[gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC] Gentoo Wiki Project
Patrick Nagel posted on Fri, 09 Apr 2010 10:42:40 +0800 as excerpted: On 2010-04-08 19:51 UTC Ryan Hill wrote: why are we setting up a user wiki when a very popular one already exists? it seems like a complete duplication of effort. i'm not saying don't do it, i'm just baffled why we would. Well, one reason could be, that the unofficial one lost its whole database once, and there were other multiple multi-day outages in the past. I expect an official Wiki to have a reasonable availability and not losing most of the content, breaking links all over the net for months. In addition to that, various invitations have been and I expect will continue to be made, to the guy running the current wiki. For whatever reason(s), he doesn't seem particularly interested in running an official Gentoo wiki. In some ways I can't say I blame him. There's a lot of politics that goes into anything Gentoo-official, and it's perfectly sane for someone to love Gentoo but have no interest whatsoever in jumping thru all those political hoops he'd ultimately have to jump thru, or being the political pawn the wiki could likely be if it's as popular and useful as people hope. Likewise, Gentoo's uncomfortable officially linking to something they don't control in any way, shape, or form (except to the extent that we could arguably pull his domain name for trademark reasons, if things got ugly enough, tho that'd be incredibly bad for EVERYONE, so nobody wants to go there!). Regardless of how justified or not those reasons are, they exist, and are a practical barrier to the current wiki and owner becoming the official one. Yet the feeling is, and I as a Gentoo power user agree, we need a wiki that we can officially point to, a place for documentation that hasn't made it thru the formal Gentoo-doc and GuideXML process, and may in fact never rise to that level, but is still valuable. Also, there's the licensing issue. The current wiki has a non-commercial clause for its content licensing that doesn't seem appropriate for an official Gentoo wiki. And no one except the individual content contributors can change that, so practically speaking, a new wiki without that clause is needed. Individual contributors can copy their own content over, of course, and other content can be rewritten, but the content cannot be wholesale transferred, nor will it be. -- 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
[gentoo-dev] package.mask-ed ebuilds
Hello! So, I can't find any documentation about this; nor can I find a best-practices list. Can we add broken ebuilds in-tree as long as they are package.masked? automagic deps, wrong deps, missing deps, file collisions, etc etc? Even if it makes the ebuild completely unusable by itself? If yes: So we can add completely broken and useless stuff to tree as long as it's package.masked? If no: What's the minimum amount of working-ness that an ebuild must have to be added to tree? Who decides this? The QA team? -- ~Nirbheek Chauhan Gentoo GNOME+Mozilla Team
Re: [gentoo-dev] package.mask-ed ebuilds
On 04/09/10 08:10, Nirbheek Chauhan wrote: Hello! So, I can't find any documentation about this; nor can I find a best-practices list. Can we add broken ebuilds in-tree as long as they are package.masked? automagic deps, wrong deps, missing deps, file collisions, etc etc? Even if it makes the ebuild completely unusable by itself? If yes: So we can add completely broken and useless stuff to tree as long as it's package.masked? If no: What's the minimum amount of working-ness that an ebuild must have to be added to tree? Who decides this? The QA team? Use common sense: if it's work in progress then committing a broken ebuild which is p.masked is IMHO acceptable (especially if you need to bump/add more ebuilds to get this one working). At the same time if you don't plan on improving it and just want to get it committed somewhere - use overlay. -- Krzysztof Pawlik nelchael at gentoo.org key id: 0xF6A80E46 desktop-misc, java, apache, ppc, vim, kernel, python... signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC] Gentoo Wiki Project
There are things I know about Gentoo Linux and I'm pleased to share my knowledge with others as well as I'm glad to learn from others. I'm not a Gentoo dev and I neither have plan nor wish to be. My feeling is that Gentoo Wiki Project is just but another occasion for debating rules and politics. Reading some messages from some people I feel like I'm not welcome because I'm not a member of a group of selected people. I have a French wiki to maintain, Gentoo-Québec's one, and I also have to help people by answering their questions on Gentoo-Québec forum. I think my real place is there. Regards, Guy Fontaine (aramis_qc) On Fri, 09 Apr 2010 00:38:53 + Sylvain Alain d2_rac...@hotmail.com wrote: Indeed, that's why I don't want to have a wiki for devs only. The Gentoo wiki must be for the community and by the community :P There are many Gentoo experts that don't want to be officially devs. d2_racing To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org From: dirtye...@gentoo.org Subject: [gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC] Gentoo Wiki Project Date: Thu, 8 Apr 2010 16:55:36 -0600 On Thu, 8 Apr 2010 21:37:46 + Sylvain Alain d2_rac...@hotmail.com wrote: The official wiki can be use by powerusers who want to write some pretty good doc. A lot of powerusers can write excellent doc on the gentoo forum right now, so they don't need to by Gentoo Dev to right excellent stuff. I don't see your point. They already write great stuff on http://en.gentoo-wiki.com/. I think having two different places to put this kind of stuff might split the contributor base. It'd be nice if we could either merge the two or make the official wiki about developing with Gentoo rather than how to use Gentoo, but in any case I'm just happy to have somewhere to stick things. -- fonts,by design, by neglect gcc-porting, for a fact or just for effect wxwidgets @ gentoo EFFD 380E 047A 4B51 D2BD C64F 8AA8 8346 F9A4 0662 _ Live connected. Get Hotmail Messenger on your phone. http://go.microsoft.com/?linkid=9724462 -- Guy Fontaine guy.fonta...@videotron.qc.ca
[gentoo-dev] [looking-for-man-power] Packaging RedHat/Fedora tools and libs
I'm in the process of porting (once again) a new Anaconda snapshot to Sabayon (thus, to Gentoo-land). I spent several hours creating ebuilds (basic, not fully integrated yet) for the following pkgs: app-admin/authconfig app-admin/firstboot app-admin/system-config-date app-admin/system-config-date app-admin/system-config-keyboard app-admin/system-config-users app-cdr/isomd5sum dev-python/pyblock dev-python/python-cryptsetup dev-python/python-meh dev-python/python-nss dev-python/python-report dev-util/pykickstart net-misc/dcbd net-misc/fcoe-utils sys-apps/hbaapi sys-block/open-iscsi (see extra patches) sys-libs/libuser They are available in the sabayon overlay. Is there anybody interested in helping me out for the integration and, perhaps, merge-into-Portage part? For the record, nowadays the Anaconda architecture is very clean and allows non-rpm distros to build custom installation profiles and backends quite easily. I'm really really impressed by the amazing work RedHat guys did during last years. Regards, -- Fabio Erculiani http://www.sabayon.org http://www.gentoo.org
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC] Gentoo Wiki Project
On Friday 09 of April 2010 13:26:16 Guy Fontaine wrote: There are things I know about Gentoo Linux and I'm pleased to share my knowledge with others as well as I'm glad to learn from others. I'm not a Gentoo dev and I neither have plan nor wish to be. My feeling is that Gentoo Wiki Project is just but another occasion for debating rules and politics. Reading some messages from some people I feel like I'm not welcome because I'm not a member of a group of selected people. I have a French wiki to maintain, Gentoo-Québec's one, and I also have to help people by answering their questions on Gentoo-Québec forum. I think my real place is there. See? This is the problem. Every time comes an initiative to introduce official Gentoo infra hosted Gentoo Wiki (yes, the one that won't loose randomly all its contents) - there's lack of interest of cooperation from already existing unofficial Gentoo-related Wiki admins. And of course it's always Gentoo devs who are to blame for creating duplicated effort instead of normalizing current situation. Btw, you should only care for opinion of Gentoo Wiki project members, which are listed there - http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/wiki/ cheers -- regards MM
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC] Gentoo Wiki Project
On 9 April 2010 13:26, Guy Fontaine guy.fonta...@videotron.qc.ca wrote: There are things I know about Gentoo Linux and I'm pleased to share my knowledge with others as well as I'm glad to learn from others. I'm not a Gentoo dev and I neither have plan nor wish to be. My feeling is that Gentoo Wiki Project is just but another occasion for debating rules and politics. Reading some messages from some people I feel like I'm not welcome because I'm not a member of a group of selected people. Don't be dismayed by negative remarks, or a few naysayers who are not even part of the Gentoo Wiki Project. Any user (or dev) with constructive input is welcome. And as you volunteered, you are part of the project. Cheers, -- Ben de Groot Gentoo Qt project lead developer Gentoo Wiki project lead
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC] Gentoo Wiki Project
On 9 April 2010 14:35, Maciej Mrozowski reave...@gmail.com wrote: See? This is the problem. Every time comes an initiative to introduce official Gentoo infra hosted Gentoo Wiki (yes, the one that won't loose randomly all its contents) - there's lack of interest of cooperation from already existing unofficial Gentoo-related Wiki admins. You are quite wrong here, as Guy was one of the first to volunteer for the official wiki project. It is the bickering about its status that apparently has demotivated him. Cheers, -- Ben de Groot Gentoo Qt project lead developer Gentoo Wiki project lead
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC] Gentoo Wiki Project
On Fri, Apr 9, 2010 at 6:32 PM, Ben de Groot yng...@gentoo.org wrote: On 9 April 2010 14:35, Maciej Mrozowski reave...@gmail.com wrote: See? This is the problem. Every time comes an initiative to introduce official Gentoo infra hosted Gentoo Wiki (yes, the one that won't loose randomly all its contents) - there's lack of interest of cooperation from already existing unofficial Gentoo-related Wiki admins. You are quite wrong here, as Guy was one of the first to volunteer for the official wiki project. It is the bickering about its status that apparently has demotivated him. I think at this point you've got the opinions of everyone, and pretty much everyone's needs have been stated. Any more discussion will only distract you and use up time and energy. I say ignore all further discussion on this thread unless you feel it's *really* important. Everything else not from the team is just bikeshedding I think :) -- ~Nirbheek Chauhan Gentoo GNOME+Mozilla Team
Re: [gentoo-dev] Council meeting 19 April 2010
On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 21:05, Denis Dupeyron calc...@gentoo.org wrote: On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 11:14 AM, Ben de Groot yng...@gentoo.org wrote: So all I'm asking is to do your job and make decisions on issues that affect all of Gentoo. The issues I brought up are wider than a single individual project. And almost 100% of the time this needs to run through a GLEP, which is the case here. Then the council will do all the things you've pasted from GLEP 39 I thought the council was a body that should be capable of action, not merely one that gives a stamp of approval for stuff other people do. Was I wrong? Reading all your manifestos from the elections shows you all had things you wanted to do, things you wanted to change (git migration, forming a group of experts to discuss technical issues, QA propagation, just to name a few). Where did all that go to? If all the council is currently able to do is get everybody involved in bureaucracy (e.g. writing GLEPs for centralizing documentation instead of putting a page full of links) just so it could meet once a month to decide on bugzilla resolutions, then something is wrong. All council members not only volunteered for that position, but also had other people voting for them. Didn't you do that so you could have a larger influence? So you could make Gentoo better? How do you plan to achieve that if you just wait for other people to do it? I don't see why there is such strong opposition by your side to actually do something, after all, that's what you're there for. As I've seen in the last few days, the common reaction to this is, Well, what do you want us to do? Force people to do stuff?. Why did you want to be a council member if you have no idea how to accomplish the things you wanted to do? How did you think you were going to achieve all those things written in your manifesto? Being in the council is a responsibility, and one which you took upon yourself willingly. All we're now requesting is that you all stand up to that responsibility and use your authority to make changes to how Gentoo work, not point fingers and ask rhetorical questions. Ben raised some very painful issues which hurt Gentoo daily but are not being addressed for a long time. The way I see it, the council's job is to lead Gentoo, and that includes things that individual members may not find interesting. These are global issues which are under the council's responsibility. Gentoo's best interest should be in mind, not personal interests, and so the council should strive to achieve all those things so that Gentoo may benefit from it. That's what leadership is, and that's what your job is. Let's take redesigning the homepage as an example. Our website has the same design since at least 2002, and to users it looks dead. This is seriously hurting Gentoo, and its inability to fix the situation has become a laughing stock. Clearly, Gentoo as a whole suffers and it's the council's responsibility to address this issue. Now, I'm not saying that council members should sit around all day playing with CSS, but this issue should be one of their top priorities. Maybe ask for users to help, reward a volunteer to do it with funds from the foundation, heck maybe even pay some company to do it, but just do something, even though you may not think dealing with this is interesting, but a response like if you want it then work on it and make it happen is unacceptable. Note that all that is said here is not pointed at any specific member of the council, but at the council as a whole. I did not intend to hurt anybody, but am genuinely concerned for Gentoo's well being. Dror Levin
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC] Gentoo Wiki Project
On 09/04/2010 13:38, Ben de Groot wrote: On 9 April 2010 13:26, Guy Fontaineguy.fonta...@videotron.qc.ca wrote: There are things I know about Gentoo Linux and I'm pleased to share my knowledge with others as well as I'm glad to learn from others. I'm not a Gentoo dev and I neither have plan nor wish to be. My feeling is that Gentoo Wiki Project is just but another occasion for debating rules and politics. Reading some messages from some people I feel like I'm not welcome because I'm not a member of a group of selected people. Don't be dismayed by negative remarks, or a few naysayers who are not even part of the Gentoo Wiki Project. Any user (or dev) with constructive input is welcome. And as you volunteered, you are part of the project. Cheers, I still dont understand people's problems with this. Several devs have said they've wanted one for years, it would be a great place to review documentation before going in the official documentation, it's a great place to discuss and collaborate on future dev handbook pages. The official wiki could and *should* work together with the unofficial wiki because they complement eachother. The unofficial wiki isn't going to want detailed OpenRC documentation and the official wiki isn't going to want how to set up FreeDOOM on it.
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC] Gentoo Wiki Project
On Fri, Apr 09, 2010 at 06:02:40PM +0100, George Prowse wrote: On 09/04/2010 13:38, Ben de Groot wrote: On 9 April 2010 13:26, Guy Fontaineguy.fonta...@videotron.qc.ca wrote: There are things I know about Gentoo Linux and I'm pleased to share my knowledge with others as well as I'm glad to learn from others. I'm not a Gentoo dev and I neither have plan nor wish to be. My feeling is that Gentoo Wiki Project is just but another occasion for debating rules and politics. Reading some messages from some people I feel like I'm not welcome because I'm not a member of a group of selected people. Don't be dismayed by negative remarks, or a few naysayers who are not even part of the Gentoo Wiki Project. Any user (or dev) with constructive input is welcome. And as you volunteered, you are part of the project. Cheers, I still dont understand people's problems with this. Several devs have said they've wanted one for years, it would be a great place to review documentation before going in the official documentation, it's a great place to discuss and collaborate on future dev handbook pages. The official wiki could and *should* work together with the unofficial wiki because they complement eachother. The unofficial wiki isn't going to want detailed OpenRC documentation and the official wiki isn't going to want how to set up FreeDOOM on it. Really? I understood it as the wiki being an all-purposes wiki, meaning users could (would and should) create articles on how to get some application running or how to get some setting working, and the developers will have their own section, so to speak, where they can collaborate on various projects where a wiki would be an asset. It seems to me from the discussion here on the list that it is to centralize documentation (- the official docs), so that gentoo can point to the wiki and say If it's not in our docs, maybe it's in the wiki. I may have mistaken the actual purpose of the wiki, but then by all means, correct me :-) -- Zeerak Waseem pgpO9ZFxTQRF1.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC] Gentoo Wiki Project
On 09/04/10 18:24, Zeerak Mustafa Waseem wrote: Really? I understood it as the wiki being an all-purposes wiki, meaning users could (would and should) create articles on how to get some application running or how to get some setting working, and the developers will have their own section, so to speak, where they can collaborate on various projects where a wiki would be an asset. It seems to me from the discussion here on the list that it is to centralize documentation (- the official docs), so that gentoo can point to the wiki and say If it's not in our docs, maybe it's in the wiki. I may have mistaken the actual purpose of the wiki, but then by all means, correct me :-) It has no purpose. The official wiki currently has no rules and no mission statement. There's been no activity for 3 days. ...in which time the unofficial wiki got countless edits in many languages. And my server downloaded backups 3 times (because we have a public backup policy in place to ensure the content is never lost again - something some people seem to like ignoring (or are just ignorant of)). AllenJB
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC] Gentoo Wiki Project
On 09/04/2010 18:24, Zeerak Mustafa Waseem wrote: On Fri, Apr 09, 2010 at 06:02:40PM +0100, George Prowse wrote: On 09/04/2010 13:38, Ben de Groot wrote: On 9 April 2010 13:26, Guy Fontaineguy.fonta...@videotron.qc.ca wrote: There are things I know about Gentoo Linux and I'm pleased to share my knowledge with others as well as I'm glad to learn from others. I'm not a Gentoo dev and I neither have plan nor wish to be. My feeling is that Gentoo Wiki Project is just but another occasion for debating rules and politics. Reading some messages from some people I feel like I'm not welcome because I'm not a member of a group of selected people. Don't be dismayed by negative remarks, or a few naysayers who are not even part of the Gentoo Wiki Project. Any user (or dev) with constructive input is welcome. And as you volunteered, you are part of the project. Cheers, I still dont understand people's problems with this. Several devs have said they've wanted one for years, it would be a great place to review documentation before going in the official documentation, it's a great place to discuss and collaborate on future dev handbook pages. The official wiki could and *should* work together with the unofficial wiki because they complement eachother. The unofficial wiki isn't going to want detailed OpenRC documentation and the official wiki isn't going to want how to set up FreeDOOM on it. Really? I understood it as the wiki being an all-purposes wiki, meaning users could (would and should) create articles on how to get some application running or how to get some setting working, and the developers will have their own section, so to speak, where they can collaborate on various projects where a wiki would be an asset. It seems to me from the discussion here on the list that it is to centralize documentation (- the official docs), so that gentoo can point to the wiki and say If it's not in our docs, maybe it's in the wiki. I may have mistaken the actual purpose of the wiki, but then by all means, correct me :-) I see it as a collaboration piece, something to bridge the gap between developers and users. Users can create pages detailing certain facets of Gentoo and it may get to be included in the documentation on gentoo.org. Some documentation is unfit for an official wiki but that doesn't mean that the information doesn't need to be there for users, that is where the official and unofficial wiki should work together .
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC] Gentoo Wiki Project
Allen, if you don't have anything constructive to add, then please refrain from adding to this thread. Thanks, -- Ben de Groot Gentoo Qt project lead developer Gentoo Wiki project lead
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC] Gentoo Wiki Project
Here's one possible use-case. For me, I would consider moving http://dev.gentoo.org/~mpagano/genpatches/index.htm to the official wiki so that other people in the kernel herd can update it. If the updating could be scripted, of course. I would not have considered it for an unofficial wiki running on nonGentoo infrastructure. We've been looking for a new 'home' for awhile. [1] [1]http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=176186 --- Mike Pagano Gentoo Developer - Kernel Project E-Mail : mpag...@gentoo.org GnuPG FP : EEE2 601D 0763 B60F 848C 9E14 3C33 C650 B576 E4E3 Public Key : http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?search=0xB576E4E3op=index
[gentoo-dev] Re: package.mask-ed ebuilds
On Fri, 9 Apr 2010 12:40:50 +0530 Nirbheek Chauhan nirbh...@gentoo.org wrote: Hello! So, I can't find any documentation about this; nor can I find a best-practices list. Can we add broken ebuilds in-tree as long as they are package.masked? automagic deps, wrong deps, missing deps, file collisions, etc etc? Even if it makes the ebuild completely unusable by itself? If yes: So we can add completely broken and useless stuff to tree as long as it's package.masked? If no: What's the minimum amount of working-ness that an ebuild must have to be added to tree? Who decides this? The QA team? package.mask is good for when you have a bunch of stuff that needs to be uncaged at the same time or for something potentially hazardous that needs testing. i wouldn't add something that is in itself broken. i don't know if it's allowed or not but an overlay is just more convenient for work like that. -- fonts,by design, by neglect gcc-porting, 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] package.mask-ed ebuilds
Nirbheek Chauhan nirbh...@gentoo.org said: So, I can't find any documentation about this; nor can I find a best-practices list. Can we add broken ebuilds in-tree as long as they are package.masked? automagic deps, wrong deps, missing deps, file collisions, etc etc? Even if it makes the ebuild completely unusable by itself? Just use some common sense. If its completely broken, it obviously doesn't belong in the tree. If its something that somewhat works and is actively being worked on, then its probably safe to add it and package.mask it, with the intent that you are working towards getting it to a state that it will be unmasked. -- Mark Loeser email - halcy0n AT gentoo DOT org email - mark AT halcy0n DOT com web - http://www.halcy0n.com signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] package.mask-ed ebuilds
On Fri, 9 Apr 2010 12:40:50 +0530 Nirbheek Chauhan nirbh...@gentoo.org wrote: So, I can't find any documentation about this; nor can I find a best-practices list. Can we add broken ebuilds in-tree as long as they are package.masked? automagic deps, wrong deps, missing deps, file collisions, etc etc? Even if it makes the ebuild completely unusable by itself? In my opinion, an ebuild should be added to the tree as long as it will be useful to users. If your ebuild is WIP but you want to give some users an option to already use it or get some feedback, you could consider adding it. Moreover, I wouldn't take dependency-related issues as a reason to mask the ebuild. As long as it's not going to hurt users' system or (if it's an version bump) replace working version with non-working one, it doesn't need the mask. So, it all depends on how useful the ebuild is, and how dangerous it can become. If it just misses some polishes, it's acceptable -- as long as you're going to maintain it and fix all the known issues ASAP. Please notice that this is no official statement but only my personal opinion on the topic. -- Best regards, Michał Górny http://mgorny.alt.pl xmpp:mgo...@jabber.ru signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] [looking-for-man-power] Packaging RedHat/Fedora tools and libs
On 04/09/2010 04:34 AM, Fabio Erculiani wrote: They are available in the sabayon overlay. Is there anybody interested in helping me out for the integration and, perhaps, merge-into-Portage part? That sounds interesting. I was planning to add public apis for the packagekit portage backend to use soon, and I guess those apis should also be useful for an anaconda portage backend. -- Thanks, Zac
Re: [gentoo-dev] package.mask-ed ebuilds
On 9 April 2010 21:22, Michał Górny gen...@mgorny.alt.pl wrote: In my opinion, an ebuild should be added to the tree as long as it will be useful to users. If your ebuild is WIP but you want to give some users an option to already use it or get some feedback, you could consider adding it. That's what we have overlays for. Move it to the tree once it's ready. -- Ben de Groot Gentoo Qt project lead developer Gentoo Wiki project lead
Re: [gentoo-dev] [looking-for-man-power] Packaging RedHat/Fedora tools and libs
On Fri, Apr 9, 2010 at 9:24 PM, Zac Medico zmed...@gentoo.org wrote: On 04/09/2010 04:34 AM, Fabio Erculiani wrote: They are available in the sabayon overlay. Is there anybody interested in helping me out for the integration and, perhaps, merge-into-Portage part? That sounds interesting. I was planning to add public apis for the packagekit portage backend to use soon, and I guess those apis should also be useful for an anaconda portage backend. [semi-OT] Since I am (together with volkmar) one of the PK Portage backend maintainers, let me know once you have interesting APIs implemented for that. The backend itself would also require testing and some profiling sessions to spot annoying speed issues. [/semi-OT] -- Thanks, Zac -- Fabio Erculiani http://www.sabayon.org http://www.gentoo.org
Re: [gentoo-dev] [looking-for-man-power] Packaging RedHat/Fedora tools and libs
On Sat, Apr 10, 2010 at 1:11 AM, Fabio Erculiani lx...@gentoo.org wrote: [semi-OT] Since I am (together with volkmar) one of the PK Portage backend maintainers, let me know once you have interesting APIs implemented for that. The backend itself would also require testing and some profiling sessions to spot annoying speed issues. [/semi-OT] In the spirit of off-topic-ness :) Is gnome-packagekit ready to go into tree with the gnome 2.30 release? Or should we wait till 2.32 or something? -- ~Nirbheek Chauhan Gentoo GNOME+Mozilla Team
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: perl eclass review - EAPI=3 + new helper eclass
MG == Michał Górny gen...@mgorny.alt.pl writes: MG I prefer perldoc over man. And I cannot imagine why anyone would prefer MG keeping two copies of the same docs if generating one from another MG takes less than a second. It takes more than a mere second, and man(1), man.el, woman.el and the like have better UIs than perldoc(1) has. -JimC -- James Cloos cl...@jhcloos.com OpenPGP: 1024D/ED7DAEA6
Re: [gentoo-dev] [looking-for-man-power] Packaging RedHat/Fedora tools and libs
On Fri, Apr 09, 2010 at 01:34:46PM +0200, Fabio Erculiani wrote: app-admin/authconfig (just checking, this is the nsswitch.conf changer right?), if so, then add to below. net-misc/fcoe-utils sys-apps/hbaapi sys-block/open-iscsi (see extra patches) I'm interested in these, and can review/merge. -- Robin Hugh Johnson Gentoo Linux: Developer, Trustee Infrastructure Lead E-Mail : robb...@gentoo.org GnuPG FP : 11AC BA4F 4778 E3F6 E4ED F38E B27B 944E 3488 4E85
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: perl eclass review - EAPI=3 + new helper eclass
D == Duncan 1i5t5.dun...@cox.net writes: D While you're correct in the ordinary case, keep in mind that this is perl D developer docs we're talking about here -- not ordinary user documentation. Developer docs *are* ordinary user documentation. Section 3 is perhaps the most used section of man, with sections 2 and, depending on platform, one or more of sections 4, 5 or 6 following. D And those that know enough about perl to find the developer documentation D useful should also know how to use perldoc, You are ignoring the fact that having the docs in man is more useful; much easier to use, usable by any man reader. The list goes on. There is simply no *real* benefit to eliding them, it only does harm. People who do not want to install them should specify that preference via a USE flag (-man, perhaps). It would even be OK were the USE flag off by default; but making it impossible to Do The Right Thing w/o editing eclasses every time one syncs is just wrong. -JimC -- James Cloos cl...@jhcloos.com OpenPGP: 1024D/ED7DAEA6
Re: [gentoo-dev] [Gentoo Phoenix] an official Gentoo wiki
On Mon, Apr 05, 2010 at 01:19:32AM +0200, Ben de Groot wrote: On 3 April 2010 20:56, George Prowse george.pro...@gmail.com wrote: Does mediawiki have captcha ability? Yes, there are a number of solutions for that. I realize I am very late on this thread, but please do not go here unless you provide an audio solution as well. Otherwise, you will affectively lock blind users out of the wiki, just as they are currentlylocked out of the forums. http://bugs.gentoo.org/284362 Thanks, -- William Hubbs gentoo accessibility team lead willi...@gentoo.org pgpe4lDMztMUr.pgp Description: PGP signature
