Re: [gentoo-dev] Issues regarding glep-55 (Was: [gentoo-council] Re: Preliminary Meeting-Topics for 12 February 2009)

2009-02-24 Thread Richard Freeman
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: ..and it means we can't change name or version rules. Why? Just parse the EAPI out of the file before you interpret the version and name from the filename. Indeed - you could have a future EAPI remove the name and version from the filename entirely. If a package

Re: [gentoo-dev] Collecting opinions about GLEP 55 and alternatives

2009-02-24 Thread Richard Freeman
Petteri Räty wrote: 3) EAPI in locked down place in the ebuild - Allows changing global scope - EAPI can't be changed in an existing ebuild so the PM can trust the value in the cache I don't see how this follows. The PM can compare the mtime on the file with the time the cache was

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Collecting opinions about GLEP 55 and alternatives

2009-03-09 Thread Richard Freeman
Duncan wrote: So putting it in the manifest but generated from the ebuild info really doesn't change the problem, leaving us precisely where we were before, except that it may be useful as a component of one of the other solutions, and has been proposed as such in a few of the suggested

Re: [gentoo-dev] devs on IRC (was :Regen2 ( was QA Overlay Layout support ))

2009-03-14 Thread Richard Freeman
Donnie Berkholz wrote: On 14:05 Fri 13 Mar , Michael Higgins wrote: Even if they are, an IRC log is a *terrible* way to document an issue. I agree. So is a mailing-list archive that is also never summarized. It's not the location that makes it a problem, it's the volume of information

Re: [gentoo-dev] `paludis --info' is not like `emerge --info'

2009-04-06 Thread Richard Freeman
Andrew D Kirch wrote: I reject the premise that war should always be prevented. I am however concerned that criticism where criticism is due is flame baiting. The original post did not contain any constructive criticism of paludis at all. It simply stated that under no circumstances should

Re: [gentoo-dev] EAPI 3 PMS Draft

2009-04-09 Thread Richard Freeman
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: Most packages that have tests have working tests. For those that don't, the tests have to be restricted. All this proposal does is ensures that that happens in a progressive, incremental and safe way. I agree with this point - failing tests are more the exception than

Re: [gentoo-dev] `paludis --info' is not like `emerge --info'

2009-04-13 Thread Richard Freeman
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: This isn't a usability request. Making the use paludis --info cat/pkg text stand out more was a usability request, and I was happy to make that change. This is a few noxious trolls whining in an attempt to cause trouble. For those who have concerns with the paludis

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo Council Reminder for April 23

2009-04-23 Thread Richard Freeman
Mart Raudsepp wrote: So my point is that the whole of the council should consider the objections of an individual council member, so that potentially bad things don't end up accepted based on some kind of an uninformed majority vote or concensus. Probably the best way to accomplish something

Re: [gentoo-dev] Retiring

2009-05-04 Thread Richard Freeman
Markos Chandras wrote: I am sure that you know them. But those problems are the reasons why more and more developers are demotivated and leaving Gentoo. 'Fixing' those problems should be a N1 priority on every gentoo council meeting until they are gone. There is absolutely no point in trying

Re: [gentoo-dev] license issue with fretsonfire

2009-05-04 Thread Richard Freeman
Arun Raghavan wrote: As for the songs, does it make sense to put that in a separate package that the code package depends on? The package can have the restrictive license it is distributed under and RESTRICT=mirror bindist. That was my first thought as well - just split out the songs and

Re: [gentoo-dev] Retiring

2009-05-05 Thread Richard Freeman
Markos Chandras wrote: Even a volunteer-driven organization needs some standard rules in order to survive. From time to time this volunteer moto is what some people consider as anarchy As far as survival goes - I think the rumors of Gentoo's death are greatly exaggerated. I certainly

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Training points for users interested in helping out with ebuild development

2009-05-07 Thread Richard Freeman
Thomas Anderson wrote: It seems to me you're on a irc-hate rampage. There are many devs who rarely, if ever, go on irc. The _only_ requirement is that you conduct a real-time interview with a recruiter. I have to agree with this sentiment - I have nothing against IRC but it is a bit too

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Training points for users interested in helping out with ebuild development

2009-05-08 Thread Richard Freeman
Duncan wrote: But no matter, the practical fact of the matter is that for someone who would otherwise not do IRC, it's just one more hurdle in the process. Whether it's useful or not, trivial or vital, no longer matters, it's defined by the gatekeepers as a requirement, therefore, by said

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Project proposal -- maintainer-wanted

2009-05-14 Thread Richard Freeman
AllenJB wrote: All that's going to happen is Gentoo will have many many buggy and out of date packages in the MAIN TREE. Exactly where they shouldn't be. You claim quality won't be sacrificed, but I simply can't see this without any attempt to solve the manpower issues first. Isn't the

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Project proposal -- maintainer-wanted

2009-05-14 Thread Richard Freeman
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? For example, user contributes ebuild for foo-1.0. I don't use it or like it, but I go ahead

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Project proposal -- maintainer-wanted

2009-05-15 Thread Richard Freeman
Thilo Bangert wrote: AFAIK, we have never explicitly made this distinction clear. if we had, we would have to remove stuff from portage which doesnt live up to the standards. I'm all for that. In reality we tend to leave them alone until a security issue actually comes up, which is

Re: [gentoo-dev] The fallacies of GLEP55

2009-05-15 Thread Richard Freeman
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Thu, 14 May 2009 20:06:51 +0200 Patrick Lauer patr...@gentoo.org wrote: Let EAPI be defined as (the part behind the = of) the first line of the ebuild starting with EAPI= Uh, so horribly utterly and obviously wrong. inherit foo EAPI=4 where foo is both a

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: The fallacies of GLEP55

2009-05-16 Thread Richard Freeman
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: You've missed the point. The point is, the EAPI process can't avoid the huge wait before we can use it for certain types of change that would be extremely useful. GLEP 55 fixes this limitation, and it's the *only* thing that fixes this limitation. Except that if we had

Re: [gentoo-dev] Can we stop wasting time and bandwidth? (was: The fallacies of GLEP55)

2009-05-16 Thread Richard Freeman
Nirbheek Chauhan wrote: Let's not blatantly ignore our REAL problems. We can no longer afford to maintain the status-quo of pedantic masturbatory discussions on the finer points of ebuild formats. We cannot AFFORD to look the other way while the distro rots away. What exactly is your

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: The fallacies of GLEP55

2009-05-16 Thread Richard Freeman
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: Had we gone with any of the other proposals a year ago, we'd be waiting a year every time a new change came along. Only if that change prevented obtaining EAPI from wherever it was placed. If you want to make the rule EAPI=foo appears at the start of a new line at

Re: [gentoo-dev] The fallacies of GLEP55

2009-05-16 Thread Richard Freeman
Ravi Pinjala wrote: Nick Fortino wrote: Such a transformation is possible, given the restrictions on arg, as well as ebuild format. Isn't this a bit circular? The whole point of wanting to change the extension is to get rid of exactly these restrictions; if you assume the restrictions, then

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: The fallacies of GLEP55

2009-05-16 Thread Richard Freeman
Duncan wrote: So I believe the cost to be quite reasonably managed, after all. Benchmarks would of course be needed to demonstrate that, but I believe it worth pursuing. Agreed. Perhaps I'm just spoiled by RDBMS's at work or something, but it seems like we're trying to squeeze every

Re: [gentoo-dev] The fallacies of GLEP55

2009-05-16 Thread Richard Freeman
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: The only way it'll be in the next ten years rather than in the next two years is if Gentoo continues its current approach of making changes require every single person to agree... Frankly, I won't be at all surprised if this thread (in some form) is still going on in

Re: [gentoo-dev] The fallacies of GLEP55

2009-05-17 Thread Richard Freeman
Alistair Bush wrote: Is it really necessary to convince the entire community for every GLEP? I thought that the reason we have the council is so they can make decisions. You know specialization of decision making. If the council is going to expect anyone else, besides themselves, to

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: ACCEPT_LICENSE default value (GLEP 23)

2009-05-30 Thread Richard Freeman
Disclaimer - I too am not a lawyer. Mounir Lamouri wrote: I'm not a lawyer so I can't say for sure some software _need_ explicit license acceptance to be used. However, I'm quite sure using a software means accept the license. Someone experienced in this area is welcome for clarifications.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: How not to discuss

2009-05-30 Thread Richard Freeman
Ryan Hill wrote: I'm tired of playing, as I'm sure you are. So please, let's be quiet now, and let the big people talk. This is a public list designed to facilitate discussion of gentoo software development. Anybody with something constructive to say is more than welcome to speak up -

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: How not to discuss

2009-05-31 Thread Richard Freeman
Duncan wrote: A team can have the best rhetoric in the world, but if they don't actually show up and field a team on game day, they lose by default. Fortunately or unfortunately, that looks to be where this is headed. Agreed, there is definitely something to be said for offering solutions.

Re: [gentoo-dev] A new glep: Ebuild format and metadata handling

2009-05-31 Thread Richard Freeman
Patrick Lauer wrote: If I should have forgotten any approach or misrepresented one I'd appreciate an updated or rephrased section so it can be easily updated. This keeps coming up for some reason: parsers: It enforces some minor limitations, for example EAPI needs to be unique and cannot be

Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for June

2009-06-02 Thread Richard Freeman
Mounir Lamouri wrote: I would like to get ACCEPT_LICENSE default value [1] discussed in the next Council. If I can even get it widely discussed in gentoo-dev before the council, a vote will be great. But it looks like it is not interesting so much people out there. Why not make a definitive

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: How not to discuss

2009-06-03 Thread Richard Freeman
Marijn Schouten (hkBst) wrote: Richard Freeman wrote: Without actually intending to open a new debate on that issue cringes, I'm actually a fan of NOT obtaining PN and PV from the filename. I've seen an approach like this used in various systems and I happen to like it: In which systems did

Re: [gentoo-dev] Jun 11th, 2009 Council Meeting Format

2009-06-03 Thread Richard Freeman
Denis Dupeyron wrote: In my manifesto [1] I have proposed something significantly different which simply consists in spinning the long discussions off the council meetings using more focused groups ++ I've seen this used to good effect on projects at work. The only challenge might be the

Re: [gentoo-dev] Jun 11th, 2009 Council Meeting Format

2009-06-04 Thread Richard Freeman
Doug Goldstein wrote: The amount of time spent debating something over the pretty look and not over technical merits creates terrible signal-to-noise ratios (where I consider the pretty debates as noise and the technical merits as signal). I'm not sure that much time on this list is spent

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: GLEP 55 Version 2

2009-06-07 Thread Richard Freeman
Ulrich Mueller wrote: Let's assume for the moment that we change from .ebuild to .eb. Then we obviously cannot change all ebuilds in the tree to .eb, otherwise old Portage versions would see an empty tree and there would be no upgrade path. Or am I missing something? That is a good point.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: GLEP 55 Version 2

2009-06-07 Thread Richard Freeman
Patrick Lauer wrote: And if you really absolutely have to do that you can change the sync location on every disruptive change, but (imo) that should be avoided. If mirroring and other practical concerns weren't an issue what you're essentially describing is just moving to a CVS/git/etc

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Council meeting summary for meeting on June 11, 2009

2009-06-19 Thread Richard Freeman
Nirbheek Chauhan wrote: Please, do not waste everyone's time and bandwidth with thoughts that do not belong on this list, and hence they do not care about. Let's be nice. Somehow I don't think Duncan's goal was to get the mailing lists to be as flame-filled as he perceives IRC to be... :)

Re: [gentoo-dev] 2009 Council Elections

2009-06-26 Thread Richard Freeman
Ben de Groot wrote: In my opinion it is in the best interest of Gentoo at this point to ignore Exherbo and to silence those people involved with Exherbo that have been so divisive and generated so much conflict in Gentoo channels. Nobody needs to be silenced (unless they're litereally

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-council] A Little Council Reform Anyone?

2009-07-02 Thread Richard Freeman
Doug Goldstein wrote: On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 9:33 PM, Ned Luddso...@gentoo.org wrote: Meetings will likely go back to one time per month and be +m with +v be handed out per request with open chat pre/post meetings. The reason for this is to keep the meetings on-track. I won't engage in endless

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-council] A Little Council Reform Anyone?

2009-07-03 Thread Richard Freeman
Luca Barbato wrote: Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote: I have a few ideas about this that I'll have to put in writing and share later, but let me start by proposing that for such a change we require the support of at least 2/3 of the devs that vote *and* a minimum of 1/3 of all devs. I'd use

Re: [gentoo-dev] DistroWatch and Gentoo packages: status quo and future

2009-09-13 Thread Richard Freeman
Jesús Guerrero wrote: Most Gentoo users will have no problem to use overlays as they need them. If we had more developers we could as maintain more packages, as simple as that. I actually tend to agree with this position, however to use overlays as a valid solution for end-users we need to

Re: [gentoo-dev] DistroWatch and Gentoo packages: status quo and future

2009-09-13 Thread Richard Freeman
Jesús Guerrero wrote: Yeah, devs for that as well. Yup - I think we're actually on the same page. Ultimately quality matters more than quantity and everybody does what they can given the resources we have. Right now it is at least a little painful to get set up with an overlay. No,

Re: [gentoo-dev] Stabilization of Python 3.1

2009-09-20 Thread Richard Freeman
Olivier Crête wrote: ~arch is for testing ebuilds, not the upstream package I'm pretty sure this isn't the case - at least not as cleanly as you suggest. Certainly testing the ebuilds themselves is part of the reason for having ~arch, but upstream readiness is part of it as well. If a

Re: [gentoo-dev] EAPI and system packages

2009-09-20 Thread Richard Freeman
Ryan Hill wrote: So, should we always keep a working EAPI 0 version around? If not, when can we drop support for old EAPIs? Your opinions please. You might want to define what you mean by dropping support for old EAPIs? Do you mean: 1. No longer ensuring that users who have pre-EAPI

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Xorg 1.6/libxcb 1.4 stabilization news item

2009-10-02 Thread Richard Freeman
Rémi Cardona wrote: May I request a faster commit time since I didn't expect Samuli to stabilize everything so quickly? Yup - I wouldn't be surprised if within a few hours 80% of the concerned users will have already installed it. Even if you send out the news now anybody who synced

Re: [gentoo-dev] Anyone interested in maintaining the Gentoo Handbooks?

2009-10-04 Thread Richard Freeman
Joshua Saddler wrote: On Sat, 3 Oct 2009 20:45:21 +0300 Markos Chandras hwoar...@gentoo.org wrote: This is actually true. Maybe all devs should have access on docs since the docs teams are dead. I would suggest to let all developers contribute to documentation whether they belong to docs team

Re: [gentoo-dev] Init systems portage category

2009-10-12 Thread Richard Freeman
Jesús Guerrero wrote: In my opinion, if we really want to speak about a way to implement that kind of snapshoting, we should start thinking about providing a better integration with lvm, from the root. lvm can take care of the snapshots on a non-expensive way, and it would be relatively easy to

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC] Splitting desktop profile to KDE and GNOME

2009-10-26 Thread Richard Freeman
Duncan wrote: Actually, yes. Gentoo has never been a hand-holding distribution. We try to provide documentation and reasonable defaults for any apps the user chooses to install, and let the user configure what they will. Gentoo is about choice. Well, except for the choice to not have to

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Improve policy of stabilizations

2009-11-01 Thread Richard Freeman
Mart Raudsepp wrote: Is it stated in any documentation that 30 days is a policy? Not that I'm aware of - it is a guideline as you indicate. However, don't expect anybody to actually take action on a STABLEREQ if there isn't some kind of rationale for going stable so quickly. The whole

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in app-forensics/foremost: ChangeLog foremost-1.5.6.ebuild

2009-11-08 Thread Richard Freeman
Petteri Räty wrote: #SRC_URI=mirror://sourceforge/${PN}/${P}.tar.gz # starting to hate sf.net ... SRC_URI=http://foremost.sourceforge.net/pkg/foremost-1.5.6.tar.gz; The filename that violates our policies hasn't changed between the new and old SRC_URI. Is this policy actually written down

Re: [gentoo-dev] QA is unimportant?

2009-11-09 Thread Richard Freeman
Peter Volkov wrote: 1. Our good non-formal policy if developer touched anything he becames responsible for that ebuild and should fix issues noticed is sometimes ignored. We see people reacting: you've noticed - you fix. I think such attitude is unacceptable. Keep in mind the downside to such

[gentoo-dev] GPG Infrastructure for Gentoo (Was Council Meeting)

2009-11-30 Thread Richard Freeman
Antoni Grzymala wrote: How about getting back to GLEP-57 [1]? Robin Hugh Johnson made an effort a year ago to summarize the then-current state of things regarding tree and package signing, however the matter seems to have lain idle and untouched for more than a year since. One concern I have

Re: [gentoo-dev] CAcert certificate distribution license to third parties (i.e. distributors like gentoo)

2009-12-14 Thread Richard Freeman
On 12/13/2009 02:49 PM, Robin H. Johnson wrote: On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 10:44:05PM +1100, Daniel Black wrote: Recently this got produced as a draft license for parties distributing CAcert's root certificate(s) (like us).

Re: [gentoo-dev] CAcert certificate distribution license to third parties (i.e. distributors like gentoo)

2009-12-14 Thread Richard Freeman
On 12/14/2009 03:10 PM, Robin H. Johnson wrote: 1.4 Vendor's Agreement with End-User Vendor agrees 1. to distribute both the NRP-DaL and this present agreement to end-user, Ah, this was my mistake. I read that as to distribute both the NRP-DaL and present this agreement to [the]

Re: [gentoo-dev] CAcert certificate distribution license to third parties (i.e. distributors like gentoo)

2009-12-15 Thread Richard Freeman
On 12/15/2009 01:46 AM, Daniel Black wrote: I did email the debian maintainer too. no response yet. They have interactive builds though and I guess we do too now. Will be a royal pain if every CA/software did the same thing. The last thing gentoo needs is interactive builds. XFree86 was

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] January 2010 meeting date

2009-12-21 Thread Richard Freeman
On 12/21/2009 02:54 AM, Fabian Groffen wrote: If all mail that would go to -dev-announce would guaranteed be sent to -dev as well, I didn't have to check -dev-announce, and archives.g.o would also have the original January 2010 meeting date mail in the thread on -dev. Or you could just

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] Election for the Gentoo Council empty seat

2009-12-21 Thread Richard Freeman
On 12/20/2009 01:04 PM, Jeremy Olexa wrote: Flattered, but I decline. I don't agree with the way the Council works and don't have motivation to attempt to change it. Out of curiosity, would you care to elaborate? I don't have much of a political axe to grind so I guess I tend to stay out of

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] Election for the Gentoo Council empty seat

2009-12-21 Thread Richard Freeman
On 12/21/2009 06:33 AM, Richard Freeman wrote: On 12/20/2009 01:04 PM, Jeremy Olexa wrote: Flattered, but I decline. I don't agree with the way the Council works and don't have motivation to attempt to change it. Out of curiosity, would you care to elaborate? I don't have much of a political

Re: [gentoo-dev] metdata.dtd should require herd/

2009-12-24 Thread Richard Freeman
On 12/23/2009 01:36 PM, Paul de Vrieze wrote: Perhaps we should create a schema to validate the file. XMLSchema (or any of the other standards) allows for much more flexibility in specifying these things. Btw. I did not design the metadata DTD for order to be significant. The only priority is

[gentoo-dev] QA Documentation

2009-12-27 Thread Richard Freeman
Started new subject since this is only tangentially related to the election. On 12/27/2009 06:16 PM, Tomáš Chvátal wrote: Anyway, i wont write huge manifesto but these things i would like spent my time: QA propagation (motivating people, explaining why we are doing stuff and so on) Could

Re: [gentoo-dev] QA Documentation

2009-12-28 Thread Richard Freeman
On 12/28/2009 06:23 AM, Tomáš Chvátal wrote: we should ENFORCE it, not just fill bugs about it, because mostly people tend to ignore that things. Agreed, although some presumption of innocence should be assumed. If a dev is ignoring repoman output that is a fairly big violation, but if a

Re: [gentoo-dev] Non-free software in Gentoo

2009-12-28 Thread Richard Freeman
On 12/28/2009 01:56 PM, Robin H. Johnson wrote: Actually, this is a case where the license on the ebuild is wrong, not the license group. The kernel ebuilds should have GPL-2 and something else, and by definition should not pass @FSF-APPROVED alone. Is this appropriate? The kernel sources

Re: [gentoo-dev] Non-free software in Gentoo

2009-12-28 Thread Richard Freeman
On 12/28/2009 05:53 PM, Robin H. Johnson wrote: You're wrong there. The kernel does contain additional licenses, and EXPLICITLY mentions them. Go and read 'firmware/WHENCE'. The licenses listed therein range from use-permitted only no-modification, to GPL-compliant and BSD-like. I stand

Re: [gentoo-dev] Non-free software in Gentoo

2009-12-30 Thread Richard Freeman
On 12/29/2009 07:52 PM, Greg KH wrote: No, the readme/copying is correct, it covers all of the code that runs on the processor as one body of work. Firmware blobs are different in that they do not run in the same processor, and can be of a different license. Yes, but they don't cover

Re: [gentoo-dev] Why do packages which will not build remain in the distribution list?

2009-12-30 Thread Richard Freeman
On 12/30/2009 05:18 AM, Petteri Räty wrote: You need to understand what the world set means. The world set is the packages in /var/lib/portage/world and the sets from /var/lib/portage/world_sets . From this follows that we can't change the content of the world set as it's a user specific

Re: [gentoo-dev] Non-free software in Gentoo

2009-12-31 Thread Richard Freeman
On 12/30/2009 11:48 PM, Greg KH wrote: Heh, no, it does not, unless your BIOS, and your keyboard firmware, and your mouse firmware are all under a free license. The only thing close to this type of machine is the OLPC, and even then, I don't think all the microcode for the box was ever

Re: [gentoo-dev] Qt3 deprecation and removal policy

2009-12-31 Thread Richard Freeman
On 12/30/2009 12:14 PM, Ben de Groot wrote: 2010-01-21: * Qt team meeting: discuss actions to be taken regarding remaining pkgs that use qt:3 2010-02-21: * mask qt:3 and depending ebuilds, pending removal 30 days isn't a long time. How about filing bugs against anything that currently

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Qt3 deprecation and removal policy

2009-12-31 Thread Richard Freeman
On 12/31/2009 08:24 AM, Samuli Suominen wrote: On 12/31/2009 03:13 PM, Christian Faulhammer wrote: Hi, Samuli Suominenssuomi...@gentoo.org: Just saying... Please track progress somehow. I know it is a lot of work, but makes understanding the process easier. V-Li It's been done in,

Re: [gentoo-dev] Qt3 deprecation and removal policy

2009-12-31 Thread Richard Freeman
On 12/31/2009 07:51 AM, Samuli Suominen wrote: Stable MythTV has more issues than just Qt3, as the current stable doesn't compile anymore, http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=280303 which is about to get masked tomorrow with kdelibs-3... Those of us who run it wouldn't mind seeing a

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Documentation licenses and license_groups

2010-01-06 Thread Richard Freeman
On 01/05/2010 01:07 PM, Duncan wrote: Periodically there's talk of adding + versions of at least the FSF licenses, but while it would probably be quite a good thing, it'd be a LOT of VERY boring work poring thru all those packages and either updating to the + version, or leaving comments in each

Re: [gentoo-dev] Non-free software in Gentoo

2010-01-07 Thread Richard Freeman
On 01/07/2010 01:19 AM, Vincent Launchbury wrote: All I'm asking for is that users who care about this will be shown an accurate license, I think that this really sums this whole thing up. Can you run a computer with ONLY FOSS on it (firmware to ROMs to hard drive controlers) - probably

Re: [gentoo-dev] Some ideas on the licensing issue

2010-01-07 Thread Richard Freeman
On 01/07/2010 05:46 AM, Hanno Böck wrote: I think the GPL-compatible set makes barely sense. ++ Difference between OSI and FSF approved: ... I think the definitions of FSF and OSI are pretty much the same, ... So I'd like it much more to have one big This is free and open source software

Re: [gentoo-dev] Non-free software in Gentoo

2010-01-08 Thread Richard Freeman
On 01/08/2010 12:26 AM, Greg KH wrote: If the kernel loads a firmware file that is not free, or if the device itself has a firmware in it that you can not change so easily, has _nothing_ to do with the license of the kernel, I don't think anybody is concerned about the license of the kernel,

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Last rites: net-nntp/inn

2010-01-11 Thread Richard Freeman
On 01/11/2010 06:30 PM, Arnaud Launay wrote: As a newsmaster, I'm a bit concerned by this. Yeah, inn seems like a really high-profile package to mask for removal. It would be conspicuous in its absence. Would it make sense to post on -dev BEFORE masking packages like this? I'm sure there

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Last rites: net-nntp/inn

2010-01-12 Thread Richard Freeman
On 01/11/2010 10:43 PM, Jeremy Olexa wrote: (A general reply, not targeted towards you, Rich) No prob - my post wasn't really directed personally at anybody. Speaking on behalf of the treecleaners: The fact is, some of us have never heard of inn and until Gentoo has some sort of popularity

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Last rites: net-nntp/inn

2010-01-12 Thread Richard Freeman
On 01/12/2010 01:30 PM, Markos Chandras wrote: IMHO ( this is not a treecleaners@ opinion, i m just talking for my self ), announcing and masking a package is a good way to inform and wake up everybody to take care of this package if they really really want to stay on portage. I agree with the

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Last rites: net-nntp/inn

2010-01-13 Thread Richard Freeman
On 01/13/2010 09:24 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote: On Tuesday 12 January 2010 15:51:28 Tomáš Chvátal wrote: And since WE want to enable as-needed as default at some time we need to work on the bugs which isnt going to happen This isn't really intended to point fingers at anybody in particular -

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Last rites: net-nntp/inn

2010-01-13 Thread Richard Freeman
On 01/13/2010 10:06 AM, Arnaud Launay wrote: which kind of explain what is a proxy maintainer (more or less), but does not explain how to become one... We don't really have any official process around this. Things like sunrise and proxy-maintainers are good ways to get new blood into the

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Last rites: net-nntp/inn

2010-01-17 Thread Richard Freeman
On 01/17/2010 03:20 PM, Thilo Bangert wrote: Ben de Grootyng...@gentoo.org said: I think we have a bigger problem with packages that have a maintainer, at least nominally, but said maintainer does not actually maintain the package anymore. full ack. i was thinking that maybe we need an

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Last rites: net-nntp/inn

2010-01-17 Thread Richard Freeman
On 01/17/2010 08:23 PM, Ben de Groot wrote: What about something like: if a bug has been open for 2 months without any apparent maintainer activity, anyone can step in and commit a fix? How about - anybody at any time can at their discretion post a comment in a bug asking if there are

Re: [gentoo-dev] emerge -C eselect-python disaster

2010-01-24 Thread Richard Freeman
On 01/24/2010 01:20 PM, Ben de Groot wrote: 2010/1/24 Petteri Rätybetelge...@gentoo.org: On 01/24/2010 03:02 PM, Ben de Groot wrote: Why should we keep redundant information in the list? How is that redundant? Well, I doubt we'll get away from python in the system set anytime soon, but

Re: [gentoo-dev] emerge -C eselect-python disaster

2010-01-24 Thread Richard Freeman
On 01/24/2010 07:02 PM, Dale wrote: Is there something that I am missing here? For me, system should include the things needed for booting and for the package manager to work. It should include the programs directly involved in booting, and the package manager. I'm not sure that it should

Re: [gentoo-dev] News item: MySQL 5.1 bump

2010-02-21 Thread Richard Freeman
On 02/20/2010 09:23 PM, Robin H. Johnson wrote: The MySQL 5.1 news item with all updates is now commited, and 5.1.x have been unblocked in package.mask. It looks like that news item is visible to users running stable as well. When 5.1 eventually goes stable we might want to re-announce it

Re: [gentoo-dev] Pending mask of Qt3 and MythTV

2010-02-22 Thread Richard Freeman
item (I can commit if there are no objections - and be gentle as I just parsed the GLEP - also posted to the bug 299222): Title: MythTV 0.22 Upgrade Database Corruption Author: Richard Freeman ri...@gentoo.org Content-Type: text/plain Posted: date Revision: 1 News-Item-Format: 1.0 Display

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Pending mask of Qt3 and MythTV

2010-02-24 Thread Richard Freeman
suspect the other arch teams feel similarly - nobody wants to just commit something like this without testing and good documentation. How about this revised news item: Title: MythTV 0.22 Upgrade Database Corruption Author: Richard Freeman ri...@gentoo.org Content-Type: text/plain Posted: date

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC] News item: 2010-03-01 MythTV 0.22 Upgrade Database Corruption

2010-02-26 Thread Richard Freeman
On 02/26/2010 07:06 AM, Ben de Groot wrote: Is there a simple way for users to determine what client versions they may have? Forwarding my reply: Well, they can always just ask the package manager what version is installed. The news item is targeted only at users who do not already have

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC] News item: 2010-03-01 MythTV 0.22 Upgrade Database Corruption

2010-03-01 Thread Richard Freeman
On 03/01/2010 09:24 AM, Ben de Groot wrote: The 72 hours have passed, so I take it we are ready to officially publish this. Richard, are you going to commit this? I will do so today.

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Remove cups from default profile to solve circular deps

2010-03-03 Thread Richard Freeman
On 03/03/2010 09:41 PM, Dale wrote: So in the situation above, removing cups doesn't help any? The user would still have to work around the dependency problem. Is there not a better way to handle this? Agreed that there should be better ways of handling things. However, at the very least if

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Remove cups from default profile to solve circular deps

2010-03-04 Thread Richard Freeman
On 03/04/2010 08:57 PM, Patrick Nagel wrote: Obviously, users who re-install Gentoo the way you do will have less difficulties resolving a circular dependency than those who are just following the guide and getting their first Gentoo experience. I think that the cups issue is probably worth

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Remove cups from default profile to solve circular deps

2010-03-06 Thread Richard Freeman
On 03/05/2010 08:06 AM, Ben de Groot wrote: On 5 March 2010 04:18, Graham Murraygra...@gmurray.org.uk wrote: 3. Include one or both of the packages in the stage tarball. None of the packages involved (gtk+, cups and poppler) is in any shape or form essential, so you will have a very hard

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Gentoo calendar for tracking Gentoo events

2010-03-10 Thread Richard Freeman
On 03/10/2010 04:42 PM, Duncan wrote: So a gmail account is now considered mandatory for Gentoo devs, at least if they want calendar access? What about those who might think that Google knows enough about them with search and the web crawling and database correlation Google does, and whatever

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Gentoo calendar for tracking Gentoo events

2010-03-11 Thread Richard Freeman
On 03/11/2010 03:53 PM, Alec Warner wrote: however if it becomes some kind of integral part of Gentoo (which I doubt it will) we will have to look at switching to something else (which is easy given the many export formats of Google Calendar :)) I think you hit the nail on the head. Right

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC]: Proxy-maintainer project

2010-03-19 Thread Richard Freeman
On 03/18/2010 04:34 PM, Ben de Groot wrote: Recruitment being the bottleneck that it is (with candidates waiting many months), it is good to have another option for people who want to contribute. If we do have a list of people waiting to get in, could we maybe publish this list somewhere, or

Re: [gentoo-dev] Python 3.1: Stabilization and news item

2010-03-24 Thread Richard Freeman
On 03/24/2010 02:28 PM, Joshua Saddler wrote: On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 19:04:51 +0100 Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesisarfre...@gentoo.org wrote: People, don't want Python 3, probably have already masked it. There is no reason to waste Council's time for decision on what sentence should be

Re: [gentoo-dev] Python 3.1: Stabilization and news item

2010-03-25 Thread Richard Freeman
On 03/24/2010 11:47 PM, Joshua Saddler wrote: Even then, it'll likely get installed first, as users will probably learn about p.masking it only *after* they install it. I don't have strong feelings on whether having v3 installed by default is a big problem, but the last bit here probably

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Reworking package stabilization policies

2010-03-28 Thread Richard Freeman
On 03/28/2010 06:04 AM, Tomáš Chvátal wrote: Basically you are saying that NONE tested that package on the arch until the stablerequest. That's quite wrong and it should mean that the arch should be ~ only, since they are stabling packages that they first tested the day they stable them.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: List of User projects

2010-03-28 Thread Richard Freeman
On 03/28/2010 10:27 AM, Duncan wrote: The point being, perhaps I'm wrong and openrc does have a broader distribution basis than I'm aware of, but in practice, it seems all of these tend to be used /almost/ exclusively with Gentoo and Gentoo based distributions. If openrc's usage is rather wider

Re: [gentoo-dev] Is Gentoo a Phoenix?

2010-04-03 Thread Richard Freeman
On 04/03/2010 06:19 AM, Tobias Scherbaum wrote: And still, when someone tries to fix things in such an understaffed herd people go all territorial and are like omg u touched my package. Right now I'm quite confused what our project strategy seems to be, as far as I can tell there's one group

Re: [gentoo-dev] [Gentoo Phoenix] recruitment process

2010-04-05 Thread Richard Freeman
On 04/05/2010 03:48 AM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Mon, 05 Apr 2010 03:33:52 +0200 Tobias Heinleinkeytoas...@gentoo.org wrote: 3) Questions that aren't that important at all and would just be nice to know. [snip] Examples for these: 5. What is wrong with using $(somecommand) or `somecommand`

Re: [gentoo-dev] Is Gentoo a Phoenix?

2010-04-05 Thread Richard Freeman
On 04/04/2010 02:09 PM, Denis Dupeyron wrote: All ideas regarding improving recruitment are welcome, thanks. However if, during your review, you were not given the impression that your maturity and other social skills were being assessed then you were being blissfully naive. :o) That

Re: [gentoo-dev] [git migration] The problem of ChangeLog generation

2010-04-06 Thread Richard Freeman
On 04/05/2010 10:13 PM, Nirbheek Chauhan wrote: * Proposed is to generate ChangeLogs from git commits on the rsync server side when metadata generation is done - Scripts to do this already exist[1] I haven't seen this discussed, so I'm going to toss this out there and duck: Why not just

Re: [gentoo-dev] [git migration] The problem of ChangeLog generation

2010-04-07 Thread Richard Freeman
On 04/07/2010 05:58 AM, Angelo Arrifano wrote: 3*) With git, one would just branch (lets call it embedded branch) the package. Apply the patches there and let people using embedded profiles to emerge from that branch instead of master. Benefits? I think they are pretty obvious - people can start

  1   2   3   >