Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC : New ebuild function pkg_create for creating corespondent sorce tarball

2007-07-17 Thread Petteri Räty
Alin Năstac kirjoitti:
 Marius Mauch wrote:
 Two questions:
 - are there more packages that could benefit from this?
   
 
 None that I know of. However, there might be other similar packages
 without a source tarball (slim chance, but quite possible). At first, I
 asked upstream to provide such tarball, but I got refused because
 SourceForge file release process is far too annoying.
 As a side note, if bitpim wasn't such a fairly popular package, I
 wouldn't even bother with it (personally I don't use it).
 

This is not uncommon in the Java land.

Regards,
Petteri



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


Re: [gentoo-dev] So...

2007-07-17 Thread Ned Ludd
On Mon, 2007-07-16 at 15:06 -0400, Doug Goldstein wrote:
 So it's 97 degrees outside.. it's pretty hot... Since everyone loves to
 debate non-technical things on this list.. Let's debate Fahrenheit vs
 Celcius...
 
 Discuss!

Well from my POV you have about 13 assholes 14 including me that felt
the need need to comment on this stupid ass thread.

-- 
Ned Ludd [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Gentoo Linux

-- 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list



Re: [gentoo-dev] alternative solution for 'procmail-impaired' folks

2007-07-17 Thread Jakub Moc
Vlastimil Babka napsal(a):
 Steve Long wrote:
 And no, I don't like being lumped in with Mr McCreesh.
 
 Why would anyone do that? His trolling is sophisticated, but you're just
 an annoying spammer.

Can we please stop this direction? My ZOMG was there to share my
frustration from getting my mailbox flooded by stuff I'm totally not
interested in and which has nothing to do with gentoo *development*.

For less sucky ways of expressing similar feelings as mine, please refer
to http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_131667.xml - sadly, the
picture is gone now :(

To bring this debate back on track - the current council proposal
*fails* to address the real problem: people should not be required to be
subscribed to gentoo-dev (moderated or non-moderated) and important
announcements should be directed to a different (IMO read-only) list.

Why don't we use current gentoo-announce list for seems to exist for
this exact purpose? In that way, people who wish to participate in
on-topic, off-topic or straight retarded debates would still have the
choice to do so, while not forcing the majority of others to 'mark
folder as read' every 6 hours.

TIA.

-- 
Best regards,

 Jakub Moc
 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 GPG signature:
 http://subkeys.pgp.net:11371/pks/lookup?op=getsearch=0xCEBA3D9E
 Primary key fingerprint: D2D7 933C 9BA1 C95B 2C95  B30F 8717 D5FD CEBA 3D9E

 ... still no signature   ;)



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


[gentoo-dev] Getting -project started

2007-07-17 Thread Petteri Räty
I have seen no real opposition for the creation of the -project mailing
list and even this ML changes thread itself involved the creation of the
-project mailing (the thread itself is a prime example on why we need
-project in the first place) so how about we just get that mailing list
going right no and let the rest of it fall into place later. My guess is
that if we would have had -project for ages, the need for moderating
-dev would have never come about. I bet there are devs who have talked
about creating this kind of a list months, even years ago. This time
it's not about show me the code but show me the mailing list!

Regards,
Petteri
--
Gentoo/Recruiters project lead
Gentoo/Java project lead



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


Re: [gentoo-dev] So...

2007-07-17 Thread Kumba

Doug Goldstein wrote:

So it's 97 degrees outside.. it's pretty hot... Since everyone loves to
debate non-technical things on this list.. Let's debate Fahrenheit vs
Celcius...

Discuss!


Pft.

Rankine and Kelvin, FTW!


--Kumba

--
Gentoo/MIPS Team Lead

Such is oft the course of deeds that move the wheels of the world: small hands 
do them because they must, while the eyes of the great are elsewhere.  --Elrond

--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list



Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: For Jakub (and the other procmail-impaired)

2007-07-17 Thread Ned Ludd
On Tue, 2007-07-17 at 01:30 +0100, Steve Long wrote:
 Chris Gianelloni wrote:
 
  :0
  * ^List-Id:.gentoo-dev.gentoo.org.
  * ^Subject:.*ML changes
  /dev/null
  
 Sorry was there some reason the rest of us had to read this? If so, please
 explain it like a responsible Council member. Or is this your swansong? If
 so it's l4m3.


Is there some reason you feel fscking compelled to respond to every
single mail on this list. You know it's guys like mostly just you that
are driving us away..

-- 
Ned Ludd [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Gentoo Linux

-- 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list



Re: [gentoo-dev] Getting -project started

2007-07-17 Thread Kumba

Petteri Räty wrote:

I have seen no real opposition for the creation of the -project mailing
list and even this ML changes thread itself involved the creation of the
-project mailing (the thread itself is a prime example on why we need
-project in the first place) so how about we just get that mailing list
going right no and let the rest of it fall into place later. My guess is
that if we would have had -project for ages, the need for moderating
-dev would have never come about. I bet there are devs who have talked
about creating this kind of a list months, even years ago. This time
it's not about show me the code but show me the mailing list!


I'm not sure on the history of a non-technical ML itself, but I cooked up the 
idea of gentoo-politics originally, thinking the similarly-themed debian ML was 
debian-politics.  After a debian developer pointed out that it was actually A) 
debian-project, and B) He intentionally stays off that list (obviously for good 
reason), I figured the name and non-requirement for developers was most 
appropriate for our needs as well.


Hence, Bug #181368 was born.

And apparently, so was ML Changes.  Guess the doctor neglected to mention that 
I was having twins, and that one of them was gonna grow up to be overweight and 
ugly, yet incredibly hot.


Healthcare really has gone down the drain here in the UDG, hasn't it? (United 
Developers of Gentoo).  Anyone care to recruit Moore as a developer?


Anyone???



--Kumba

--
Gentoo/MIPS Team Lead

Such is oft the course of deeds that move the wheels of the world: small hands 
do them because they must, while the eyes of the great are elsewhere.  --Elrond

--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list



Re: [gentoo-dev] Getting -project started

2007-07-17 Thread Robin H. Johnson
On Tue, Jul 17, 2007 at 10:04:55AM +0300, Petteri R??ty wrote:
 I have seen no real opposition for the creation of the -project mailing
 list and even this ML changes thread itself involved the creation of the
 -project mailing (the thread itself is a prime example on why we need
 -project in the first place) so how about we just get that mailing list
 going right no and let the rest of it fall into place later. My guess is
 that if we would have had -project for ages, the need for moderating
 -dev would have never come about. I bet there are devs who have talked
 about creating this kind of a list months, even years ago. This time
 it's not about show me the code but show me the mailing list!

Speaking strictly in an infra role here, and not a council role at all.

If there is no opposition (because I suspect I might have missed it in
the length of the previous thread) to the _creation_ of -project by Jul
18th 00h00 UTC, I'll create it.

-- 
Robin Hugh Johnson
Gentoo Linux Developer  Council Member
E-Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
GnuPG FP   : 11AC BA4F 4778 E3F6 E4ED  F38E B27B 944E 3488 4E85


pgpjrzsHDvRpl.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: ML changes

2007-07-17 Thread Wernfried Haas
On Tue, Jul 17, 2007 at 12:22:09AM +0200, Torsten Veller wrote:
 What will you do when users start sending mail from dev addresses?

Ban the sender's address :-]

cheers,
Wernfried

-- 
Wernfried Haas (amne) - amne (at) gentoo.org
Gentoo Forums - http://forums.gentoo.org
forum-mods (at) gentoo.org
#gentoo-forums (freenode)

pgp8kotTRdogk.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Re: [gentoo-dev] council and proctors

2007-07-17 Thread Wernfried Haas
On Mon, Jul 16, 2007 at 04:58:43PM -0700, Chrissy Fullam wrote:
 Developer Relations will continue to assist on requests and any extra bit
 that we can. We will see which way this ML thing takes Gentoo and offer our
 support in any way we can.

Nice statement from a PR POV, but i really have problems understanding
the actual message. :-P
So the way i read it devrel would like to do something if requested,
but isn't supposed to enforce the CoC, nor has the authority?

cheers,
Wernfried

-- 
Wernfried Haas (amne) - amne (at) gentoo.org
Gentoo Forums - http://forums.gentoo.org
forum-mods (at) gentoo.org
#gentoo-forums (freenode)

pgpEQuXa0HCE8.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Re: [gentoo-dev] Getting -project started

2007-07-17 Thread Wernfried Haas
On Tue, Jul 17, 2007 at 10:04:55AM +0300, Petteri Räty wrote:
 I have seen no real opposition for the creation of the -project mailing
 list 

(just to avoid misunderstandings, we're not only talking about
creating -project, but also the stuff that people with non @gentoo.org
address get moderated on -dev as discussed in the last 100 mails or
so, right?)

I've pretty much kept my opinion out of it because even if the council
screws up, it's up to the council to decide things.
Since no opposition suddenly became the basis to pull it through:

I find the idea terrible.

cheers,
Wernfried

-- 
Wernfried Haas (amne) - amne (at) gentoo.org
Gentoo Forums - http://forums.gentoo.org
forum-mods (at) gentoo.org
#gentoo-forums (freenode)

pgpc8xecI7zFK.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Re: [gentoo-dev] Getting -project started

2007-07-17 Thread Petteri Räty
Wernfried Haas kirjoitti:
 On Tue, Jul 17, 2007 at 10:04:55AM +0300, Petteri Räty wrote:
 I have seen no real opposition for the creation of the -project mailing
 list 
 
 (just to avoid misunderstandings, we're not only talking about
 creating -project, but also the stuff that people with non @gentoo.org
 address get moderated on -dev as discussed in the last 100 mails or
 so, right?)

No, just the mailing list. Dunno but I tried to make that clear in my mail.

Regards,
Petteri



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


Re: [gentoo-dev] Getting -project started

2007-07-17 Thread Robin H. Johnson
On Tue, Jul 17, 2007 at 09:49:32AM +0200, Wernfried Haas wrote:
 On Tue, Jul 17, 2007 at 10:04:55AM +0300, Petteri R?ty wrote:
  I have seen no real opposition for the creation of the -project mailing
  list 
 (just to avoid misunderstandings, we're not only talking about
 creating -project, but also the stuff that people with non @gentoo.org
 address get moderated on -dev as discussed in the last 100 mails or
 so, right?)
betelgeuse was talking only about the creation of -project. None of the
other stuff.

-- 
Robin Hugh Johnson
Gentoo Linux Developer  Council Member
E-Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
GnuPG FP   : 11AC BA4F 4778 E3F6 E4ED  F38E B27B 944E 3488 4E85


pgperzKwIpbm1.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC : New ebuild function pkg_create for creating corespondent sorce tarball

2007-07-17 Thread Luca Barbato
Marius Mauch wrote:
 On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 07:25:02 +0300
 Alin Năstac [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 
 I was asked to discuss here a portage enhancement proposed by me [1].

 Basically I need a pkg_create() that will be executed only in the
 context of the upcoming ebuild ${PF}.ebuild create command.

 The package where I need it is app-mobilephone/bitpim. The upstream
 doesn't offer a source tarball, so I need to construct it myself from
 their svn repository. Up till recently, I used some hackery in
 pkg_setup() to create it
 (see the ebuild), but now ebuild $PF.ebuild setup verify the digest
 before running pkg_setup().

 [1] http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=185567
 
 Two questions:
 - are there more packages that could benefit from this?

ffmpeg, mplayer, libdvdread, mlt...

 - is there a particular reason this has to be integrated into the
 ebuild and should not be handled by an ordinary script?

overall nicer

lu

-- 

Luca Barbato

Gentoo/linux Gentoo/PPC
http://dev.gentoo.org/~lu_zero
-- 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list



Re: [gentoo-dev] Getting -project started

2007-07-17 Thread Wernfried Haas
On Tue, Jul 17, 2007 at 10:54:35AM +0300, Petteri Räty wrote:
 No, just the mailing list. Dunno but I tried to make that clear in my mail.

Oops, sorry. No opposition to _that_. ;-)

cheers,
Wernfried

-- 
Wernfried Haas (amne) - amne (at) gentoo.org
Gentoo Forums - http://forums.gentoo.org
forum-mods (at) gentoo.org
#gentoo-forums (freenode)

pgpZgw4o8vxN7.pgp
Description: PGP signature


[gentoo-dev] Re: New developer: Pierre-Yves Rofes (p-y)

2007-07-17 Thread Duncan
Luis Francisco Araujo [EMAIL PROTECTED] posted
[EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on  Mon, 16 Jul 2007 21:24:51
-0400:

 Steve Long wrote:
 Petteri Räty wrote:
 
 It's a joint pleasure for me and diox to introduce to you Pierre-Yves
 py Rofes. Instead of the snake people he will be joining our
 security team.

 YAY! aiui there's only 4 or 5 people in the security team, so well done
 for getting another sucker^H^H^H volunteer, Tavis.
 
 Can you please stop sending these kind of harmful emails?

???  A little joking is traditional in new-dev welcome threads, or did 
you miss the context?  (Note that the tone was set with the snake people 
reference, in the original intro.)

Sorry p-y for tainting your intro thread. =8^(

-- 
Duncan - List replies preferred.   No HTML msgs.
Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you use the program, he is your master.  Richard Stallman

-- 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list



Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC : New ebuild function pkg_create for creating corespondent sorce tarball

2007-07-17 Thread Elias Probst
On Tuesday 17 July 2007 09:57:53 Luca Barbato wrote:
 Marius Mauch wrote:
  Two questions:
  - are there more packages that could benefit from this?

 ffmpeg, mplayer, libdvdread, mlt...

Finally, this bug could be closed too, since the development in SVN is 
proceeded very far, but no versioned tarball was released yet.
http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=139432

Regards, Elias P.

-- 
A really nice number:
09:F9:11:02:9D:74:E3:5B:D8:41:56:C5:63:56:88:C0


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.


[gentoo-dev] Re: ML changes

2007-07-17 Thread Duncan
Thomas Tuttle [EMAIL PROTECTED] posted
[EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below,
on  Mon, 16 Jul 2007 12:41:51 -0400:

 On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 23:54:44 -0400, Daniel Drake [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 said:
 I do like the gentoo-politics idea that came up a few weeks ago,
 which was to move politics off gentoo-dev and to another list, but I'd
 view it from another perspective (and avoid the words 'politics'): make
 gentoo-dev for development topics only, and have another list for the
 rest. But, I suspect we'd come back to the same problem on both lists,
 where some people are too keen to talk and deviate too far away from
 technical discussion.
 
 On IRC, when a conversation wanders offtopic, one of the ops just nudges
 the participants and says hey, you should move your conversation to
 #gentoo-foo (or ##foo or whatever).  Wouldn't it be easy enough for
 someone to do that here?  It'd be pretty easy to specify what's on- and
 off-topic for each list, and it would be friendlier than moderation,
 just like it's friendlier for IRC ops to ask you nicely to switch
 channels than to simply kick you out.

That's what I'm hoping/praying/fingering-the-rosary will happen when 
-project gets off the ground (and we now have a declaration of intent 
from infra, and still no direct opposition to /just/ adding the list, 
that I've seen).

The frustration I've had and I expect others have had as well, is that 
currently there's no really appropriate place to push folks to.  When 
project gets up and running, that'll change, and I'm REALLY hoping 
there'll be overwhelming buy-in from everyone into /doing/ that nudging.  
I know I'd not have an objection if told a post of mine belonged there, 
particularly if it was obvious anyone else, devs or not, would get the 
same treatment for a similar post.  Just now, there's nowhere to go, so 
I'd consider an objection legitimate -- and have in fact made a couple 
such objections in the past.

-- 
Duncan - List replies preferred.   No HTML msgs.
Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you use the program, he is your master.  Richard Stallman

-- 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list



Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC : New ebuild function pkg_create for creating corespondent sorce tarball

2007-07-17 Thread Ciaran McCreesh
On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 07:25:02 +0300
Alin Năstac [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 Basically I need a pkg_create() that will be executed only in the
 context of the upcoming ebuild ${PF}.ebuild create command.

This isn't something that should be done in an ebuild. It's more
suitable to an external script maintained by the appropriate herd.
There's no point cluttering up the tree with something that is of no
use to end users.

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh



signature.asc
Description: PGP signature


Re: [gentoo-dev] Getting -project started

2007-07-17 Thread Ciaran McCreesh
On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 10:04:55 +0300
Petteri Räty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 I have seen no real opposition for the creation of the -project
 mailing list and even this ML changes thread itself involved the
 creation of the -project mailing (the thread itself is a prime
 example on why we need -project in the first place) so how about we
 just get that mailing list going right no and let the rest of it fall
 into place later.

How about defining the purpose of all these list with which we'll
soon end up before going ahead and requesting changes?

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh



signature.asc
Description: PGP signature


Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC : New ebuild function pkg_create for creating corespondent sorce tarball

2007-07-17 Thread Jan Kundrát
Alin Năstac wrote:
 The upstream doesn't offer a source tarball, so I need to construct
 it myself from their svn repository.

If you're creating a live ebuild, there are already existing eclasses
that works from the user's POV.

If your aim is to create an ebuild for a specific version, you might as
well checkout stuff yourself and let Gentoo mirror the generated tarball
(your mail doesn't talk about RESTRICT=fetch). If you let Gentoo mirror
the tarball, users are likely to be happier because they'll get the file
faster and in a more reliable way.

Or am I missing something?

Cheers,
-jkt

-- 
cd /local/pub  more beer  /dev/mouth



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC : New ebuild function pkg_create for creating corespondent sorce tarball

2007-07-17 Thread Stelian Ionescu
On Tue, Jul 17, 2007 at 09:41:04AM +0300, Petteri Räty wrote:
Alin Năstac kirjoitti:
 Marius Mauch wrote:
 Two questions:
 - are there more packages that could benefit from this?
   
 
 None that I know of. However, there might be other similar packages
 without a source tarball (slim chance, but quite possible). At first, I
 asked upstream to provide such tarball, but I got refused because
 SourceForge file release process is far too annoying.
 As a side note, if bitpim wasn't such a fairly popular package, I
 wouldn't even bother with it (personally I don't use it).
 

This is not uncommon in the Java land.
it's also quite common in CommonLisp land

-- 
(sign :name Stelian Ionescu :aka fe[nl]ix
  :quote Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur.)


pgpWn02WOwyWY.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC : New ebuild function pkg_create for creating corespondent sorce tarball

2007-07-17 Thread Alin Năstac
Jan Kundrát wrote:
 Alin Năstac wrote:
   
 The upstream doesn't offer a source tarball, so I need to construct
 it myself from their svn repository.
 

 If you're creating a live ebuild, there are already existing eclasses
 that works from the user's POV.
   
I'm not speaking about live ebuilds, only about building a source
tarball for a specific version where upstream doesn't offer such thing.
 If your aim is to create an ebuild for a specific version, you might as
 well checkout stuff yourself and let Gentoo mirror the generated tarball
 (your mail doesn't talk about RESTRICT=fetch). If you let Gentoo mirror
 the tarball, users are likely to be happier because they'll get the file
 faster and in a more reliable way.
   
What I want is a function that creates the source tarball, based on
whatever developer needs for that (the most usual case is a tag export
from a svn/cvs repository). The tarball will be placed on Gentoo mirrors
at the end (users will not run this new function, only the maintainer).
See app-mobilephone/bitpim ebuild example, it will speak for itself.

This can be solved also through an external script, but IMO this
solution is ugly. Ebuilds should contain whatever is needed for their
maintenance.



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC : New ebuild function pkg_create for creating corespondent sorce tarball

2007-07-17 Thread Luca Barbato
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
 On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 07:25:02 +0300
 Alin Năstac [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 Basically I need a pkg_create() that will be executed only in the
 context of the upcoming ebuild ${PF}.ebuild create command.
 
 This isn't something that should be done in an ebuild. It's more
 suitable to an external script maintained by the appropriate herd.
 There's no point cluttering up the tree with something that is of no
 use to end users.
 

Having something that interacts with the live eclasses gives you all you
need to end up with a good tarball with the minimal number of lines of
code. Obviously it could be a gentoolkit-dev/portage-utils script
instead of src_create/pack, since you just need to repack what the
src_unpack did in the ebuild.

I'm not sure how many special cases/option would be necessary for such
script, like exclude dir, one tar per dir and so on.

lu

-- 

Luca Barbato

Gentoo/linux Gentoo/PPC
http://dev.gentoo.org/~lu_zero
-- 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list



Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC : New ebuild function pkg_create for creating corespondent sorce tarball

2007-07-17 Thread Vlastimil Babka
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

Jan Kundrát wrote:
 Alin Năstac wrote:
 The upstream doesn't offer a source tarball, so I need to construct
 it myself from their svn repository.
 If your aim is to create an ebuild for a specific version, you might as
 well checkout stuff yourself and let Gentoo mirror the generated tarball
 (your mail doesn't talk about RESTRICT=fetch). If you let Gentoo mirror
 the tarball, users are likely to be happier because they'll get the file
 faster and in a more reliable way.

I think he wants to do exactly that, but having the code needed for this
right in the ebuild, so it can benefit from varibles like PV and
versionator eclass for converting PV to e.g. CVS tags... I think it's
quite elegant for this, and that you don't need another script
maintained somewhere else. If there was also switch in the respective
new 'ebuild foo.ebuild src_create' command to automatically scp files
specified by mirror://gentoo in SRC_URI to the right place... mmm :)

The only downside is that users will download something that they won't
find often useful (but think local overlay bumps and bugzilla reports on
version bump that just renaming the ebuild works?). OTOH, while this
might be useful for more than few packages (I can also think of some),
it's not too many to clutter the tree significantly.

 Or am I missing something?
 
 Cheers,
 -jkt
 
- --
Vlastimil Babka (Caster)
Gentoo/Java
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFGnJkEtbrAj05h3oQRArf4AJ4n/nvrxsDV1hFixnf9HcGNlscUcgCeJaG8
1Rkm4mQ0HKeJX39P+vwwPz8=
=jTzj
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
-- 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list



Re: [gentoo-dev] Getting -project started

2007-07-17 Thread Roy Marples
On Tue, 2007-07-17 at 11:00 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
 How about defining the purpose of all these list with which we'll
 soon end up before going ahead and requesting changes?

-dev is just for technical development.
-project is for non technical development of Gentoo.

What is technical development? Well, if your email doesn't have any code
or questions about code then it probably doesn't belong on -dev is is
more suited to another list.

If you feel the urge to email about other things then submit more list
ideas.

Thanks

Roy

-- 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list



Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC : New ebuild function pkg_create for creating corespondent sorce tarball

2007-07-17 Thread Alin Năstac
Luca Barbato wrote:
 I'm not sure how many special cases/option would be necessary for such
 script, like exclude dir, one tar per dir and so on.
   

The process of creating the tarball is quite specific to the package in
question, therefore you cannot make an universal function that does that.
See the app-mobilephone/bitpim maketarball() and you'll see.



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


Re: [gentoo-dev] Pre-Last Rites: net-irc/bitchx

2007-07-17 Thread Luca Barbato
Markus Ullmann wrote:
 As we know from previous bugs and mails here on -dev, bitchx is pretty
 much unmaintained and now has an open security bug.
 
 https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=183149

bug patched, configuring alternative clients to suit my needs was more
time consuming.

lu

-- 

Luca Barbato

Gentoo/linux Gentoo/PPC
http://dev.gentoo.org/~lu_zero
-- 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list



Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC : New ebuild function pkg_create for creating corespondent sorce tarball

2007-07-17 Thread Luca Barbato
Alin Năstac wrote:
 Luca Barbato wrote:
 I'm not sure how many special cases/option would be necessary for such
 script, like exclude dir, one tar per dir and so on.
   
 
 The process of creating the tarball is quite specific to the package in
 question, therefore you cannot make an universal function that does that.
 See the app-mobilephone/bitpim maketarball() and you'll see.
 

My idea is to have your overlay with live ebuilds and a tool to make a
release out of it.

All the messy stuff remains in pkg_setup/src_unpack all you need to do
then is to iterate the workdir and make tarballs of what you find there.

Sounds good enough?

lu

-- 

Luca Barbato

Gentoo/linux Gentoo/PPC
http://dev.gentoo.org/~lu_zero
-- 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list



Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC : New ebuild function pkg_create for creating corespondent sorce tarball

2007-07-17 Thread Mike Auty
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

Vlastimil Babka wrote:
 I think he wants to do exactly that, but having the code needed for this
 right in the ebuild, so it can benefit from varibles like PV and
 versionator eclass for converting PV to e.g. CVS tags... I think it's
 quite elegant for this, and that you don't need another script
 maintained somewhere else. If there was also switch in the respective
 new 'ebuild foo.ebuild src_create' command to automatically scp files
 specified by mirror://gentoo in SRC_URI to the right place... mmm :)

It also means that if a developer has had to move files around or in
some way create the specific layout of the tarball for the ebuild, they
won't be lost if the dev goes away, or retires, etc.  So attaching the
specific package creation code to the specific package unpacking code
seems fairly sensible.  Although, I can see why there may be objections,
given the very specific circumstances in which it's useful...

Mike  5:)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v2.0.5 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFGnKUqu7rWomwgFXoRAsGzAJ9Qx8Qg4zInhXSJsoOy3C8L7ZVwjgCfS+dh
fUx8fdYlqBTPX6TSgrSLQnQ=
=kWPM
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
-- 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list



Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: ML changes

2007-07-17 Thread Paul de Vrieze
On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 15:11:19 Duncan wrote:
 Ryan Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED] posted [EMAIL PROTECTED],

 excerpted below, on  Thu, 12 Jul 2007 19:01:53 -0600:
   Why don't we create the gentoo-project mailing
  list, and, you know, actually wait a bit to see how that actually goes.
   Then we can talk about how best to handle -dev.  One shit at a time,
  people.

 +1

 It should also be noted that it's council election time, and I don't
 believe a change such as closing -dev to moderated write status is really
 urgent enough to have the outgoing council handle.  Let the folks running
 for council now make their positions part of their platforms, and after -
 project is up and running for a couple months and the new council is in
 place, /then/ let's see if moderating -dev remains a burning enough issue
 to be voted on.

I agree with you that this should be pulled over the election. That will also 
allow some time to see how the -project list works out.

Paul
-- 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list



Re: [gentoo-dev] ML changes

2007-07-17 Thread Paul de Vrieze
On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 17:11:55 Seemant Kulleen wrote:

 This leaves two courses of action.

 1. Officially install him as such; or
 2. Stop letting him wield his power over you.  (yes, you, not us --
 concentrate on how much you let him affect you).

I guess you know my vote. Option 1 is unacceptable.

Paul

ps. Not that I've been letting him do so, but I've been otherwise occupied.
-- 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list



Re: [gentoo-dev] ML changes

2007-07-17 Thread Paul de Vrieze
On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 01:34:17 Thomas Tuttle wrote:

 Personally, I prefer quicker mechanisms to slower ones, but some people
 dislike real-time communications because they can interrupt their work
 constantly.  I think what's important is not the signal-to-noise ratio,
 per se, but the relevant-to-irrelevant ratio.  To me, it makes no
 difference whether the traffic that I don't care about is spam/trolls or
 just discussion of another project.  So I'd support -dev being for
 coordination of core development and -project being for other things, so
 that people can read all of -dev easily and simply pay attention to only
 what they want to see on -project.  But I see no reason to moderate
 either -- #-dev is moderated because IRC is an easy medium to disrupt.
 It's a lot harder to wander on to a mailing list and start trolling, and
 it's easier to block.

Many people also have very little time to invest into gentoo. For those it is 
not possible to be on IRC often, while for e-mail you can indeed save up 
things until the end of the day and reply when it is convenient to you. As 
such a -dev mailing list is much more useful than a #-dev IRC channel. 
Ignoring the list is ignoring many developers who want to do work instead of 
monitoring IRC.

Paul

-- 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list



Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: For Jakub (and the other procmail-impaired)

2007-07-17 Thread Samuli Suominen
On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 01:30:12 +0100
Steve Long [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

  :0
  * ^List-Id:.gentoo-dev.gentoo.org.
  * ^Subject:.*ML changes
  /dev/null
 Sorry was there some reason the rest of us had to read this? If so,
 please explain it like a responsible Council member. Or is this your
 swansong? If so it's l4m3.

Are you for real?

Still having hard time to believe it.

Poison.
-- 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list



Re: [gentoo-dev] Getting -project started

2007-07-17 Thread George Prowse

Roy Marples wrote:

On Tue, 2007-07-17 at 11:00 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:

How about defining the purpose of all these list with which we'll
soon end up before going ahead and requesting changes?


-dev is just for technical development.
-project is for non technical development of Gentoo.

What is technical development? Well, if your email doesn't have any code
or questions about code then it probably doesn't belong on -dev is is
more suited to another list.

If you feel the urge to email about other things then submit more list
ideas.

So that would mean that welcoming new developers would be on the 
-project list?


Would package removals be on it because it seems to be somewhere in the 
middle?

--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list



Re: [gentoo-dev] Getting -project started

2007-07-17 Thread Roy Marples
On Tue, 2007-07-17 at 14:13 +0100, George Prowse wrote:
 So that would mean that welcoming new developers would be on the 
 -project list?

Or on say gentoo-announce, but yes.

 Would package removals be on it because it seems to be somewhere in the 
 middle?

That's an announcement, so I would say it shouldn't be there.

The idea is that -dev is just about development. Having more specific
mailing lists should stop people treating -dev like their personal soap
box which seems to be the big issue atm.

Thanks

Roy

-- 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list



Re: [gentoo-dev] Getting -project started

2007-07-17 Thread Kumba

George Prowse wrote:


So that would mean that welcoming new developers would be on the 
-project list?


My thinking, I think they would fit better over there, since it is somewhat 
non-technical.  However, machine-generated notices of dev arrival or dev 
departure could be directed to other lists.  There's been talk of a 
-dev-announce list as well; perhaps such automated messages of dev changes could 
be sent there in a fashion (either individually as one joins or one leaves, or 
in a weekly digest form summarizing the changes).



Would package removals be on it because it seems to be somewhere in the 
middle?


I think package additions/removals should stay there, since they are development 
related, such as the removal due to bitrot or an unfixiable security flaw, etc. 
 Such messages might also be candidates for the above mentioned -dev-announce 
ML as well.




--Kumba

--
Gentoo/MIPS Team Lead

Such is oft the course of deeds that move the wheels of the world: small hands 
do them because they must, while the eyes of the great are elsewhere.  --Elrond

--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list



Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Nominations open for the Gentoo Council 2007/08

2007-07-17 Thread Kumba

Ryan Hill wrote:

Torsten Veller wrote:

| for the quick low down:
|  - nominations are from July 1 through July 31
|  - anyone can nominate
|  - only Gentoo devs may be nominated
| 
| so get with the nominating people !


I noticed Kumba isn't nominated, so I'll throw him into the ring.


I'll decline for this year; I'm content to hide over in MIPS land and toss out 
random ideas from behind the safe shadows of an Origin 2000 cluster...


Thanks for the nomination, though!


--Kumba

--
Gentoo/MIPS Team Lead

Such is oft the course of deeds that move the wheels of the world: small hands 
do them because they must, while the eyes of the great are elsewhere.  --Elrond

--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list



[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-nfp] Nominations open for the 2007/08 Trustees

2007-07-17 Thread Grant Goodyear
Ned Ludd wrote: [Mon Jul 16 2007, 04:00:44PM CDT]
 Long term I worry about the foundation. No offense to anybody. I'm sure 
 I don't know or understand the problems you/we have encountered along
 the way. But I think we need to face it 99.9% of our devs are not
 suited to run a foundation such as this. That's not a bad thing in any
 such way. Most of us came to this project cuz we are geeks doing geeky
 things is what we do best.. 
 I'm sure some of you get roped into doing the foundation because
 you truly love Gentoo and want to see things be taken care of. However
 to be frank. I don't think I've seen a single substantial thing
 accomplished sense cshields left Gentoo. Please don't take that the
 wrong way. I know we are all busy people. Perhaps you guys have done
 shitloads and I/we just don't know about it. Perhaps it's still the same
 old story.. We are waiting on ABC banks. We can't re-incorp without 
 XYZ first.

Actually, we have a bank, paypal successfully talks to it, and 
I believe that we're completely caught up w/ all of the various funding
requests that we've received.  You're point is still a good one, 
however.

 Anyway point I'm trying to make here is that I think we might be 
 better off using a 3rd party as our foundation. IE people who have 
 the experience/motivation and time to focus on such things 
 that a foundation should be.
 
 Anyway. I'd like to nominate nobody in-house.

Yeah, I tend to agree.  Not-so-coincidentally, Gentoo's been invited to
join the Software Freedom Conservancy, which would provide just the sort
of 3rd-party management that you're suggesting.  I put a write-up on my
blog detailing what we know so far:

http://www.grantgoodyear.org/g2blog/gentoo/20070717-sflc.html

I'm cross-posting to -dev, and suggesting that comments be sent 
there as well, since most people don't read -nfp.

If you think this is a good idea, a bad idea, or you just want to know
more, now's the time to express your opinion.

-g2boojum-
-- 
Grant Goodyear  
Gentoo Developer
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.gentoo.org/~g2boojum
GPG Fingerprint: D706 9802 1663 DEF5 81B0  9573 A6DC 7152 E0F6 5B76


pgpp7bj1YGexu.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-nfp] Nominations open for the 2007/08 Trustees

2007-07-17 Thread Marijn Schouten (hkBst)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

Grant Goodyear wrote:

 Not-so-coincidentally, Gentoo's been invited to
 join the Software Freedom Conservancy.

For those like me who don't already know who these people are. As you can read
here [http://www.softwarefreedom.org/services/] under Non-profit Corporate
Assistance, they appear to be a spin-off of the Software Freedom Law Center
(SFLC) which was was launched in February 2005 with Eben Moglen, of GPLv3
fame, as Chairman:

The SFLC helps FOSS projects develop and maintain legal status to help ensure
their longevity. The SFLC assists its clients with all stages of corporate
existence, including formation and tax exemption, and helps projects with
their contracts and governance. The SFLC established and continues to serve as
counsel to the Software Freedom Conservancy, which provides an alternative to
independent corporate formation for FOSS projects. The SFLC is also able to
represent its clients in negotiations.

Marijn
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v2.0.5 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFGnOdpp/VmCx0OL2wRAocTAJ9FULX8CMOyZWsliGxvSXYZ1KmNDgCeNbxV
P1nm8iij8GjYBR3fW2DTXxw=
=iGWC
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
-- 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list



[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-nfp] Nominations open for the 2007/08 Trustees

2007-07-17 Thread Ned Ludd
On Tue, 2007-07-17 at 10:08 -0500, Grant Goodyear wrote:
 Ned Ludd wrote: [Mon Jul 16 2007, 04:00:44PM CDT]
  Long term I worry about the foundation. No offense to anybody. I'm sure 
  I don't know or understand the problems you/we have encountered along
  the way. But I think we need to face it 99.9% of our devs are not
  suited to run a foundation such as this. That's not a bad thing in any
  such way. Most of us came to this project cuz we are geeks doing geeky
  things is what we do best.. 
  I'm sure some of you get roped into doing the foundation because
  you truly love Gentoo and want to see things be taken care of. However
  to be frank. I don't think I've seen a single substantial thing
  accomplished sense cshields left Gentoo. Please don't take that the
  wrong way. I know we are all busy people. Perhaps you guys have done
  shitloads and I/we just don't know about it. Perhaps it's still the same
  old story.. We are waiting on ABC banks. We can't re-incorp without 
  XYZ first.
 
 Actually, we have a bank, paypal successfully talks to it, 

Thats good to hear about paypal/banking. And it's good to know 
that you guys are still there looking out for Gentoo. 

 and 
 I believe that we're completely caught up w/ all of the various funding
 requests that we've received.  You're point is still a good one, 
 however.
 
  Anyway point I'm trying to make here is that I think we might be 
  better off using a 3rd party as our foundation. IE people who have 
  the experience/motivation and time to focus on such things 
  that a foundation should be.
  
  Anyway. I'd like to nominate nobody in-house.
 
 Yeah, I tend to agree.  Not-so-coincidentally, Gentoo's been invited to
 join the Software Freedom Conservancy, which would provide just the sort
 of 3rd-party management that you're suggesting.  I put a write-up on my
 blog detailing what we know so far:
 
 http://www.grantgoodyear.org/g2blog/gentoo/20070717-sflc.html
 
 I'm cross-posting to -dev, and suggesting that comments be sent 
 there as well, since most people don't read -nfp.
 
 If you think this is a good idea, a bad idea, or you just want to know
 more, now's the time to express your opinion.
 
 -g2boojum-

We're happy to discuss methods that have worked for other projects with
you to help you select the solution that is right for you.

I defiantly think this makes the most sense for Gentoo at this time.
One area that seems a tad fuzzy in details is how Gentoo would handle 
dealing with Paragraph 6 - Representation of the Project in the
Conservancy. If we went to FSC route. Should we bother in even having a
foundation? If so what role shall it play other than to be the liaison
between internal funding requests? I think clearly it would not be the
best of ideas to allow all our devs unilateral spending abilities.
Would you mind inquiring about the methods that have worked for other
projects ? 

We are a 501(c)6 right now if I remember correctly and that has been a
limiting factor in us receiving donations in this past. By teaming up
with them we gain the 501(c)3 status. That seems like a good thing in
and of itself as it allows our sponsors to write off donations to 
the project. Which in turn could lead to a lot more donations, which 
then turns into Gentoo being able to offer bigger and better things 
at the end of the day.

Thanks for taking the time to work with them, and informing us that 
the foundation is still active (it's somewhat hard to tell sometimes).

-- 
Ned Ludd [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Gentoo Linux

-- 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list



Re: [gentoo-dev] Nominations open for the Gentoo Council 2007/08

2007-07-17 Thread Jose Luis Rivero (YosWinK)
I'm missing some people in the nominees list which everytime they appear 
is to give solutions or ideas in a positive way, what for me is a 
pleasure to find:


dsd  (Daniel Drake)
lu_zero  (Luca Barbato)
zmedico  (Zac Medico)

Thanks.

--
Jose Luis Rivero [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Gentoo/Doc Gentoo/Alpha
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list



Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC : New ebuild function pkg_create for creating corespondent sorce tarball

2007-07-17 Thread Robert Buchholz
On Tuesday, 17. July 2007 13:16, Mike Auty wrote:
 It also means that if a developer has had to move files around or in
 some way create the specific layout of the tarball for the ebuild,
 they won't be lost if the dev goes away, or retires, etc.  So
 attaching the specific package creation code to the specific package
 unpacking code seems fairly sensible.  Although, I can see why there
 may be objections, given the very specific circumstances in which
 it's useful...

Having it inside the ebuild could also be useful for people who want to 
bump packages themselves and file bugs: They can use the dev's original 
create function and package the sources for testing.

Regards,

Robert
-- 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list



Re: [gentoo-dev] Nominations open for the Gentoo Council 2007/08

2007-07-17 Thread Jim Ramsay
Jan Kundrát wrote:
 lack (he's a bit fresher, but his mails are good)

Thanks very much, I appreciate the nomination!

But I must decline.

I don't feel that I have enough experience in Gentoo land yet. Plus
I'll be starting a new job next month and am not yet sure how much time
I can commit.

Ask me again in a year :)

-- 
Jim Ramsay
Gentoo/Linux Developer (rox,gkrellm)


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature


Re: [gentoo-dev] Getting -project started

2007-07-17 Thread Joe Peterson
Kumba wrote:
 George Prowse wrote:
 So that would mean that welcoming new developers would be on the 
 -project list?
 
 My thinking, I think they would fit better over there, since it is somewhat 
 non-technical.  However, machine-generated notices of dev arrival or dev 
 departure could be directed to other lists.  There's been talk of a 
 -dev-announce list as well; perhaps such automated messages of dev changes 
 could 
 be sent there in a fashion (either individually as one joins or one leaves, 
 or 
 in a weekly digest form summarizing the changes).

Seems to me that new dev announcements should be on [perhaps the
announcement variant] of -dev, since they are related to the development
team.  It'd be nice to hear those announcements on the list devs are
required to subscribe to, so all devs hear about new arrivals.  As an
IMHO, -dev (or variants) should be for topics of importance to
*developers  development* (but not attacks/flame wars, politics, etc.,
obviously), and not strictly limited to *technical/coding* issues, which
seems a bit narrow.

 Would package removals be on it because it seems to be somewhere in the 
 middle?
 
 I think package additions/removals should stay there, since they are 
 development 
 related, such as the removal due to bitrot or an unfixiable security flaw, 
 etc. 
   Such messages might also be candidates for the above mentioned 
 -dev-announce 
 ML as well.

+1

-Joe
-- 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list



[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-nfp] joining the Software Freedom Conservancy (was: Nominations open for the 2007/08 Trustees)

2007-07-17 Thread Marius Mauch
On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 10:08:23 -0500
Grant Goodyear [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 Ned Ludd wrote: [Mon Jul 16 2007, 04:00:44PM CDT]
  Anyway point I'm trying to make here is that I think we might be 
  better off using a 3rd party as our foundation. IE people who have 
  the experience/motivation and time to focus on such things 
  that a foundation should be.
  
  Anyway. I'd like to nominate nobody in-house.
 
 Yeah, I tend to agree.  Not-so-coincidentally, Gentoo's been invited
 to join the Software Freedom Conservancy, which would provide just
 the sort of 3rd-party management that you're suggesting.  I put a
 write-up on my blog detailing what we know so far:
 
 http://www.grantgoodyear.org/g2blog/gentoo/20070717-sflc.html

While I think this would be an excellent move, there are a few topics
that concern me a bit:
1) just to be sure, did someone check the transfer agreement between the
Foundation and the old Gentoo, Inc for potential problems?
2) what would this mean for our copyright situation? In detail:
a) who would (legally) own the copyright?
b) what would (in theory) be involved if we'd want to enforce/change
the license?
c) if the copyright were owned by the Conservancy, would we have to
change our copyright headers (in existing and/or new files)?
3) the time it takes to process a funding request worries me a little
bit as well, but then I've never had to deal with that so I'll trust
people who have more experience with that.

2c) is the thing that concernes me the most, changing all of our
copyright notices would be a huge pain.

Btw, you should probably make a new topic for that so people actually
notice it.

Marius
-- 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list



Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC : New ebuild function pkg_create for creating corespondent sorce tarball

2007-07-17 Thread Alin Năstac
Luca Barbato wrote:
 My idea is to have your overlay with live ebuilds and a tool to make a
 release out of it.

 All the messy stuff remains in pkg_setup/src_unpack all you need to do
 then is to iterate the workdir and make tarballs of what you find there.

 Sounds good enough?
   
Basically you propose to have a src_whatever function that will work as
a substitute for src_unpack() in case you don't find the tarball on
mirrors, isn't it?
That could work too, but what if, depending on some useflag, I need to
patch the source tree? Because the new function must be capable to
replace src_unpack, you will have to add a command like use foo 
epatch ... at the end of the new function. If foo useflag is enabled on
your system, the external tool that build the tarball will create it
based on a wrongly patched source tree. 



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC : New ebuild function pkg_create for creating corespondent sorce tarball

2007-07-17 Thread Luca Barbato
Alin Năstac wrote:
 Luca Barbato wrote:
 My idea is to have your overlay with live ebuilds and a tool to make a
 release out of it.

 All the messy stuff remains in pkg_setup/src_unpack all you need to do
 then is to iterate the workdir and make tarballs of what you find there.

 Sounds good enough?
   
 Basically you propose to have a src_whatever function that will work as
 a substitute for src_unpack() in case you don't find the tarball on
 mirrors, isn't it?

More or less a tool that runs the steps till src_unpack included and
then repacks what it finds in workdir.

 That could work too, but what if, depending on some useflag, I need to
 patch the source tree? Because the new function must be capable to
 replace src_unpack, you will have to add a command like use foo 
 epatch ... at the end of the new function. If foo useflag is enabled on
 your system, the external tool that build the tarball will create it
 based on a wrongly patched source tree. 

Well much depends on what is the seed ebuild.

I make the assumption we have 2 kind of ebuilds

live ebuilds that we use to produce tarballs and normal ebuilds that use
those tarballs.

it is a little more complex than your propose but keeps things separated.

lu


-- 

Luca Barbato

Gentoo/linux Gentoo/PPC
http://dev.gentoo.org/~lu_zero
-- 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list



Re: [gentoo-dev] Nominations open for the Gentoo Council 2007/08

2007-07-17 Thread Luca Barbato
Jose Luis Rivero (YosWinK) wrote:
 I'm missing some people in the nominees list which everytime they appear
 is to give solutions or ideas in a positive way, what for me is a
 pleasure to find:
 
 lu_zero  (Luca Barbato)

Thank you, I gladly accept. =)

lu

-- 

Luca Barbato

Gentoo/linux Gentoo/PPC
http://dev.gentoo.org/~lu_zero
-- 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list



Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: ML changes

2007-07-17 Thread Roy Bamford
On 2007.07.13 18:12, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
 On Fri, 2007-07-13 at 08:34 +0200, Christian Faulhammer wrote:
  Mike Doty [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
  
   We're voting on this next council meeting so if you have input,
 now
   would be the time.
  
   Really, I don't like the idea...the list has been calm for some
 time
  now, the discussions were lengthy sometimes but not aggressive.
 
[snip stuff I mostly agree with]
 -- 
 Chris Gianelloni
 Release Engineering Strategic Lead
 Alpha/AMD64/x86 Architecture Teams
 Games Developer/Soon to be former Council Member and glad/Foundation
 Trustee
 Gentoo Foundation
 

The original vision for the proctors failed because the council 
perceived that the proctors was going to be a a high profile, 
preemptive action project, mostly on the -dev mailing list.
To be preemptive requires time to act - which is just not possible 
without moderation or some form of delay.
To be high profile requires to be very public too, so there is actually 
a profile to see at all. Human nature dictates that individuals don't 
like the 'loss of face' associated with having their shortcomings 
pointed out in public, thus the most successful proctors work was 
carried out on a one to one basis, not preemtively and in a very low 
profile way. In my opinion, the project was successful in improving 
communications but not in the way it was originally envisioned by the 
council when the project was started.
Oh - a final word on the proctors ... there is no need to be a member 
of any project to smooth out misunderstandings or help improve 
communications. A thick skin to avoid being upset when you try to help 
and its not required is an asset though.


I don't like the proposed ML change, for several reasons.

1. As others have said, it will create a class structure within Gentoo, 
with non-dev contributors becoming second class citizens. At the same 
time, the barrier to becoming a develper will be increased. 

2. Something that can be done by *anybody* (list moderation) will be 
done by *nobody* - You only need look around at your workplace to see 
that. Worse still, if the proposed moderation actually happens, it will 
be based on nepotism. I say that because people will only look at posts 
they are likely to be interested in.

3. Gentoo is a living organism ... users (including devs) contribute 
what they can when they can. As has already been discussed, 
organisations go through several major structural changes as they grow 
and its possible gentoo is due one now.
Keeping in mind those three points I propose that :-
a) -core is unchanged
b) -dev has its scope narrowed to gentoo wide technical issues only
c) -per herd lists are used for traffic that does not concern almost 
everyone.

This reducing the scope of of -dev reduces the noise on the list as 
presently, even the on topic posts are noise to most devs.

The above restructuring allows room for gentoo to grow, without 
creating any second class citizens and reduces the perceived noise on -
dev at the same time.

Should the council want to enable moderation, they need to appoint a 
group to do it *everyone* simply won't work. Finding members might be 
difficult as the original ML control group has just been disbanded.

Before the council vote on this latest idea, I suggest they learn from 
the open source movement and look at other distros that have survived 
to become bigger (head count) than Gantoo and see what they did. There 
is no need to reinvent the wheel or suffer from the 'not invented here' 
syndrome. Drawing on what other distros or large projects have done is 
the was OSS works.

The worst thing the council can do is vote this measure as a parting 
gesture, a process that cannot be completed before the existing 
councils last meeting on 9th August. It needs proper research and 
consideration so is best left to the incoming council since they will 
have to live with the decision. 

Regards,

Roy Bamford
(NeddySegoon)  
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list



Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Nominations open for the Gentoo Council 2007/08

2007-07-17 Thread Luis Francisco Araujo
Kumba wrote:
 Ryan Hill wrote:
 Torsten Veller wrote:
 | for the quick low down:
 |  - nominations are from July 1 through July 31
 |  - anyone can nominate
 |  - only Gentoo devs may be nominated
 | | so get with the nominating people !

 I noticed Kumba isn't nominated, so I'll throw him into the ring.
 
 I'll decline for this year; I'm content to hide over in MIPS land and
 toss out random ideas from behind the safe shadows of an Origin 2000
 cluster...
 
 Thanks for the nomination, though!
 
 
 --Kumba
 

Admit it, you just wii all the time. :-)

-- 

Luis F. Araujo araujo at gentoo.org
Gentoo Linux

-- 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list



Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: For Jakub (and the other procmail-impaired)

2007-07-17 Thread Chris Gianelloni
On Tue, 2007-07-17 at 02:52 +0100, Steve Long wrote:
 Perhaps you'd like to explain just how Mr Gianelloni's post was NOT a troll
 then? Or is every developer's procmail setting (particularly for such a
 stupid thread) a matter we should all be discussing? It's not like amne
 never pointed out, several mails ago, that the whole thread had been done
 to death or anything, is it?
 
 And no, I don't like being lumped in with Mr McCreesh.

How exactly is the technical answer to a technical question (from Jakub,
about how to avoid the thread) a troll?

-- 
Chris Gianelloni
Release Engineering Strategic Lead
Alpha/AMD64/x86 Architecture Teams
Games Developer/Council Member/Foundation Trustee
Gentoo Foundation


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part


Re: [gentoo-dev] council and proctors

2007-07-17 Thread Chris Gianelloni
On Tue, 2007-07-17 at 09:41 +0200, Wernfried Haas wrote:
 So the way i read it devrel would like to do something if requested,
 but isn't supposed to enforce the CoC, nor has the authority?

Considering that the Code of Conduct is a subset of the regular Gentoo
developer policies that Developer Relations already enforces, I would
say that they are definitely enforcing the CoC and have the authority.
What DevRel currently doesn't have is authority to exercise over users,
rather than just developers.  Basically, we're back to where we were
before we had the Proctors, except we have a more succinct document on
what is expected behavior.  There are several proposals out now (you've
seen the enormous thread, I'm sure) dealing with possible alternative
solutions to the Proctors.  One of them will likely be implemented some
time soon.  We'll just have to wait and see.

-- 
Chris Gianelloni
Release Engineering Strategic Lead
Alpha/AMD64/x86 Architecture Teams
Games Developer/Council Member/Foundation Trustee
Gentoo Foundation


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part


Re: [gentoo-dev] council and proctors

2007-07-17 Thread Wernfried Haas
On Tue, Jul 17, 2007 at 12:09:58PM -0700, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
 Considering that the Code of Conduct is a subset of the regular Gentoo
 developer policies that Developer Relations already enforces, I would
 say that they are definitely enforcing the CoC and have the authority.
 What DevRel currently doesn't have is authority to exercise over users,
 rather than just developers.  Basically, we're back to where we were
 before we had the Proctors, except we have a more succinct document on
 what is expected behavior.  There are several proposals out now (you've
 seen the enormous thread, I'm sure) dealing with possible alternative
 solutions to the Proctors.  One of them will likely be implemented some
 time soon.  We'll just have to wait and see.

That was about what i would have guessed - thanks for the explanation.

cheers,
Wernfried

-- 
Wernfried Haas (amne) - amne (at) gentoo.org
Gentoo Forums - http://forums.gentoo.org
forum-mods (at) gentoo.org
#gentoo-forums (freenode)

pgprmZU3hcjLW.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC : New ebuild function pkg_create for creating corespondent sorce tarball

2007-07-17 Thread Donnie Berkholz
On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 06:37:43 +0200
Marius Mauch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 07:25:02 +0300
 Alin Năstac [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 
  I was asked to discuss here a portage enhancement proposed by me
  [1].
  
  Basically I need a pkg_create() that will be executed only in the
  context of the upcoming ebuild ${PF}.ebuild create command.
  
  The package where I need it is app-mobilephone/bitpim. The upstream
  doesn't offer a source tarball, so I need to construct it myself
  from their svn repository. Up till recently, I used some hackery in
  pkg_setup() to create it
  (see the ebuild), but now ebuild $PF.ebuild setup verify the
  digest before running pkg_setup().
  
  [1] http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=185567
 
 Two questions:
 - are there more packages that could benefit from this?
 - is there a particular reason this has to be integrated into the
 ebuild and should not be handled by an ordinary script?

Sure. Every package with an unversioned upstream tarball that we're
forced to mirror a reversioned tarball of, or can't mirror at all.

It makes a lot of sense to put this sort of package maintenance and
creation information in the same place as the package.

But to do it right, we might need a new type of dependency. This will
require more research into whether any packages would have a use for it.

Thanks,
Donnie


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature


Re: [gentoo-dev] Getting -project started

2007-07-17 Thread Roy Marples
On Tue, 2007-07-17 at 11:30 -0600, Joe Peterson wrote:
 Seems to me that new dev announcements should be on [perhaps the
 announcement variant] of -dev, since they are related to the development
 team.  It'd be nice to hear those announcements on the list devs are
 required to subscribe to, so all devs hear about new arrivals.  As an
 IMHO, -dev (or variants) should be for topics of importance to
 *developers  development* (but not attacks/flame wars, politics, etc.,
 obviously), and not strictly limited to *technical/coding* issues, which
 seems a bit narrow.

Making it narrow should enforce people to stay on topic.

Topics of important to the Development Of Gentoo are more valid on
council, or trustees mailing lists. Recent example of this is the
discussion on licensing which fits in with your description of
developers and development. We assign copyright to the Gentoo Foundation
so the correct place for discussion is the trustees list.

Thanks

Roy

-- 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list



Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC : New ebuild function pkg_create for creating corespondent sorce tarball

2007-07-17 Thread Mike Frysinger
On Tuesday 17 July 2007, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
 Alin Năstac [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  Basically I need a pkg_create() that will be executed only in the
  context of the upcoming ebuild ${PF}.ebuild create command.

 This isn't something that should be done in an ebuild. It's more
 suitable to an external script maintained by the appropriate herd.

except that it makes transition of maintenance of packages from person to 
person, herd to herd, whatever to monkey, a lot easier.  not everything has a 
herd and not every herd has a standard (or anything close) as to how these 
things are done.  having a useful helper function in an ebuild eases and 
standardizes all of these things.

 There's no point cluttering up the tree with something that is of no
 use to end users.

incorrect.  end users can utilize these functions just as easily as a 
developer to help test a new tarball not yet in the tree.
-mike


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.


Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC : New ebuild function pkg_create for creating corespondent sorce tarball

2007-07-17 Thread Mike Frysinger
On Tuesday 17 July 2007, Alin Năstac wrote:
 P.S: The name proposed by me isn't exactly right, as Mike already
 remarked on the bug. I suggest to use src_create as function name.

Marius proposed src_makedist which is pretty good ... i wonder though if there 
may be a better prefix than src_ or pkg_ considering neither quite fit into 
this realm of expansion ...
-mike


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.


[gentoo-dev] Gentoo

2007-07-17 Thread Rick Sivernell

 I am trying to contact somebody in charge of gentoo. I have tried for years 
now to get my email address off your list, but all has failed. If someone knows 
this person or will send me the email address so that I may contact them, I 
would appreciate this. Currently this is eating our bandwidth and I am sending 
all to the trash bin now.

-- 
 Rick Sivernell
 Dallas, Texas  75287
 972 306-2296
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Registered Linux User
-- 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list



Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo

2007-07-17 Thread Petteri Räty
Rick Sivernell kirjoitti:
  I am trying to contact somebody in charge of gentoo. I have tried for years 
 now to get my email address off your list, but all has failed. If someone 
 knows this person or will send me the email address so that I may contact 
 them, I would appreciate this. Currently this is eating our bandwidth and I 
 am sending all to the trash bin now.
 

http://www.gentoo.org/main/en/lists.xml

Regards,
Petteri



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


RE: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo

2007-07-17 Thread Chrissy Fullam
Send an email to this address to be removed from the mailing list:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 

For your reference, and for any additional Gentoo lists you may be on, I
have included the following link for further information:
http://www.gentoo.org/main/en/lists.xml

Kind regards,
Christina Fullam
Gentoo Developer Relations Lead | GWN Author


-Original Message-
From: Rick Sivernell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Friday, July 13, 2007 5:17 AM
To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
Subject: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo


 I am trying to contact somebody in charge of gentoo. I have tried for years
now to get my email address off your list, but all has failed. If someone
knows this person or will send me the email address so that I may contact
them, I would appreciate this. Currently this is eating our bandwidth and I
am sending all to the trash bin now.

--
 Rick Sivernell
 Dallas, Texas  75287
 972 306-2296
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Registered Linux User
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list

-- 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list



Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo

2007-07-17 Thread Michael Sullivan
On Fri, 2007-07-13 at 07:16 -0500, Rick Sivernell wrote:
  I am trying to contact somebody in charge of gentoo. I have tried for years 
 now to get my email address off your list, but all has failed. If someone 
 knows this person or will send me the email address so that I may contact 
 them, I would appreciate this. Currently this is eating our bandwidth and I 
 am sending all to the trash bin now.
 
 -- 
  Rick Sivernell
  Dallas, Texas  75287
  972 306-2296
  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Registered Linux User

Wow.  You've been trying to get off this list for YEARS?  And the
unsubscribe information has been in the headers of every email this list
sends out.  You must feel pretty foolish about now.  BTW, it's not the
list administrator's job to unsubscribe people.
-Michael Sullivan-

-- 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list



Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo

2007-07-17 Thread Mike Frysinger
On Tuesday 17 July 2007, Michael Sullivan wrote:
 On Fri, 2007-07-13 at 07:16 -0500, Rick Sivernell wrote:
   I am trying to contact somebody in charge of gentoo. I have tried for
  years now to get my email address off your list, but all has failed. If
  someone knows this person or will send me the email address so that I may
  contact them, I would appreciate this. Currently this is eating our
  bandwidth and I am sending all to the trash bin now.
 
  --
   Rick Sivernell
   Dallas, Texas  75287
   972 306-2296
   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
   Registered Linux User

 Wow.  You've been trying to get off this list for YEARS?  And the
 unsubscribe information has been in the headers of every email this list
 sends out.  You must feel pretty foolish about now.  BTW, it's not the
 list administrator's job to unsubscribe people.

you should join my SFOH clan
-mike


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.


[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-nfp] Nominations open for the 2007/08 Trustees

2007-07-17 Thread Daniel Ostrow
snip
 Yeah, I tend to agree.  Not-so-coincidentally, Gentoo's been invited to
 join the Software Freedom Conservancy, which would provide just the sort
 of 3rd-party management that you're suggesting.  I put a write-up on my
 blog detailing what we know so far:
 
 http://www.grantgoodyear.org/g2blog/gentoo/20070717-sflc.html
 
 I'm cross-posting to -dev, and suggesting that comments be sent 
 there as well, since most people don't read -nfp.
 
 If you think this is a good idea, a bad idea, or you just want to know
 more, now's the time to express your opinion.
snip

Just went trough this with another project I belong to and I think it
would be a GREAT idea. granted would have to be accepted by the
developer population but I for one know that when I was a trustee I was
rather paralyzed by fear doing anything with the NFP entity. Please
please pleasey please do this!


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part


[gentoo-dev] x86 toolchain changes heads up

2007-07-17 Thread Mike Frysinger
historically, gcc on x86 has always defaulted to i386.  some people noticed 
recently that glibc-2.6 fails to build in this situation as they were only 
setting -mtune via CFLAGS, not -march.  i'll be tweaking gcc so that it will 
default -march based on your CHOST.  so all the i686-* people will now have a 
default -march=i686 implied in their gcc systems, i586-* people will 
have -march=i586, etc...  keep in mind this is merely the default.
-mike


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.


[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-council] Nominations open for the Gentoo Council 2007/08

2007-07-17 Thread Mike Frysinger
i dont think he'll accept, but i dont see Flameeyes name yet ...
-mike


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.


Re: [gentoo-dev] Getting -project started

2007-07-17 Thread Robin H. Johnson
On Tue, Jul 17, 2007 at 12:28:09AM -0700, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
 On Tue, Jul 17, 2007 at 10:04:55AM +0300, Petteri R??ty wrote:
  I have seen no real opposition for the creation of the -project mailing
  list and even this ML changes thread itself involved the creation of the
  -project mailing (the thread itself is a prime example on why we need
  -project in the first place) so how about we just get that mailing list
  going right no and let the rest of it fall into place later. My guess is
  that if we would have had -project for ages, the need for moderating
  -dev would have never come about. I bet there are devs who have talked
  about creating this kind of a list months, even years ago. This time
  it's not about show me the code but show me the mailing list!
 
 Speaking strictly in an infra role here, and not a council role at all.
 
 If there is no opposition (because I suspect I might have missed it in
 the length of the previous thread) to the _creation_ of -project by Jul
 18th 00h00 UTC, I'll create it.

The list is created now.

Along with other pending list requests that infra had.
gentoo-project
gentoo-lisp
gentoo-vdr
gentoo-dev-announce

-- 
Robin Hugh Johnson
Gentoo Linux Developer  Council Member
E-Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
GnuPG FP   : 11AC BA4F 4778 E3F6 E4ED  F38E B27B 944E 3488 4E85


pgpdhVAsm7unC.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Re: [gentoo-dev] Getting -project started

2007-07-17 Thread Philip Webb
070717 Robin H. Johnson wrote:
 On Tue, Jul 17, 2007 at 10:04:55AM +0300, Petteri R??ty wrote:
 I have seen no real opposition for the creation of the -project list
 so how about we just get that mailing list going right now
 and let the rest of it fall into place later.
 My guess is that if we would have had -project for ages,
 the need for moderating -dev would have never come about.
 The list is created now, along with other pending list requests:
   gentoo-project
   gentoo-lisp
   gentoo-vdr
   gentoo-dev-announce

To this user since 2003, who plans to install Gentoo in the new machine
which I am presently designing, this sounds like a very welcome development.
I shall continue to subscribe to -dev , but not to -project.
Should I also subscribe to -dev-announce
or will its msgs be duplicated on -dev ?

Hopefully, all the devs can now get back to making Gentoo even better,
for which volunteer work I continue always to be grateful.

-- 
,,
SUPPORT ___//___,  Philip Webb : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ELECTRIC   /] [] [] [] [] []|  Centre for Urban  Community Studies
TRANSIT`-O--O---'  University of Toronto
-- 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list



Re: [gentoo-dev] Getting -project started

2007-07-17 Thread Kumba

Philip Webb wrote:


To this user since 2003, who plans to install Gentoo in the new machine
which I am presently designing, this sounds like a very welcome development.
I shall continue to subscribe to -dev , but not to -project.
Should I also subscribe to -dev-announce
or will its msgs be duplicated on -dev ?


Think of it as a filter; important things that are announcement-worthy will get 
sent to -dev-announce, for people who want to keep on top of things w/o the 
background noise.




Hopefully, all the devs can now get back to making Gentoo even better,
for which volunteer work I continue always to be grateful.


I, for one, welcome our new volunteering developer Overlords! /slashdot



--Kumba

--
Gentoo/MIPS Team Lead

Such is oft the course of deeds that move the wheels of the world: small hands 
do them because they must, while the eyes of the great are elsewhere.  --Elrond

--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list