Re: [gentoo-dev] Doubts about need for ewarn when strip-linguas is used
On Tue, Mar 06, 2012 at 12:28:23PM +0100, Paweł Hajdan, Jr. wrote: On 3/6/12 11:46 AM, Pacho Ramos wrote: What do you think? I second removing a possibly spammy warning. Maybe provide a way in the ebuild to silence it (if it makes sense), but I'm fine either way. I get the warning for 'en en_US' as well for packages that are native English and don't need the translation. So, it doesn't actually make sense to warn about 'en en_US' not being supported. -- Mr. Aaron W. Swenson Gentoo Linux Developer, Proxy Committer Email: titanof...@gentoo.org GnuPG FP : 2C00 7719 4F85 FB07 A49C 0E31 5713 AA03 D1BB FDA0 GnuPG ID : D1BBFDA0 pgpKGeVq5ECdy.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] LANG=en_GB.UTF-8 by default
On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 12:58:52PM +0100, Francesco R.(vivo) wrote: as subject says could gentoo change the policy and set an UTF-8 environment by default? http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/utf-8.xml how to do it very well but having it already set could have the following two advantages: 1) well utf-8 is everywhere, even the linux weekly newsletter has it in 2012 2) the user need to change, not to create a /etc/env.d/XX-lc, creating a standard place where every gentoo install has this settings. contra? P.S. would be nice to have a wd_WD.UTF-8 with WD standing for world, just a country is so 1900 wd_WD.UTF-8 is certainly a no go. WD doesn't match any ISO country code. To support it, we'd have to create the necessary supporting files and that would lead to a lot of work and headaches trying to determine what should be where in what order, et cetera. All of the files we create (ebuilds, initscripts) are UTF-8 in accordance with GLEP 31. So, the issue would be with upstream projects not using UTF-8 for their files. However, the stage 3, last time I used it, didn't default to a UTF-8 environment, and it didn't default to using and/or including a capable UTF-8 font. It is something I think we should look at changing. -- Mr. Aaron W. Swenson Gentoo Linux Developer, Proxy Committer Email: titanof...@gentoo.org GnuPG FP : 2C00 7719 4F85 FB07 A49C 0E31 5713 AA03 D1BB FDA0 GnuPG ID : D1BBFDA0 pgplps8mKK3ip.pgp Description: PGP signature
[gentoo-dev] Last Rites: dev-db/pgaccess
# Aaron W. Swenson titanof...@gentoo.org (28 Jan 2012) # Masked for last rites. Package is no longer maintained upstream and # is not fully compatible with recent versions of PostgreSQL. Removal # in 60 days. # Alternatives: dev-db/pgadmin3 or dev-db/phppgadmin dev-db/pgaccess -- Mr. Aaron W. Swenson Gentoo Linux Developer Email: titanof...@gentoo.org GnuPG FP : 2C00 7719 4F85 FB07 A49C 0E31 5713 AA03 D1BB FDA0 GnuPG ID : D1BBFDA0 pgpVWUzBFvMps.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Free Gentoo
On Sat, Jan 21, 2012 at 01:09:45PM -0500, JD Horelick wrote: On 21 January 2012 13:01, . ivd...@gmail.com wrote: Hello there! Is there a chance that Gentoo may become a free distro? I'm so unhappy with the fact that there are some non-free packages in the main tree. The main goal of the GNU project was to replace the proprietary Unix system. You are actually ruining this goal. I'm also dissatisfied with the name of the distro. Linux is the kernel not the whole system. Cheers. To your first comment, I believe you can put: ACCEPT_LICENSES=@FSF-APPROVED in your /etc/make.conf and with that, portage will only allow you to install software with a license approved by the FSF. As for your second comment.No comment. :P To answer your question: Gentoo Linux is a free distro. To be more precise, it is a free meta-distribution. In fact, all of the packages in the tree are free. As to the name: 'Gentoo' is the name of the organization, 'Linux' is the name of the operating system. 'Gentoo Linux' is a fairly sensible name for a product. -- Mr. Aaron W. Swenson Gentoo Linux Developer Email: titanof...@gentoo.org GnuPG FP : 2C00 7719 4F85 FB07 A49C 0E31 5713 AA03 D1BB FDA0 GnuPG ID : D1BBFDA0 pgp7bmAY97VB9.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] making the stable tree more up-to-date
On Fri, Nov 25, 2011 at 05:39:32PM +0100, Thomas Kahle wrote: On 09:41 Mon 21 Nov 2011, Paweł Hajdan, Jr. wrote: I think that with recent advancements in batch-stabilization we're able to process a much higher amount of stabilization bugs, and keep the bug queue low. It used to be longer than 100 bugs, but now it's closer to 20-30 bugs for which regressions or other problems have been detected. I still remember that arfrever had such a script running for python packages and that we were quite annoyed by the automatic stable bugs for every minor version of every small python package. For this reason I'm against running the script constantly. Packages with high release frequence upstream don't need every of their versions to be stabilized. Personally, I think they don't even need every of their versions bumped... On the other hand, having a big stable frenzy once every few months seems good for exactly the reasons you name. Cheers, Thomas This allows us to do better testing of the stabilization candidates, but also I think we should start bringing even more updates to the stable tree. When doing stable testing I frequently notice bugs fixed in ~arch but not stabilized, so stable is frequently affected by problems that could be easily fixed by stabilizing a more recent version. I wrote a script, http://git.overlays.gentoo.org/gitweb/?p=proj/arch-tools.git;a=blob;f=stabilization-candidates.py;hb=HEAD, that scans the tree for packages that could be easily stabilized (all deps stable, no bugs). I'm attaching a list of packages that are sitting in the tree for at least 6 months (180 days, way more than 30 days required for stabilization) and should be ready for stabilization. Please review the list, it's 800+ packages so I thought about asking for feedback before filing stabilization bugs (I plan to do that in stages of course). Paweł The way I understand it, the only things that should be picked up are those package that have already been in the tree for 180 days. So, it wouldn't be submitting requests for unmaintained packages constantly unless somebody is sneaking in bumps. After this first large batch I'd imagine the requests to taper off quickly. -- Mr. Aaron W. Swenson Gentoo Linux Developer Email: titanof...@gentoo.org GnuPG FP : 2C00 7719 4F85 FB07 A49C 0E31 5713 AA03 D1BB FDA0 GnuPG ID : D1BBFDA0 pgpOW2bX54LVp.pgp Description: PGP signature
