Re: [gentoo-dev] lastrite: net-fs/coda-kernel (treecleaners)
ext Daniel Drake schrieb: Samuli Suominen wrote: # Samuli Suominen [EMAIL PROTECTED] (21 Apr 2008) # Masked by treecleaners for bug 160267. Removed in ~60 days. # Has been included in 2.6 kernel series. net-fs/coda-kernel Are you sure? codafs has been in the kernel for years but I think the external package is something different. I'd say the only difference is the version. Don't know how frequently the in-kernel module code is updated, though. Bye... Dirk -- Dirk Heinrichs | Tel: +49 (0)162 234 3408 Configuration Manager | Fax: +49 (0)211 47068 111 Capgemini Deutschland | Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Wanheimerstraße 68 | Web: http://www.capgemini.com D-40468 Düsseldorf | ICQ#: 110037733 GPG Public Key C2E467BB | Keyserver: www.keyserver.net signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] config_eth0 deprecated - new name?
On Thursday 24 April 2008 00:01:01 Robin H. Johnson wrote: The problem in this is that you cannot set the properties for each address or route. Please don't take us back to the stoneage of writing the advanced networking configuration manually. As an example of an ip address line with properties: ${ext}.30/32 broadcast - scope host Correct as usual. However, the existing config_foo isn't going anyway anytime soon, so your power user config still works. However, it will be moving to the right place ifconfig_eth0 ip_addr_eth0 And we'll stop parsing it. You'll have to know the syntax for the module you're using. I'm going to trying to map between them which will make the code lighter and less error prone. An an example of a route with properties: ${int}.192/27 dev bond0 mtu 1500 table internal scope link (my normal mtu on the internal link is 9k, but part of the subnet runs at 1500 for netbooting on dumb cards) You can do this with the BSD style syntax static_routes_bond0=int0 int192 defint route_int0=${int}.0/8 dev bond0 table internal scope link route_int192=${int}.192/27 dev bond0 mtu 1500 table internal scope link route_defint=default via ${int}.2 bond0 table internal Thanks Roy -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] config_eth0 deprecated - new name?
On Wednesday 23 April 2008 23:01:38 Graham Murray wrote: Roy Marples [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Wednesday 23 April 2008 21:46:18 Robin H. Johnson wrote: See my attached example from work, we use a lot of the various options on stuff. No, we won't support that. However, we will bring back ip ranges for the last ocet like so 1.2.3.4-10/24 It looks to me as though you are intending to remove the capability to set up complex network environments. No I'm not. I'm making it easy for simple configs AND complex ones. Just not through the same variable. [1] But in my opinion, the baselayout-1 /etc/net.conf syntax is better than that in baselayout-2. Though I have not yet migrated any of the systems with complex networking to baselayout-2. Sadly, default scripts we ship have to work with shells other than bash. Of course, you're still welcome to use config_eth0 as a bash array as that still works and will for the foreseeable future. Thanks Roy -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] config_eth0 deprecated - new name?
Roy Marples wrote: On Thursday 24 April 2008 00:01:01 Robin H. Johnson wrote: The problem in this is that you cannot set the properties for each address or route. Please don't take us back to the stoneage of writing the advanced networking configuration manually. As an example of an ip address line with properties: ${ext}.30/32 broadcast - scope host Correct as usual. However, the existing config_foo isn't going anyway anytime soon, so your power user config still works. However, it will be moving to the right place ifconfig_eth0 ip_addr_eth0 Looks like some documentation could be useful. lu -- Luca Barbato Gentoo Council Member Gentoo/linux Gentoo/PPC http://dev.gentoo.org/~lu_zero -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
[gentoo-dev] Last Rights: x11-themes/openbox-themes
# David Shakaryan [EMAIL PROTECTED] (24 Apr 2008) # Masked for removal in 30 days. (bug #197277) # Extremely old compilation of themes not utilising new features. # Openbox is intended to move to a new theme format in the future. x11-themes/openbox-themes -- David Shakaryan -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Last Rights: x11-themes/openbox-themes
David Shakaryan wrote: # David Shakaryan [EMAIL PROTECTED] (24 Apr 2008) # Masked for removal in 30 days. (bug #197277) # Extremely old compilation of themes not utilising new features. # Openbox is intended to move to a new theme format in the future. x11-themes/openbox-themes Argh! Regarding the subject, homophones suck at 2am. :( -- David Shakaryan -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] config_eth0 deprecated - new name?
Roy Marples [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Wednesday 23 April 2008 23:01:38 Graham Murray wrote: It looks to me as though you are intending to remove the capability to set up complex network environments. No I'm not. I'm making it easy for simple configs AND complex ones. Just not through the same variable. Sorry, I misunderstood. -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
[gentoo-dev] Prioritising contact information in metadata.xml
Hi developers and other users, since jakub[1] went completely missing a few weeks ago a few others and I have been wrangling the bugs. I've heard rumours that this isn't working smoothly yet. Of course most of that can be fully blamed on bugzilla itself, but there are some things that need to be pointed out or discussed. One thing I'd like to point out is that if you don't agree with a specific mangle, just CC whoever did it on the bug and explain. If you don't give me the feedback, I can never know how you would rather have wanted to get bugs delivered. One other thing is that it is sometimes difficult to figure out to whom a bug should be assigned, because metadata.xml for many packages simply isn't clear. If you list a few developers as well as a herd, does that mean you want bugs assigned to the herd or to a single developer who happens to be in that list? Some packages list several herds in metadata.xml. Bugs can be assigned to just one address (or you get Assignee: [EMAIL PROTECTED],[EMAIL PROTECTED] did not match anything). [2] has nothing explicit to say on this subject, sadly. It seems some editors of metadata.xml use the file as a sort of CREDITS or AUTHORS. While that may seem OK, the file is intended to give information about ebuilds. ChangeLog is intended to credit authors (specifically mentioning ebuild authors and contributors[3]). So maybe this needs to be layed out more specifically in the Developer Handbook, or maybe this needs to be discussed more. I can tell that from my end, and possibly from the viewpoint of any user who is seeking support contacts, listing more than one contact in metadata.xml is rather pointless, unless descriptions are added so that it's clear which component of a package is supported by whom. All in all I guess we need to make the rules up as we go and decide policy later. I suggest the first herd/address in the list should be the primary contact. If you don't agree with that, please consult metadata.xml for the package or reassign to bug-wranglers with an explanation (and perhaps a promise to quickly change metadata.xml. :) Kind regards, JeR [1] Where is the old bugger? Anyone know? On a strictly human level, I am getting quite worried. [2] http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/devrel/handbook/handbook.xml?part=2chap=4 [3] http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/devrel/handbook/handbook.xml?part=3chap=1#doc_chap3_sect6 -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Prioritising contact information in metadata.xml
On Thursday 24 April 2008, Jeroen Roovers wrote: One other thing is that it is sometimes difficult to figure out to whom a bug should be assigned, because metadata.xml for many packages simply isn't clear. If you list a few developers as well as a herd, does that mean you want bugs assigned to the herd or to a single developer who happens to be in that list? Some packages list several herds in metadata.xml. unfortunately this is dependent on the herd/developers. debating which is correct is pointless. let's add a priority or some other marker to the dtd so people updating the xml can indicate the preference themselves. Bugs can be assigned to just one address (or you get Assignee: [EMAIL PROTECTED],[EMAIL PROTECTED] did not match anything). that's why the CC list exists [2] has nothing explicit to say on this subject, sadly. It seems some editors of metadata.xml use the file as a sort of CREDITS or AUTHORS. While that may seem OK, the file is intended to give information about ebuilds. ChangeLog is intended to credit authors (specifically mentioning ebuild authors and contributors[3]). agreed. metadata.xml is certainly not the place for giving credit. use the ChangeLog file. -mike signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-dev] config_eth0 deprecated - new name?
On Thursday 24 April 2008, Luca Barbato wrote: Roy Marples wrote: On Thursday 24 April 2008 00:01:01 Robin H. Johnson wrote: The problem in this is that you cannot set the properties for each address or route. Please don't take us back to the stoneage of writing the advanced networking configuration manually. As an example of an ip address line with properties: ${ext}.30/32 broadcast - scope host Correct as usual. However, the existing config_foo isn't going anyway anytime soon, so your power user config still works. However, it will be moving to the right place ifconfig_eth0 ip_addr_eth0 Looks like some documentation could be useful. documentation is a requirement, but not everyone reads it. existing configs have to keep working and warning on their use is much smoother/easier on everyone. -mike signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-dev] Prioritising contact information in metadata.xml
On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 10:05:35PM +0200, Jeroen Roovers wrote: All in all I guess we need to make the rules up as we go and decide policy later. I suggest the first herd/address in the list should be the primary contact. If you don't agree with that, please consult metadata.xml for the package or reassign to bug-wranglers with an explanation (and perhaps a promise to quickly change metadata.xml. :) Review the posts I made on the list last year about how to do assignment in a sane fashion. I'll link them tonight when I'm back from the party I'm hitting up. They do describe all the cases that people came up with, including where herds are too-specific or too broad. -- Robin Hugh Johnson Gentoo Linux Developer Infra Guy E-Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] GnuPG FP : 11AC BA4F 4778 E3F6 E4ED F38E B27B 944E 3488 4E85 pgpuPH8JfNdXh.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Prioritising contact information in metadata.xml
On Thu, 24 Apr 2008, Luis Francisco Araujo wrote: | One other thing is that it is sometimes difficult to figure out to | whom a bug should be assigned, because metadata.xml for many packages | simply isn't clear. If you list a few developers as well as a herd, | does that mean you want bugs assigned to the herd or to a single | developer who happens to be in that list? Some packages list several | herds in metadata.xml. Bugs can be assigned to just one address I'd say that in the case of a herd listed , the bug should be sent there. A common case is a herd plus a specific maintainer, and I think then it should be assigned to the maintainer, with a CC to the herd's team. If it doesn't specify a herd but several developers, sending the bug to any or all of them should be the rule. In this case, it should be assigned to the first developer listed, and all others in CC. Ulrich -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Prioritising contact information in metadata.xml
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Ulrich Mueller wrote: | On Thu, 24 Apr 2008, Luis Francisco Araujo wrote: | | | One other thing is that it is sometimes difficult to figure out to | | whom a bug should be assigned, because metadata.xml for many packages | | simply isn't clear. If you list a few developers as well as a herd, | | does that mean you want bugs assigned to the herd or to a single | | developer who happens to be in that list? Some packages list several | | herds in metadata.xml. Bugs can be assigned to just one address | | I'd say that in the case of a herd listed , the bug should be sent | there. | | A common case is a herd plus a specific maintainer, and I think then | it should be assigned to the maintainer, with a CC to the herd's team. | | If it doesn't specify a herd but several developers, sending the bug | to any or all of them should be the rule. | | In this case, it should be assigned to the first developer listed, and | all others in CC. | If this is the case, I think this should be stated somewhere in the docs , since the order of listed maintainers don't have any priority, and I personally would prefer to keep it so. - -- Luis F. Araujo araujo at gentoo.org Gentoo Linux -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAkgRUVIACgkQNir3WYj9aLoEjQCeIvFaInENgCOhz65K9CaywFa4 C7gAnjjQAT82gerNwWmModYBVEpVHBrF =V6VD -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list