Dice R. Random wrote:
What control mechanisms are there within the Gentoo community to keep
a few bad apples from spoiling the whole barrel, as it were? I do not
wish to name any names, but it seems to me from having skimmed this
list for the past few years that there are a couple people who
Alin Nastac wrote:
Our civilized disputes are taken place in public because we are an open
organization. If this looks bad in the eyes of some, so be it, but
please keep your opinions out of this list.
Except that they're not always that civilized, which was his entire point.
--
Kind
On Fri, 22 Sep 2006 19:25:26 +1000, Andrew Ross wrote:
snip...
That's a laugh! Problem is that no devs seem to get approved in a timely
fashion.
As a recently recruited developer, I'd just like to say that I was very
happy with the approval time of my recruitment bug (#139633), which was
Peter wrote:
On Fri, 22 Sep 2006 19:25:26 +1000, Andrew Ross wrote:
snip...
That's a laugh! Problem is that no devs seem to get approved in a timely
fashion.
As a recently recruited developer, I'd just like to say that I was very
happy with the approval time of my recruitment
Peter wrote:
On Fri, 22 Sep 2006 13:15:14 +0200, Jochen Maes wrote:
snip...
glad you were an exception.
glad i never knew you when i was a gentoo dev... I know one thing, you
won't ever get a hump out of me!
You're arguing a different point. I was commenting on the
On Fri, 22 Sep 2006 14:14:24 +0200, Jochen Maes wrote:
snip...
I appreciate your POV. Yes, you can't expect too much from volunteers.
But, in a worldwide linux distribution, which is run more or less like
a business, there is a higher standard that should be adhered to. I
don't accept
Peter wrote:
We can disagree on that point. All distros are businesses. Users are
customers. No users, no distro.
I haven't received a single paycheck in two years. What a shitty business.
--
Kind Regards,
Simon Stelling
Gentoo/AMD64 developer
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
On Fri, 2006-09-22 at 12:29 +, Peter wrote:
We can disagree on that point. All distros are businesses. Users are
customers. No users, no distro.
That is not strictly true. You can have a distro without users --
nobody but you would be using it -- it's still a distro. It all depends
on
On Fri, 22 Sep 2006 08:55:14 -0400, Seemant Kulleen wrote:
On Fri, 2006-09-22 at 12:29 +, Peter wrote:
We can disagree on that point. All distros are businesses. Users are
customers. No users, no distro.
That is not strictly true. You can have a distro without users --
nobody but
Peter wrote: [Fri Sep 22 2006, 07:29:57AM CDT]
We can disagree on that point. All distros are businesses. Users are
customers. No users, no distro.
Actually, I still think that agriffis was correct in his assertion that
most devs work on Gentoo for their own interests, and that the
developers
Peter,
Your two cents are worth a lot. Pretty much all of what you've said has
been echoed time and again on this list and on the -core list (and
probably an irc channel or two).
The concept of business aside, the points you make about having a
leadership in place are on target, in my opinion.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Seemant Kulleen wrote:
(well, it's run more like a commune, but anyway).
I *knew* someone else was using my soap!!!
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFFE+t8rsJQqN81j74RAuYUAJ4qa9GuyISG5PdVHq3Nuo58lBmmFgCgk4z/
On Thu, 21 Sep 2006 21:43:16 + (UTC)
Peter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That's a laugh! Problem is that no devs seem to get approved in a
timely fashion. And, any potential devs would be rather turned off by
the goings on here. You guys seem to try and stifle innovation at
every turn --
I just want to prefix this by saying that I was simply going to ignore
your posts in this thread completely due to your obviously inflammatory
nature at the beginning. Now that you're posting actual constructive
criticisms, I'd like to respond. By the way, thank you for changing
your tone to
On Fri, 22 Sep 2006 10:13:23 -0400, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
I just want to prefix this by saying that I was simply going to ignore
your posts in this thread completely due to your obviously inflammatory
nature at the beginning. Now that you're posting actual constructive
criticisms, I'd like
On Fri, 22 Sep 2006 10:06:16 -0400, Mike Kelly wrote:
On Thu, 21 Sep 2006 21:43:16 + (UTC)
Peter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That's a laugh! Problem is that no devs seem to get approved in a
timely fashion. And, any potential devs would be rather turned off by
the goings on here. You guys
Peter wrote:
On Fri, 22 Sep 2006 10:13:23 -0400, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
I just want to prefix this by saying that I was simply going to ignore
your posts in this thread completely due to your obviously inflammatory
nature at the beginning. Now that you're posting actual constructive
Am Donnerstag, 21. September 2006 16:49 schrieb Vlastimil Babka:
Although the more secure than MD5 part is now questionable, I suppose
the directly available in python part still holds?
From What's new in python 2.5
13.3 The hashlib package
A new hashlib module, written by Gregory P. Smith,
On Thursday 21 September 2006 08:54, Hanno Böck wrote:
I think sha256/512 is the only thing that makes sense at the moment, as it
most probably will stay secure for quite a while and we don't have real
alternatives. So imho use sha256, get rid of everything else, because that
rarely improves
You cannot allow things to get out of hand like they do. Everyone here
obviously wants to make gentoo better. However, NOT everyone has the right
to do so.
Not everyone has the right? I think the GPL would preclude that
statement. Not everyone has the *drive*, or the social skills, or the
On Fri, 2006-09-22 at 14:37 -0400, Alec Warner wrote:
You cannot allow things to get out of hand like they do. Everyone here
obviously wants to make gentoo better. However, NOT everyone has the right
to do so.
Not everyone has the right? I think the GPL would preclude that
On Wednesday 13 September 2006 23:18, Mike Frysinger wrote:
i'm going to be fixing the autoconf/automake wrappers so that they no
longer require all versions of autoconf/automake ... this will resolve the
annoying circular dependency but at the sametime packages need to make sure
that if they
Chris White wrote:
Well, the problem that occurs here is the verification process. With MD5, you
can hit most upstream sites, and they'll have an MD5SUM avaliable that you
can authenticate against.
Well if you care enough to verify this, you can easily create an md5sum
of the fetched
Dear Everyone,
I've often wondered what happened to the Accessibility project in the
last few months (especially since Ms. Waters went inactive). Well, as
it turns out the Accessibility team has been basically one person:
WilliamH.
So, we took the opportunity this evening to adjust the mailing
24 matches
Mail list logo
