Hello !
Thanks to everybody for the warm welcomes !
Is where the soap come from, isn't it?
Yes it is, but I'm affraid I can't tell you the differences between
this soap and other ones even if I'm using it because it sounds like
good old stuff.
And Bouillabaisse if you like soups =)
Roy Bamford wrote:
Dropping support for x86 i686 is a debate we need to have some time I
suppose, its a question of when.
There is clearly only a few users, besides myself using systems that
old, since there were very few forums posts about the original 2006.1
x86 media not workign on P1 and
Peter Weber [EMAIL PROTECTED] posted
[EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Mon, 09
Oct 2006 23:57:54 +0200:
It was only a suggestion, not a decision. Of course, there are only a
little number of this early systems.
i686 would be really nice, i386 would be nice, too ;-)
Anybody doing Gentoo
On Tuesday 10 October 2006 11:13, Duncan wrote:
Personally, I'd say 686 is the lowest reasonable to support at this point.
Below that, try an appropriate binary distribution and save the days/weeks
of compiling. Of course, Gentoo is highly customizable, and folks could
try it on 386 if they
Am Tue, 10 Oct 2006 10:13:41 + (UTC)
schrieb Duncan [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Anybody doing Gentoo on even a Pentium original is going to be
compiling for awhile unless they do GRP only, and that's inadvised as
GRP isn't security updated until the next release, six months later!
Don't forget
On Tue, Oct 10, 2006 at 10:13:41AM +, Duncan wrote:
Personally, I'd say 686 is the lowest reasonable to support at this point.
Below that, try an appropriate binary distribution and save the days/weeks
of compiling.
Bollocks. I run a print/samba/backup box at work which is a pentium II
Roy Marples [EMAIL PROTECTED] posted
[EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Tue, 10 Oct
2006 11:19:46 +0100:
There are plently of people using VIA C3 class chips which are i586 in
their home servers because they are cheap, but more importantly very quiet
as they don't require CPU fans.
Good
Wernfried Haas wrote:
On Tue, Oct 10, 2006 at 10:13:41AM +, Duncan wrote:
Personally, I'd say 686 is the lowest reasonable to support at this point.
Below that, try an appropriate binary distribution and save the days/weeks
of compiling.
Bollocks. I run a print/samba/backup box at work
Simon Stelling wrote:
Roy Bamford wrote:
Dropping support for x86 i686 is a debate we need to have some time I
suppose, its a question of when.
There is clearly only a few users, besides myself using systems that
old, since there were very few forums posts about the original 2006.1
x86
On Tue, Oct 10, 2006 at 07:13:39AM -0500, Andrew Gaffney wrote:
Uhh, P2 is i686, which falls squarely into the realm of supported and
reasonable :)
Oh my goodness, i forgot to upgrade my cflags/chost/foo then when i
put the disk from the old pentium into this one then. Think of all
those
Natanael Copa wrote:
What you didn't need to be a gentoo dev to be a package maintainer? Lets
say anyone could be marked as maintainer in an ebuild. When there is a
bug, the package maintainer fixes the bug and submits an updated
ebuild/patch whatever. This person has no commit access.
Or you haven't talked to me or Beandog at all; since he has been
working on this a while (now with upgraded tools!).
what i'd like to see is a system, to which one would give a package name,
which then handles the removal (almost) automatically.
that way devs would have an easier time
Steve Long wrote:
Or you haven't talked to me or Beandog at all; since he has been
working on this a while (now with upgraded tools!).
what i'd like to see is a system, to which one would give a package name,
which then handles the removal (almost) automatically.
that way devs would have an
The point is that if you build Gentoo to be developer-friendly rather than
user-friendly, Gentoo will be replaced by something else.
User-centric design is why Gentoo is/was different from everything else. Take
away choices that people want and you take the Gentoo philosophy out of
Gentoo
On Monday 09 October 2006 6:30 pm, Alec Warner wrote:
I concur with Donnie here; Gentoo exists not because of Users, but
because of (a subset of active) Developers. It isn't a statement that
is meant to trash users (because you are quite helpful in many
instances). But the naive thought that
On Mon, 2006-10-09 at 23:30 -0400, Kari Hazzard wrote:
User-centric design is why Gentoo is/was different from everything else. Take
away choices that people want and you take the Gentoo philosophy out of
Gentoo itself.
If the design was in any way user-centric, then that was a side-effect
On 10/10/06, Seemant Kulleen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If the design was in any way user-centric, then that was a side-effect
of the design being developer-centric. The choices are all about
enabling development and developers. The Gentoo philosophy is about
empowerment -- we provide a platform
Duncan wrote:
Anybody doing Gentoo on even a Pentium original is going to be compiling
for awhile unless they do GRP only, and that's inadvised as GRP isn't
security updated until the next release, six months later! A couple years
ago when I first started with Gentoo and was on the main user
Kari Hazzard wrote: [Mon Oct 09 2006, 10:30:40PM CDT]
User-centric design is why Gentoo is/was different from everything
else. Take away choices that people want and you take the Gentoo
philosophy out of Gentoo itself.
Heh. You might want to read drobbins' Making the distribution
articles
On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 15:09:06 +0200
Natanael Copa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What you didn't need to be a gentoo dev to be a package maintainer?
Lets say anyone could be marked as maintainer in an ebuild. When
there is a bug, the package maintainer fixes the bug and submits an
updated
Not going to happen. I'm many things, but a software developer is not one of
them. I generally prefer to work on things like design and user psychology
than actually being involved in the coding of it.
You don't want me producing code for the project, trust me on that one.
--
Kari Hazzard
On
On Tuesday 10 October 2006 03:45, Kari Hazzard wrote:
On Monday 09 October 2006 6:30 pm, Alec Warner wrote:
I concur with Donnie here; Gentoo exists not because of Users, but
because of (a subset of active) Developers. It isn't a statement that
is meant to trash users (because you are
On Tuesday 10 October 2006 03:45, Kari Hazzard wrote:
stuff/
After writing the last response, another thought came to mind that I figured I
should post - and should probably be set out in a user's guide to posting on
dev mailing lists.
I had the thought that users likely feel that it's okay to
Alec Warner wrote:
Steve Long wrote:
This sounds like an excellent idea. Do the `upgraded tools' already
automate this process?
The 'upgraded tools' was in regards to the GPNL project; since Beandog
was using portageq to import metadata into the database; this turned out
to be a bad idea
On Mon, 2006-10-09 at 19:50 -0400, Caleb Cushing wrote:
from the ones that are on the mirrors. so what is the hangup? I doubt
it's storage space and bandwidth.
Uhh... it *is* storage space.
In fact, the space usage on our donated mirrors is one of the primary
motivators to have us decrease
On Tue, 2006-10-10 at 10:13 +, Duncan wrote:
Personally, I'd say 686 is the lowest reasonable to support at this point.
That's pretty much our target.
Below that, try an appropriate binary distribution and save the days/weeks
of compiling. Of course, Gentoo is highly customizable, and
On Tue, 2006-10-10 at 12:52 +0200, Wernfried Haas wrote:
Bollocks. I run a print/samba/backup box at work which is a pentium II
400. Compiling glibc takes 3 hours here and while it may not be the
snipping the rest since a Pentium 2 *is* i686
Which kind of support are you speaking of? As for
On Mon, 2006-10-09 at 23:30 -0400, Kari Hazzard wrote:
The point is that if you build Gentoo to be developer-friendly rather than
user-friendly, Gentoo will be replaced by something else.
User-centric design is why Gentoo is/was different from everything else. Take
away choices that people
On Mon, 2006-10-09 at 23:30 -0400, Kari Hazzard wrote:
The point is that if you build Gentoo to be developer-friendly rather than
user-friendly, Gentoo will be replaced by something else.
...and? You seem to think that Gentoo being developer-friendly would
be a change in the current way we do
On Tue, Oct 10, 2006 at 12:28:10PM -0400, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
Which kind of support are you speaking of? As for installation media,
i really don't care. I fully agree i686 is dying out and if the
release media is built built for i686 only i have no problem with that
either. If you
malc wrote:
media-video - Can I take this one? I've got a jahshaka-2.0 ebuild here
ready to rock.
please submit it and let us have fun too =)
lu
--
Luca Barbato
Gentoo/linux Gentoo/PPC
http://dev.gentoo.org/~lu_zero
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
On Tue, Oct 10, 2006 at 10:40:01AM -0400, Kari Hazzard wrote:
Not going to happen. I'm many things, but a software developer is not one of
them. I generally prefer to work on things like design and user psychology
than actually being involved in the coding of it.
You don't want me
People should be using ocfs2 now. ocfs-tools no longer compiles (bug
#135473) and hasn't had an upstream release for more than 2 years. I've
masked it for removal in 30 days.
Thanks,
Donnie
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Resending to portage dev ml to solicit comments...
Thoughts welcome, since it's an issue that must be dealt with to
sanely do efficient parallelization (monkeying with make.conf and
hardcoding vals isn't much of a solution).
Zac- comments? You seem to have totally missed the original email ;)
On Tue, Oct 10, 2006 at 03:20:55AM -0700, Zac Medico wrote:
Brian Harring wrote:
I might be daft (likely), but why not just introduce a var indicating
max parallelization instead? Tweak portage to push that setting into
MAKEOPTS=${MAKEOPTS+${MAKEOPTS} } -j${PARALLELIZATION}.
The idea
On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 00:04:57 -0700
Brian Harring [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I might be daft (likely), but why not just introduce a var indicating
max parallelization instead? Tweak portage to push that setting into
MAKEOPTS=${MAKEOPTS+${MAKEOPTS} } -j${PARALLELIZATION}.
Might sound daft,
36 matches
Mail list logo
