On Tuesday 03 January 2006 20:25, Luis F. Araujo wrote:
Portage does not resolve block correctly, look at bugzilla there are tons
of bugs open.
So i suppose we should avoid using this kind of notation whenever possible.
See, it's not possible to avoid that with the current Portage version.
On Thursday 05 January 2006 11:26, Duncan wrote:
This man speaks my mind. That's one of the things I'm worried about with
the Enterprise Gentoo thing, and why I think it will make a better
separate project than part of Gentoo itself.
I agree mostly, too. Just that QA has more aspects than
On Thursday 05 January 2006 16:46, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
Yeah ok, let me end up these holidays, and I'll prepare a written request
to change the Linux part in something else
You should also contact the folks working on the gentoo.org redesign. While
there was a bit of fuss about the
On Thursday 05 January 2006 23:04, Curtis Napier wrote:
No, that's censored to only display what certain people want it to say
rather than the truth of what's going on.
Censored? Please expand on this, how is it censored? I thought we were
allowed to put anything Gentoo related we want to
On Friday 06 January 2006 16:27, Lance Albertson wrote:
As seen from the discussion earlier this week, I don't think Gentoo has
the proper open-mindness to create a proper enterprise distro.
This has nothing to with open-mindness, but having enough people doing the
general maintenance of a
On Sunday 01 January 2006 06:30, Mike Frysinger wrote:
Keep in mind that every resubmission to the council for review must
first be sent to the gentoo-dev mailing list 7 days (minimum) before
being submitted as an agenda item which itself occurs 7 days before the
meeting. Simply put, the
You don't have to care, Alin. Mips is not among the security-wise supported¹
architectures.
Then only problem I see in general is, that every single subproject defines
what is supported and the information is scattered on the different
gentoo.org documentation pages (release, security,
On Sunday 08 January 2006 01:38, Brian Harring wrote:
Asking people to focus on cleaning the tree? Sure. Generate a list
of candidates would help. Blocking new packages? No...
I can't say I did not expect negative replies and generating a list of
candidates is at least a suggestion. But a
On Sunday 08 January 2006 01:35, Stuart Herbert wrote:
I agree that some cleaning is needed (and some of my packages are
desperate for it!), but I'm totally opposed to this idea. I think the
idea of shutting up shop for three months (presumably with a closed
for refurbishment sign on the
On Sunday 08 January 2006 15:01, Brian Harring wrote:
Guessing you missed the previous flame war about how trying to force
people to do something doesn't actually work?
When it's not common sense, that every dev is supposed to do a minimal on
general QA, Gentoo has a problem.
You're assuming
On Saturday 21 January 2006 09:08, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
Were that the case, we'd do as Debian do and distribute a licence with
every single package.
I bet there're more than a few ebuilds where this isn't the case. You can't
even blame anyone, since there's no proper licence section in the
On Sunday 19 February 2006 10:20, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
It gets worse still. It looks like many our mirrors have broken copies
of certain Berlios-hosted tarballs.
Shouldn't that be a general problem with our mirrors - unless Berlios got
hacked and modified tarballs injected, of course?!
On Sunday 19 February 2006 11:32, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
As I understand it, our mirror scripts rely upon wget being able to
fetch the correct tarball from the original location.
Well, I'd expect them to fail gracefully when the tarball is clearly invalid
and not to inject the junk. But I
Got a positive answer. Any remaining issues?
Carsten
pgpNZUjiYYIkb.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Monday 20 February 2006 19:51, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
Positive as in yes, we'll fix it, or positive as in yes, we're
mangling the tarballs and we hate you?
Positive as in already fixed.
Carsten
pgpBBuf9e1rQs.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Saturday 04 March 2006 16:43, Dan Armak wrote:
If you're concerned about diskspace you can filter out /usr/share/doc
entirely, so users do have the choice. The problem here is that the docs
USE flag is off by default. Making more packages use the flag would install
less docs. Has anyone
On Saturday 04 March 2006 02:04, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
This is undocumented and unofficial, so feel free to utterly ignore it
and commit whatever the heck you want.
The 'doc' and 'examples' (yay for consistency!)
Don't now, if I guess right what you want to say, but there's no plural of
On Monday 06 March 2006 17:39, Paul de Vrieze wrote:
I guess some advanced /etc/portage/bashrc magic isn't enough for you?
There are some neat tricks you can play with that.
I consider this sort of ugly hack. And I don't see the point why everyone
should do this, while a maintainer, even when
On Monday 06 March 2006 17:49, Paul de Vrieze wrote:
Documentation is uncountable. So no singular or plural ;-)
Uh, that was meant ironic, considering Ciaran's remarks to others, that they
should know about this or that, leading to the one or the other inflaming
thread. But thanks for the
On Saturday 25 March 2006 12:49, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
NetBSD, OpenBSD, GNU/kFreeBSD, GNU/Hurd, Solaris?
It's great that you and others are working on alternative platforms, but
regarding decisions which tools we use, our main platforms are of interest.
Everyone else should/has to
On Saturday 25 March 2006 19:50, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
This is the same line of thinking that makes people use flash or wmv
because it's the silly Linux users that has to adapt, Windows works fine
and similar.
It's not. Darcs is not proprietary, so you can make it work if you
Got a request¹ providing them, but I don't see any sense in it at all. The
only package using it is app-office/lyx. Imho the dependency should be
removed, since it is a optional runtime dependency the user has to configure
anyways, so it'll never work out of the box. This sort of virtual is
Given that most of the world not necessarily knows who the Amish are, it
should be added, that they form the heart and soul of the north american
technology elite¹.
Carsten
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amish
pgpDbje8gW1U8.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Thursday 30 March 2006 01:55, Mark Loeser wrote:
Not directed specifically at you, but it seems a lot of people are
masking stuff and removing it very quickly, and I'd really like to see
everyone wait the 30 days to remove something from the tree. That way
anyone using this package in some
On Sunday 02 April 2006 20:41, Mike Frysinger wrote:
nothing personal, but who are you to say whether it's legit ?
It's really not a question what's legit (heck, you started using this term, so
blaming Olivier for using it is a bit odd), but what we (can and want to)
support. Wouldn't it have
On Sunday 02 April 2006 04:48, Daniel Goller wrote:
exactly, what's the point of removing it so fast? give people a chance
to miss it, it does not matter if it's removed or masked only as far as
going woah, what? and if masked it is a matter of unmasking rather
than recommitting
We haven't
On Sunday 02 April 2006 21:51, Harald van Dijk wrote:
Others did speak up at that time. The result:
http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/31641
Yeah, that was the one and only single voice.
Carsten
pgplFkefqq6Ma.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Sunday 02 April 2006 21:28, Mike Frysinger wrote:
last time i recall following the gtk/gtk2 stuff, the idea was that in the
future to move to a gtk/gtk1 situation ... but this was back when Spider
was The Man, so i guess people forgot about that
No, see the whole thread Harald references in
On Sunday 02 April 2006 21:31, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
The usual period is thirty days.
Grep this mailing list, most often a one week period was used.
Once it's in p.mask it's effectively gone, to the extent that ignoring
it for a month is fine.
Who said a package gets masked before it gets
On Sunday 02 April 2006 22:33, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
This is a recent change, and usually someone replies with why not a
month?.
This is simply not true or we have very different ideas of the meaning of
recent. The vast majority of last rites emails from 2005 had slated
removals of one week
On Sunday 02 April 2006 22:29, Simon Stelling wrote:
Come on. Is this a 'policy doesn't say I have to be sane' war? It's
absolutely reasonable to p.mask a package that is pending for removal. That
way you give the users a timeframe which they can search for alternative
tools in.
This is not
On Sunday 02 April 2006 22:40, Mike Frysinger wrote:
lets apply the same logic to all things unmaintained !
Yes, that's one reason I am so annoyed of the unmaintained parts of the tree.
besides, you're talking about removing GTK1 completely ... this thread is
talking about deprecating the
On Monday 03 April 2006 00:29, foser wrote:
Already security related issues have been dropped by upstream for the
simple reason that it hasn't been maintained since the day gtk went
2.0 .
Why didn't you file (Gentoo) security bugs? Perfect reason to drop Gtk1
support, if no one steps up to
On Monday 03 April 2006 01:54, Daniel Goller wrote:
you are really trying hard to get gtk(1)
Everyone as s/he likes. I favor the deprecation of the gtk2 flag and start
dancing on my chair, once we have a Portage version with slot/use depends in
arch. But this is a completely different topic:
On Tuesday 04 April 2006 11:12, Chris Bainbridge wrote:
Surely the question isn't whether the upgrade is perfect, but whether
it's better than the current stable release?
Exactly.
(I realise that isn't a perfect patch count...)
Exactly.
I think at this point it does more harm than good to
On Tuesday 04 April 2006 06:52, Mike Frysinger wrote:
sorry, those last two paragraphs are covered elsewhere between infra and
evrel ... so the document should be considered without those last two
paragraphs
-mike
This is what I'd like to see clarified. To me, only a decision of the Council
On Tuesday 04 April 2006 21:53, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
This is absurd. The council shouldn't need to make every decision in
Gentoo itself. It should be able to delegate power to any group it chooses.
Such a decision is not like /every/ decision and should happen only very
seldom, so I don't
On Friday 07 April 2006 04:26, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
I also share the opinion that we shouldn't go against upstream wishes
IRT branding, but if upstream encourages some fairly subtle branding
along with keeping their name visible, I'm for it.
There's a thread in gentoo-core from 2004 with
On Friday 07 April 2006 15:28, Simon Stelling wrote:
He said he wanted to make it easy, not forcing it. Or am I mistaken?
How do you want not to enforce it? The last time¹ someone came up with
a branding use flag, some were in favor of, some against it.
Still, the basic question is: Why!?
On Saturday 08 April 2006 00:52, Mike Frysinger wrote:
highly suspect statements
these states are all quite common ... trying to make some kind of
supposition as to which is the most common is a waste of time
No. It's my opinion. Respect it, please. You don't have to agree.
in my
I dislike the idea to create lots of symlinks for that reason. But I'm having
a bug¹ open at mozilla.org with the goal to create rss feeds from the
documentation.
Carsten
[¹] https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=332095
pgpBhuQuKgGb2.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Friday 28 April 2006 21:57, A. Khattri wrote:
Does it make sense to make the value of RDEPEND in an ebuild depend on USE
flags? Example: Im writing an ebuild that use either cvs or svn at
runtime. I want to allow users to choose which one they want but make cvs
the default. What's the best
On Saturday 29 April 2006 00:02, Tuan Van wrote:
and I also saw something like below without cvs USE flag:
RDEPEND=svn? ( dev-util/subversion ) !svn? ( dev-util/cvs )
Does obviously not work, if you want to have both available. Also enabling cvs
support by disabling svn is not transparent to
On Saturday 29 April 2006 09:08, Alin Nastac wrote:
Huh? How about:
RDEPEND=|| ( dev-util/cvs dev-util/subversion )
Similar problem as with Tuan's version: It's intransparent to the user and he
has no choice, unless he looks into the ebuild. || ( foo bar ) is only an
option, if you have two
On Tuesday 25 April 2006 08:53, Alin Nastac wrote:
Lets say a package foo depends on bar, both at compile time and run time.
Shouldn't DEPEND _and_ RDEPEND of the foo package reflect that
dependency? I usually set DEPEND=$RDEPEND ... or vice-versa (depending
on which is the most demanding). Am
On Friday 05 May 2006 08:32, Kevin F. Quinn (Gentoo) wrote:
If you use specific versions in the package.keywords file (i.e. do
=category/package-version-revision ~arch instead of
category/package ~arch, this doesn't happen.
Hardcoding specific ~arch versions or revisions unless absolutely
On Friday 05 May 2006 15:23, Kevin F. Quinn (Gentoo) wrote:
I disagree. Your argument is for not using ~arch at all, rather
than an argument against keeping control of what you have from ~arch.
No. My argument is that category/ebuild is much better than
=category/ebuild-x*. If and only if
On Friday 05 May 2006 20:37, Kevin F. Quinn (Gentoo) wrote:
First, I'll get the security updates when (1) the relevant updated
package goes stable, which is usually pretty quickly, or (2)
notification is made in gentoo-announce (which must be the correct
place to get such notifications).
That
On Wednesday 17 May 2006 00:22, Stephen Bennett wrote:
Does the Gentoo Project not support the
entire tree all of a sudden?
There are plenty of ebuilds in the tree marked as unsupported by
gentoo. Probably some profiles too, though I can't name them for
certain off the top of my head.
On Wednesday 17 May 2006 15:50, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Wed, 17 May 2006 01:58:02 +0200 Carsten Lohrke [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| I haven't had a look at Paludis (the name sucks as much as the name
| eselect had, before it was named eselect, btw.) yet, so I don't have
| an opinion
On Thursday 18 May 2006 20:02, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
It's kinda like this:
Stop making such odd and wrong comparisons. The package manager is part of
what defines a distribution, choosing a shell is the users choice. If you
want to make the package manager matter of choice, start your own
On Thursday 18 May 2006 22:15, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
| Sure baselayout is. An there're others in the tree, But that doesn't
| mean these variants are supported (special cases like embedded aside).
Sure, some of them are supported.
By supported I mean all relevant packages in the tree install
On Friday 19 May 2006 09:33, Roy Marples wrote:
Maybe you haven't noticed, but baselayout is a virtual - which does make
things harder as the main forks (vserver and fbsd) sometimes break when
we add new things and they haven't synced up yet.
I have nothing against a virtual. I just don't
On Friday 19 May 2006 16:17, Roy Marples wrote:
I can show you bugs where existing packages have invalid init scripts that
just don't work with any baselayout version in portage. You could argue
that they shouldn't be in the tree - if so then our imap server is
foo-bared as it uses
Don't repeat a failure of the past. Do
NEED_CMAKE x.y
inherit foo
...
instead this ugly toplevel function call.
Carsten
pgpkzcuaeL675.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Monday 05 June 2006 18:03, Stefan Schweizer wrote:
I would like to make the changes in a new 2006.1 profile, how do I go about
that? I think the current profiles should not be touched, since some users
may still be using the flags.
Yes, 2006.1.
Any comments/objections - any outdated
On Monday 05 June 2006 20:08, Harald van Dijk wrote:
No, the decision with the gtk/gtk2 USE flag mess was to have package
maintainers decide for each ebuild whether to support only gtk1 or only
gtk2, but not have support for both in a single ebuild.
I know about the decision of the Gnome team,
On Monday 05 June 2006 20:52, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
Have a look at
/usr/portage/profiles/default-linux/x86/2006.0/make.defaults for the list
of current default use flags.
I think it's a bad idea to have win32codecs in make.defaults. There's quite a
number of codecs in the package and I'm
On Monday 05 June 2006 23:25, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
Well, it doesn't affect stages, and GRP stuff is done w/ USE=bindist, so
again, this is a non-issue.
Well, I didn't mean our binary releases, but being held liable for making
property of others available by default, without the permission
This list is for development discussions. Please file a request at
http://bugs.gentoo.org
Carsten
pgppRNCcOVLoi.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Tuesday 06 June 2006 04:45, Andrew Muraco wrote:
Sorry for the offtopic of this, but what would a user set as the
useflags to have GTK-2 used by default, and GTK-1 for apps that only
support it? (but not build GTK-2-capable apps with GTK-1)
Just the gtk use flag.
Carsten
On Tuesday 06 June 2006 06:07, Mike Frysinger wrote:
mikmod is the only one i'd keep ... people generally want mikmod whether or
not they know it ;)
I'd say 99,9% don't want mikmod. Arguments please, not vague assertions. :)
Carsten
pgpMnmHuAbjLA.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Tuesday 06 June 2006 04:11, Michael Sterrett -Mr. Bones.- wrote:
Some games fail in pkg_setup if sdl-mixer isn't built
with mikmod but I'm not sure if we've added the built_with_use check to
all of the games that need it yet.
Time to fix this. And removing the flag would help, as bugs would
On Tuesday 06 June 2006 11:25, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
SDL based games requires mikmod quite often. I suppose Mike knows what he's
saying.
It's a difference to know that, compared to share ones thoughts, which Mike
missed to do.
Carsten
pgp1iJ8Y6QlGG.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Thursday 08 June 2006 02:42, Stefan Schweizer wrote:
Initially jokey and myself will be working on this. The current focus is to
migrate ebuilds from bugzilla into the overlay and to get contributors to
commit their changes to the overlay instead of updating the bugzilla every
time.
Can't
On Friday 09 June 2006 12:12, Chris Bainbridge wrote:
This larger group of users are the ones that would benefit
from an overlay.
And this larger group of people is exactly the same one, that doesn't know to
help itself, if necessary and will suffer the most, when something goes
wrong. This
In my eyes only the main tree is official. The overlays are development niches
(and as such perfectly fine), to speed up development without causing much
trouble in the main tree. The problem is that overlay.g.o is seemingly
official, because we host it. It should be made more clear that this
On Friday 09 June 2006 02:53, Stefan Schweizer wrote:
It also doesn't answer the questions of security and maintenance. Are
genstef and jokey going to be responsible for the security of every
single package in the overlay?
Yes, we will be acting upon all issues that we hear about.
...
This may work for Apache or PHP, but an overlay with arbitrary maintainer
wanted ebuilds would need an extra bugzilla account. The problem is that
this won't really help, since (some) users will see oh, an kde app crashed
and file a bug at [EMAIL PROTECTED] Then /me looks at the tree, doesn't
On Friday 09 June 2006 13:44, Peter wrote:
Secondly, my bias against a third party repository is perhaps unwarranted.
I am sure the bmg site is excellent and the people running it are
well-intentioned and experienced. However, that said, as a user, I have a
higher comfort level staying in the
On Friday 09 June 2006 14:04, Stefan Schweizer wrote:
Please, do not assume our users being stupid. They know that they are using
an ebuild from the sunrise overlay with zero support. They deliberately
typed
You have said stupid, not me. Some won't care enough, I'm quite sure about
that. We
On Saturday 17 June 2006 14:39, Michael Cummings wrote:
Kevin F. Quinn wrote:
If RDEPEND is not set, it is defaulted to $DEPEND by portage.
Alas, if only. If you inherit an eclass with deps this carry over won't
happen. (And I have the bugs to prove it ;)
Well, has been the job of the
On Saturday 17 June 2006 04:51, Christel Dahlskjaer wrote:
How exactly does one go about maintaining our developers? ;)
It's devrel's cursed job. Ask them. :)
Carsten
pgpDHDEmEDUMI.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Wednesday 21 June 2006 15:44, Stefan Schweizer wrote:
qt3 and qt4 is being used there already and it is obvious
It's nice to invent new use flags affecting Qt stuff without contacting
those who care for Qt.
2) A package requires either Qt3 or Qt4 (both not both?...such as
On Monday 31 July 2006 04:52, Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Sunday 30 July 2006 22:28, Dan Meltzer wrote:
1) Users can submit patches/ideas to bugs.g.o at whatever frequency
they desire, contributing to gentoo casually.
load up your browser and check out how many bugs are assigned
to '[EMAIL
On Monday 31 July 2006 07:05, Seemant Kulleen wrote:
OK, let's start with: what exactly is the problem?
Please reread my replies in the first sunrise thread. Points are: no security,
issues with eclass changes which will result in bug spam, the fact that
sunrise is a bunch of arbitrary
On Monday 31 July 2006 13:01, Christian Andreetta wrote:
Seemant Kulleen wrote:
On Sun, 2006-07-30 at 23:50 -0400, Brett I. Holcomb wrote:
My concern is beyond me. As I stated I know enough about what to
expect IF I use sunrise. But many do not and with it becoming official
people
On Thursday 01 January 1970 01:00, Alec Warner wrote:
eclass changes? You can't even commit eclasses to it...
Eclass changes in the main tree, including all relevant ebuilds updated, but
breaking the ebuilds in the Surise overlay, having whining users or borked
systems in the worst case.
On Wednesday 02 August 2006 05:50, Richard Fish wrote:
Nothing that I have read about sunrise, either in GWN, their project
pages, or the FAQ, has given me the impression that they are urging
all users to give it a try. There is certainly some advertising
about it, as would be appropriate for
First I'd like to state that I do offer my opinion. You don't have to like it,
but disqualifying it as flaming, while exactly doing this yourself,
disqualifies you. I'd appreciate, if you would try to have a controversial
discussion, without starting to loose your manners.
On Wednesday 02
On Thursday 03 August 2006 04:56, Brian Harring wrote:
*cough*. bit hypocritical for you to lecture me about viewing
your statements as 'flaming', and in the same breath label
my own as 'flaming' ;)
Why am I pointing this out? My initial points were that of why the
double standard, with
As far as I'm aware the problem isn't the security team, but the reasons are:
1. slow/understaffed arch teams - and I suppose this is the biggest problem,
as we need all security-wise supported¹ architectures stable, before a GLSA
can be send out.
2. the amount of unmaintained stuff in the
On Sunday 06 August 2006 00:26, Mike Frysinger wrote:
and i'm on the opposite side where implicit RDEPEND should be clean:
Why? I for one consider explicit dependencies much more clean. If Portage at
some point should distinct between dependencies defined in ebuilds and
eclasses, we'd need a
On Thursday 17 August 2006 21:42, James Potts wrote:
hmmmdoesn't the GNU ClassPath implement enough of Java's runtimes
to handle a command-line app like this
When it is at 100% 1.4 compatibility (and that does not mean nearly as bug
free, stable, fast, etc. as Sun's Java is), the latter
On Thursday 24 August 2006 09:54, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
The council doesn't actually do anything AFAICT, it just approves GLEP
decisions that have already been made. So in effect we have no leadership.
Well, to quote the council project page:
The elected Gentoo Council decides on global
On Thursday 31 August 2006 16:58, Simon Stelling wrote:
I think we agreed at least 3 times on that the logrotate use flag
shouldn't exist at all because those files add 4kb to the package.
Right. Open a bug and cc involved maintainers. This is the way it works -
maybe slowly, but it does. We
As discussed here¹, the author of cdrtools, Jörg Schilling, violates the GPL
in his application, by building GPL software with CDDL licensed makefiles as
well as linking mkisofs to libscg, which he relicensed to CDDL lately. Debian
seems to fork² cdrtools therefore.
Imho we have to remove the
On Friday 01 September 2006 14:51, Lars Weiler wrote:
We have a lot of other applications in the tree, which is
not free.
The problem is not that it's not free*, but that linking GPL and CDDL code
violates the GPL. If the whole cdrtools code were CDDL, there were no
problem.
*The OSI
The file listing the derecated overlays is fine. What about revdep-rebuild and
emerge regarding installed stuff and overlays?
Carsten
pgpMpDspMcPVc.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Friday 01 September 2006 15:45, Luis Medinas wrote:
I'm sure that situation will be fixed by the upstream (Jörg) since it
violates GPL license. About the debian fork we will take a look at it
and see where's going.
Read the Debian bug. Jörg Schilling is badmouthing Debian developers and
Seems my message got swallowed...
On Saturday 02 September 2006 15:36, Edgar Hucek wrote:
Just a side hint. Try to enable all flags at the first cimpile time would
reduce trys drasticaly ;)
There are lots of use flag combinations incompatible with each other within a
package as well as
On Sunday 03 September 2006 11:20, Kevin F. Quinn wrote:
triggered by bug #77751: hspell lists a non-gentoo.org address for
the maintainer email, the herd as maintainer-needed, and no other
addresses.
Is this sort of thing now ok?
No.
Carsten
pgpLh7ZV4WbmG.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Either MTA or MUA brokeness. Another email I have to send a second time. :(
On Sunday 03 September 2006 00:42, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
And waiting other 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 months won't change the thing. Why? Because
we have _no_ accessibility team right now.
Well, the bug is assigned to
On Sunday 03 September 2006 00:42, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
And waiting other 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 months won't change the thing. Why? Because
we have _no_ accessibility team right now.
Well, the bug is assigned to williamh, who is not /completely/ inactive. I
wonder, if only 37 commits in
On Sunday 03 September 2006 16:36, Stefan Schweizer wrote:
I am not adding stuff. I am fixing existing packages. And I am taking
responsibility.
How wonderful this sort of maintenance is you can read here:
https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=146626
Am I the only one who has a problem with
On Thursday 07 September 2006 07:58, Stefan Schweizer wrote:
I am part of the kde herd, thanks.
To my knowledge you have never asked to join the KDE team, nor did I see you
helping tracking down KDE bug reports ever. Just adding yourself doesn't
work.
Carsten
pgp7tjbj1KWLV.pgp
On Thursday 07 September 2006 13:25, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
I'll try to overlook the reverted changes in kdelibs for bug fixes, the
improper ${ROOT} injected in my changes where it wasn't supposed to be, the
broken opengl on kdelibs checks that appeared last month, unhelpful
comments
On Thursday 07 September 2006 13:48, Jakub Moc wrote:
I wonder how exactly genstef broke mips, 'cos mind you, he just reverted
to what the ebuild was doing before Bug 114161 was fixed by
hard-disabling of hspell [1]. Since mips doesn't have hspell keyworded,
it wasn't affected by that bug
What have we learnt now, Jakub? Keep it in the bug report. ;)
Carsten
pgpxG13G6keIP.pgp
Description: PGP signature
First step should imho be, that you work with the Portage team on having
proper set support implemented. Current meta ebuilds do suck, really.
Carsten
pgpY3uwbpcikw.pgp
Description: PGP signature
1 - 100 of 206 matches
Mail list logo
