Re: Facilitating user contributed ebuilds (Was: [gentoo-dev] The future of the Sunrise project)

On 09/06/16 15:31, NP-Hardass wrote: > On 06/09/2016 01:03 AM, Daniel Campbell wrote: > [...] >> Proxy-maint team: do you guys feel that your project and/or process are >> a suitable starting point to becoming a proper Gentoo developer? > As with everything, it depends on the individual. One can

Re: Facilitating user contributed ebuilds (Was: [gentoo-dev] The future of the Sunrise project)

On 06/09/2016 01:03 AM, Daniel Campbell wrote: [...] > Proxy-maint team: do you guys feel that your project and/or process are > a suitable starting point to becoming a proper Gentoo developer? As with everything, it depends on the individual. One can certainly cut their teeth and

Re: Facilitating user contributed ebuilds (Was: [gentoo-dev] The future of the Sunrise project)

On 06/08/2016 10:54 AM, james wrote: > On 06/08/2016 11:27 AM, Nathan Zachary wrote: >> >>> GitHub Inc. is successful because they host a central location with >>> "all the code on the Internet"; convenient for consumers and >>> producers alike. Of course it is a fallacy, but it's convenient >>>

Re: Facilitating user contributed ebuilds (Was: [gentoo-dev] The future of the Sunrise project)

On 06/08/2016 08:53 AM, james wrote: > On 06/08/2016 08:16 AM, Alexander Berntsen wrote: > Friends, > > It would be wise of us to create a novel way of involving users from > the ashes of Sunrise. > > Here is my suggestion: It would be fruitful to encourage every single > Gentoo user to have

Re: [gentoo-dev] Default DOCS for einstalldocs and HACKING file

On 06/08/2016 02:40 AM, Michał Górny wrote: > On Tue, 7 Jun 2016 18:50:05 -0400 > NP-Hardass wrote: > >> From what I've seen, HACKING is a fairly common doc in FOSS projects. >> It doesn't seem to have been included in the default DOCS for >> einstalldocs in EAPI6. While

Re: Facilitating user contributed ebuilds (Was: [gentoo-dev] The future of the Sunrise project)

On 09/06/16 09:08, Andreas K. Huettel wrote: > >> This could lead to a future where the Gentoo tree is largely >> superseded. Every user would just have their own repository, where >> they could pick and choose packages from other users. The Gentoo tree >> would just focus on a high-quality

Re: Facilitating user contributed ebuilds (Was: [gentoo-dev] The future of the Sunrise project)

On 09/06/16 00:08, Andreas K. Huettel wrote: > > > This could lead to a future where the Gentoo tree is largely > > superseded. Every user would just have their own repository, where > > they could pick and choose packages from other users. The Gentoo tree > > would just focus on a high-quality

Re: Facilitating user contributed ebuilds (Was: [gentoo-dev] The future of the Sunrise project)

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 > > This could lead to a future where the Gentoo tree is largely > superseded. Every user would just have their own repository, where > they could pick and choose packages from other users. The Gentoo tree > would just focus on a high-quality

Re: [gentoo-dev] Default DOCS for einstalldocs and HACKING file

On 06/07/2016 04:59 PM, Austin English wrote: > > On 06/07/2016 06:19 PM, M. J. Everitt wrote: >> On 07/06/16 23:50, NP-Hardass wrote: >>> From what I've seen, HACKING is a fairly common doc in FOSS projects. >>> It doesn't seem to have been included in the default DOCS for >>> einstalldocs in

Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH 1/2] php-ext-source-r3.eclass: new revision supporting EAPI=6.

On Thu, 2 Jun 2016 08:27:06 -0400 Michael Orlitzky wrote: > Thanks for the detailed review. I followed every suggestion except the > doexe thing for *.so files (only because I don't understand the > reasoning yet). The new version is attached. Next time, please inline and don't

Re : [gentoo-dev] Re: Modification proposal for user/group creation when ROOT!="/"

Hi, I only have a local overlay for now. The shadow team still did'nt had time to merge my pull request on github. But you can use my github branch: https://github.com/fariouche/shadow.git In the bugzilla you will find all the needed patches, except the shadow ebuild modified to use my branch.

Re: Facilitating user contributed ebuilds (Was: [gentoo-dev] The future of the Sunrise project)

On 06/08/2016 11:27 AM, Nathan Zachary wrote: GitHub Inc. is successful because they host a central location with "all the code on the Internet"; convenient for consumers and producers alike. Of course it is a fallacy, but it's convenient when it works. Ensure that Gentoo accomplishes the

Re: [gentoo-dev] The future of the Sunrise project

On 08/06/16 08:30 AM, Ulrich Mueller wrote: >> On Wed, 8 Jun 2016, Dale wrote: > >> Just a thought here. Is there a way to do a news announcement for >> people that have a package installed from the overlay? If that >> could be done, then users who don't use it won't be bothered by it >>

Re: Facilitating user contributed ebuilds (Was: [gentoo-dev] The future of the Sunrise project)

> GitHub Inc. is successful because they host a central location with > "all the code on the Internet"; convenient for consumers and > producers alike. Of course it is a fallacy, but it's convenient > when it works. > > Ensure that Gentoo accomplishes the same for Gentoo. > > Do NOT - I repeat

Re: Facilitating user contributed ebuilds (Was: [gentoo-dev] The future of the Sunrise project)

Alexander Berntsen wrote: > It would be fruitful to encourage every single Gentoo user to have > their own repository. And this repository should be publicly available. .. > What are your thoughts? Genius. This is exactly what I have been doing for many years, but I couldn't have expressed it as

Re: Facilitating user contributed ebuilds (Was: [gentoo-dev] The future of the Sunrise project)

On 15:16 Wed 08 Jun, Alexander Berntsen wrote: > Friends, > > It would be wise of us to create a novel way of involving users from > the ashes of Sunrise. > > Here is my suggestion: It would be fruitful to encourage every single > Gentoo user to have their own repository. And this repository

Re: Facilitating user contributed ebuilds (Was: [gentoo-dev] The future of the Sunrise project)

On Wed, Jun 8, 2016 at 9:16 AM, Alexander Berntsen wrote: > > This could lead to a future where the Gentoo tree is largely > superseded. Every user would just have their own repository, where > they could pick and choose packages from other users. The Gentoo tree > would just

Re: Facilitating user contributed ebuilds (Was: [gentoo-dev] The future of the Sunrise project)

On 06/08/2016 08:16 AM, Alexander Berntsen wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 Friends, It would be wise of us to create a novel way of involving users from the ashes of Sunrise. Here is my suggestion: It would be fruitful to encourage every single Gentoo user to have their

Re: Facilitating user contributed ebuilds (Was: [gentoo-dev] The future of the Sunrise project)

On 06/08/2016 06:16 AM, Alexander Berntsen wrote: > In the end, Gentoo might make a gigantic leap into the future with a > truly modular distribution. If anyone wants to look at distros that > get this more right than Gentoo, have a look at e.g. NixOS and Exherbo. > > What are your thoughts? The

Re: [gentoo-dev] The future of the Sunrise project

On Wed, 8 Jun 2016 13:04:02 +0200 Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote: > Michał Górny schrieb: > > Therefore, I'd like to ask the following question: is it time to > > announce the project dead, or do some developers want to revive it? > > If the former, could someone try to

Re: [gentoo-dev] The future of the Sunrise project

On Wed, 8 Jun 2016 14:30:51 +0200 Ulrich Mueller wrote: > > On Wed, 8 Jun 2016, Dale wrote: > > > Just a thought here. Is there a way to do a news announcement for > > people that have a package installed from the overlay? If that > > could be done, then users who

Facilitating user contributed ebuilds (Was: [gentoo-dev] The future of the Sunrise project)

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 Friends, It would be wise of us to create a novel way of involving users from the ashes of Sunrise. Here is my suggestion: It would be fruitful to encourage every single Gentoo user to have their own repository. And this repository should be

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC] New GLEP: file installation masks

On Wed, 8 Jun 2016 10:33:45 +0200 Ulrich Mueller wrote: > > On Wed, 08 Jun 2016, Michał Górny wrote: > > > I though the goal was to rid profiles/ of files other than profiles. > > Thinking about it, putting it into profiles would make a lot of sense. > For example, one

Re: [gentoo-dev] The future of the Sunrise project

> On Wed, 8 Jun 2016, Dale wrote: > Just a thought here. Is there a way to do a news announcement for > people that have a package installed from the overlay? If that > could be done, then users who don't use it won't be bothered by it > but users who do will get the news announcement

Re: [gentoo-dev] The future of the Sunrise project

Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote: > > I agree that the Sunrise repository should be removed from > repositories.xml. I don't know if there is any way of informing users > beforehand of this change happening. If not, then a grace period is > probably pointless. > > > > Best regards, > Chí-Thanh

Re: [gentoo-dev] The future of the Sunrise project

Michał Górny schrieb: Therefore, I'd like to ask the following question: is it time to announce the project dead, or do some developers want to revive it? If the former, could someone try to contact last active contributors and ask them if they'd like to move their ebuilds to ::gentoo via

Re: [gentoo-dev] The future of the Sunrise project

On 06/07/2016 10:31 PM, Andreas K. Huettel wrote: > > > Your thoughts? > > > [1]:https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:Sunrise > > Sunrise was a great way to learn packaging for Gentoo. Reviews were > *very* > strict in the past, resulting in better QA standards than the Gentoo > main tree But

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC] New GLEP: file installation masks

> On Wed, 08 Jun 2016, Michał Górny wrote: > I though the goal was to rid profiles/ of files other than profiles. Thinking about it, putting it into profiles would make a lot of sense. For example, one would want to define any systemd paths only in non-systemd profiles. > I can change the

Re: [gentoo-dev] The future of the Sunrise project

Dnia 8 czerwca 2016 09:05:37 CEST, Andrew Savchenko napisał(a): >Hi, > >On Tue, 7 Jun 2016 22:31:46 +0200 Andreas K. Huettel wrote: >> Sunrise was a great way to learn packaging for Gentoo. Reviews were >*very* >> strict in the past, resulting in better QA standards than the

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC] New GLEP: file installation masks

Dnia 8 czerwca 2016 09:17:06 CEST, Ulrich Mueller napisał(a): >> On Wed, 8 Jun 2016, Michał Górny wrote: > >> On Wed, 8 Jun 2016 07:26:21 +0200 >> Ulrich Mueller wrote: > >>> Therefore I think that repository metadata is the wrong place for >>> storing the

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC] New GLEP: file installation masks

> On Wed, 8 Jun 2016, Michał Górny wrote: > On Wed, 8 Jun 2016 07:26:21 +0200 > Ulrich Mueller wrote: >> Therefore I think that repository metadata is the wrong place for >> storing the install-mask.conf file. It is configuration, specific to >> Portage (but not to the

Re: [gentoo-dev] The future of the Sunrise project

Hi, On Tue, 7 Jun 2016 22:31:46 +0200 Andreas K. Huettel wrote: > Sunrise was a great way to learn packaging for Gentoo. Reviews were *very* > strict in the past, resulting in better QA standards than the Gentoo main > tree > - - and a definite frustration threshold that one had to overcome.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Default DOCS for einstalldocs and HACKING file

On Tue, 7 Jun 2016 18:50:05 -0400 NP-Hardass wrote: > From what I've seen, HACKING is a fairly common doc in FOSS projects. > It doesn't seem to have been included in the default DOCS for > einstalldocs in EAPI6. While going through the MATE packages, I noticed > that we

Re: [gentoo-dev] Default DOCS for einstalldocs and HACKING file

On Tue, 7 Jun 2016 18:59:42 -0500 Austin English wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA256 > > On 06/07/2016 06:19 PM, M. J. Everitt wrote: > > On 07/06/16 23:50, NP-Hardass wrote: > >> From what I've seen, HACKING is a fairly common doc in FOSS

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC] New GLEP: file installation masks

On Wed, 8 Jun 2016 07:26:21 +0200 Ulrich Mueller wrote: > > On Fri, 20 May 2016, Michał Górny wrote: > > > Sometime around a year ago, I started working on extending > > INSTALL_MASK to support well-defined locations. The work was never > > finished, and I just found my

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Global USE=gui

On Tue, 7 Jun 2016 17:31:49 -0400 Michael Orlitzky wrote: > On 06/07/2016 04:59 PM, Michał Górny wrote: > >> > >> I'll believe this when I see it =P > > > > You won't because the Gentoo way is to create a shitload of hacks > > instead of fixing the root issue. > > > > I'm