brought to a head is the definition of

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: Re: Re: [ANNOUNCE] Project Sunrise - Gentoo User Overlay

2006-06-09 Thread Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò
On Friday 09 June 2006 13:44, Peter wrote: And, anyone who goes through the trouble to svn the overlay, edit make.conf, etc., would not be an ignorant newbie (no disrespect to newbies intended). I had a bug from an users unable to build kdesktop with gcc 4.1. I built it fine I told him, and

[gentoo-dev] Re: Project Sunrise thread -- a try of clarification

2006-06-09 Thread Stefan Schweizer
Carsten Lohrke wrote: You should at least make it visible in bold letters on the overlay.g.o front page, what the conditions of each overlay are and which [EMAIL PROTECTED] address bugs have to be assigned to. Please, do not assume our users being stupid. They know that they are using an

Re: [gentoo-dev] Project Sunrise thread -- a try of clarification

2006-06-09 Thread Chris Gianelloni
On Fri, 2006-06-09 at 02:49 +0200, Markus Ullmann wrote: Excellent. So we're moving the history from being in a single location (the bug) to being in multiple locations. That will definitely improve the development process. Another thing that people tend to miss is that not all improved

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [ANNOUNCE] Project Sunrise - Gentoo User Overlay

2006-06-09 Thread Ciaran McCreesh
On Fri, 9 Jun 2006 11:05:56 +0100 Chris Bainbridge [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | On 09/06/06, Edward Catmur [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | And what if they do know what they're doing, and what they're doing | is subverting Gentoo systems en masse? You're proposing to hand out | commit access to anyone

Re: [gentoo-dev] Project Sunrise thread -- a try of clarification

2006-06-09 Thread Brian Harring
On Fri, Jun 09, 2006 at 08:16:32AM -0400, Chris Gianelloni wrote: On Fri, 2006-06-09 at 02:49 +0200, Markus Ullmann wrote: This is a bug for an ebuild that the user does not think is related to the pam_skey. Go back and read what I wrote. it was agreed upon that we don't keep

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: Re: Re: [ANNOUNCE] Project Sunrise - Gentoo User Overlay

2006-06-09 Thread Henrik Brix Andersen
On Fri, Jun 09, 2006 at 07:44:38AM -0400, Peter wrote: Firstly, I think it is very clear that anything in sunrise is experimental or not supported in the main gentoo tree. That's fine! I don't think any user who goes through the trouble to set up an overlay would miss that point. You can't go

Re: [gentoo-dev] Project Sunrice: arch team perspective

2006-06-09 Thread Jon Portnoy
On Thu, Jun 08, 2006 at 11:08:55PM -0400, Stephen P. Becker wrote: Starting a new thread here for a new angle... As Stuart mentioned, bugs for any ebuild on o.g.o would go through Gentoo bugzilla. It seems like genstef and jokey have completely ignored support from arch teams for this

Re: [gentoo-dev] Project Sunrise thread -- a try of clarification

2006-06-09 Thread Henrik Brix Andersen
On Fri, Jun 09, 2006 at 05:42:01AM -0700, Brian Harring wrote: Curious, how will the wrangler know in general? *cough* they won't. You're using a generic arguement against a specific target- iow, apply it to overlays.g.o in general instead of singling sunrise out via it. Well, the other

[gentoo-dev] client+server packages - build which one?

2006-06-09 Thread Roy Marples
Some packages provide both a client and a server. As such, users usually only want one or the other - and rarely both. A good candidate is net-misc/dhcp as it installs a DHCP client and server. Which makes no sense really, so I'd like to put some USE flags here to show what I want, or not want

[gentoo-dev] Re: Project Sunrice: arch team perspective

2006-06-09 Thread Stefan Schweizer
Stephen P. Becker wrote: Starting a new thread here for a new angle... As Stuart mentioned, bugs for any ebuild on o.g.o would go through Gentoo bugzilla. Yeah, as there is usually a bug report for maintainer-wanted and maintainer-needed bugs it wont hurt anyone. It seems like genstef and

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Project Sunrice: arch team perspective

2006-06-09 Thread Stephen P. Becker
Where else would these bugs go except for arch teams, seeing as we clearly can't assign them to end users who originally submitted the maintainer-wanted ebuilds? These are not expected to be filed as bugs, they should be fixed by the users in question. Apparently, this is not the case.

Re: [gentoo-dev] What is official?

2006-06-09 Thread Lance Albertson
Stuart Herbert wrote: Hi, One of the issues that the o.g.o project has brought to a head is the definition of what is official and what is not official when it comes to Gentoo. The term is already being thrown about in the Project Sunrise thread; I'm sure it'll come up again in future.

Re: [gentoo-dev] client+server packages - build which one?

2006-06-09 Thread George Shapovalov
п'ятниця, 9. червень 2006 15:10, Roy Marples Ви написали: Some packages provide both a client and a server. As such, users usually only want one or the other - and rarely both. [skip] USE client server client - just build the client - duh server - just build the server - duh client and

Re: [gentoo-dev] client+server packages - build which one?

2006-06-09 Thread Alec Warner
Roy Marples wrote: Some packages provide both a client and a server. As such, users usually only want one or the other - and rarely both. A good candidate is net-misc/dhcp as it installs a DHCP client and server. Which makes no sense really, so I'd like to put some USE flags here to show

[gentoo-dev] Sunrise Project -- Open questions post requirement

2006-06-09 Thread Markus Ullmann
Hi, so as I was told that I avoid the questions regarding this project several times now, please repost all open issues you have with this project clearly, each in one or max two short sentences here. I'll answer them all the same way to keep out all non-belonging stuff. Maybe that way we avoid

Re: [gentoo-dev] client+server packages - build which one?

2006-06-09 Thread Patrick McLean
Roy Marples wrote: USE client server client - just build the client - duh server - just build the server - duh client and server OR neither then build both. Other packages to possably beneift udhcp mldonkey samhain bacula boxbackup finger, telnet and ssh are probably other

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Project Sunrice: arch team perspective

2006-06-09 Thread Stuart Herbert
On 6/9/06, Stephen P. Becker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Apparently, this is not the case. Policy for overlays.gentoo.org stipulates that all bugs in overlays must use our bugzilla. The intention of the policy is to prevent the use of third-party bug trackers for tracking problems w/ ebuilds in

[gentoo-dev] Portage-2.1 released

2006-06-09 Thread Alec Warner
Portage-2.1 final is released, RELEASE-NOTES[1] NEWS[2] BUGS-FIXED[3] STABLIZING BUG[4] [1]http://sources.gentoo.org/viewcvs.py/portage/main/trunk/RELEASE-NOTES?view=markup [2]http://sources.gentoo.org/viewcvs.py/portage/main/trunk/NEWS?view=markup

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: Re: Re: [ANNOUNCE] Project Sunrise - Gentoo User Overlay

2006-06-09 Thread Carsten Lohrke
On Friday 09 June 2006 13:44, Peter wrote: Secondly, my bias against a third party repository is perhaps unwarranted. I am sure the bmg site is excellent and the people running it are well-intentioned and experienced. However, that said, as a user, I have a higher comfort level staying in the

Re: [gentoo-dev] Portage-2.1 released

2006-06-09 Thread Andrew Gaffney
Alec Warner wrote: Portage-2.1 final is released, Is that the 4th horseman I see off in the distance? -- Andrew Gaffneyhttp://dev.gentoo.org/~agaffney/ Gentoo Linux Developer Installer Project -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Project Sunrise thread -- a try of clarification

2006-06-09 Thread Carsten Lohrke
On Friday 09 June 2006 14:04, Stefan Schweizer wrote: Please, do not assume our users being stupid. They know that they are using an ebuild from the sunrise overlay with zero support. They deliberately typed You have said stupid, not me. Some won't care enough, I'm quite sure about that. We

Re: [gentoo-dev] Portage-2.1 released

2006-06-09 Thread Wernfried Haas
On Fri, Jun 09, 2006 at 12:12:31PM -0400, Alec Warner wrote: Portage-2.1 final is released, Congrats to the portage team! While i'm at it, may i ask which files are affected by these changes / which docs i missed to read? * config files as directories enabling more flexible settings management.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Project Sunrise thread -- a try of clarification

2006-06-09 Thread Chris Gianelloni
On Fri, 2006-06-09 at 10:28 +0200, Patrick Lauer wrote: On Thu, 2006-06-08 at 20:06 -0400, Chris Gianelloni wrote: You don't need a subversion client, you perhaps notice the http in front of the url.. just open it up in your browser and you get the source immediately. Umm... so now

Re: [gentoo-dev] Project Sunrise thread -- a try of clarification

2006-06-09 Thread Chris Gianelloni
On Fri, 2006-06-09 at 11:06 +0200, Jakub Moc wrote: The thing has been sitting in bugzilla for ages, I've asked Flameeyes to commit it and he said he's not going to put any mode pam stuff into the tree unless he's using the modules himself. Nothing wrong w/ that. So, I can either keep on

Re: [gentoo-dev] client+server packages - build which one?

2006-06-09 Thread Luca Barbato
Patrick McLean wrote: finger, telnet and ssh are probably other candidates. (though not too many people set up boxes without a ssh server these days). ++ to this, I have always found it a little absurd having dhcpd installed on my laptop just for dhclient. dhcpcd could be a better temp

Re: [gentoo-dev] Project Sunrise thread -- a try of clarification

2006-06-09 Thread Andrew Gaffney
Chris Gianelloni wrote: snipped lots and lots of valid points Well, I am going to do everything within my power to stop it. I will not back down until this project is dead. It really is that simple. *golf-clap* -- Andrew Gaffneyhttp://dev.gentoo.org/~agaffney/

Re: [gentoo-dev] Project Sunrise thread -- a try of clarification

2006-06-09 Thread Chris Gianelloni
On Fri, 2006-06-09 at 11:01 +0100, Edward Catmur wrote: Hmmm. I think an overlay does have some advantages there ... Advantages? With bugzilla I: search for the bug, cc myself on it, download the relevant files, look over them, note a style error, try to merge it, fix a compilation bug,

Re: [gentoo-dev] Portage-2.1 released

2006-06-09 Thread Alec Warner
Wernfried Haas wrote: On Fri, Jun 09, 2006 at 12:12:31PM -0400, Alec Warner wrote: Portage-2.1 final is released, Congrats to the portage team! While i'm at it, may i ask which files are affected by these changes / which docs i missed to read? * config files as directories enabling more

Re: [gentoo-dev] Project Sunrise thread -- a try of clarification

2006-06-09 Thread Chris Gianelloni
On Fri, 2006-06-09 at 12:33 +0200, Jakub Moc wrote: well. A couple of examples: http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=122500 And again, you use my project of an example. Perhaps you should try looking at something that actually supports your argument? A subversion repository was built for

Re: [gentoo-dev] Project Sunrise thread -- a try of clarification

2006-06-09 Thread Donnie Berkholz
Chris Gianelloni wrote: With an overlay: search sunrice.gentoo.org for the package (no, I don't know category/name), sync that directory (no, I'm not syncing the whole sunrice tree), check it over, note some mistakes, compile it if I feel OK with it, it fails, I fix it - and what then? Where

[gentoo-dev] Re: Sunrise Project -- Sunrise FAQ

2006-06-09 Thread Stefan Schweizer
Markus Ullmann wrote: Maybe that way we avoid any misunderstandings, nearly doubled posts and repeating ourselves over and over again. The problem is that some questions and answers easily get lost in a mailing list. To solve this shortcoming, I am starting to make a FAQ page in the trac wiki:

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Project Sunrise thread -- a try of clarification

2006-06-09 Thread Danny van Dyk
Am Freitag, 9. Juni 2006 14:04 schrieb Stefan Schweizer: And also there are only applications from maintainer-wanted or maintainer-needed allowed in the overlay. Because packages are not supposed to overwrite files from other ebuilds it is unlikely that they can cause any damage to

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Project Sunrise thread -- a try of clarification

2006-06-09 Thread Danny van Dyk
Am Freitag, 9. Juni 2006 14:04 schrieb Stefan Schweizer: And also there are only applications from maintainer-wanted or maintainer-needed allowed in the overlay. Because packages are not supposed to overwrite files from other ebuilds it is unlikely that they can cause any damage to

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [ANNOUNCE] Project Sunrise - Gentoo User Overlay

2006-06-09 Thread Chris Gianelloni
On Fri, 2006-06-09 at 13:28 +0200, Carsten Lohrke wrote: we do support it security wise, we will be reacting upon security issues. We do have package.mask support in the overlay and we are going to use it. The ebuilds have a quality, repoman is required to be run. Also contributors should

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Project Sunrise thread -- a try of clarification

2006-06-09 Thread Danny van Dyk
Am Freitag, 9. Juni 2006 14:04 schrieb Stefan Schweizer: And also there are only applications from maintainer-wanted or maintainer-needed allowed in the overlay. Because packages are not supposed to overwrite files from other ebuilds it is unlikely that they can cause any damage to

Re: [gentoo-dev] Project Sunrise thread -- a try of clarification

2006-06-09 Thread Peper
well. A couple of examples: http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=122500 And again, you use my project of an example. Perhaps you should try looking at something that actually supports your argument? I think it's an example of how user-friendly is bugzilla... -- Best Regards, Piotr

Re: [gentoo-dev] Project Sunrise thread -- a try of clarification

2006-06-09 Thread Christel Dahlskjaer
On Fri, 2006-06-09 at 02:08 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Fri, 09 Jun 2006 02:49:14 +0200 Markus Ullmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | No. It clearly says that you would be doing the basic QA checks and | repoman checking on initial commit. You even said it right above | where I

Re: [gentoo-dev] What is official?

2006-06-09 Thread Luis Francisco Araujo
Everything maintained by the Gentoo project, instead than for the Gentoo project. Stuart Herbert wrote: Hi, One of the issues that the o.g.o project has brought to a head is the definition of what is official and what is not official when it comes to Gentoo. The term is already being thrown

Re: [gentoo-dev] Project Sunrise thread -- a try of clarification

2006-06-09 Thread Jakub Moc
Peper wrote: well. A couple of examples: http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=122500 And again, you use my project of an example. Perhaps you should try looking at something that actually supports your argument? I think it's an example of how user-friendly is bugzilla... Yeah,

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: Re: Re: [ANNOUNCE] Project Sunrise - Gentoo User Overlay

2006-06-09 Thread Chris Gianelloni
On Fri, 2006-06-09 at 07:44 -0400, Peter wrote: Firstly, I think it is very clear that anything in sunrise is experimental or not supported in the main gentoo tree. That's fine! I don't think any user who goes through the trouble to set up an overlay would miss that point. You can't go to

Re: [gentoo-dev] Project Sunrise thread -- a try of clarification

2006-06-09 Thread Daniel Ostrow
On Fri, 2006-06-09 at 20:12 +0200, Jakub Moc wrote: Peper wrote: well. A couple of examples: http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=122500 And again, you use my project of an example. Perhaps you should try looking at something that actually supports your argument? I think it's an

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Project Sunrise thread -- a try of clarification

2006-06-09 Thread Chris Gianelloni
On Fri, 2006-06-09 at 14:04 +0200, Stefan Schweizer wrote: Carsten Lohrke wrote: You should at least make it visible in bold letters on the overlay.g.o front page, what the conditions of each overlay are and which [EMAIL PROTECTED] address bugs have to be assigned to. Please, do

Re: [gentoo-dev] [ANNOUNCE] Project Sunrise - Gentoo User Overlay

2006-06-09 Thread Luis Francisco Araujo
Chris Bainbridge wrote: On 09/06/06, Luis Francisco Araujo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Chris Bainbridge wrote: There are already loads of semi-official overlays. Besides the stuff actually hosted by gentoo (random example http://dev.gentoo.org/~flameeyes/bzr/overlay/) there are official groups

Re: [gentoo-dev] [ANNOUNCE] Project Sunrise - Gentoo User Overlay

2006-06-09 Thread Luis Francisco Araujo
Chris Bainbridge wrote: On 09/06/06, Luis Francisco Araujo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yes, i agree, writting and maintaining ebuilds is a hard and *time-consuming* task. So if an user can't even take the time to fix a digest, why we should support him officially?. The point is that there are

Re: [gentoo-dev] Project Sunrise thread -- a try of clarification

2006-06-09 Thread Chris Gianelloni
On Fri, 2006-06-09 at 05:42 -0700, Brian Harring wrote: On Fri, Jun 09, 2006 at 08:16:32AM -0400, Chris Gianelloni wrote: On Fri, 2006-06-09 at 02:49 +0200, Markus Ullmann wrote: This is a bug for an ebuild that the user does not think is related to the pam_skey. Go back and read what

Re: [gentoo-dev] client+server packages - build which one?

2006-06-09 Thread Kevin F. Quinn
On Fri, 9 Jun 2006 14:10:51 +0100 Roy Marples [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Some packages provide both a client and a server. As such, users usually only want one or the other - and rarely both. A good candidate is net-misc/dhcp as it installs a DHCP client and server. Which makes no sense

[gentoo-dev] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: [ANNOUNCE] Project Sunrise - Gentoo User Overlay

2006-06-09 Thread Peter
On Fri, 09 Jun 2006 14:15:01 -0400, Chris Gianelloni wrote: Chris, I am not familiar enough about gentoo's hierarchy, politics, or team responsibilities to question your sincerity or authority to say something like: Sorry, but if it isn't supported, it doesn't belong on Gentoo infrastructure. I

Re: [gentoo-dev] client+server packages - build which one?

2006-06-09 Thread Chris Gianelloni
On Fri, 2006-06-09 at 14:10 +0100, Roy Marples wrote: Some packages provide both a client and a server. As such, users usually only want one or the other - and rarely both. A good candidate is net-misc/dhcp as it installs a DHCP client and server. Which makes no sense really, so I'd like

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Project Sunrice: arch team perspective

2006-06-09 Thread Chris Gianelloni
On Fri, 2006-06-09 at 15:35 +0200, Stefan Schweizer wrote: It seems like genstef and jokey have completely ignored support from arch teams for this overlay. What are you proposing with respect to arch keywords and package.mask? users are supported to do everything themselves in the

Re: [gentoo-dev] client+server packages - build which one?

2006-06-09 Thread Donnie Berkholz
Chris Gianelloni wrote: The truth is that we don't ever want to become like the binary distributions. We don't want to have to have separate client/server/common/devel as it removes many of the advantages that Gentoo has. The default should *always* be to install the package as it was

[gentoo-dev] Re: Re: Project Sunrise thread -- a try of clarification

2006-06-09 Thread Stefan Schweizer
Chris Gianelloni wrote: Everyone that you happen to include as allowed to actually commit, you mean. As opposed to everyone that can sign themselves up for bugzilla? It is designed to be more open and more easily fixable. Sure. More open then a self-registering system. Gotcha. We

Re: [gentoo-dev] Portage-2.1 released

2006-06-09 Thread Chris Gianelloni
On Fri, 2006-06-09 at 11:12 -0400, Alec Warner wrote: Portage-2.1 final is released, RELEASE-NOTES[1] NEWS[2] BUGS-FIXED[3] STABLIZING BUG[4] [1]http://sources.gentoo.org/viewcvs.py/portage/main/trunk/RELEASE-NOTES?view=markup

Re: [gentoo-dev] client+server packages - build which one?

2006-06-09 Thread Chris Gianelloni
On Fri, 2006-06-09 at 17:43 +0100, Roy Marples wrote: On Friday 09 June 2006 14:10, Roy Marples wrote: Some packages provide both a client and a server. As such, users usually only want one or the other - and rarely both. Thanks to wolf31o2 for pointing out that current policy dictates

Re: [gentoo-dev] What is official?

2006-06-09 Thread Kevin F. Quinn
On Fri, 09 Jun 2006 07:50:27 -0400 Ned Ludd [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Keeping it simple... If it's hosted on gentoo infrastructure it's official. If it's hosted on gentooexp.org/SF/Non infra then it's not official. I think this is the best way to define it. Anything on Gentoo infrastructure

Re: [gentoo-dev] Project Sunrise thread -- a try of clarification

2006-06-09 Thread Chris Gianelloni
On Fri, 2006-06-09 at 10:05 -0700, Donnie Berkholz wrote: Chris Gianelloni wrote: With an overlay: search sunrice.gentoo.org for the package (no, I don't know category/name), sync that directory (no, I'm not syncing the whole sunrice tree), check it over, note some mistakes, compile it if

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Sunrise Project -- Sunrise FAQ

2006-06-09 Thread Chris Gianelloni
On Fri, 2006-06-09 at 19:10 +0200, Stefan Schweizer wrote: Markus Ullmann wrote: Maybe that way we avoid any misunderstandings, nearly doubled posts and repeating ourselves over and over again. The problem is that some questions and answers easily get lost in a mailing list. To solve this

Re: [gentoo-dev] client+server packages - build which one?

2006-06-09 Thread Donnie Berkholz
Chris Gianelloni wrote: Not policy (I don't think) but current accepted practice. Should this become a policy? I'd say so, since this discussion regularly comes up again, and how we do it is really an expression of the Gentoo philosophy and our differences from a typical binary distribution.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Portage-2.1 released

2006-06-09 Thread Jochen Maes
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Chris Gianelloni wrote: On Fri, 2006-06-09 at 11:12 -0400, Alec Warner wrote: Portage-2.1 final is released, RELEASE-NOTES[1] NEWS[2] BUGS-FIXED[3] STABLIZING BUG[4]

Re: [gentoo-dev] client+server packages - build which one?

2006-06-09 Thread Roy Marples
On Friday 09 June 2006 20:04, Chris Gianelloni wrote: On Fri, 2006-06-09 at 17:43 +0100, Roy Marples wrote: On Friday 09 June 2006 14:10, Roy Marples wrote: Some packages provide both a client and a server. As such, users usually only want one or the other - and rarely both. Thanks to

Re: [gentoo-dev] Project Sunrise thread -- a try of clarification

2006-06-09 Thread Donnie Berkholz
Chris Gianelloni wrote: Initially, yes. What happens once the user gets complete access to the repository, though? Are we going to be keeping people from adding packages without bugs? Absolutely. This is for maintainer-wanted stuff, so it should be documented in Bugzilla and assigned to

Re: [gentoo-dev] Project Sunrise thread -- a try of clarification

2006-06-09 Thread Ciaran McCreesh
On Fri, 09 Jun 2006 20:06:04 +0100 Christel Dahlskjaer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | I'd say that it's entirely possibly for some non-dev to sneak | malicious code into the tree as is now, just as it will be possible | to do in an overlay. | | It's not like it's particulary difficult to have

[gentoo-dev] Re: [ANNOUNCE] Project Sunrise - Gentoo User Overlay

2006-06-09 Thread Stefan Schweizer
Luis Francisco Araujo wrote: Fine. I highly agree on that, now my question is, why this needs to be officially supported? See Why does this have to be on official gentoo hardware? http://overlays.gentoo.org/proj/sunrise/wiki/SunriseFaq -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Sunrise Project -- Sunrise FAQ

2006-06-09 Thread James Potts
On 6/9/06, Chris Gianelloni [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, 2006-06-09 at 19:10 +0200, Stefan Schweizer wrote: Markus Ullmann wrote: Maybe that way we avoid any misunderstandings, nearly doubled posts and repeating ourselves over and over again. The problem is that some questions and

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Sunrise Project -- Sunrise FAQ

2006-06-09 Thread James Potts
On 6/9/06, Stefan Schweizer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Markus Ullmann wrote: Maybe that way we avoid any misunderstandings, nearly doubled posts and repeating ourselves over and over again. The problem is that some questions and answers easily get lost in a mailing list. To solve this

[gentoo-dev] Re: Re: Sunrise Project -- Sunrise FAQ

2006-06-09 Thread Stefan Schweizer
James Potts wrote: I do have a question: If you're allowing just anybody who asks to have commit access to the repo, what guarantees can you give me that they won't commit something deliberately malicious or which will break the entire overlay to the overlay? I have added this to the FAQ:

Re: [gentoo-dev] herds.xml

2006-06-09 Thread Mike Frysinger
On Thursday 08 June 2006 21:08, Brian Harring wrote: One additional to this- the location for the file in the tree *should* be metadata/ - shoving it into profiles is the wrong location (it's not profile data, it's repo metadata). that is the correct location for it but we have no metadata

Re: [gentoo-dev] Project Sunrise thread -- a try of clarification

2006-06-09 Thread Chris Gianelloni
On Fri, 2006-06-09 at 19:41 +0200, Patrick Lauer wrote: This *will* affect *every* ebuild developer. Maybe you don't realize that taking ebuilds for packages that are _not in portage_ and providing them in a nice bundle does not affect every developer? I'm sorry for the language, but I call

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Sunrise Project -- Sunrise FAQ

2006-06-09 Thread Daniel Ostrow
On Fri, 2006-06-09 at 14:46 -0500, James Potts wrote: On 6/9/06, Chris Gianelloni [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, 2006-06-09 at 19:10 +0200, Stefan Schweizer wrote: Markus Ullmann wrote: Maybe that way we avoid any misunderstandings, nearly doubled posts and repeating ourselves over

Re: [gentoo-dev] Portage-2.1 released

2006-06-09 Thread Wernfried Haas
On Fri, Jun 09, 2006 at 01:55:44PM -0400, Alec Warner wrote: Wernfried Haas wrote: * config files as directories enabling more flexible settings management. /etc/portage/package.mask/* fex, assuming I am remembering correctly. Then you can maintain: /etc/portage/package.unmask/xorg

Re: [gentoo-dev] client+server packages - build which one?

2006-06-09 Thread Mike Frysinger
On Friday 09 June 2006 15:04, Chris Gianelloni wrote: On Fri, 2006-06-09 at 17:43 +0100, Roy Marples wrote: On Friday 09 June 2006 14:10, Roy Marples wrote: Some packages provide both a client and a server. As such, users usually only want one or the other - and rarely both. Thanks to

Re: [gentoo-dev] last call for xml2 (#116346)

2006-06-09 Thread Mike Frysinger
On Thursday 08 June 2006 08:35, Roy Marples wrote: On Thursday 08 June 2006 11:00, Mike Frysinger wrote: On Thursday 08 June 2006 02:58, Roy Marples wrote: On Wednesday 07 June 2006 12:03, Mike Frysinger wrote: you guys have had plenty of time to do this ... so last call before i

Re: [gentoo-dev] Project Sunrise thread -- a try of clarification

2006-06-09 Thread Donnie Berkholz
Chris Gianelloni wrote: Since when was overlays.gentoo.org supposed to even be a service to our users? As I understand it, the goal was to ease development, not to provide an easy method for half-working ebuilds to make it to our user's machines. Our users are our biggest base of testers,

[gentoo-dev] [RFC] client/server policy for ebuilds

2006-06-09 Thread Chris Gianelloni
This is the official (hehe) request for comments on making a policy of how to handle ebuilds than can be used for either client or server and how to allow for building client-only. The idea is quite simple. Gentoo's standard operating procedure is to build packages as they were intended and

Re: [gentoo-dev] Portage-2.1 released

2006-06-09 Thread Chris Gianelloni
about this? I think so. After all, it is good PR when something as major as this happens. indeed we should do this. CIA-14 wolf31o2 * gentoo/xml/htdocs/news/20060609-portage.xml: Announce portage 2.1's release. Done. -- Chris Gianelloni Release Engineering - Strategic Lead x86 Architecture

Re: [gentoo-dev] Project Sunrise thread -- a try of clarification

2006-06-09 Thread Patrick Lauer
On Fri, 2006-06-09 at 16:14 -0400, Chris Gianelloni wrote: [snip] If someone wanted to exploit boxen he'd use a much simpler attack vector ... our rsync mirrors are wide open. No need to secure the little window over there when the front door is open ... Really? I'd like you to give me

  1   2   >