El jue, 14-05-2009 a las 03:32 +0300, Mart Raudsepp escribió:
Hello,
I have had this project in my mind for a while, so it's about time to
get it out there, as to see if feedback finds it a good one - and if
that is so, if there are people who want to make it happen.
It is worded as a
Duncan wrote:
Nikos Chantziaras rea...@arcor.de posted gufm71$un...@ger.gmane.org,
excerpted below, on Thu, 14 May 2009 02:47:55 +0300:
My posts to gmane.linux.gentoo.devhelp don't seem to get through. Does
someone know if something is wrong with the list's subscription on
GMane? All other
Nikos Chantziaras rea...@arcor.de posted gugfo5$i9...@ger.gmane.org,
excerpted below, on Thu, 14 May 2009 10:03:43 +0300:
I worked around it by subscribing manually to that list (using the
-nomail list option). After that, postings from GMane get through.
Thanks. (Further reply/explanation
Hi,
Nikos Chantziaras rea...@arcor.de:
Daniel Pielmeier wrote:
Also this question is not appropriate for this list. The
gentoo-devhelp mailing-list or #gentoo-dev-help on IRC are better
places for this kind of questions.
My posts to gmane.linux.gentoo.devhelp don't seem to get through.
Hi,
Nikos Chantziaras rea...@arcor.de:
Btw: Is there a typo in the eclass? Shouldn't it be Project .pro
file PREFIX=/usr does not exist instead of Project .pro file
PREFIX=/usr does not exists
I just checked qt3.eclass and indeed its a typo in there.
Which is now gone.
V-Li
--
Hi,
Jeremy Olexa darks...@gentoo.org:
I don't see any reason to create a team that duplicates the sunrise
work.
More power to Sunrise, yes. Sunrise is a great project, although I
don't dedicate too much time for it nowadays.
V-Li
--
Christian Faulhammer, Gentoo Lisp project
On Wed, 2009-05-13 at 20:47 -0500, Jeremy Olexa wrote:
Mart Raudsepp wrote:
Hello,
Hey,
I have had this project in my mind for a while, so it's about time to
get it out there, as to see if feedback finds it a good one - and if
that is so, if there are people who want to make it happen.
On Thursday 14 May 2009 03:32:12 Mart Raudsepp wrote:
Hello,
I have had this project in my mind for a while, so it's about time to
[..]
I think there is no need for this project. Developers can always browse
bugzilla and pick every 'maintainer-wanted' ebuild they like. At least this
is what
On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 07:54:35AM +0200, Patrick Lauer wrote:
Yes, one did. Some people just need a good excuse to leave :)
You lost the best laptop developer Gentoo had ever had..
--
Alexander Færøy
http://dev.exherbo.org/~ahf/
pgpscOKrRfN37.pgp
Description: PGP signature
To potential responders to this message:
Nothing to see here, please move along.
Everytime you reply to this message, a kitten is deleted.
2009/5/14 Alexander Færøy a...@0x90.dk:
On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 07:54:35AM +0200, Patrick Lauer wrote:
Yes, one did. Some people just need a good excuse
On N, 2009-05-14 at 14:02 +0300, Markos Chandras wrote:
On Thursday 14 May 2009 03:32:12 Mart Raudsepp wrote:
Hello,
I have had this project in my mind for a while, so it's about time to
[..]
I think there is no need for this project. Developers can always browse
bugzilla and pick
AllenJB wrote:
All that's going to happen is Gentoo will have many many buggy and out
of date packages in the MAIN TREE. Exactly where they shouldn't be. You
claim quality won't be sacrificed, but I simply can't see this without
any attempt to solve the manpower issues first.
Isn't the
Mart Raudsepp wrote:
Liking and using the package yourself shouldn't be a prerequisite for a
package getting to be in-tree by the maintainer-wanted team.
How about actually maintaining the package?
For example, user contributes ebuild for foo-1.0. I don't use it or
like it, but I go ahead
Mart Raudsepp schrieb:
If people are a) too lazy to contribute to sunrise, b) don't
know about sunrise, or c) don't know enough about ebuilds to contribute
to sunrise, then we need to fix[1] that.
Sure, the sunrise project can do all of that. That doesn't make the
packages available in
For quite some time (over a year, actually) we've been discussing the
mysterious and often misunderstood GLEP55.
[http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/glep/glep-0055.html]
The proposed solution to a problem that is never refined, in short, is to add
the EAPI into the ebuild filename to make things
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 2009.05.14 01:32, Mart Raudsepp wrote:
Hello,
[snip]
Project maintainer-wanted
=
Abstract:
There are currently quite some package requests (over 3000)
languishing
on bugzilla waiting for a developer or team to
Duncan 1i5t5.duncan at cox.net writes:
FWIW, that'd not be a portage issue per se, but an EAPI issue, since it
I see, very interesting! Sounds like a lengthy process, but never mind. Do you
know where EAPI changes are discussed? (Google and the Bugtracker didn't yield a
useful reply.)
Cheers,
On Thu, 14 May 2009 18:34:29 + (UTC)
Sven sv...@delirium.ch wrote:
Duncan 1i5t5.duncan at cox.net writes:
FWIW, that'd not be a portage issue per se, but an EAPI issue,
since it
I see, very interesting! Sounds like a lengthy process, but never
mind. Do you know where EAPI changes are
On Thu, 14 May 2009 20:06:51 +0200
Patrick Lauer patr...@gentoo.org wrote:
You need to know the EAPI to parse the ebuild to find the EAPI
Obviously that's not true, because somehow we manage at the moment.
And if one does a small restriction (which doesn't restrict current
behaviour because
Roy Bamford schrieb:
We could use user contributed ebuilds attached to bugs as a way to
bring Sunrise to the contributors attention just by posting a comment
to the bug. If the contributor follows up, we get another user
maintained ebuild in Sunrise, which is good, as the current developers
On Thursday 14 May 2009 19:06:51 Patrick Lauer wrote:
For quite some time (over a year, actually) we've been discussing the
mysterious and often misunderstood GLEP55.
[http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/glep/glep-0055.html]
We agree on the latter adjective, if nothing else.
The proposed solution
Dne čtvrtek 14 Květen 2009 20:39:07 Ciaran McCreesh napsal(a):
Where on earth are you getting the idea that GLEP 55 makes things
slower? The only difference to the code with GLEP 55 is in checking
file extensions against a slightly larger set of strings, which is
nowhere near a measurable
On Thu, 14 May 2009 21:05:52 +0200
Patrick Lauer patr...@gentoo.org wrote:
Where on earth are you getting the idea that GLEP 55 makes things
slower? The only difference to the code with GLEP 55 is in checking
file extensions against a slightly larger set of strings, which is
nowhere near a
On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 2:06 PM, David Leverton
levert...@googlemail.com wrote:
yourself, shell-like. printf -v EAPI 1 is perfectly valid shell (at
least if we decide to allow bash 3.1 features), and has the same effect
To stir things up:
Who decides this? There are more and more bash-3.1
Patrick Lauer wrote:
On Thursday 14 May 2009 20:39:07 Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Thu, 14 May 2009 20:06:51 +0200
Patrick Lauer patr...@gentoo.org wrote:
Let EAPI be defined as (the part behind the = of) the first line of
the ebuild starting with EAPI=
Uh, so horribly utterly and obviously
On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 13:11, Ciaran McCreesh
ciaran.mccre...@googlemail.com wrote:
Please explain why you claimed GLEP 55 makes things slower. Until you
answer that, it's hard to take you for anything other than a troll.
Hell, I'll explain. Read paragraph 8 again. Slowly. Read it a
second
On Thu, 14 May 2009 21:09:58 +0200
Tomáš Chvátal scarab...@gentoo.org wrote:
Dne čtvrtek 14 Květen 2009 20:39:07 Ciaran McCreesh napsal(a):
Where on earth are you getting the idea that GLEP 55 makes things
slower? The only difference to the code with GLEP 55 is in checking
file extensions
On Thu, 14 May 2009 13:17:24 -0600
RB aoz@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 13:11, Ciaran McCreesh
ciaran.mccre...@googlemail.com wrote:
Please explain why you claimed GLEP 55 makes things slower. Until
you answer that, it's hard to take you for anything other than a
troll.
On Thursday 14 May 2009 21:20:18 Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Thu, 14 May 2009 13:17:24 -0600
RB aoz@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 13:11, Ciaran McCreesh
ciaran.mccre...@googlemail.com wrote:
Please explain why you claimed GLEP 55 makes things slower. Until
you answer
On Thu, 14 May 2009 14:15:28 -0500
Jeremy Olexa darks...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 2:06 PM, David Leverton
levert...@googlemail.com wrote:
yourself, shell-like. printf -v EAPI 1 is perfectly valid
shell (at least if we decide to allow bash 3.1 features), and has
the same
On Thu, 14 May 2009 21:24:14 +0200
Patrick Lauer patr...@gentoo.org wrote:
so with glep55 caching it is actually slower!
There's no possible way that can make sense. Whatever he's claiming
by that is obviously nonsense.
Ah. I was not precise enough.
Let me rephrase it in less
Patrick Lauer wrote:
For quite some time (over a year, actually) we've been discussing the
mysterious and often misunderstood GLEP55.
[http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/glep/glep-0055.html]
The proposed solution to a problem that is never refined,
This, in my opinion, is the crux of the
On Thu, 14 May 2009 22:03:22 +0200
Ben de Groot yng...@gentoo.org wrote:
I concur that speaking for myself, I don't understand the issue. And
it looks like many others don't either. So if anyone wants to promote
this GLEP, their job is clear: make people understand what the issue
is here, and
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi,
I realize that I'm asking this very late in the discussion, so please
bear with me if it has been hashed before.
On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 11:16:23PM +0200, Peter Alfredsen wrote:
We need a mechanism to be able to use newer bash-features in
On Thursday 14 May 2009 23:53:37 Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Thu, 14 May 2009 16:49:09 -0500
William Hubbs willi...@gentoo.org wrote:
The second solution seems to be the better one because it does not go
against standards. For example, we see extentions like .c, .py and
.pl, instead of
libusb-1 is in the tree now.
This means that you get to go and test all your apps that use it.
There's a list further down of all packages and all ebuilds.
Every one of these needs to be tested, and amended in one of two ways:
- Does work with libusb-compat:
1. Change your [R]DEPEND to
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Thu, 14 May 2009 20:06:51 +0200
Patrick Lauer patr...@gentoo.org wrote:
You need to know the EAPI to parse the ebuild to find the EAPI
Obviously that's not true, because somehow we manage at the moment.
And if one does a small restriction (which doesn't restrict
37 matches
Mail list logo
