Re: [gentoo-dev] Good-bye
I wanted to add this bit of info, sorry: Despite my efforts, I've been unable to find any replacements to take over kerberos maintenance. Obviously, heimdal has been unmaintained for even longer, but mit-krb5 is now orphaned as well. I would encourage interested devs or interested users to see about taking care of those packages. Thanks, Seemant -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
[gentoo-dev] Good-bye
Dear Gentoo Devs and Users, The time has finally come for me to resign from Gentoo. I've been meaning to do it for many months now, but the logistics took a little bit of time. Effective Monday, Nov. 26, I will no longer consider myself an official Gentoo developer. Before then I will make commits to two or so packages for which James Rowe is the official maintainer and I was his proxy. Justin Bronder (jsbronder) has agreed to take over the proxy maintainership for them. I've been here a long time and I've made many many friends (and, I suppose, a few enemies). For both, I'm grateful. There are too many people to thank -- you all know who you are :P. I'll be subscribed to this list for a while, and of course, I'll still be on IRC in various channels. For those of you wishing to maintain email contact with me, I can be reached at: seemant (at) kulleen (dot) org I hope that the fun in Gentoo will return soon. It certainly seems like there's been a positive tide turning as of late, so I leave with optimism. Be well, everyone. Thanks, Seemant -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] I've added you as a friend on StumbleUpon
Can we just unsubscribe this person from this list? This is absolutely ludicrous. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] gentoo-commits list lives!
jerrya Never heard of this person horton Solar would know him. luke-jr No real name, I dunno his email address, but he used to be in CT when he joined up. He joined to work on the installer project. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] Ruby ebuild howto question
As soon as you define your own src_install() function in your ebuild, it will override the eclass's src_install function. Thanks, Seemant signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Improving developer/user communication
On Thu, 2007-07-19 at 15:45 -0500, Dale wrote: I just decided to grow a pair today and speak up. That right there is the most important thing you could have done. I hope more users and devs decide to speak up about things. Thanks, Seemant signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Improving developer/user communication (was Re: net-im/pidgin protocols)
On Thu, 2007-07-19 at 21:59 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: The set of people who respond is heavily skewed towards better-informed users who have time to seek out and participate in that kind of questioning. Fair point, but the more better-informed users we have, the better it is for everyone in general. I want guaranteed total stability, instantly available updates, guaranteed backwards compatibility, the ability to install any package from source using my configuration of choice in under fifteen seconds and a herd of nubile bisexual redheads. Can Gentoo deliver that? We can do 4 out of 6, haven't you seen the commit logs? signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] ML changes
Thanks for expressing your point of view that clearly. I stand with you. Gentoo, for a while, has been taking itself *way* too seriously. Perhaps that mentality is part of the inevitability of a project's evolution through its own stages of life. Or perhaps, it's just human nature to shriek in a frenzy about things we don't like, and demand that something must be done and won't someone please think of the children which brings this sort of action about. I've said for a while now (on this list, on my blogs) -- bad behaviour happens on this list because we (as a community) allow it to happen. If it's not encouraged and trolls are not fed, they die out. Part of the thrill of someone raising a pointless argument and picking on ridiculously petty details is the satisfaction gained from others taking that stupidity seriously and wasting their (and everyone else's) time with it. So I say to you (the developer community): stop the insanity. This whole business of whitelisting is rather a ridiculous notion, that is not scalable and serves only to create distance between those with @gentoo.org addresses and those without. As a result, the @gentoo.org island isolates itself even further than it is already. That in turn, only worsens whatever problems we perceive. What I find absolutely astounding is how much power Ciaran (we all know the elephant in the room that motivates this newest council announcement) wields over Gentoo. You know what? The fact that Gentoo as an entity still reacts to one person this way means, in all but name, that Ciaran actually is the de-facto lead developer of Gentoo. This leaves two courses of action. 1. Officially install him as such; or 2. Stop letting him wield his power over you. (yes, you, not us -- concentrate on how much you let him affect you). Thanks, Seemant signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] ML changes
On Fri, 2007-07-13 at 10:33 -0700, Chris Gianelloni wrote: *sigh* It seems impossible to have any sort of discussion with you (unless one is in agreement with you, of course, and then one is clear headed) without eliciting a *sigh* -- I don't think it's particularly the healthiest way to have one. If you simply don't like disagreement, then please be clear about that. Why is it that everyone always assumes everything the Council does is out to get Ciaran rather than something we see as a good global solution to our current problems? Well, it would be great if the council can clearly outline what exactly our current problems are. Maybe if you presented those problems and then presented the proposed solutions to them, things would be easier to understand? Here's a little hint for all of you conspiracy theorists out there. If all we wanted was to get rid of Ciaran, we'd just have a fucking vote to get rid of Ciaran and make all of this *SO* much simpler on ourselves. This is again a disparaging and unhealthy way to have a discussion. I'm going to request that if you will respond to my notes, please do so with some modicum of civility and respect. If you find yourself unable to do so, then please do not respond to me at all. We're trying to solve the problem of people, *ALL* people, treating each other like complete crap on our lists. The problem has been an issue of discipline. We've simply got too many people who are too scared to take any actions to resolve these problems. Why do you think Developer Relations has all of these procedures and policies for retiring developers? Is it because we need all of that to determine if someone has crossed the line? No. It's because we have a large number of developers (or possibly even just a very vocal minority) who complain about every single damn thing anyone ever does and it has been much simpler to make up these ridiculous guidelines and rules to follow in an attempt to curb the dissenters than it is to just deal with them. Well, your own method of responding to my note is a good example of treating others like crap. How do we solve that? The problem with moderation is that nobody censors speech with which they agree, but quick to censor that with which they don't. So, here we have an example of one of the possible problems that you alluded to earlier: a vocal minority unable to pick its battles, and which engages in endless nitpicking. Why not just have the fucking vote to get rid of [them] and make all of this *SO* much simpler on ourselves then? Why should the vast majority of people on this list have to pay for what is, evidently, a minority? If, on the other hand, it's not a minority, then doesn't that indicate that the issue is on a deeper level? And if so, wouldn't it be more prudent to try and solve that one, instead? I say drop the rules to something simple that makes sense, boot the troublemakers, and ignore the dissenters. I'll gladly help anyone make up any procmail recipes they need to filter their mail. Let's get back to developing and leave the politics to Obama and Hillary. This is a little worrisome, you know. Perhaps you didn't mean this set of statements to sound as all-encompassing as all that. Isn't dissent and disagreement the result of differing points of view, which could actually benefit Gentoo? My thought is this: everyone should try and evaluate their own behaviour on this list, and the method in which they treat others. If each of us actually thought about the effects of our attitudes, this discussion might well be moot. Thanks, Seemant signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Watch out for license changes to GPL-3.
On Thu, 2007-07-12 at 20:07 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: Unless there are third party repositories shipping their own from-scratch ebuilds... In which case, afaics there's nothing to stop *them* from going GPL-3 if they think there's a reason to do so. Unless the Foundation somehow claims that all ebuilds, even those from-scratch, are derived works? What's the case here? Third-party ebuilds being contributed into the tree via bugzilla and other means? Or third-party ebuilds from joe shmoe off www.joeshmoesebuilds.com? The second case is meaningless to Gentoo. The first case needs to be considered. The question there, I suppose, is: do we *require* contributors to license ebuilds as GPL-2? And if that is the case, that's what stops them. It would be an interesting question, though, to prove that someone wrote a from-scratch ebuild via looking only at the documentation, and without basing any parts off of already existing ebuilds in the tree, no? Thanks, Seemant signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] ML changes
On Thu, 2007-07-12 at 13:24 -0700, Mike Doty wrote: All- We're going to change the -dev mailing list from completely open to where only devs can post, but any dev could moderate a non-dev post. devs who moderate in bad posts will be subject to moderation themselves. in addition the gentoo-project list will be created to take over what -dev frequently becomes. there is no requirement to be on this new list. This will probably remove the need for -core(everything gets leaked out anyway) but that's a path to cross later. We're voting on this next council meeting so if you have input, now would be the time. --taco My only comment for now is: why not just make -core read only, but public, and leave -dev as it is? That way we don't have to muck around with deprecating lists and introducing new ones. Thanks, Seemant signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] Watch out for license changes to GPL-3.
On Sun, 2007-07-08 at 13:50 +0200, Wulf C. Krueger wrote: On Sunday, 08. July 2007 13:04:24 Marijn Schouten (hkBst) wrote: What about moving Gentoo stuff to `GPLv3 or later'? I'm strongly opposed to the or later part for the simple reason that this implicates we will agree with stuff we don't even know yet. Hear hear. That's why we removed the or later rubbish from our licenses about 4 years ago. I haven't studied GPL-3 fully yet so I haven't formed an opinion about moving to it alone. I'm not certain what it buys us to move to v3, to be honest. Unless there are compelling reasons to do so, I don't think it's worth the effort to change it. Seemant signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] Watch out for license changes to GPL-3.
On Sun, 2007-07-08 at 16:46 +0200, Dominique Michel wrote: I personally think at gpl-3 is better as gpl-2 because GPLv3 will block tivoization. Tivoization means computers (called “appliances”) contain GPL-covered software that you can't change, because the appliance shuts down if it detects modified software. The usual motive for tivoization is that the software has features the manufacturer thinks lots of people won't like. The manufacturers of these computers take advantage of the freedom that free software provides, but they don't let you do likewise. see http://www.gnu.org/licenses/rms-why-gplv3.html If you want to migrate to GPL-3, the most important question to solve will be: is it possible to get an agreement to do that migration from every single programmer involved in gentoo? Like Ciaran said, the foundation holds the copyright, so it can re-license if it needs/wants to. The tivoization clause is certainly one of those subjects that can rapidly spiral downwards on this list, because it is largely a religious issue. In Tivo's case, they made the software freely available, but locked down their hardware. So, software wise, they did not affect freedom; hardware wise, it's their design and specs, they're under no obligations. Either way, I'm not sure how Gentoo is affected by the tivoization clause. If you can really show some way that GPL3 provides a compelling case to move to it, then we can start talking about that. Thanks, Seemant signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] gentoo-dev-announce list
FWIW, I like this idea a lot. A lot of devs would rather just read the good stuff happening in -dev and discard the other 85%. I vote yes. Thanks, Seemant signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: QA issue: No stable skype in Tree
On Mon, 2007-06-18 at 23:49 +0100, Steve Long wrote: Oh I see, when it's stuff *you* care about, it's development. Cool. That's sort of the point, isn't it? Developers are here mostly to scratch their own respective itches -- so, by necessity, we talk about stuff we care about. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for June
Is the council planning on replacing the two missing members (Flameeyes and Kloeri)? Thanks, Seemant signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for June
On Sat, 2007-06-02 at 20:18 -0700, Mike Doty wrote: uberlord replaced flameeyes the month after he left. duh @ me, sorry about that. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] Last rites sys-apps/855resolution
On Fri, 2007-05-11 at 00:33 +0300, Alon Bar-Lev wrote: Hello All, sys-apps/915resolution superseed this package and support 855 configurations. Please upgrade your configuration to sys-apps/915resolution. Comments/suggestions can be entered at bug#159586. Package will be masked at 2007-05-25, removed at 2005-06-08. Best Regards, Alon Bar-Lev. Why not just remove both when xf86-video-intel-2.* goes stable? thanks, Seemant signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] [ANN] Multiple version suffixes illegal in gentoo-x86
On Tue, 2007-04-24 at 13:39 -0700, Ned Ludd wrote: You might be overreacting a little here. To bring you up to speed vapier actually filed the original bug for this after I first noticed one of these atoms creeping into the tree while doing pre release atom compare testing for portage-utils around early February. Till this moment there was no definitive decision of any sort. I think the overreaction here is due to the fact that a seemingly emergency Council meeting was convened to make this decision. And that is a bit confusing (to me, at least). Why the sudden urge to fix this right *now*? I understand that there's a recent addition with ffmpeg and mplayer etc, but this isn't exactly an epidemic in package versioning sweeping through the tree, by any stretch of the imagination. I think a council decision is probably the correct thing (with heavy input from portage and the development community), but an emergency council decision? I'm with Doug on this: it's a little out of place at the moment. Especially when there isn't really an alternative scheme that's been set in stone (the zeroed-out date field idea is one idea -- no offense, Robin, but it does seem a little on the klunky side). I think it'd be nice to first open such alternatives up to discussion before making emergency council decisions and announcements like this. Thanks, Seemant Thanks, Seemant signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] [ANN] Multiple version suffixes illegal in gentoo-x86
On Tue, 2007-04-24 at 19:31 -0400, Chris Gianelloni wrote: It seems that every time I open my email client, somebody out there is trying to say that by the Council using the powers afforded to them that somehow they're conspiring to take down Gentoo. Yeah... because that's just what the Council wants to do, make Gentoo a steaming pile of rubble so we can be the supreme rulers of... nothing. Now, if only we can get all these pesky developers out of the way, we could rule the world! You're right, there is. For the record, though, my feeling isn't anything about being anti-authority, etc. Quite the opposite, in fact, because the current leadership is actually doing and accomplishing things. As I stated in my original email (agreeing with your own view that this isn't that big an issue): what was the hurry to get an announcement/decision made without even a valid alternative in place? In other words, there was a policy decision without a clear established way to not violate it (yes, the mplayer/ffmpeg maintainers did whatever it is they did to comply, I know that, but it's not a generalisable solution). So, being that this situation is *not* that big, couldn't it just have waited for all the council members to get together and have opportunity to really propose and establish a viable alternative? If I were to guess I'd say people are a little confused that this required action/decision this quickly and outside of a regular council meeting -- for a real emergency situation, you'd probably see a lot less of a hub-bub about it. But, come on, this is a 3-package issue. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] [ANN] Multiple version suffixes illegal in gentoo-x86
On Wed, 2007-04-25 at 00:30 +0200, Danny van Dyk wrote: In my eyes it was a policy issue. Tree-wide policies have to pass the council in one form or the other. So why shouldn't Council care here? My argument is not that Council should not care. My question is: what's the big urgency to rush a half-baked policy through? I just wonder why several people feel attacked by this decission while the affected parties have no problem with it. I hope you don't mean me here, because I haven't felt attacked at all. My concern isn't a personal one. Rather, it's a question that nobody from the council has actually answered: what was the big hurry to make a decision _NOW_ without even thinking through the migration path, or for that matter without even knowing what is the actual correct way. It's fine to say that _rc_alpha_beta_p is wrong (and I happen to agree). It's another to not say what is actually right. Furthermore, if only 3 packages did the wrong thing where was the emergency? Anybody who attends the regular Council meetings and/or reads their logs/summaries knew that this kind of decission is possible. To paraphrase something I've said to people on this list: just because you can does not necessarily mean that you _should_. I probably have more council related commentary, but I'll save that for the appropriate mailing list :) I'm not trying to make you defensive, I just really would like an answer to my question, that is all. Thanks, Seemant signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] Tears of unfathomable sorrow
You suck for leaving before me. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] Flourish Conference Reminder
On Thu, 2007-04-05 at 09:16 +0100, Charlie Shepherd wrote: On 04/04/07, Seemant Kulleen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Please except my apologies I don't know about excepting them. I might accept them though. :) Nice catch. My language skills are degrading rapidly :( signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for April
On Thu, 2007-04-05 at 13:29 +0200, Denis Dupeyron wrote: Why not simply allow trustees to veto a council decision ? This does not give trustees enough power to be a second council, but would permit them to stop something that they believe will damage Gentoo. This is very little red tape IMHO. I believe that the trustees do not necessarily have any jurisdiction over the council. They are concerned with legal type matters that affect the foundation, not with technical and political things within Gentoo itself. I could be wrong about this, but that's how I read it. Thanks, Seemant signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] Flourish Conference Reminder
All, Please except my apologies for the strong language in my initial response to this. I've been informed that Samir is the real deal and not just a marketing droid. The things that set me off were: 1. Cross posting the same message to a bunch of different mailing lists 2. The HTML formatting 3. The completely generic message. That made me immediately think: mindless marketing droid alert! I'd prefer this list not devolve into an avenue for all sorts of marketing, so that was me nipping it in the bud. So, for the record, even though the message was genuine, I oppose the way in which it was done. Thanks, Seemant signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] Flourish Conference Reminder
What the fuck is this spamming about? signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] [soc] Python bindings for Paludis
On Sat, 2007-03-31 at 20:16 +0200, Andrej Kacian wrote: On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 20:02:28 +0200 Christopher Covington [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The first condition you list is a sort of nativism that I for one would expect not to find in a successful copyleft project created on the Internet. Why should the code Gentoo uses be written by Gentoo developers? Nobody seems to have a problem with using someone else's C compiler and installation tools (gcc, autoconf, automake). Resistance to a package manager on the grounds that, It wasn't originally written by us! could perhaps push technical arguments that actually matter into the background. That's not what he's saying. All those other things you mention are critical to a linux system -- ANY linux system, EVERY linux system, ANY distro, ALL distros, ANY BSD system, ALL BSD system, ANY BSD distro, ALL BSD distros, and more. They are, in other words, shared resources. RPM is another example of a shared resource. Apt might well be considered to be so as well. Portage, on the other hand, is not. It is, you see, part of the very identity of *this* distribution, and isn't quite shared by other major distributions. If portage, or a tool very much like it, becomes part of the larger community and shared by 2 or more *major* distributions, then your argument starts to hold water. Until then, I'm afraid it's a straw man. It seems to me that this is just vapier's way of saying I don't want ciaranm anywhere near an official package manager. Far be it from me to read spanky's mind, and may I say: far be it from you too. However, given my paragraph above (and prior emails in this thread from both vapier and me), I would say that your statement is inaccurate, at worse, but incomplete at best. The point being made, then, is that for an official package manager to exist *for Gentoo*, it needs to be under *Gentoo's* control. To make it more clear. If the gcc developers decided to stick some malicious code into gcc, it affects the entire linux community, the entire BSD community and would take out a few other communities as well. The effects are far reaching and shared by everyone. If an official package manager is outside of Gentoo's control, and the maintainer(s) of that piece of software decide to do anything malicious (examples: inject some dodgy code, remove documentation, take out access to the repository, etc) for whatever reason (say, they get pissed off at a few Gentoo people and decide that the entire Gentoo community can be painted that way), then Gentoo has now become a slave to those people. That, I'm sure you'll agree, is unacceptable. So, no, what vapier was saying (at least in prior emails) is that regardless of what package manager is deemed to be official, it needs to meet a minimum set of criteria, and one of those is that it needs to be housed on gentoo infrastructure and maintained by gentoo developers (and thus be accountable for their code). Please don't read anything into what I've said other than what I've said. Thanks, Seemant signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [soc] Python bindings for Paludis
On Sat, 2007-03-31 at 23:39 +0100, Steve Long wrote: Seemant Kulleen wrote: That's uncalled for. There's no need to get nasty. I applaud your intent, but feel it would have far more effect on the atmosphere if applied to a few of your devs, rather than users who employ milder terms? It just seems knowingly unfair, and I don't believe that is your purpose. Not getting into this. If your intent is to undermine, please do it privately. If you're just trying to be inflammatory (as you seem to be often), please put a stop to it *NOW*. Like I've said before, just because you know how to type an email and send it, doesn't mean you *should*. You can check my posts to see me address anyone getting out of hand. Thanks, Seemant signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] [soc] Python bindings for Paludis
On Fri, 2007-03-30 at 20:42 +0200, Matthias Langer wrote: i don't think that personal issues should be taken into account when it comes to choosing a new official package manager for gentoo. It's relevant in that people have to work with the developers of the package manager. Unlike most other things in the portage tree, the package manager ties very closely to the very definition of the distribution itself. Hence, if people are unable to get along, then by adopting a package manager like that, you inherently adopt the developers of that package manager and all the personnel issues that accompany it. Ideally, however, I agree with you that it should be based on technical merits. The reality is that there are people involved. And people always complicate things. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] [soc] Python bindings for Paludis
On Fri, 2007-03-30 at 22:22 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: Paludis is a package manager, not a distribution. And no, the GPL does not mean there's nothing to lose -- the Zynot fork did a fair bit of damage to Gentoo, and no-one wants a repeat of that mess... Only in terms of morale. In fact, they did a good thing for Gentoo by purging quite a few poisonous people from it. They didn't break the portage tree or API or ABI or anything in Gentoo. So, I think Christopher is correct in his assertions. Thanks, Seemant signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] [soc] Python bindings for Paludis
On Fri, 2007-03-30 at 23:41 +0200, Danny van Dyk wrote: In which case your Paludis fork of Gentoo will take off like a Please, pretty please with sugar atop: Stop this FUD about forking Gentoo. Paludis is not a fork of Gentoo, it's new package manager. The relation between Portage and Paludis can, if at all, probably be compared to dselect vs apt. Actually, I think we're reading him differently, Danny. I read Christopher's email as saying base a fork of Gentoo, using Paludis as its package manager, and run with it. To me, he did not imply that paludis is a fork of gentoo at all. Don't reply to this mail, just let it drop. Thank you very much. Sorry to disobey, but I think it's better to make the communication gap smaller, and dispel the misunderstandings. Thanks, Seemant signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] [soc] Python bindings for Paludis
On Sat, 2007-03-31 at 14:53 +1200, Christopher Sawtell wrote: Correct, because the only way Ciaran can prove beyond doubt that his Paludis is a viable option is to see hundreds, nay millions, of people using it. I'm quite sure that he won't achieve that goal by bleating in here as frequently as he is currently. That's uncalled for. There's no need to get nasty. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] [soc] Python bindings for Paludis
On Fri, 2007-03-30 at 03:07 +0530, Anant Narayanan wrote: Sure it's not ideal and I acknowledge that. But portage is tied very closely to Gentoo for historical reasons, and it is not reasonable to expect an alternate package manager to replace it (not in the near future atleast). Historical reasons aren't necessarily the correct reasons. I'd almost say that your sentence has officially heralded the age of Debianisation. How about implementing the features you mention in portage? I know what your response would be though: portage is too much spaghetti code to even think about it. Have you ever tried to add features to a frankenstein of a beast? What is the value to you in doing something like that? Isn't there more value in designing something based on what you've learned instead? We can all go all day about this and not convince each other, so please let's just drop this line of thinking. But guess what, if you do succeed in making a patch that adds a feature to portage, it'll be accepted faster than you think. Maybe, given the current situation, that is the best way to provide a better experience to the users you are so worried about; atleast for those users who don't want to try out package managers unsupported by Gentoo. What are you basing any of this on? Sounds like speculation that doesn't help anything. You are comparing Gentoo with the wrong distributions. Both Ubuntu and Fedora have people working on it 24x7, and they are being *paid* to do so. Gentoo is a community distribution which is entirely volunteer driven, and you can't expect it to match with the pace of commercial distributions such as the ones you mention. Debian is a distro you could compare with, and you'll have to accept the fact that they develop *for* the developers, much like Gentoo. Debian was never a distro that I thought we'd emulate, or should emulate. Turns out I was wrong, I suppose. So, really, I don't care if Ubuntu becomes more popular than Gentoo. Isn't it already?! Here we agree. I don't think Ciaran is arguing popularity either. He's arguing that the compelling case for using Gentoo is what's fading. There's a difference. Point is, the day when more than 50% of the devs feel we need a new package manager, will be the day a replacement will be made. I'm not entirely sure on your reasons for this statement. If developers' don't face any API changes, why should we have to have a political vote on which package manager gets dubbed the one true official one? Why should it be a popularity contest? Why can it not be a technical superiority issue? If there is a compelling set of technical reasons to replace portage, why ignore that set? Portage is more than the package manager. Its life comes from the portage _tree_. Portage is just the tool that is used to use that tree. If that tool is outdated (and let's be honest, it kind of is), then switching it is not actually a bad thing. In sum, I'm not sure I like this direction of basing technical things on political decisions. Thanks, Seemant signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] [soc] Python bindings for Paludis
I fail to understand why the portage developers would refuse to accept a patch that actually improves something (without causing major regressions i.e.). If they do refuse such a patch (for political reasons), then we have a serious problem. However, based on past experience with the portage developers, I doubt this would happen. Again, portage's lack of design isn't exactly conducive to accepting features. Having said that, it's taken this long to even get its behaviour documented (see PMS). Now that the spec exists, anyone can write a tool to reach the spec. I base that on the fact that all developers are more or less equally capable of making a technical decision. Maybe I am wrong. Less than 1% of gentoo developers interact directly with portage internals. So, provided the other 99% don't have to drastically switch how they interact with the development tool (and provided the users don't have to switch how they interact with the package manager), it doesn't matter much what's under the hood, does it? Surely, things like compatibility symlinks and such would go part of the ways to alleviating that sort of pain. As for being equal to the task of making the decision -- I'm certainly not. There are definitely developers who are more intimate with that area of development (even outside the portage team) whose opinions would weigh a lot heavier than mine, as an example. I wasn't indicating that a popularity contest should be held, because I trust the developers will cast their vote only after *technically* evaluating the options. I also don't think it's fair for a small minority of developers to make the switch on behalf of the rest of us, which is why I mentioned a number like 50%. An election is not always political ;) See above: not every developer is technically capable of evaluating the underpinnings of the tools we use. For most of us, those underpinnings do not matter. Agreed. But if so many of us do think that there are better package managers out there that do a magnificent job of utilizing the tree, then I fail to understand why no-one is seriously considering a switch? Well, you can take some of the QA people who actually use pkgcore and paludis based tools to do what they do. You can also take the fact that Gentoo developers are actively involving themselves in pkgcore and paludis developments. You can also consider the fact that the council has asked for the PMS in order to present the community with a clear picture of current behaviour, expected behaviour and future behaviour of the package management we have. From there, it's not a big jump to then choose an alternate as the one that most adheres to the spec and make that one official, surely? Just because there is no widespread concerted effort to switch does not mean that there is no impetus to switch or that nobody is considering it seriously. The fact is that people are, we're just all in the exploratory stage still. Ok, I'm sure a lot of us agree on the fact that portage is technically outdated and is Gentoo's own Frankenstein. Time for a replacement, but what do you think would be the repercussions of proposing something like that? If they are not catastrophic, might I initiate such a proposal? It's probably a little early to initiate such a proposal, seeing as the PMS is still undergoing review. Why don't we just let the current course of events continue, instead of trying to force any specific issue? I'm sure that if the council decides to initiate a project to seriously pursue replacing portage as the official package manager, they will take into account these repercussions of which you speak. At the very least, you can bring them up at that time. I'm probably not the most qualified to speak on this subject, but I assume Ciaran and Brian and their respective teams both have ways (or can quickly think them up) to make the transition easier, should it come up. But again, it's probably a little early in the game for that. Thanks, Seemant signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] New ALSA maintainers
So, maybe this is a boneheadedly obvious thing, but having just spoken with Daniel about this, I'll just summarise my findings. I, for one, was always using alsa-driver for my new Dell laptop. As it turns out, Dan has the identical laptop, but he's always been using the in-kernel driver. I always just chalked it up to well, Dan's just leeter than me in matters of kernel things anyway, so yeah. Then one day, I walked over and I asked him what I was doing wrong in my kernel config. You know what it was for me? I saw that I had intel audio hardware, so I kept configuring intel8x0. As soon as I activated hda-intel, it was all good. Now, obviously that was just me being stupid and ignorant, but there are possibly a couple more issues. One is that if you've emerged alsa-driver for your kernel, and then recompile that kernel, you're possibly mixing two types of alsa drivers in the /lib/modules directory which would definitely lead to brokenness. So my challenge to those having problems: try it out on a fresh kernel and report your bug. And, please let's dispense with this forcing people to do anything. There's no such ultimatum at work here, please don't jump to erroneous conclusions. thanks, Seemant signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] [last rites] virtual/x11
On Mon, 2007-03-26 at 15:38 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 23:07:03 -0400 Seemant Kulleen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ciaran has brought attention to a very important thing -- QA seems to take a backseat to a few things, and it is actually a little disturbing that it does. I believe the QA team expect developers to *ask* when they want QA to intervene on a thing like this. There aren't enough people in QA to find every problem in the tree on their own... You're absolutely correct: I just wanted to clear up something I didn't state too clearly in my original email. In the bit you quoted, I was referring to QA as a process and mindset issue, rather than the QA team. So I certainly wasn't trying to put blame or onus on the QA team, but rather mentioning the fact (as you have, too :) that QA as an idea and culture seems to take a backseat. Thanks, Seemant signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] [last rites] virtual/x11
On Mon, 2007-03-26 at 03:21 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
Well, if it's reached the take drastic action stage (which, let's
face it, it has at this point), why not go and fix the tree? It's a
better solution than breaking it, and anyone who moans now isn't going
to get any sympathy from anyone. Get QA to issue an official
proclamation first if you'd like to legitimise it completely -- the
Council has already given them authority to do that...
+1 on this, Ciaran.
Honestly, *breaking* the tree knowingly should be a no-no. In fact, it
should be more of a no-no than pissing ${tribal-possessive-developer}
off. If someone gets miffed because you (QA and/or treecleaners) *fix*
their package after they've been non-responsive, then I reckon the
problem is *entirely* on that developer and not on QA.
Ciaran has brought attention to a very important thing -- QA seems to
take a backseat to a few things, and it is actually a little disturbing
that it does.
Thanks,
Seemant
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] About testing applications
On Mon, 2007-03-19 at 03:38 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote: what is the problem as you see it ? the nice thing about having a ~/.config/ is that it's a directory that can obviously be added to backups or sync programs for keeping $HOME the same across multiple machines ... you dont have to worry about having to filter large crap like cache files, temporary files, etc... -mike Strictly speaking, it should probably be ~/.etc/ in keeping with the rest of the filesystem naming scheme. seemant signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] My turn to wear the cursed medalion of retirement
Hi Alexandre, Good luck in your new life. My only comment is that I think you copped out by not submitting your proposals for any sort of peer review. You succumbed to the possibility (that you seem to think is more of a probability -- you may be right, I don't know) that it would not be received well. I think it's a shame to succumb to such a fear (or any fear), and I wish you hadn't. I do understand where you're coming from, however, and I tend to agree with most of your ideas on the addition of bureaucratic layers and rules regulations. I struggle with whether or not that's simply a necessary by-product of the size and scope (I use the term loosely) of the project. Thanks, Seemant signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: gentoo-dev vs lkml?
OK, you three. Knock it off. Right now. This is exactly the sort of utter nonsense that we've been talking about viz. what's going on on this mailing list. There is no excuse to be an asshole, Stephen, because in doing so (even as a retaliation) renders your own point null and void. It's one thing to defend a teammate, it's entirely another to display the sort of behavioural issues that you seem intent on doing. George, please take your concerns to DevRel, rather than this list. Steve (long): you've been going on and on in various threads after only half-reading, do you really need to respond to everything, everywhere, every time? The thing is, (this goes for all three of you, at a minimum), just because you *can* speak, does not necessarily mean that you *should*. Thanks, Seemant signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: gentoo-dev vs lkml?
On Thu, 2007-03-15 at 16:38 +, George Prowse wrote: Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Thu, 15 Mar 2007 14:44:37 + George Prowse [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You miss the point. This was not the first time a resignation stunt had been pulled by that developer, and previously another developer had been strongly warned about resigning for publicity. Then deal with the situation in ways i have already said in about 5 other emails to the list George, then let's just say your point has been made. Repeating it only adds to the noise. As for the rest of it, the prior resignation was not actually a stunt. This is again the sort of thing I referred to on this list and in my blog last week about vague half-truths in order to level accusations. Diego was intent on leaving the last time he tried to resign. It was I who brought him back. That's how *I* deal with departing devs: I try and talk them into cooling down and reconsidering a rash decision. As for the whole idea of blackmail, it's frankly a little ridiculous that everyone's latched on this vague notion of blackmail without actually caring to look under the hood of what that was symptomatic of: viz. the repeated (public and archived) attacks. That's not to say Diego is faultless. Far from it: he should have handled himself in a lot better way than he did. That, however, does not preclude or excuse Stephen's role in the mess, nor does it negate his bad behaviour. Now, can everyone please knock it off with the bad behaviour of their own on this list. Thanks, Seemant signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo's problems
On Thu, 2007-03-15 at 18:40 +0100, Jakob Buchgraber wrote: So why don't you start rewriting, refactoring and improving the portage source? It definitely doesn't make sense to create a competing package management system. How is this useful, honestly? Ciaran's exercising his strengths: the paludis team have been taking a long hard look at portage, what it does, and what it should do, and making a spec/requirements doc out of it, and then coding to that. Portage itself is a bit of a frankenstein (an evolved proof of concept, if you will) -- its evolution hasn't really been designed. The portage developers have, over the years, done their best to try and refactor and improve the source. But let's be honest, starting from scratch given the requirements up front is a *very* valid approach. I think Ciaran should be applauded on paludis. Thanks, Seemant signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: gentoo-dev vs lkml?
Both of you please stop this thread right here. It's getting nobody anywhere. Thanks, seemant signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] stop using $IMAGE
On Fri, 2007-03-09 at 12:03 -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote: portage has been doing the right thing with $D in pkg_* functions and IMAGE is just an annoying nuance that most people screw up so in your pkg_* functions, use $D, not $IMAGE, to refer to the temporary install -mike Good to know (I've been doing the $IMAGE my own self for a long time). When did the changeover happen, do you know? Thanks, Seemant signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] New eclass: gkrellm-plugin
On Thu, 2007-03-08 at 20:02 +0200, Petteri Räty wrote: How useful is the X use flag in gkrellm? Just thinking if it would be better to just remove the use flag and always build that code. Regards, Petteri Back in the day, when gkrellm2 first came out, they had this option of building only the gkrellm daemon, which is handy, because you can throw it onto some headless server and connect your client to that daemon to monitor it from your desktop. I vote to keep X USE flag :) Thanks, Seemant -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Some council topics for March meeting
On Sat, 2007-03-03 at 07:32 +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: I'm also curious as to why people should be expected to assign copyright to a group that is known for licence violations and removing attribution from documents. How does this protect anything? Yeah, you cry foul when people paint you with an overly broad brush. Is it known? As far as I remember, the issue was acknowledged when brought up, and then fixed. The issue hasn't come up again with your docs. It hasn't come up with any other thing. So how exactly, is this group known for doing these things? Honestly, it doesn't seem like you even read your own mails. It's like you pop a pill and go off into la-la-land where everyone is out to attack you, and the only one allowed to say anything with sweeping generalisations without justifications is you. If anyone said anything remotely in this vein about you or yours, you'd be off on so many tangents, nobody could keep count. And you'd be asking for endless justification after justification of every little syllable. You would actually gain back some respect if you behaved the way you expect everyone else to behave. If you wouldn't want this sort of brush to be used on you, how are you getting off using it yourself? Grow up. Seemant -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Network configuration and bash
Forgive me if this is just noise, but I just wanted to say I agree fully with ferdy. As I was reading Roy's email, and I looked at the net config sample he had in there, I thought well, what's actually wrong with this? Keeping it as is has the advantage that an upgrade/downgrade cycle wouldn't change much in functionality based on config, which is pretty good (ie, backwards compatibility). In this case, I'm not sure legacy is all that bad, simply because it's expressive and concise and easily understood :) thanks, -- Seemant Kulleen Developer, Gentoo Linux -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Maintainer Timeout
On Fri, 2007-02-02 at 10:19 -0600, Grant Goodyear wrote: I have mixed feelings on the notion of ownership of ebuilds. When Gentoo had only a handful of devs, the tree was almost entirely collectively owned by all devs, with baselayout and portage being the only packages that were labelled don't touch unless you really know what you're doing. Pretty much everybody who had time fixed bugs in ebuilds in the tree, whether the ebuilds belonged to them or not. Today we have many more packages that require specialist knowledge to maintain (either because the individual packages are extremely complicated, or because they are part of an integrated system of packages), and the devs that maintain those packages are understandably touchy about having other devs break those ebuilds. For the majority of packages in the tree, though, I'd like to encourage their maintainers to be less possessive. If somebody wants to fix bugs in ebuilds that I maintain, go right ahead. Just don't break it in the process, please. Thanks Grant: this is--hands down--the best, clearest and most apropos response in this entire thread. I can only echo your feelings on it (and I would hope that those who've interacted with me know that). -- Seemant Kulleen Developer, Gentoo Linux -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Some sync control
On Thu, 2007-01-11 at 14:08 -0800, Robin H. Johnson wrote: However, for several reasons this is not yet feasible, and furthermore Just for the sake of completeness can you outline those reasons? Thanks, -- Seemant Kulleen Developer, Gentoo Linux -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Some sync control
GIT is a good alternative, but has massive changes of it's own, particularly I think in workflow. Workflow is important, and it's beneficial to make the workflow changes at the same time as the backend is changed. Alec, Can you speak to some of these workflow changes? I only have experience with cvs and svn, not git or bzr or any of the other stuff that's out there, so I honestly do not know what their models and workflows are. So from my own uneducated stance, svn wouldn't be a workflow issue at all for most things, no? Thanks, -- Seemant Kulleen Developer, Gentoo Linux -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] New developer: Marijn Schouten (hkBst)
Welcome on board, Marijn, I'm looking forward to doing the gnucash bumps with you soon :) -- Seemant Kulleen Developer, Gentoo Linux -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-core] Re: [gentoo-dev] bugs.gentoo.org migration - completed! -THANKYOU
I was amazed this morning when I clicked on a bug link in my email, and then clicked over to the browser. The bug page had (gasp!) *already loaded*!! That's amazing, I've never seen our bugzilla do that ever. Thanks infra, corey and GNi -- Seemant Kulleen Developer, Gentoo Linux -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: OT - Good skills (WAS: Re: [gentoo-dev] Through the looking glass: Reflections on Gentoo)
I would like to help with coding/debugging packages for Gentoo. I have some programming experience on a very small scale. I have an Associates of Computer Science from a small community college, and I've never had a job working for a software company. You spode of good enough skills; I don't think I have good enough skills to help with Gentoo, but I'd like to. Where should I start? You know this question comes up a lot. The answer hasn't changed much over the years, and you may not like it, but it's the honest to goodness best way to start helping: just start helping. There are numerous avenues to do so, and in no particular order they are: 1. gentoo-user mailing list 2. the gentoo forums 3. join an irc channel or two (#gentoo has a steady stream of traffic of people who need help) 4. figure out what you're good at and/or what you want to learn and hop on over to bugzilla and find bugs in those areas. The caveat to the bugzilla one is this: most people who want to help go straight to maintainer-wanted bugs or try and create ebuilds for new packages. To be perfectly honest, those areas are not *where* gentoo needs help. We need help to maintain stuff already in the tree, so start at maintainer-needed or drill into some specific teams (gnome, pam, kerberos, kde, bsd, samba, mail, web-apps, there's a list of herds somewhere). Spread the word! Thanks, -- Seemant Kulleen Developer, Gentoo Linux -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Packages for grabs
Betelgeuse, I'll take sqlite if you and I can co-maintain it. Thanks, -- Seemant Kulleen Developer, Gentoo Linux -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Versioning the tree
On Wed, 2006-11-29 at 20:10 +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: By didn't see, he means he was so busy participating in his favourite game of Chris bashing that he didn't get around to reading any of the relevant material first... Could be, or (as happened here) mails arrived at different times. I saw responses before the parent message in a few sub-threads, today. Enough with the bashing (there's an irony to your own stuart bashing above), already. -- Seemant Kulleen Developer, Gentoo Linux -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for November
Kurt, Thanks for expressing your reasons properly on the list and in the text file on your d.g.o home. It's certainly gone a long way to my own understanding of your reasoning. Thanks, -- Seemant Kulleen Developer, Gentoo Linux -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] GNOME 1.x and GNOME 1.x dependent package masking
Saleem Gnome Team, I think it's high time this was done. My suggestion would be to publicise this *beyond* just the gentoo-dev list. I would put this on -user and in the forums (and one of you should probably blog before the fact as well). Thanks, -- Seemant Kulleen Developer, Gentoo Linux -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for November
On Tue, 2006-11-07 at 21:34 +0100, Wernfried Haas wrote: On Tue, Nov 07, 2006 at 05:47:28PM +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: Along with the rest of the thread. Notice in particular how Joshua claims that Kurt has never justified using SPF, and how in replies he refuses to do so. Do you really care about Gentoo's SPF, or are you just on a vendetta against klieber since you mention his name all the time? This isn't quite a fair attack, to be honest. It's funny how jaded we've become to any mail from Ciaran. In this case, he provided info without sarcastic remarks. And I believe the observation (made elsewhere) that SPF's existence on Gentoo's infrastructure has never actually been justified to the people it affects, namely the developers. While we're at the whole email stuff, it seems you still sign your emails with [EMAIL PROTECTED], which i personally find at least as annoying as you find klie^WSPF. Silly silly, and it doesn't belong on the list. Please don't be part of the problem. -- Seemant Kulleen Developer, Gentoo Linux -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for November
On Mon, 2006-11-06 at 14:37 -0500, Chris Gianelloni wrote: So because you didn't like the answer from the people responsible for this, you'd rather go over their heads and try to bring this up to the council, so we can override their decisions? Not bloody likely. Let me post a little more productively. If you (Chris) had bothered to read the bug, you'd notice it goes like this: Alin: I have these issues for these reasons Andrea: I agree the thing isn't the best, and I think we're open to discussion. Kurt, will you weigh in? more back and forth between Alin and Andrea with Andrea maintaining that infra is a open to discussion Kurt: Nope, my opinion differs, I control things, I'm not talking about it. That's a summary, by the way, and I'm not quoting anyone, just paraphrasing closely. I don't care one way or the other about the issue, personally, but reading that bug is certainly a good way to get frustrated. Please stop being ridiculous, Council: if you're not going to actually listen to the people who voted for you without talking down to them, then, er, why exactly, did you run? -- Seemant Kulleen Developer, Gentoo Linux -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Retirement
Wow, this retirement f*cks me up some, I have to say. I'll give you a better send off on the planet blogs, because for now I'm still reeling from the news. I'll miss you, that's for sure. -- Seemant Kulleen Developer, Gentoo Linux -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Only you can prevent broken portage trees
OK kids, settle down for a second and listen to your uncle Seemant. First, enough with the insults being hurled around! We don't need people being called slackers and dumb and stupid and whatever other creative labels are being developed. That is absolutely and without a doubt: non-productive. The better alternative might be to approach people with a modicum of respect (swallow the bile). Second, there's an obvious point of frustration here. The arch teams due to being understaffed have a different set of priorities from the security team and a different set of priorities from the maintainers. And this is the correct way for these things to be. Third, the best proposal I've seen here is for developers to get shell accounts on alternate architectures. There's quite a few of them floating around, and I'm pretty sure the arch teams will help you get a shell on one of the boxes somewhere. Some of the arches even have shell boxes for that purpose sitting at OSU or something. This would work for at least the console applications (the visual stuff will be a little trickier). So, that said, I'm going to have to go with the standard advice that Gentoo developers give Gentoo users: if you see a problem, help fix it! Alternatively, there might be reason to have an einsecure() call in pkg_setup() or something for deprecated versions. But let me say again: stop acting disrespectfully of each other, or I'm going to turn this car around and drive us back home, I'm not kidding! And give me some of that popcorn. -- Seemant Kulleen Developer, Gentoo Linux -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
[gentoo-dev] New Trustees - My Resignation
Dear All (specifically, the voting members of the foundation), Thank you all so much for expressing your confidence in me with the most recent Trustee elections. I fear, however, that for personal reasons I will be unable to assume my position on the board. I thus respectfully resign my position. During this next year, the board will be tasked with many critical items, and I am embarking/have embarked on many critical items in my personal life, to which I'd like to give priority. I will still be happy to provide any services to the Board as they need it (in the capacity of an advisor, I suppose). Thanks, -- Seemant Kulleen Developer, Gentoo Linux -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Thanks
Ditto :) I'd also like to thank Grant for taking care of the counting etc at the end of the election, and for being my rock in Gentooland. And big thanks to Ciaran for jump-starting the movement to have another round of nominations and elections -- they were certainly successful the second time :) Finally, thanks to all those who stepped up as nominees. Thanks, -- Seemant Kulleen Developer, Gentoo Linux -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Resurrecting Project Dolphin
apk-tools (http://apk-tools.sourceforge.net). (the reason I didn't used the native gentoo binary package is that it has no support for custom pre/post install scripts, and you cant exclude things like documetnation in the tbz2, even if you can exclude it dureing extraction. At that point there was no qmerge either) FEATURES=nodoc noinfo noman should solve at least some of those issues, I should think. -- Seemant Kulleen Developer, Gentoo Linux -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
[gentoo-dev] Spider's Resignation from the Project
Dear All, I'm forwarding this on behalf of Spider. If anyone would like to send a message to him, please respond to me privately and I'll forward your wishes along. Thanks, Seemant --- BEGIN Well, I guess the time has come to say farewell. Not without a slight taste of bitterness in my mouth as I write this. Sadness to see an old bunch of friends in the distance, reminiscent of Samwise standing behind and watching Bilbo, Frodo and his friends depart for other shores. Still, I think its time to tell some history of where we came from. The project I joined was small, we were... Twelve, I believe. My first additions were some clumsy additions for stuff I was missing when transitioning into Gentoo. Some small tools, backgrounds. Nothing fancy, just getting the compiler to work, some hacks on the kernel, a few tweaks to things here and there. Work was basically down to the don't screw up principle, and if you did , it wasn't the end of the world, because all the users were hackers and developers themselves. When portage died ( happened about every sync or so...) you fell back and did things manually. Was easier that way anyhow. QA, what was that? Devrel? Well, we had IRC, does that count? Later on it was Seemant. Seemant doesn't scale very well so he sorta burned out. Found out that drobbins didn't scale very well either, it got hard to keep track of things. At one point I think I was listed as maintainer of about 20% of the tree. We were also cause of some of the first really rough breakages. libpng incident and others caused us to think some more about ABI stability. People came and started to muck around more, without really knowing what they were doing, so we realised we needed another check for it. in came the ~x86 nomenclature. Tagging, Keywords. Starting to clean up the mess that our one size fits all USE flags were. The project grew and we started to get a lot more developers, far too many to know them all even by handle. Things got more organized into teams herds and so on. It also became a lot more demanding, you don't screw up. Fin. The QA watchdogs were there. I know, I was one of them, chasing about stability and quality. Things also started to take on a more professional attitude. yes, in quotations, because we still lacked a clear path, road map, reason and function. However, we had deadlines that never held, (deadlines with volunteers?) teams started to bicker in between each other, you touched minestarted to remind you more and more about the twins in a long car-ride, bickering about who's fingers were on what seat. Suddenly the apple wasn't just a bit sour when you bit on it, its started to take on that sweet tone of rot. People weren't joking around and doing what was fun, but holding in mind some arbitrary product quality that wasn't specified. Different groups had different goals and agendas. All from a working system on an alpha, to embedded systems and network-wide installations. We were going to fit it all, without much overview. Through that, people started to lose touch on who does what. When things went strange in glibc you didn't log on and ask Az or me, you filed a bug report or contacted the herd. When mozilla was screwing around in the initscripts you didn't commit a fix (no no) but you filed a patch and a bug. vs one of the clunkiest implementations in history, bugzilla. When you had an argument it was more dirt piles and backstabbing than work going on, and you ended up with a politicized system of councils and committee's to handle the insurgence. There was the cabal. And throughout this, we were still hacking around doing things for fun. Well, fun? I know for me it changed from that. Stopped being hacking around for fun to get things to work, turned towards you must reply to these mails.. you must fix bugs within ndays and more hassling with infrastructure and administration than doing work. Somewhere along the line it changed too much. Got too complex and complicated. We're still in that mess. A typical example of the institutionalisation of the project is myself. Had anyone just bothered to send me an email I would have replied. no, he's gone, terminate the account.that part works. But. You could have told me. Since we're now so fond of bureaucracy, I'll add the following: I retain copyright of all works committed to the Gentoo foundations CVS repository, the license remains as GPL v2, and you have my full permission to continue to use it. Texts and guides written and/or co-authored by me will be treated the same way. (No, I never signed a copyright transfer to the project) So long, thanks for all the fish. And, remember. Give the kids in the back something to do and they will stop bickering. -- begin .signature .. signature .. end --- END -- Seemant Kulleen Developer, Gentoo Linux -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Missing: Universal-CD - Gentoo discriminates shell and networkless users
On Mon, 2006-10-09 at 23:30 -0400, Kari Hazzard wrote: User-centric design is why Gentoo is/was different from everything else. Take away choices that people want and you take the Gentoo philosophy out of Gentoo itself. If the design was in any way user-centric, then that was a side-effect of the design being developer-centric. The choices are all about enabling development and developers. The Gentoo philosophy is about empowerment -- we provide a platform for you to do what you want with it. That's our only promise, all the rest is just gravy. Rel. Eng. and others do what they do because, at its root, that's what they *want* to do -- that's how they exercise their own empowerment. Feel free to join in the fray and exercise your own :) Thanks, -- Seemant Kulleen Developer, Gentoo Linux -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] New Developer: Alexis Ballier (aballier)
On Mon, 2006-10-09 at 19:40 +0200, Christian Heim wrote: He hails from Marseille (that's in France if someone doesn't know where Marseille is). So far he hasn't contributed anything big (like being a dev) Since, I'm in the US, I assume you mean that this Mar-Say place is in Freedomia. So welcome to our newest Freedom-man. Thanks, -- Seemant Kulleen Developer, Gentoo Linux -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo World Domination. a 10 step guide
On Thu, 2006-10-05 at 12:48 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Thu, 5 Oct 2006 12:52:14 +0200 Kevin F. Quinn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | Minority arches don't affect devs who aren't interested in them Actually, they do. Minority archs lead to much better tree QA being done, more bugs in packages being identified and more ebuild and package bugs being fixed. You see this is the problem with being perceived as a minority architecture. And it's something that gets completely overlooked -- before we had a QA team, the minority architectures served a similar purpose. Countless packages have had build-system fixes, compile fixes, runtime fixes all *because* we had ppc, sparc, mips and others (ppc and sparc being the more major of them, in terms of long-term impact to Gentoo). IOW, +1 on Ciaran's statement. I think it's perfectly fine to think about pruning/thinning out Gentoo to its core, but first we have to actually decide what its core actually is. Hint: majority architectures are *not*. Gentoo, at heart, is a meta-distribution, and all that that implies. Thanks, -- Seemant Kulleen Developer, Gentoo Linux -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] [Fwd: [gentoo-perl] Candidates for removal from dev-perl]
On Sun, 2006-10-01 at 15:48 +0200, Jakub Moc wrote: Michael Cummings wrote: Geo-IP Can you please leave this one, it's rather useful :) What's its use? Furthermore, does its used get decreased through the employment of g-cpan to install it? Thanks, -- Seemant Kulleen Developer, Gentoo Linux -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Delay in approval of new developers
On Fri, 2006-09-22 at 12:29 +, Peter wrote: We can disagree on that point. All distros are businesses. Users are customers. No users, no distro. That is not strictly true. You can have a distro without users -- nobody but you would be using it -- it's still a distro. It all depends on what you expect out of the project. I think Sejo's got the right idea this time -- this distro is just a community, and that's how it's run (well, it's run more like a commune, but anyway). If it were run like a business, the behaviour would be a lot different (and a lot more closed). For starters, there would actually be a leadership situation in place. You can argue that Gentoo *began* its life as a business, but the past three years have been far removed from that paradigm. Thanks, -- Seemant Kulleen Developer, Gentoo Linux -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Delay in approval of new developers
Peter, Your two cents are worth a lot. Pretty much all of what you've said has been echoed time and again on this list and on the -core list (and probably an irc channel or two). The concept of business aside, the points you make about having a leadership in place are on target, in my opinion. Thanks, -- Seemant Kulleen Developer, Gentoo Linux -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
[gentoo-dev] Gentoo/Accessibility Project
Dear Everyone, I've often wondered what happened to the Accessibility project in the last few months (especially since Ms. Waters went inactive). Well, as it turns out the Accessibility team has been basically one person: WilliamH. So, we took the opportunity this evening to adjust the mailing alias, the herds.xml list and the project page to make WilliamH officially the Team Lead for the project. If anyone is interested in helping him out please feel free to email [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thanks! -- Seemant Kulleen Developer, Gentoo Linux -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] New project: Gentoo Seeds
In that case, why don't we just consider Stuart's initial mail on this thing to *be* the effing announcement and be done with it? Fact is, no matter how something is brought up, there is a dependable group of people who will have something against it (oh fuck it, we know I'm referring to Ciaran here), and then something against the things that are solved with that, and on and on ad nauseum. And quite honestly, at this point, it is nauseating. Get over yourselves. -- Seemant Kulleen Trustee, Gentoo Foundation Developer, Gentoo Linux -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Last rites for www-apps/drupal
On Mon, 2006-09-11 at 17:10 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: Now why does it not surprise me that you of all people are encouraging people to complain about Christel? Is there something you'd like to get out in the open? I've been watching you spew for a while. When are you going to get over it? All he did was try and redirect where complaints should go. Stop being such a drama queen, jeez. -- Seemant Kulleen Trustee, Gentoo Foundation Developer, Gentoo Linux -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Results now more official
Congratulations to the new council. I hope for a lot of progress this year outta you guys :) Thanks, -- Seemant Kulleen Trustee, Gentoo Foundation Developer, Gentoo Linux -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
[gentoo-dev] Trustees Announcement
Dear All, Trustees voting did actually finish over a month ago. It's high time for the official announcement. This year's Board of Trustees for the Gentoo Foundation has been reduced to 5 people, instead of 13. That was something we wanted a vote on, in addition to the regular board, however, only 5 people were nominated. Thus, they formed the new board: I present to you, then, the new Board of Trustees: Chris Gianelloni (wolf31o2) Grant Goodyear (g2boojum) Stuart Herbert (stuart) Seemant Kulleen (seemant) Renat Lumpau (rl03) We will schedule the first Board Meeting for this year, for sometime this month, hopefully. Please note that the board is 60% new, so please do welcome the new members. Thanks! -- Seemant Kulleen [EMAIL PROTECTED] Gentoo Foundation / Gentoo Linux -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Trustees Announcement
On Tue, 2006-09-05 at 18:17 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Tue, 05 Sep 2006 10:08:22 -0700 Donnie Berkholz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | Mike Doty wrote: | What vote? I don't remember one. | | 5 nominees, 5 positions. Did you want a popularity contest among them? A Debian-style reopen nominations option with a vote would make more sense... I wouldn't oppose this at all if that's what the foundation members want. However, this issue has languished on -core precisely due to non-interest. So if you can rile up the people to rise up and demand this, or something, you'll definitely impress with me :) -- Seemant Kulleen [EMAIL PROTECTED] Gentoo Foundation / Gentoo Linux -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo-Status
Your concerns are well noted. The trustees in general are quiet even amongst themselves, but I hope this changes with the new board coming in next week (ish?). It's been my idea to propose that someone (tsunam was in my head) publish a trustee monthly news or something. The one I'm curious about is the council -- the council posts to -dev before and after every meeting (and puts meeting logs up on the website within days of a meeting). I suppose the webpage itself could be updated, but I'm unsure what else the council can do. Perhaps you have some ideas? Thanks! -- Seemant Kulleen [EMAIL PROTECTED] Gentoo Foundation / Gentoo Linux -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] gtk1 vs. gtk2
Enrico, Yes, but package maintainers have to be much more carefully about these dependencies, as it would be necessary if we actually would treat them as different packages. Have you asked the gentoo package maintainers how they feel on this subject, or are you supposing/guessing? -- Seemant Kulleen [EMAIL PROTECTED] Gentoo Foundation / Gentoo Linux -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Project Sunrise resumed again (was Resignation)
They're not relevant to this discussion. We're not discussing what the right solution is, we're discussing why Sunrise is the wrong solution. There's a hell of a difference -- as an illustration, most people could tell you why giving everybody nukes is the wrong way to get peace in the middle east, but very few could tell you what the right way is... Yes they are. You obviously didn't read the questions. I'll paste: OK, let's start with: what exactly is the problem? What is the correct way to represent it? After that please explain how you came to see sunrise as the wrong solution to that problem. Note, that nowhere did I aske what the right solution is. Please be so kind as to actually *read* what others are saying to you, instead of presuming. -- Seemant Kulleen [EMAIL PROTECTED] Gentoo Foundation / Gentoo Linux -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] SpanKY's Nominations for the Gentoo Council 2007
Thanks for the nomination SpanKY :) I'll decline this time around, to make room for fresh minds. Thanks, -- Seemant Kulleen [EMAIL PROTECTED] Gentoo Foundation / Gentoo Linux -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Resignation (was: Project Sunrise resumed)
On Mon, 2006-07-31 at 03:35 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 22:19:56 -0400 Mike Frysinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | we take a risk with this project (like every single other | project) ... if sunrise turns out to suck and cause problems, then we | kill it, no big deal How many more users and developers will have to be lost before it's considered to suck and cause problems? I don't recall users having been lost to the Sunrise. I know of only one developer who left. He left in a huff, in an emotional I'm taking toys, because I don't like them way, without actually raising any issues that he was against, other than a nebulous concern about QA. Show me at least that concern being concrete and we have a starting place. -- Seemant Kulleen [EMAIL PROTECTED] Gentoo Foundation / Gentoo Linux -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Resignation (was: Project Sunrise resumed)
On Mon, 2006-07-31 at 04:06 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 22:50:31 -0400 Seemant Kulleen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | Show me at least that concern being concrete and we have a | starting place. -!- [Users #gentoo-sunrise] -!- @genstef devon bonsaikitten_ Zamorate eimono|home dev-zero brebs staskorz @nichoj_work eimono SunriseCIA richiefrich +Peper @CHTEKK SunriseBot TiCPU shillelagh Juippis A user list of a channel doesn't actually say anything. Please elaborate. -- Seemant Kulleen [EMAIL PROTECTED] Gentoo Foundation / Gentoo Linux -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Resignation (was: Project Sunrise resumed)
OK wait, on your servers, are you actually planning to *use* any of the ebuilds in Sunrise's overlay? If not, how is it a concern? I personally don't use any of them, and my system is running perfectly fine. Let's not forget that nobody is shoving Sunrise down anyone's throat... -- Seemant Kulleen [EMAIL PROTECTED] Gentoo Foundation / Gentoo Linux -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Resignation (was: Project Sunrise resumed)
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 figure it's gentoo and when it breaks Gentoo suffers. Gentoo has a reputation as a good solid, stable distro. As user and big fan of Gentoo I'm concerned - why couldn't sunrise have stayed unoffical like BMG. Why does it have to be official? Gentoo can choose to do what it feels is right and I will do the same. BMG has, from day 1, been marginalised in the Gentoo community. I always fancied that they should've been folded into the larger Gentoo projects and become what Sunrise is today. The way I read you, your fear is based on the possibility of some future perception by an unknown number of people. Sunrise's idea is that stuff gets checked and re-checked and remains accessible -- have you read through their site and their commit histories and changesets? They're not exactly dawdling. As for Gentoo's reputation, I'm actually pleasantly surprised to hear it characterised that way :) If it has that reputation, then it will actually take a lot to break that. I'm surprised that ~keywords didn't already break it. I agree that the official portage tree is a QA nightmare. Sunrise seems to be nipping that nightmare for a future date -- ie by allowing people to commit and perform peer reviews, they're grooming the next generation of developers to look at QA from the outset, instead of as an afterthought. I answered only because someone asked for user's concerns well this is mine and you all can do with the input as you please without any hard feelings on my part. It's an exchange of ideas, there shouldn't be hard feelings on anyone's part. -- Seemant Kulleen [EMAIL PROTECTED] Gentoo Foundation / Gentoo Linux -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Resignation (was: Project Sunrise resumed)
On Mon, 2006-07-31 at 05:27 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: Did you look at *which* actual Gentoo developers are on the list? Is this sort of degeneration really necessary? Even that aside, if a couple of hundred developers can't handle doing QA for all those maintainer-wanted ebuilds, what makes you think four people can? I think, again, people are not looking at Sunrise as a training ground. It's better to start teaching people QA, and doing so in an active rather than a passive medium. Again, I haven't yet seen a reason to kill Sunrise. -- Seemant Kulleen [EMAIL PROTECTED] Gentoo Foundation / Gentoo Linux -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Project Sunrise resumed again (was Resignation)
On Mon, 2006-07-31 at 03:53 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: Partly, the part where it's run by people who have little clue about ebuild development or QA, who will be taking code from people who have little clue about ebuild development or QA and giving it to other people who have little clue about ebuild development or QA. Can you back up the first part? The people running it, you claim, have little clue about ebuild dev and QA -- can you provide proof of this? It does, actually, fall on you, since you're making the accusation. Partly, the way it's bypassing the normal herd system and allowing unqualified developers to push code related to things they don't understand. Where is this code being pushed to, exactly? Partly, the way it's being pushed through without proper discussion and without following the proper processes that're used to reduce the risk of major screwup. This list has been full of discussion. And before the council meeting, there were many further calls for discussion and comment. The sunrise folks have been actually pretty patient about addressing the same concerns over and over and over. Sunrise is the wrong solution to a misrepresented problem being run by the wrong people. OK, let's start with: what exactly is the problem? What is the correct way to represent it? After that please explain how you came to see sunrise as the wrong solution to that problem. You've claimed several times that you just try to stick to technical, so please put a stop to the look, but it's *them* doing it, how can you trust those people? bullshit already. -- Seemant Kulleen [EMAIL PROTECTED] Gentoo Foundation / Gentoo Linux -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Project Sunrise resumed again (was Resignation)
On Mon, 2006-07-31 at 06:30 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: Their commit history backs it up all by itself. Ppint to specifically what, in their respective histories, proves your case. This is like pulling teeth. | Where is this code being pushed to, exactly? Users. Please note the difference between pulling and pushing. Pushing implies that people who don't want sunrise on their systems have to have it and have to use it. This is not the case. So, again, where is this code being *pushed* to, exactly? The correct way to push through a large change is part of the developer quiz. There's no excuse for anyone not knowing it. Was it really a *large change* that they pushed through? They haven't altered the way anybody does things. Any developer or user going about their normal business does not even have to *think* about sunrise. Not that large a change, after all. Would you fly in a plane being piloted by Britney Spears? What do I care what the pilot's name is? And how is that relevant to the discussion, when you've yet to actually show why any of the Sunrise staff is unfit. Furthermore, there were other questions I asked that you completely removed from your reply. Please answer those as well. -- Seemant Kulleen [EMAIL PROTECTED] Gentoo Foundation / Gentoo Linux -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Nominations open for the Gentoo Council 2007
Hi Everyone, I just wanted to put a few thoughts out there as people contemplate nominees and the elections for the Gentoo Council. I personally am on the fence about running this year, because I think there are a lot of talented people who *should* be on the council. Now that I've said that (the *should* bit), let me expand on its meaning a little. I think the Council idea is great. However, I think the Council should be charged with a little bit of direction-setting and leadership as well. In the past year, the council did make some decisions, and helped to mediate some controversial issues. There were a couple of things which I thought were lacking, however: 1. The council was (by design?) a reactive force, rather than a pro-active force. 2. There's no way to follow through on the Council's decisions. I think these points involve *every* gentoo developer (and would-be developer) and not just the Council. If you have a GLEP or an idea and it gets approved by the council, now what? That's the thing: follow through on it! A question is, perhaps, should the council follow-up with previously approved GLEPs and inquire as to status updates? For an exemplar of the way I think the council should be is Spanky/vapier. Solar also does this well. Both of them take a leadership role in general in the project and are generally respected and admired for it. They both have great ideas and a vision. I think that should be explored further. This project needs some leadership, as the events of the past few months show fairly clearly. Thanks for listening, -- Seemant Kulleen [EMAIL PROTECTED] Gentoo Foundation / Gentoo Linux -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Nominations open for the Gentoo Council 2007
I'd like to nominate: SpanKY/vapier azarah solar Kugelfang Mr_Bones_ dsd_ Thanks, -- Seemant Kulleen [EMAIL PROTECTED] Gentoo Foundation / Gentoo Linux -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Future developer
Paul, Congratulations! What did you and your wife name him? When exactly was he born, etc? Give us details!! :) -- Seemant Kulleen [EMAIL PROTECTED] Gentoo Foundation / Gentoo Linux -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Bugzilla usage for overlays' projects [was: sunrise, a temporary compromise]
First of all, I'm not sure why devrel was involved in a technical decision without actually having all the interested parties there, but aside from that, when Gentoo developers become a bunch of 5 year olds? What is this absolute nonsense of you don't like my toy, you can't have your toy going on around here? Jakub, if you will disrupt others because you can't have your way, then please reconsider exactly what your role is in this project, and maybe even how you might better serve some other project. This childishness from *all* sides is getting really old, really fast. People need to grow the hell up, and quit with the melodrama. Seemant -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Bugzilla usage for overlays' projects [was: sunrise, a temporary compromise]
On Fri, 2006-06-23 at 15:09 +0200, Harald van Dijk wrote: You're suggesting jakub maybe shouldn't even be a Gentoo dev because he *doesn't* give one unofficial overlay special treatment over another? The jave unofficial overlay is well on its way to becoming an official and officially hosted overlay. This childishness from *all* sides is getting really old, really fast. People need to grow the hell up, and quit with the melodrama. Don't you think you yourself are overreacting a bit in your message? Not at all. I've been back on the gentoo-dev list for three weeks, and the actual dev part of it has been pretty much missing. This list would be more ideal as gentoo-rant, gentoo-torture-every-reader-with-endless-threads, gentoo-lets-not-get-along, gentoo-babies, gentoo-childishness, we can come with a few more. My personal view is apparently starting to be more public here, so I'll be plain: I think developers needs to all seriously reconsider what they are doing with Gentoo and why. I'm not advocating anything other than a bit of introspection on why people do this to begin with. In the past few weeks, I've seen devs get at each others' throats; and worse still at users' throats. And really, it's a little too much already. Thanks, Seemant -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Bugzilla usage for overlays' projects [was: sunrise, a temporary compromise]
Also, just so I'm clear on my stance on this: I don't care one whit about whether those keywords are used in bugzilla or not. Keywords are a way to help bugzilla users use bugzilla. As for perceptions about it -- as long sunrise is clear on their pages that they are absolutely not official as of yet, I don't think we run into any issues, officially. There may be users who do get that perception. On the other hand, you will have people who walk by a sign that says sale today and ask when exactly the sale is. We can't, and should not, hold everyone's hand. Thanks, Seemant -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] sunrise, a temporary compromise
I've been thinking about Solar's email. I believe Solar is actually very correct in his assessment. I think I'll recant my initial statement about devrel. To KingTaco and the gang: my apologies, you guys did the right thing at the time. Thanks, Seemant -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] embedded overlay on overlays.gentoo.org
On Sat, 2006-06-17 at 18:04 +0200, Stefan Schweizer wrote: Hi, solar has requested an account on overlays.gentoo.org for the embedded overlay for you. Your password: DX7wnSe40Y Kind regards, Stefan Was the list the intended recipient of this? -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] [Last Rites ipkg-utils]
Hi All, Just to let you know: ipkg-utils' last rites have been postponed indefinitely. James Rowe and I will be maintaining it from here on in. Thanks James! Thanks all, Seemant -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
[gentoo-dev] Herds, Teams and Projects
Hi All, Consider this both a rant and a GLEP pre-proposal. When we created the idea of herds back in the day, there was a clear distinction between a herd and a team (and a project). Over time, those definitions have become blurry. I would like emphasise: A herd is a group of like *packages* A team is a bunch of people who share a common goal (sometimes to maintain a herd of packages). A herd is also a bunch of mindless beasts who follow each other. To that end, it's been brought up that perhaps the metadata.xml files are partly to blame, in that they imply that the package is maintained by a herd. There is not maintainer-team listed, just a herd. So, I would like to propose that we make this distinction clearer in the metadata.xml files. I'm interested in thoughts that people have on this, but please do cc: me in your response to be assured that I read it. Thanks, Seemant -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Herds, Teams and Projects
Is there a reason for this besides the definitions not falling into place as they should? I'm not seeing a benefit from this to be honest. People refer to teams as herds a lot of the time. It has become a statement over time that people understand. I'm not sure why we want to try and change that to something else, even if that was what it was supposed to mean to begin with. It's a niggling thing and nothing major as such. But ideas flow from concepts. And the idea that developers are in herds is not a solid concept from which to begin. While the Ciaran episode has come to an end, the circumstances that led to that episode have not changed: mutual respect for fellow developers. That is the idea. The concept should lay that down: a developer is not a mindless follower, but a human being and a talented developer worthy of respect. This is a very small issue in the scheme of things, and a small hole to fill. I'd rather fill it in now :) Because it's supposed to be fun, too. Thanks, Seemant -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
[gentoo-dev] Council Meeting logs 20060309
Dear All, I've attached the council meeting logs thanks to my proxy dsd. I have updated the council project page to add them there and to add a summary of the events. I suppose when that thar www refreshes itself on the internets, the new content will show up. Meanwhile...enjoy :) Thanks, Seemant --- Log opened Thu Mar 09 18:22:56 2006 18:22 -!- dsd_ [EMAIL PROTECTED]/developer/dsd] has joined #gentoo-council 18:22 -!- Irssi: #gentoo-council: Total of 9 nicks [3 ops, 0 halfops, 0 voices, 6 normal] 18:22 -!- Irssi: Join to #gentoo-council was synced in 1 secs 18:23 -!- Halcyon [EMAIL PROTECTED]/supporter/active/Halcy0n-gentoo] has joined #gentoo-council 18:32 -!- cshields [EMAIL PROTECTED]/staff/cshields] has joined #gentoo-council 18:53 dsd_ which gleps are voted on tonight? 18:53 dsd_ 42 and 44? 18:55 @Koon tyhat's what I have 18:55 @Koon but I didn't read all gentoo-dev so I might have missed some vote requests 18:55 @Koon back in 10 minutes 18:57 @SwifT damned, 42 has been improved since I last read it 19:00 -!- vapier [EMAIL PROTECTED] has joined #gentoo-council 19:00 -!- mode/#gentoo-council [+o vapier] by ChanServ 19:00 -!- Netsplit adams.freenode.net - irc.freenode.net quits: Lejban 19:01 -!- Netsplit over, joins: Lejban 19:02 -!- seemant [EMAIL PROTECTED]/developer/seemant] has joined #gentoo-council 19:02 -!- mode/#gentoo-council [+o seemant] by ChanServ 19:02 @seemant hi all, dsd_ is my proxy 19:02 -!- mode/#gentoo-council [+o dsd_] by seemant 19:02 -!- mode/#gentoo-council [-o seemant] by seemant 19:03 * vapier touches seemant's proxy 19:03 @Koon vapier: proxies are not toys 19:04 -!- agriffis [EMAIL PROTECTED]/developer/agriffis] has joined #gentoo-council 19:04 -!- mode/#gentoo-council [+o agriffis] by ChanServ 19:05 @dsd_ abuse! 19:06 cshields greetings all! I'll be standing in for solar 19:06 -!- mode/#gentoo-council [+o cshields] by Koon 19:06 @SwifT 'evening both of you 19:07 @cshields or morning.. ;) 19:07 @vapier dsd_: it's only abuse if you didnt like it 19:07 @Koon who wants to chair ? I may have to leave early so I prefer not to 19:08 @vapier i may have to jet, work has meetings on me today 19:08 @vapier but i think we only have the manifest2 glep today correct ? 19:08 @SwifT and news thingie 19:08 @vapier the news thing wasnt requested i thought 19:08 @Koon well it all depends if we consider we should vote on glep 42 too 19:08 -!- mode/#gentoo-council [+m] by Koon 19:08 @SwifT if I can believe Koon and dsd 19:09 @dsd_ SwifT: dont listen to me 19:09 @vapier lets do GLEP 44 first :P 19:09 @Koon easy cake: yes 19:09 @SwifT 1 19:09 @vapier i think all our maybes and such were covered sufficiently on the list 19:09 @cshields solar votes yes 19:09 @Koon anyone covering up azarah's ass ? 19:09 @vapier any last questions ? (and if you have one i kill you for not asking it on the dev list) 19:10 @SwifT that's blackmail 19:10 @dsd_ i vote yes (on seemant's behalf) 19:10 @agriffis yes to 42 19:10 @vapier ok, i'll just poke you, i wont kill you :p 19:10 @Koon agriffis: current itam is 44 19:11 @vapier i'm for 42 as well 19:11 @agriffis I meant 44, sorry 19:11 @vapier adsflkajsdfl 44 19:11 * vapier blames agriffis 19:11 @Koon ok then we have a winner 19:12 @Koon up to GLEP 42, wit the traditional question: should we really vote on it given it's not been properly submitted 19:12 @SwifT oh well, no then 19:12 @Koon I propose that we emit an opinion and raise any question we may have, and pompously vote on it next month 19:13 @cshields solar touched on this in an email, but to me it seems to be missing an implementation plan. If it is voted on (and approved) it may end up sitting for a while without any action. We made a similar mistake with the webiste redesign vote long ago 19:13 @Koon cshields: unfortunately we cannot really enforce implementation plan 19:13 @vapier we can 19:13 @Koon it needs someone to pick it up 19:13 -!- Netsplit adams.freenode.net - irc.freenode.net quits: Lejban 19:13 @vapier we dont approve it w/out an implementation plan :P 19:13 -!- Netsplit over, joins: Lejban 19:14 @cshields Koon: you don't need to -enforce- one.. but some kind of a plan would be nice :) 19:14 @Koon then we can emit a favorable opinion on the content but require some implementation details to accept it 19:14 @cshields I could glep that we all get $100k/yr for doing gentoo, and it may sound good and have rationale behind it, but without a plan to implement it will probably never happen :) 19:14 @Koon I vote yes on that one 19:14 @SwifT who knows 19:14 @vapier details that the portage team is cool with ... but from genone's e-mails, seems they wont have much trouble with it 19:15 -!- spb [EMAIL PROTECTED]/developer/spb] has quit [Client Quit] 19:15 -!- spb [EMAIL PROTECTED]/developer/spb] has joined #gentoo-council 19:15 @vapier has infra weighed in on it ? 19:15 @Koon cshields ^ 19:16 @cshields vapier: most of us are in favor of the concept (cause we get bit in
