Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: Gentoo Support Everywhere
Jesús Guerrero wrote: > On Wed, May 20, 2009 01:11, Mark Bateman wrote: > >> Jesús Guerrero terra.es> writes: >> >> >> >>> On Wed, May 20, 2009 00:40, Duncan wrote: >>> >>> Jesús Guerrero terra.es> posted f7f0028fed7284065d82b976e721ec3a.squirrel jesgue.homelinux.org, >>> I've checked it lots of times, and it's there. It's in the "Moderators" >>> subforum, and it's near to the top of the list on that subforum so if >>> you can access that subforum you shouldn't have a problem finding it, >>> since linuxquestions is in the title. >>> >>> >> Umm *only* Forum Moderators and forum admins can view that sekrit >> section of the forums. Its not even linked for anyone else >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > Check now, I've moved it on request. > http://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-t-762914.html > > I still get this: "The topic or post you requested does not exist". I am logged in. Oh well. Dale :-) :-)
[gentoo-dev] Last rites: app-doc/afsdoc (Jun 1 2009)
Masked this a couple weeks ago but forgot to announce it: - old old old docs for the AFS file system, which get installed with net-fs/openafs USE=doc anyways - not touched since 2005 - unmaintained -- gcc-porting, by design, by neglect treecleaner, for a fact or just for effect wxwidgets @ gentoo EFFD 380E 047A 4B51 D2BD C64F 8AA8 8346 F9A4 0662 signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Gentoo Support Everywhere
Jesús Guerrero wrote: > On Wed, May 20, 2009 00:37, Dale wrote: > >> That would be the point. Gentoo has its own forum so why have two >> forums? What would be the point in having two places to go look for >> answers? Better yet, why would Gentoo support both forums? >> > > You mean like all the rest of big distros? :p All the the distros > there have some kind of support in LQ, otherwise they wouldn't be > allowed to have a subforum. All of them have also their own forums. > > Like it or not, LQ is the first place where a newcomer goes. > Actually, the first place I went to was justlinux. Rest in peace mdwatts. It was a while later that I found LQ. > > >> I'm a member at LQ tho I haven't been there in a long while. I just >> don't see why there has to be two forums when the one forum we have is more >> than enough. If someone can't find the Gentoo forums, I'm not sure they >> can find the chair and keyboard either. lol >> > > Probably, still I am of the kind who fights before surrendering > just because someone else consider something a lost cause. > > We could go rounds for days with this same argument. Just because > one thing is enough or more than sufficient it doesn't mean that > all the persons in the world are going to accept that or discover > it at the first glance. As said, that I answer things about > gentoo there is not open for discussion: it is a fact. > > I just want to ease my job there. > > I don't see how doing double the work will benefit anyone. Its a lot easier to have one forum than it is to have two forums. I just think the Gentoo folks would be better to concentrate on what we have than to be spreading more work around for the same people. Its not like they don't have enough work already. Dale :-) :-)
[gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: Project proposal -- maintainer-wanted
Mart Raudsepp posted 1242777068.30374.30.ca...@localhost, excerpted below, on Wed, 20 May 2009 02:51:08 +0300: > It is about getting popular packages (based on various metrics) into the > official tree for easy access and with known quality. Perhaps some concrete examples of packages you have in mind might be useful. I list in the footnote[1] a couple I originally merged from sunrise, that are now in-tree. I that the type of package you had in mind? What /about/ sunrise packages? Will you be working with them to bring "popular" packages from there in-tree too? Of course in your case the ebuilds aren't in the tree yet, but bug numbers for apps you believe fit the "popular" description might be useful. "Popular packages" is a nebulous enough term on its own, that some examples might help. Also, an example or two of what you might consider a borderline case, that you might consider adding if the load on the proposed project wasn't too high already, but would reject if it was. Feel free to add comments or explanations on how you came to that conclusion, both for the popular and borderline examples, as well, if you think it necessary. . [1] I still use sys-apps/moreutils. The other one was www-plugins/swfdec-mozilla and its dep media-libs- swfdec, which I had some trouble with and eventually unmerged in favor of a couple of youtube downloaders, since youtube was what I mainly used swfdec for anyway. -- 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
Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Gentoo Support Everywhere
On Wed, 2009-05-20 at 01:10 +0200, Jesús Guerrero wrote: > On Wed, May 20, 2009 00:37, Dale wrote: > > That would be the point. Gentoo has its own forum so why have two > > forums? What would be the point in having two places to go look for > > answers? Better yet, why would Gentoo support both forums? > > You mean like all the rest of big distros? :p All the the distros > there have some kind of support in LQ, otherwise they wouldn't be > allowed to have a subforum. All of them have also their own forums. Curious, do they also actively point people in their LQ subforums to their official forums when they get the chance? > Like it or not, LQ is the first place where a newcomer goes. -- Mart Raudsepp Gentoo Developer Mail: l...@gentoo.org Weblog: http://planet.gentoo.org/developers/leio signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Project proposal -- maintainer-wanted
On Thu, 2009-05-14 at 10:50 -0400, Richard Freeman wrote: > 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? Yes, actually maintaining the package would be a standard for the project. > For example, user contributes ebuild for foo-1.0. I don't use it or > like it, but I go ahead and throw it into portage. User logs bug that > foo-1.0 wipes out random files from time to time. Nobody looks at said > bug since nobody owns foo, and bug starts getting 3000 "me-too!" > comments. The maintainer-wanted team owns that foo package then, which is why having a different mail alias than the existing one for "new package requests that aren't in gentoo tree yet" would be a good idea. > Some charitable developer takes a look and the problem isn't > obvious and offers to just mask the package. Now 3000 people running > foo are upset for it being de-supported (when it wasn't supported in the > first place). > > Wouldn't it make more sense for people who like the foo-1.0 ebuild to > just stick it in their own ebuild or an overlay and be on their own > (since they're really on their own either way)? Or to move it to > sunrise or some other place where it might actually get some level of > support? I am proposing to have it in the official tree and not having such a situation happen at all by random dev adding it to tree without the intention to maintain it. > If Gentoo is going to distribute an ebuild Gentoo should > Do-It-Right(TM). Why put our name on something we don't really want to > care for? The intention would be to Do-It-Right(TM). -- Mart Raudsepp Gentoo Developer Mail: l...@gentoo.org Weblog: http://planet.gentoo.org/developers/leio signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Project proposal -- maintainer-wanted
On Fri, 2009-05-15 at 06:25 -0400, Richard Freeman wrote: > > if you want to exaggerate a bit, we have roughly 500 ebuilds in > portage > > which are maintainer-needed and have only a few users and thats why > you > > want to keep popular packages out of the tree? > > > > Actually, where any of those ebuilds cause problems I'm fine with > getting rid of them. I'm certainly not arguing for inconsistency. > I'm > just suggesting that we shouldn't make the problem worse. I'm not suggesting to make the problem worse either. On the contrary. maintainer-needed packages that clearly are used to close by no-one or no-one (based on no-one reporting build bugs or version bump requests or whatever) should probably indeed be last-rited and removed from the tree, especially if there is no active upstream. This seems to be what the treecleaners project is about, and maintainer-wanted is not meant to have anything to do with that. It is about getting popular packages (based on various metrics) into the official tree for easy access and with known quality. > > If a package is popular then somebody should volunteer to maintain it > (whether by becoming a gentoo dev or by starting their own overlay). > If > that isn't happening than clearly the package isn't THAT important. > This is open source - if you have an itch, then scratch it! Don't > just > complain that nobody else is scratching YOUR itch (even if it is a > popular itch). I don't think we have all topics covered by active teams. When maintainer-wanted team packages something in-tree that would be suitable for a certain existing team, the categorization in the proposed listing of maintainer-wanted packages would imply that, so that once they are able to handle more they can take over if it is well suited for their set of packages. Until such a time this kind of packages would be available in great, good or acceptable quality to the users. > > In any case, my opinion is that for packages to be in portage they > should be of a certain level of quality, and a developer should be > accountable for the packages they commit. Anybody is welcome to grab > ebuilds out of CVS, screen them, and commit them. However, if they > cause havoc then the developer can't just say "but it was popular and > unmaintained, so I figured I'd just commit something without looking > at > it." If a developer is willing to commit an appropriate amount of > time > to QA then they essentially have become a maintainer and the package > is > no-longer maintainer-wanted. The maintainer-wanted team would effectively aggregate those people together, so that the end result would be better quality, quicker response times and so on. -- Mart Raudsepp Gentoo Developer Mail: l...@gentoo.org Weblog: http://planet.gentoo.org/developers/leio signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: Gentoo Support Everywhere
On Tue, 19 May 2009 22:40:44 + (UTC) Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote: > Jesús Guerrero posted > f7f0028fed7284065d82b976e721ec3a.squir...@jesgue.homelinux.org, excerpted > below, on Tue, 19 May 2009 23:57:38 +0200: > > > I don't know what the problem is with the forum thread, but it's there, > > I swear :) > > Have you double-checked for a typo? I can't see the thread either, > getting a does not exist error, not the unauthorized or locked or > whatever error I'd expect if it were that, so I expect it's a typo. > > Here's the link as originally posted. Please double-check. Or, as > someone else suggested, tell us how to navigate there (which forum, > subject, date posted for thread origin, author, etc). I'd have tried > that if I knew where to look, but there's not enough info in the post as- > is to do so. > > http://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-t-762914.html > It's there for me if I should see Gentoo subforum in LinuxQuestions.org and a poll. > -- > 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 > > Regards, Ferris -- Ferris McCormick (P44646, MI) Developer, Gentoo Linux (Sparc, Userrel, Trustees) signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: Project proposal -- maintainer-wanted
On Sun, 2009-05-17 at 12:08 -0600, Ryan Hill wrote: > On Thu, 14 May 2009 03:32:12 +0300 > Mart Raudsepp wrote: > > > Project maintainer-wanted > > = > > > > Abstract: > > There are currently quite some package requests (over 3000) languishing > > on bugzilla waiting for a developer or team to get interested and > > package it in the official gentoo-x86 portage tree. However in quite > > some cases that might not happen for quite a while even with very > > popular packages desired by users. The purpose of the maintainer-wanted > > project is to get as many of such packages to the official tree as > > possible as a stopgap solution. > > Actually, I'm working on a "get the crap out of the tree" project that is > pretty much the exact opposite of this. ;) I don't think it opposes it much, maybe only 2-5% of maintainer-needed packages. Popular packages aren't crap. Their packaging ease might be, but obviously people want to use those if they are popular, hence we can't dub them really "crap". We could say those packages are "crap" that get building bugs filed by tinderbox runs from Patrick, Diego and other such people, while no-one else has cared. The maintainer-wanted project would not be interested in any such packages. Those are obviously dead applications/libraries that are in no way popular and very beneficial to carry in the official tree. > But, things I like: > > - metrics for package popularity (can we do gentoo-stats already?) Yeah, that'd be cool. Some other metrics ideas I brought out that can be used for this projects purposes while there is no gentoo-stats. > - encouraging teams and maintainers to take an interest in unmaintained > packages It being a project/team making it more likely it doesn't degrade over time when there is no dedicated team maintaining this. Maybe we could make it so that when a package maintained by someone specific (individual or team) that was taken over from maintainer-wanted would drop back to maintainer-wanted team instead of maintainer-needed herd, as the latter currently has technically no members. > - keeping track of maintainer-wanted/needed packages through categorization, > etc. > - proxy-maintainers > > These things I think would benefit both projects, as well as several others. > > I would actually rather see our overall package count dropping than growing, > but if we're adding quality, maintained stuff and tossing out the garbage then > I guess that's an improvement too. Indeed. -- Mart Raudsepp Gentoo Developer Mail: l...@gentoo.org Weblog: http://planet.gentoo.org/developers/leio signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Project proposal -- maintainer-wanted
On Thu, 2009-05-14 at 19:24 +0100, Roy Bamford wrote: > -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 get interested and > > package it in the official gentoo-x86 portage tree. However in quite > > some cases that might not happen for quite a while even with very > > popular packages desired by users. The purpose of the > > maintainer-wanted > > project is to get as many of such packages to the official tree as > > possible as a stopgap solution. > > > [snip] > > > > Discuss! :) > > > > Mart Raudsepp > > Gentoo Developer > > Mail: l...@gentoo.org > > Weblog: http://planet.gentoo.org/developers/leio > > > > Mart, > > I'm against for many of the reasons AllanJB outlined. There is no point > in adding more unmaintained packages to the tree. Over time, the > average quality of the tree will suffer. I have not proposed adding unmaintained packages to the tree. I have proposed adding packages to the tree that are maintained. The maintainer-wanted team maintains them actively until a specific team is interested in taking over. Based on other replies to the thread, it seems no-one believes that a special team could add only so many packages that they are capable of maintaining in good quality. Also it has been brought up many times that if there is a popular package not yet in the tree, there will be someone to add and maintain it. But that doesn't seem to be the case when looking at existing maintainer-wanted bugs. Also by having a team for this, the whole team is accountable. If a maintainer-wanted ebuild is added by this team, it is done as a team - if the person in the team most interested in it is busy otherwise, the team will still take care of its bugs and quality and bumps. > 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 > don't have to do all the work. We already know some Sunrise > contributors become developers so perhaps we can use this as a way to > attract more contributors (both users and developers). Meanwhile there is no-one to add packages that are wanted by many users to the official tree. This project is meant as a remedy for that. The proposal also lists various ways for actually finding out what packages are the ones most beneficial to have in the official tree - as opposed to unknown quality attachment in bugzilla, sunrise overlay, other overlays or requests in bug entries without an attached ebuild - as to be able to inflict as much good for the distribution as possible, given the teams current capacity. -- Mart Raudsepp Gentoo Developer Mail: l...@gentoo.org Weblog: http://planet.gentoo.org/developers/leio signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
[gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: Gentoo Support Everywhere
Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> posted pan.2009.05.19.23.18...@cox.net, excerpted below, on Tue, 19 May 2009 23:18:21 +: > The moderators subforum [I see it's moved. Thanks.] -- 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
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: Project proposal -- maintainer-wanted
On Fri, 2009-05-15 at 12:24 +, Duncan wrote: > Daniel Pielmeier posted > 6142e6140905150344y4a8007b5wd352ffe891e49...@mail.gmail.com, excerpted > below, on Fri, 15 May 2009 12:44:47 +0200: > > > 2009/5/15 Marijn Schouten (hkBst) : > >> > >> Thilo Bangert wrote: > >>> > >>> Fedora is a much more current distribution than Gentoo - and has been > >>> for a couple of years... > >> > >> Please elaborate what exactly you think Fedora does better than we do. > >> I have no first-hand experience with Fedora, but from what I read I had > >> the impression that sometimes they go with new stuff before it is > >> ready, like KDE4 and pulseaudio. I like about the current situation > >> that we also have all those things available AFAICS, but have very > >> broad choices in how much we want to bleed. IMO this is a different > >> issue than having supposedly popular ebuilds not in main tree. > >> > > AFAIK Fedora is [Red Hat's unstable.] So it makes more sense to > > compare it with the Gentoo unstable tree instead of the stable > > one. Assuming this there is probably not a big difference in the > > up-to-dateness. > > Well, yes and no. As the GP said, they sometimes go with new stuff > before it's ready -- before Gentoo even has it in-tree hard-masked let > alone ~arch, while it's still in the various project overlays. I know > they've had some serious issues with xorg on Intel GPUs at least, due to > running versions that aren't in our tree yet, only in the X overlay, > because Fedora is running clearly not even ~arch-ready packages, > sometimes even xorg prereleases. I believe you are thinking of rawhide. Fedora and quite most other distributions work fundamentally different. We have a gradually moving tree, as we can do that by being source based. Fedora and other distributions are doing releases, which involves switching to a newer repository branch with dist-upgrade and so on. They release a new version typically every 6 month, we release new major versions of packages all the time (considering the whole set). I'd say that at the point of binary distribution releases their released trees are somewhere between our ~arch and stable tree, while within a month or two, they become similar to our stable tree until our continous releases overcome it with newer versions. Fedora has xorg prereleases in what they call "rawhide". This is what will become a new release in the future, as they have ~6 month cycles. It's unstable on purpose, as they are thriving towards being stable with that repository at the time of the planned next release, while having up to date packages around the time of the release (with a ~1 month stabilization period before the release time). That's the fundamental difference, and where we can have an advantage over them in addition to other things coming from being source based. > Years ago we'd have put these in-tree but hard-masked for those who > wanted to try them. Now, depending on the package and Gentoo but more > likely as the complexity rises to meta-package levels, those who want to > try them must load an overlay. As someone who selectively unmasks and > tries these, having them in-tree but hard-masked is convenient, but I > understand why projects may prefer overlays in many cases. We do tend to prefer overlays in many cases for unstable releases. The project proposal at hand is of course talking about packages that are not available at all in the main tree yet. Overlays are quite nice for tracking unstable releases of package sets that do have their upstream stable releases in official tree. > However, none of this directly applies to the subject at hand, because > while we're talking new versions of packages already in-tree here, the > subject at hand is packages that aren't in-tree in any form yet. Sorry, still felt like replying with my view on Gentoo vs dist-upgraded distros :) -- Mart Raudsepp Gentoo Developer Mail: l...@gentoo.org Weblog: http://planet.gentoo.org/developers/leio signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
[gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: Gentoo Support Everywhere
"Robin H. Johnson" posted robbat2.20090519t230236.2687450...@orbis-terrarum.net, excerpted below, on Tue, 19 May 2009 16:03:29 -0700: > On Wed, May 20, 2009 at 01:00:34AM +0200, Jesús Guerrero wrote: >> > http://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-t-762914.html >> I've checked it lots of times, and it's there. It's in the "Moderators" >> subforum, and it's near to the top of the list on that subforum so if >> you can access that subforum you shouldn't have a problem finding it, >> since linuxquestions is in the title. > My dev forums account can't access that subforum, nor the post. The moderators subforum would explain it here. It would have been nice to know that in the beginning, but maybe you (Jesús) didn't realize how restricted that subforum was, or perhaps more likely did but just weren't thinking about it. -- 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
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: Gentoo Support Everywhere
On Wed, May 20, 2009 01:11, Mark Bateman wrote: > Jesús Guerrero terra.es> writes: > > >> >> >> On Wed, May 20, 2009 00:40, Duncan wrote: >> >>> Jesús Guerrero terra.es> posted >>> f7f0028fed7284065d82b976e721ec3a.squirrel jesgue.homelinux.org, >> I've checked it lots of times, and it's there. It's in the "Moderators" >> subforum, and it's near to the top of the list on that subforum so if >> you can access that subforum you shouldn't have a problem finding it, >> since linuxquestions is in the title. >> > > Umm *only* Forum Moderators and forum admins can view that sekrit > section of the forums. Its not even linked for anyone else > > > > > > Check now, I've moved it on request. http://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-t-762914.html -- Jesús Guerrero
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: Gentoo Support Everywhere
On Wed, May 20, 2009 01:05, AllenJB wrote: > Jesús Guerrero wrote: > >> On Wed, May 20, 2009 00:40, Duncan wrote: >> >>> Jesús Guerrero posted >>> http://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-t-762914.html >>> >> >> I've checked it lots of times, and it's there. It's in the "Moderators" >> subforum, and it's near to the top of the list on that subforum so if >> you can access that subforum you shouldn't have a problem finding it, >> since linuxquestions is in the title. >> > > Well there's the problem. Why have you chosen to put it in a closed > forum? Why not put it in, for example, Gentoo Chat, where everyone can see > it? > > Stop posting "it works for me" and post something that will definitely > work for everyone please. > > AllenJB Sorry, but I thought that developers could access that subforum. I have moved it to Gentoo Chat, I hope it's fine now. http://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-t-762914.html -- Jesús Guerrero
[gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: Gentoo Support Everywhere
Jesús Guerrero terra.es> writes: > > > On Wed, May 20, 2009 00:40, Duncan wrote: > > Jesús Guerrero terra.es> posted > > f7f0028fed7284065d82b976e721ec3a.squirrel jesgue.homelinux.org, > I've checked it lots of times, and it's there. It's in the "Moderators" > subforum, and it's near to the top of the list on that subforum so if > you can access that subforum you shouldn't have a problem finding it, > since linuxquestions is in the title. > Umm *only* Forum Moderators and forum admins can view that sekrit section of the forums. Its not even linked for anyone else
Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Gentoo Support Everywhere
On Wed, May 20, 2009 00:37, Dale wrote: > That would be the point. Gentoo has its own forum so why have two > forums? What would be the point in having two places to go look for > answers? Better yet, why would Gentoo support both forums? You mean like all the rest of big distros? :p All the the distros there have some kind of support in LQ, otherwise they wouldn't be allowed to have a subforum. All of them have also their own forums. Like it or not, LQ is the first place where a newcomer goes. > I'm a member at LQ tho I haven't been there in a long while. I just > don't see why there has to be two forums when the one forum we have is more > than enough. If someone can't find the Gentoo forums, I'm not sure they > can find the chair and keyboard either. lol Probably, still I am of the kind who fights before surrendering just because someone else consider something a lost cause. We could go rounds for days with this same argument. Just because one thing is enough or more than sufficient it doesn't mean that all the persons in the world are going to accept that or discover it at the first glance. As said, that I answer things about gentoo there is not open for discussion: it is a fact. I just want to ease my job there. -- Jesús Guerrero
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: Gentoo Support Everywhere
Jesús Guerrero wrote: On Wed, May 20, 2009 00:40, Duncan wrote: Jesús Guerrero posted http://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-t-762914.html I've checked it lots of times, and it's there. It's in the "Moderators" subforum, and it's near to the top of the list on that subforum so if you can access that subforum you shouldn't have a problem finding it, since linuxquestions is in the title. Well there's the problem. Why have you chosen to put it in a closed forum? Why not put it in, for example, Gentoo Chat, where everyone can see it? Stop posting "it works for me" and post something that will definitely work for everyone please. AllenJB
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: Gentoo Support Everywhere
On Wed, May 20, 2009 at 01:00:34AM +0200, Jesús Guerrero wrote: > > http://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-t-762914.html > I've checked it lots of times, and it's there. It's in the "Moderators" > subforum, and it's near to the top of the list on that subforum so if > you can access that subforum you shouldn't have a problem finding it, > since linuxquestions is in the title. My dev forums account can't access that subforum, nor the post. -- Robin Hugh Johnson Gentoo Linux Developer & Infra Guy E-Mail : robb...@gentoo.org GnuPG FP : 11AC BA4F 4778 E3F6 E4ED F38E B27B 944E 3488 4E85 pgpfnF3yk7Vzc.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: Gentoo Support Everywhere
On Wed, May 20, 2009 00:40, Duncan wrote: > Jesús Guerrero posted > f7f0028fed7284065d82b976e721ec3a.squir...@jesgue.homelinux.org, excerpted > below, on Tue, 19 May 2009 23:57:38 +0200: > >> I don't know what the problem is with the forum thread, but it's there, >> I swear :) >> > > Have you double-checked for a typo? I can't see the thread either, > getting a does not exist error, not the unauthorized or locked or whatever > error I'd expect if it were that, so I expect it's a typo. > > Here's the link as originally posted. Please double-check. Or, as > someone else suggested, tell us how to navigate there (which forum, > subject, date posted for thread origin, author, etc). I'd have tried that > if I knew where to look, but there's not enough info in the post as- is to > do so. > > http://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-t-762914.html I've checked it lots of times, and it's there. It's in the "Moderators" subforum, and it's near to the top of the list on that subforum so if you can access that subforum you shouldn't have a problem finding it, since linuxquestions is in the title. -- Jesús Guerrero
[gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: Gentoo Support Everywhere
Jesús Guerrero posted f7f0028fed7284065d82b976e721ec3a.squir...@jesgue.homelinux.org, excerpted below, on Tue, 19 May 2009 23:57:38 +0200: > I don't know what the problem is with the forum thread, but it's there, > I swear :) Have you double-checked for a typo? I can't see the thread either, getting a does not exist error, not the unauthorized or locked or whatever error I'd expect if it were that, so I expect it's a typo. Here's the link as originally posted. Please double-check. Or, as someone else suggested, tell us how to navigate there (which forum, subject, date posted for thread origin, author, etc). I'd have tried that if I knew where to look, but there's not enough info in the post as- is to do so. http://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-t-762914.html -- 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
Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Gentoo Support Everywhere
Roy Bamford wrote: > On 2009.05.19 20:52, Dale wrote: > [snip] > > From my understanding, LQ doesn't have a Gentoo subforum because > > Gentoo > > already has its own forum. Why should Gentoo have two forums? I > > must > > also say the the Gentoo forum is more than adequate for help. > > > Also, the link to your thread does not exist. I get "The topic or > > post > > you requested does not exist". > > > Dale > > > :-) :-) > > > > Dale, > > LQ does not have a Gentoo subforum because Gentoo does not yet support > such a subforum. > > I'm sure that the Gentoo Forums are more than adequate for the users > that find their way to them but that LQ gets Gentoo related questions > shows that there is a demand for support there, even if its to post a > link to Gentoo documentaion or posts on the Gentoo Forums. > > The Gentoo subforum on LQ would help to collect the posts in one place. > That would be the point. Gentoo has its own forum so why have two forums? What would be the point in having two places to go look for answers? Better yet, why would Gentoo support both forums? I'm a member at LQ tho I haven't been there in a long while. I just don't see why there has to be two forums when the one forum we have is more than enough. If someone can't find the Gentoo forums, I'm not sure they can find the chair and keyboard either. lol Dale :-) :-)
Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Gentoo Support Everywhere
Could someone who CAN see the forum thread please post the content to the list so that everyone can see it please? (Alternatively, perhaps post how to get to it from forums.gentoo.org manually) AllenJB
Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Gentoo Support Everywhere
On Tue, May 19, 2009 23:42, Robert Buchholz wrote: > On Tuesday 19 May 2009, Jesús Guerrero wrote: > >> On Tue, May 19, 2009 21:52, Dale wrote: >> >>> Also, the link to your thread does not exist. I get "The topic or >>> post you requested does not exist". >> >> The project should be viewable. The forum post will only be >> visible for mods, admins and devs I guess, and only when loged in· >> There's nothing I can do about that. >> > > I get the same error (logged in). I don't know why it is restricted, but > since you announced the thread as containing the rationale for the project, > it was rather hard to follow the reasons. Thanks for stating them in the > mail I am replying to. I don't know what the problem is with the forum thread, but it's there, I swear :) Anyway you are welcome. If you have questions just ask. That's what the RFC is for after all. > Do we need this to be a top-level project? I imagine this might live as > a sub-project of the Forums TLP. No idea. I am new to this whole project thing. I guess that the correct question to ask is whether the forum project team cares at all about this (I guess the answer would be no, at least not as a project, though some individuals might care). With that in mind I doubt they will be willing to have yet another thing to worry about. But I can't speak on behalf of them of course. I really don't care if this is a top level project or a subproject. So, what do people think about this? By the way, thanks for the comments. :) -- Jesús Guerrero
Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Gentoo Support Everywhere
On Tuesday 19 May 2009, Jesús Guerrero wrote: > On Tue, May 19, 2009 21:52, Dale wrote: > > Also, the link to your thread does not exist. I get "The topic or > > post you requested does not exist". > > The project should be viewable. The forum post will only be > visible for mods, admins and devs I guess, and only when loged in· > There's nothing I can do about that. I get the same error (logged in). I don't know why it is restricted, but since you announced the thread as containing the rationale for the project, it was rather hard to follow the reasons. Thanks for stating them in the mail I am replying to. Do we need this to be a top-level project? I imagine this might live as a sub-project of the Forums TLP. Robert signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Gentoo Support Everywhere
On Tue, May 19, 2009 21:52, Dale wrote: > Jesús Guerrero wrote: > >> Hello, >> >> >> This is a request for comments on a new project, >> namely "Gentoo Support Everywhere". >> >> http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/gse/ >> >> >> The web page doesn't really explain all the background >> needed to understand why would anyone want to start such a project. >> However this forum thread might be more >> clarifying: >> >> >> http://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-t-762914.html >> >> >> The initial aim is to provide some support to these lost souls >> that wander around the LQ forums, and to create a Gentoo subforum at LQ >> like many other distros do. However, eventually the support might be >> extended to other places if there's a need and enough human power to do >> so. >> >> Comments welcome, and thanks for reading. >> >> >> > > From my understanding, LQ doesn't have a Gentoo subforum because Gentoo > already has its own forum. Why should Gentoo have two forums? I must also > say the the Gentoo forum is more than adequate for help. No, they don't have a Gentoo subforum because they ask for some kind of semi-official support from the distro so it doesn't die starved without responses within two weeks of being opened. That's what this is about :) This is not about having two forums or segregating the support. This is *a reality*. People already post there. We can choose to give some support or to ignore it. But that's not going to change the fact that they *do post there*, it doesn't matter if we like that or not. The universe is as it is regardless of what we think that would be ideal. I've been answering gentoo stuff in there for months now, this project is only a backing so LQ can feel that we care about that and give us a subforum. Which in turn will ease my job supporting people there. Even if it's just to tell them "I can't help, please, register at forums.gentoo.org and ask there". > Also, the link to your thread does not exist. I get "The topic or post > you requested does not exist". The project should be viewable. The forum post will only be visible for mods, admins and devs I guess, and only when loged in· There's nothing I can do about that. -- Jesús Guerrero
Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Gentoo Support Everywhere
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 2009.05.19 20:52, Dale wrote: [snip] > > From my understanding, LQ doesn't have a Gentoo subforum because > Gentoo > already has its own forum. Why should Gentoo have two forums? I > must > also say the the Gentoo forum is more than adequate for help. > > Also, the link to your thread does not exist. I get "The topic or > post > you requested does not exist". > > Dale > > :-) :-) > Dale, LQ does not have a Gentoo subforum because Gentoo does not yet support such a subforum. I'm sure that the Gentoo Forums are more than adequate for the users that find their way to them but that LQ gets Gentoo related questions shows that there is a demand for support there, even if its to post a link to Gentoo documentaion or posts on the Gentoo Forums. The Gentoo subforum on LQ would help to collect the posts in one place. - -- Regards, Roy Bamford (NeddySeagoon) a member of gentoo-ops forum-mods treecleaners trustees -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.11 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAkoTIiUACgkQTE4/y7nJvauSuACdFscRbbPZ2fsrONtChhTiEajg QZUAnA1T3AWKB2/gHWvMI5Lb7wdVEIzu =xe0/ -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Gentoo Support Everywhere
Jesús Guerrero wrote: > Hello, > > This is a request for comments on a new project, > namely "Gentoo Support Everywhere". > > http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/gse/ > > The web page doesn't really explain all the background > needed to understand why would anyone want to start such > a project. However this forum thread might be more > clarifying: > > http://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-t-762914.html > > The initial aim is to provide some support to these lost souls > that wander around the LQ forums, and to create a Gentoo > subforum at LQ like many other distros do. However, eventually > the support might be extended to other places if there's a > need and enough human power to do so. > > Comments welcome, and thanks for reading. > > >From my understanding, LQ doesn't have a Gentoo subforum because Gentoo already has its own forum. Why should Gentoo have two forums? I must also say the the Gentoo forum is more than adequate for help. Also, the link to your thread does not exist. I get "The topic or post you requested does not exist". Dale :-) :-)
Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Gentoo Support Everywhere
On Tue, May 19, 2009 21:01, Philip Webb wrote: > 090519 Justin Lecher wrote: > >> Philip Webb schrieb: >> >>> 090519 Jesús Guerrero wrote: >>> The initial aim is to provide some support to these lost souls that wander around the LQ forums and to create a Gentoo subforum at LQ >>> What is "LQ" ? >>> >> LinuxQuestions >> > > What is "LinuxQuestions" ? -- really, if you want help & support, > you have to explain what you're talking about. Did you read the project page at all? linuxquestions.org, a site, more concretely their forums. And I am not seeking support or help (and this wouldn't be the place for that either). I offer it there as I already said on my other posts. This is just an RFC for a new project. Not a support question. I hope it makes sense. -- Jesús Guerrero
Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Gentoo Support Everywhere
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Philip Webb schrieb: > 090519 Justin Lecher wrote: >> Philip Webb schrieb: >>> 090519 Jesús Guerrero wrote: The initial aim is to provide some support to these lost souls that wander around the LQ forums and to create a Gentoo subforum at LQ >>> What is "LQ" ? >> LinuxQuestions > > What is "LinuxQuestions" ? -- really, if you want help & support, > you have to explain what you're talking about. > LQ == LinuxQuestions which is the name of a prominent site LinuxQuestions.org, which hosts a forum for linux related question. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.11 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAkoTAuoACgkQgAnW8HDreRa7BwCeL4n5hOghTYhXjHFRrZ5QHHlc VoMAn0R/jKBOXqe59K3W6hoXcJiKI104 =/bFl -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 54 and hyphens in PV
On Wed, May 20, 2009 at 5:01 AM, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>
>
>${PORTDIR}/app-misc/foo/foo-1a_live.ebuild
>${PORTDIR}/app-misc/foo-1a/foo-1a-live.ebuild
>
> With our current versioning scheme the rule is very simple: ${P} is
> split into ${PN} and ${PV} at the last hyphen. This can be done in a
> straight forward way by regexp matching, and I would really hate to
> lose this nice property.
>
> Ulrich
>
>
$str="app-misc/foo/foo-1a_live.ebuild";
$str =~ /([^/]+)/([^/]+)/\2(.*).ebuild/
( $category, $package, $version ) = ( $1, $2, $3 )
Simple enough on a supporting language. Naive maybe, but has worked well for
me thus far.
It appears to be more a problem disambiguating from the user-input end of
the spectrum, and this scenario would be more likely to happen if for some
insane crack-fueled reason both packages were to exist. Even then,
app-misc/foo-1a # must always resolve to "app-misc/foo-1a" due to no =
stating that it needs a version part
=app-misc/foo-1a # must always resolve to "app-misc/foo" due to the =
stating a mandatory version part. ( =cat/pack is invalid )
--
Kent
Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Gentoo Support Everywhere
090519 Justin Lecher wrote: > Philip Webb schrieb: >> 090519 Jesús Guerrero wrote: >>> The initial aim is to provide some support to these lost souls >>> that wander around the LQ forums and to create a Gentoo subforum at LQ > > What is "LQ" ? > LinuxQuestions What is "LinuxQuestions" ? -- really, if you want help & support, you have to explain what you're talking about. -- ,, SUPPORT ___//___, Philip Webb ELECTRIC /] [] [] [] [] []| Cities Centre, University of Toronto TRANSIT`-O--O---' purslowatchassdotutorontodotca
[gentoo-dev] Kde team meeting. May 2009.
Hello guys and girls, month again passed (this time month and 3 weeks cause we agreed on moving the meeting ;P) and we have our kde team meeting again. Since the move the required status info: Where: #gentoo-kde @ freenode.net When: 21. 5. 2009 @ 19:00 UTC As a note this meeting is incorporated of meeting for kde and qt herd. So what will be this time on the plan? Few kinda annoying issues: - doc useflag, api-doc need to be somehow split of user-doc. - kde3 (sounds tiny but the major magic is behind) - kde 4.3 (just what is needed to be done, libknotification, kdelibs-experimental) - enforcing CODE requirements everywhere - new team members welcoming and discussion about how we handle HTs - handling cmake relwithdebuginfo compilation to please upstream... - masking kdeprefix useflag in portage ;P (jokes are allways fun, i can see scared look in your face now) - updating the kde4 guide (srsly needed, hope someone will volunteer) - kdebindings, lots of stuff missing there - cooperation with sabayon Qt topics: - Recruits - Status of Qt in tree, open bugs [1] - Overlay status (live Qt ebuilds, other packages) - Eclasses (status, moving functionality from overlay to portage tree) Under this heading also falls the discussion about blocking mixed Qt versions [2] on dev ML - Do we need an officially elected Qt sub-project lead? (I've been de facto lead since I took on Qt maintenance last summer) [1] http://xrl.us/qtbugs [2] http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_61c9eff7ebcd0af2fc53e61241370cf4.xml As a final note the meeting is mandatory for all kde-team members and herd testers. See ya all there Tomas
Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Gentoo Support Everywhere
On Tue, May 19, 2009 20:15, Philip Webb wrote: > 090519 Jesús Guerrero wrote: > >> This is a request for comments on a new project "Gentoo Support >> Everywhere". >> http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/gse/ >> this forum thread might be more clarifying: >> http://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-t-762914.html >> The initial aim is to provide some support to these lost souls >> that wander around the LQ forums and to create a Gentoo subforum at LQ > > What is "LQ" ? LinuxQuestions.org, the forums more concretely. I've been answering Gentoo questions for a while. -- Jesús Guerrero
Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Gentoo Support Everywhere
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Philip Webb schrieb: > 090519 Jesús Guerrero wrote: >> This is a request for comments on a new project "Gentoo Support Everywhere". >> http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/gse/ >> this forum thread might be more clarifying: >> http://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-t-762914.html >> The initial aim is to provide some support to these lost souls >> that wander around the LQ forums and to create a Gentoo subforum at LQ > > What is "LQ" ? > LinuxQuestions -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.11 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAkoS+FcACgkQgAnW8HDreRaHzQCgwZkFpKNdaXUfsXSnG4hCGDt7 2icAn2TxcWk5oKXi9miqQasc1/y9Su5T =JfKu -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Gentoo Support Everywhere
090519 Jesús Guerrero wrote: > This is a request for comments on a new project "Gentoo Support Everywhere". > http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/gse/ > this forum thread might be more clarifying: > http://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-t-762914.html > The initial aim is to provide some support to these lost souls > that wander around the LQ forums and to create a Gentoo subforum at LQ What is "LQ" ? -- ,, SUPPORT ___//___, Philip Webb ELECTRIC /] [] [] [] [] []| Cities Centre, University of Toronto TRANSIT`-O--O---' purslowatchassdotutorontodotca
Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 54 and hyphens in PV
Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> Hyphens within PV are a Bad Thing, and we should really think about
> replacing the separator for "scm" by something else, like a period or
> an underscore. For example, the following two would be unique:
>
> ${PORTDIR}/app-misc/foo/foo-1a_live.ebuild
> ${PORTDIR}/app-misc/foo-1a/foo-1a-live.ebuild
>
> With our current versioning scheme the rule is very simple: ${P} is
> split into ${PN} and ${PV} at the last hyphen. This can be done in a
> straight forward way by regexp matching, and I would really hate to
> lose this nice property.
Underscore probably makes most sense, since it is similar to the
underscore used in _rc3, etc. Of course, don't use an "_" when it's
just "live" alone. I agree, especially if we consider "live"
essentially part of the version (as "" is now), and especially since
it's possible to have simply a version of "live" with no numeric
portion, that it should avoid the "-". Not sure I like "."...
-Joe
[gentoo-dev] RFC: Gentoo Support Everywhere
Hello, This is a request for comments on a new project, namely "Gentoo Support Everywhere". http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/gse/ The web page doesn't really explain all the background needed to understand why would anyone want to start such a project. However this forum thread might be more clarifying: http://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-t-762914.html The initial aim is to provide some support to these lost souls that wander around the LQ forums, and to create a Gentoo subforum at LQ like many other distros do. However, eventually the support might be extended to other places if there's a need and enough human power to do so. Comments welcome, and thanks for reading. -- Jesús Guerrero
Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 54 and hyphens in PV
> On Mon, 18 May 2009, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Mon, 18 May 2009 06:59:36 +0200
> Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>> AFAICS, there _is_ an ambiguity. You can have the following two
>> ebuilds in the tree, simultaneously:
>>${PORTDIR}/app-misc/foo/foo-1a-scm.ebuild
>>${PORTDIR}/app-misc/foo-1a/foo-1a-scm.ebuild
[Added some context back to your quotation of my posting.]
> There's no ambiguity. It means what we define it to mean.
Maybe it's possible to do that for dependencies, but VDB entries and
binary packages for above two examples would still collide.
So the conclusion still stands:
>> The conclusion is that GLEP 54 in its current form is not
>> implementable.
Hyphens within PV are a Bad Thing, and we should really think about
replacing the separator for "scm" by something else, like a period or
an underscore. For example, the following two would be unique:
${PORTDIR}/app-misc/foo/foo-1a_live.ebuild
${PORTDIR}/app-misc/foo-1a/foo-1a-live.ebuild
With our current versioning scheme the rule is very simple: ${P} is
split into ${PN} and ${PV} at the last hyphen. This can be done in a
straight forward way by regexp matching, and I would really hate to
lose this nice property.
Ulrich
