Natanael Copa wrote:
>
> What you didn't need to be a gentoo dev to be a package maintainer? Lets
> say anyone could be marked as maintainer in an ebuild. When there is a
> bug, the package maintainer fixes the bug and submits an updated
> ebuild/patch whatever. This person has no commit access.
>
>> Or you haven't talked to me or Beandog at all; since he has been
>> working on this a while (now with upgraded tools!).
>
> what i'd like to see is a system, to which one would give a package name,
> which then handles the removal (almost) automatically.
>
> that way devs would have an easier
Alec Warner wrote:
> Steve Long wrote:
>> This sounds like an excellent idea. Do the `upgraded tools' already
>> automate this process?
>
> The 'upgraded tools' was in regards to the GPNL project; since Beandog
> was using portageq to import metadata into
Mike Frysinger wrote:
> If you have something you'd wish for us to chat about, maybe even
> vote on, let us know ! Simply reply to this e-mail for the whole
> Gentoo dev list to see.
>
I appreciate that many will be against this idea, but I'd still like to
discuss it: a binary repository for gen
Robin H. Johnson wrote:
> From all of the large Gentoo deployments I've done (one of which
> exceeded 200 machines), you're approaching this the wrong way.
> ...
Thanks for the concise and clear explanation. It's the first time I've read
a description of how Gentoo might be used on an entreprise le
Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Friday 03 November 2006 03:47, Steve Long wrote:
>> If gentoo is still serious about enterprise adoption
>
> Gentoo as an entire whole is not really "serious" about anything
>
I thought you were serious about being a great project.
[I'm separating the ABI issue into the thread below from Marius Mauch]
Stuart Herbert wrote:
> I'm interested in providing binary packages for updating
> systems, yes - systems that are running seeds. Whether they're
> provided through Gentoo or not hasn't yet been discussed at all. We
> need to
Marius Mauch wrote:
>> Sure. Presumably you test packages with standard C-flags as users are
>> advised to before bug-reporting? Other than USE flags what else would
>> make your packages unsuitable for others? If it's only USE flags,
>> then at least the pkg is a start- if others want different se
Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Tuesday 07 November 2006 22:47, Steve Long wrote:
>> I understand the ABI changes at major compiler upgrades, especially for
>> C++. Is this such a problem for C?
>
> i think you misread his e-mail
>
> regardless, stable ABIs guarantee
Hi,
There was a discussion a few weeks back about stopping system b0rkage; a
possible sol'n had been previously discussed on the fora, ie having the
tree in svn for easier branching. I understand from the recent ANNOUNCE by
Robin Johnson that svn access is now available, as well as anonymous CVS
> In any event, what I'd like to raise is the issue of having a
> (semi-)official version of gentoo that lags behind the cutting-edge distro
> for stability. Is this feasible?
>
> Apologies if this is already being discussed elsewhere.
>
I appreciate that there is GLEP 19 according to earlier dis
Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> I have a script which already does several things:
>
> #1. grabs "best_visible" for stable on each arch
> #2. repeat for each SLOT
> #3. purge unnecessary files from FILESDIR
> #4. strip to only "stable" profiles from profiles.desc
> #5. purge unnecessary USE from use.lo
Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> It would be much better to simply use what we currently have,
> though. Honestly, I was pursuing this with Infra a few months back, and
> have since dropped it, due to time constraints. I plan on picking it
> back up, as I said, so I don't know what is necessary at this
>> There'll always be GLSA's to respond to. That's another issue that
>> needs to be handled w/ a slow-moving tree. Are you going to restrict
>> changes in the slow-moving tree only to changes against a GLSA?
>
> That's what we've said.
>
I don't have a problem with this at all. The slow-moving
Just a general point: I think people are being a bit harsh on Stuart in this
thread. I'm picking up on Chris's post as I'm interested in the
releng-related stuff, but this isn't exclusively about his responses.
Stuart Herbert wrote:
> On 11/29/06, Chris Gianelloni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I'm
Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>> What, you really think that Donnie doesn't know how the X licence
>> handling situation breaks GLEP 23? Just how exactly is ACCEPT_LICENSE
>> usable when you have this?
>
> [ cropped groups of similar license combinations ]
>
> Pretty usable, whe
Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> On Fri, 2006-12-01 at 07:22 -0600, Andrew Gaffney wrote:
>> Steve Long wrote:
>> > The only question I have, which Stuart also
>> > mentioned, is whether all security updates go thru the GLSA process.
>>
>> Are you asking if al
Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> Now, we can definitely use help in testing the snapshot. We're going to
> be announcing a new round of "Release Testers" for 2007.0 once we get
> ramped up into the release cycle. I am going to be working with the
> rest of the Release Engineering team to try to come up
Duncan wrote:
> Steve Long <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted
> [EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Fri, 01 Dec 2006 07:23:09
> +:
>
>> Excellent; pkgcore really sounds great- is there any possibility that
>> it'll become the new portage?
>
> Possibil
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Fri, 1 Dec 2006 05:29:22 -0800 Brian Harring <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> | Donnie already stated he'd take a patch, so throw the patch his
> | direction if you want things changed.
>
> "If you don't want it to be broken, fix it yourself" is hardly a viable
> QA poli
Jakub Moc wrote:
>
> net-firewall/ipp2p ebuild is outdated and useless w/ 2.6.17+ kernels
> (Bug 141700). It needs a bump to 0.8.2 and some active maintainer,
> eradicator apparently doesn't care.
>
> Please, see https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=141700 if you are
> interested in maintaini
Mauricio Lima Pilla wrote:
> As I've stated in the forums [1], I don't think that picking somebody that
> was not elected for the chair is a good practice. If you have found that
> the way elections were conducted did not produce a good result, maybe you
> should at least change your project descr
Ned Ludd wrote:
>
> cd $(portageq envvar PORTDIR)/virtual/
> mkdir mike
> cd mike
> echo 'echo OWNED at phase $EBUILD_PHASE' > mike-0.0.ebuild
> emerge -pv mike
>
Just checking; commands run there are run as root, right? Are they run in a
chroot jail?
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
> On Friday 01 December 2006 14:01, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>> That's not really a reason not to do it for ALSA_CARDS, since it's so
>> easy in this particular case...
> Uh, no.
> Because the cards supported changes from release to release.
>
> Although yes from on
Marius Mauch wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Nov 2006 19:34:57 + (UTC)
> Duncan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Alec Warner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted [EMAIL PROTECTED],
>> excerpted below, on Wed, 29 Nov 2006 11:36:53 -0500:
>>
>> > Vlastimil Babka wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Duncan wrote:
>> >>> whatever USE
Ned Ludd wrote:
>> Just checking; commands run there are run as root, right?
>
> Most often yes they would be preformed as the root user, unless the user
> of portage is in the portage group and has write access to the tree.
>
>> Are they run in a chroot jail?
>
> umm nope.
>
Cheers for the ans
Stephen Bennett wrote:
>> It's seems to be needed sometimes b/c it does change the order of
>> generated deplist(emerge -e world). AFAIK some packages dep on zlib
>> b/c of that.
>
> If you don't know about the unwritten yet near universal exception
> clause then you shouldn't be invoking it.
>
C
Stephen Bennett wrote:
> Steve Long wrote:
>> Could you spell out that exception clause, please?
> It doesn't translate well into words, but we'll go with something like
> "Unless you know exactly why the rule is there, understand fully the
> implications of
Bryan Østergaard wrote:
> Thanks, I believe many users (and devs) will be happy to see improved
> policies regarding package removals. I'm also personally very much
> looking forward to an official Proxy Maintainers project -proxy
> maintaining is one of the things I've been advertising in my own s
George Shapovalov wrote:
> Masked, as per previous announement. Nobody stepped up, so this is now on
> track for removal.
>
I read the original post, and you seemed quite keen on keeping it in; have
you posted to the user rep forum to see if you can p-maintain it for a user
or group of users?
--
Doug Goldstein wrote:
> I'll give some of the issues a look over Monday if you ping me about it
> jakub. But I don't want to maintain it. I'll proxy maintain it for a
> user and help them out if they need.
>
Alec Warner wrote:
>
> If there are any interested users, I am willing to proxy-maintain
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> That one pulls us back into the lack of distinction between "stuff
> needed when compiling against this library" and "stuff this library
> needs to run".
>
Wouldn't your c-toolchain or a compiler eg for PERL or Java do?
> | or by using meta-packages.
>
> DEPEND="virtual/
Ryan Hill wrote:
> Cool, that's exactly what I was looking for.
>
> thanks ;d
Yeah me too, thanks for a straight reply! ;)
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Alec Warner wrote:
> Jason Stubbs wrote:
>>
>>
>> There's ways to manage this complexity, such as putting the dependencies
>> into autotools' RDEPEND (if it can be considered correct) or by using
>> meta-packages. However, your point is against requiring that packages
>> _must_ specify all syste
antarus posted recently to the user reps forum asking for feedback on how to
solve user experience glitches like the recent xmms removal. (I do *not*
want to discuss that thanks ;) The thread is at:
http://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-t-516142.html
richfish came up with the simplest solution to the
Dan Meltzer wrote:
> I don't think that officially supported ebuilds that are officially
> unsupported is a good idea. If they were officially supported then
> they would in effect never be removed, just simply placed somewhere
> else. It seems to me that this should be a third party project if
>
Christian Heim wrote:
> That would have been antarus (Alec), current treecleaner/proxy-maint lead.
>
Thanks, astinus pointed me in the right direction of getting the right herd
to mail to.
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
George Shapovalov wrote:
> ?, 18. ??? 2006 08:19, Steve Long ?? :
>> George Shapovalov wrote:
>> > Masked, as per previous announement. Nobody stepped up, so this is now
>> > on track for removal.
>>
>> I read the original post, and
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Dec 2006 07:28:25 +0000 Steve Long wrote:
> | Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> | > That one pulls us back into the lack of distinction between "stuff
> | > needed when compiling against this library" and "stuff this library
> | >
Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> On Mon, 2006-12-18 at 11:38 -0500, Alec Warner wrote:
>> The only reason the contact and date are there is because the code for
>> removals and additions is basically the same (A or D tells me which one
>> it is) and all that info is available in the CVS history file. The
Alec Warner wrote:
> http://dev.gentoo.org/~solar/bashrc
>
> At the bottom of solar's bashrc you will find some lines dealing with
> AUTOPATCH, I don't see the bashrc.autopatch in his dev space, but you
> can probably request it from him.
>
Would it be possible to post that to this list? Then we'
Edward Catmur wrote:
> On Thu, 2006-12-21 at 21:47 -0600, Steev Klimaszewski wrote:
>> Steve Long wrote:
>> > Alec Warner wrote:
>> >> http://dev.gentoo.org/~solar/bashrc
>> >>
>> >> At the bottom of solar's bashrc you will fi
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> Steve Long wrote:
> | How serious an issue is it in terms of deps on sys pkgs?
>
> Very. It means we can't realistically handle packages that, by using
> autotools, depend upon the fifty odd system packages that are used by
> autotools-generated co
Alec Warner wrote:
>>> The tricky part then is figuring out whether something doesn't dep upon
>>> c-compiler because it doesn't need one or because the ebuilds haven't
>>> been updated.
>>>
>> I'm out of my depth here- I can't see where that would be a problem?
>>
>
> Er, his point being that if
Robert Buchholz wrote:
> A problem package would be one that does not need a C compiler. It can't
> be distinguished from the one which was not yet changed to depend on C.
>
> The problem here is that one can not say when the whole tree is updated
> to the new standard, because for the packages wh
Robert Buchholz wrote:
> Steve Long wrote:
>> Robert Buchholz wrote:
>>> The problem here is that one can not say when the whole tree is updated
>>> to the new standard, because for the packages which were not touched, it
>>> could mean that they needed no ch
Paul de Vrieze wrote:
> I know that I'm a bit late on this, but to me the "version 2 or later" is
> a license by itself. Let's call it GPL-RENEW and let the file have
> contents like:
> "This package is licensed with the version x or later clause for the GPL."
>
> The LICENSE would then be:
> LICE
Markus Ullmann wrote:
> % cat /usr/portage/profiles/use.local.desc | grep -i ":avahi"
> gnome-base/gnome-vfs:avahi - Support for avahi mdns daemon.
> gnome-extra/gnome-games:avahi - Support for avahi mdns daemon.
> kde-base/kdelibs:avahi - Support for avahi mdns daemon.
> media-sound/mt-daapd:avahi
Ignoring the religious debate for a sec, can I just ask how this is being
done? I thought an exit from a subshell took out the parent too, so I'm
curious.
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Wed, 03 Jan 2007 01:26:03 -0500 Doug Goldstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> | Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> | > On Tue, 02 Jan 2007 18:28:05 +0200 Petteri Räty
> | > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> | > | Well I was under the impression from zmedico that it completely
> | > |
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> At the top level, we set an environment variable to the pid of the main
> ebuild process. Then we install a signal trap handler, which, thanks to
> how bash works, is allowed to exit the main process. Then we make die
> first try to signal that trap handler, via kill (hence
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> Then agriffis invented the original die, along with assert (which no-one
> seems to use these days...). It avoided the quoting and environment
> problems with try, and it was good. However, it doesn't work inside
> subshells, which is only a mild annoyance so long as you kn
Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Monday 01 January 2007 12:46, Mike Doty wrote:
>> Mike Frysinger wrote:
>> > how do people feel about transitioning the Gentoo standard system
>> > logger
>> > from running as root/root to adm/adm ? the latest version of sysklogd
>> > includes some patches so that it ca
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Wed, 03 Jan 2007 23:59:23 +0000 Steve Long
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> | Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> | > At the top level, we set an environment variable to the pid of the
> | > main ebuild process. Then we install a signal trap handler, whic
Robert Buchholz wrote:
>>> But I had the impression the idea was discarded anyway. So I should
>>> focus my thoughts somewhere else :-)
>> Please focus your thoughts wherever you wish. I gotta ask tho; what idea?
>> I thought we were just talking about excess dependencies in the tree.
>
> I someho
Ryan Hill wrote:
> I just use a local db to keep track of stuff like this, but haven't
> thought of a way to turn this into a service and i don't think it's
> really doable. I think you'd need an entry for every ebuild in portage,
> times the number of archs, times an unlimited number of arbitrary
Ryan Hill wrote:
> Robert Buchholz wrote:
>> I don't want to sound negative and I like the idea a lot, but two things
>> are on my mind about this:
>>
>> It should also sync with changes in the tree, like package removals,
>> additions and package moves.
>
> For sure.
>
>> When you're talking ab
Paul de Vrieze wrote:
> My idea for the second way is basically to make the life of tools easier.
> It would make explicit that someone accepting GPL-3, but not GPL-2 would
> be able to accept a GPL-2 and later license.
>
Ah, I see what I'm missing- you're saying a tool could just check for the
sp
Having read the other thread, I have to agree that the N+ approach is
better, as you could have GPL3+ as well with simple parsing.
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Steve Long wrote:
>> maybe, but no one has this as the default behavior, so ...
>> -mike
>
> Yeah, but it's still a good idea, as others have discussed.
>
Just wanted to apologise for my rudeness there- after all it was your
proposal in the first place. Just been a b
is it possible for dodoc to do a `make doc' (or whatever the standard is) if
called without any filenames?
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Alon Bar-Lev wrote:
> I think a specific version should be specified only if something
> breaks with latest,
> thus it should be the default.
++
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Alec Warner wrote:
> Talk to solar about binhost, I know he has a better implementation lying
> around; it's a matter of finalizing it ;)
solar: where is it on your site?
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
if u need help with the clean room stuff, give me a shout. when i meet a
coder i really respect, i tell them i'm a clean-room engineer. only then.
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Sunday 07 January 2007 00:13, Steve Long wrote:
>> is it possible for dodoc to do a `make doc' (or whatever the standard is)
>
> there is no such standard
> -mike
well are there any general usage examples? i've just had to amend an ebuild
so
Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Sunday 07 January 2007 02:38, Steve Long wrote:
>> well are there any general usage examples?
>
> dodoc README
I deserved that ;) Let me more precise: are there any other general examples
of make targets for docs?
>> After all, if enough gentoo pkg
Alec Warner wrote:
> dodoc's purpose is to install files into ${D}/usr/share/doc/${PF}
>
> If you want to build the docs for a package, examine the build system
> for a doc target and run it.
>
> I don't see any reason to give a simple tool (dodoc) another thing to do.
Agreed.
--
gentoo-dev@ge
Well done for making the patch, and there's nothing at all wrong in asking
IMO. Not sure if we needed the whole story ;) but that's minor.
Besides what Alec Warner said, you should also try adding the patch to the
ebuild in a local overlay. Please find out elsewhere in gentoo how to do
this. (foru
Ned Ludd wrote:
>> solar: where is it on your site?
>
> Tip: If you want me to respond to something that directed to me
> it's best to CC: me directly as it's easy to miss threads on high
> volume lists.
>
Understood. (I don't use email client for news, but I'll fwd in future.)
> I use the qmerg
Just like to apologise for wittering on the list, especially over the last
fortnight. Things have been a bit stressed. Sorry.
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Daniel Drake wrote:
> Construction of a dynamic website for tracking kernel security issues.
> There are too many of them and too many kernels to do this through the
> normal GLSA process, and currently users are kept in the dark about
> fixed security issues.
Who put's up the "fixed security issue
Robin H. Johnson wrote:
> My personal view (not infra) on it, is that I'm mostly negative about
> changing VCS at all - I would prefer not to change, because the status
> quo works very well as it is. If a change is going to be made, it should
> be taken as a chance to resolve as many different iss
Thanks for the info; git does seem to have issues, going by the `GLEP'. bzr
looks nice, but I don't know enough about it. From what i've read on the ml
and the website it will reach 1.0 in ~March, but has issues eg with
cross-platform development and diff/ commit.
svn seems the most mature of the
Thanks for all the comments about the different SCM systems.
I'm a bit confused about all the portage tree stuff. Since a couple of us
were discussing a QA db on this list, I've been working on a script to pull
the info from the /usr/portage/ hierarchy. There's just under 25,000
ebuilds, which are
i appreciate that source control is needed to maintain files over a period
of time and to roll back changes. does that happen with ebuilds?
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Side point: i am now aware that there is a better way to do this (pkgcore
cache/template.py and sql_template.py) thanks to ferringb.
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Ned Ludd wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-01-25 at 23:37 +0100, Markus Ullmann wrote:
>> So to avoid thread hijacking, starting a new one.
>
> What exactly is this thread you are starting about? Just letting us know
> you did some random testing?
>
I think this is a reference to news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wher
Hi,
Since this is a different question which got buried in the other
discussion, I appreciate it should be a new thread:
I'm a bit confused about all the portage tree stuff. There's just under
25,000 ebuilds, which are maintained by about 100 devs (not sure of exact
number, taken from a forum p
Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> The idea of restricting access to specific parts of gentoo-x86 has come
> up many times. It doesn't fix anything and actually makes some things
> worse. Committers still have access to wherever they can commit, so they
> can work whatever evil they want there without needin
Marius Mauch wrote:
>> I'm a bit confused about all the portage tree stuff. There's just
>> under 25,000 ebuilds, which are maintained by about 100 devs (not
>> sure of exact number, taken from a forum post.) I guess what I'm
>> asking is why this isn't just a database.
>
> Please define "database
Petteri Räty wrote:
>> Please note, I'm not talking about applications like portage or pkgcore,
>> just the ebuild text files, which I understand have one maintainer?
>
> Many ebuilds are in maintained by a bunch of people via herds.
>
That's not really an issue for a db app.
>> I appreciate that
> On 2/8/07, Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Thu, 8 Feb 2007 10:38:08 +0100 Jose San Leandro
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> | A friend of mine and myself are willing to develop some tools to help
>> | ebuild development.
>>
>> All the common cases should be handled by default fun
Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
> On Tuesday 06 February 2007, Michael Hanselmann wrote:
>> XML! Actually, no. For me, libconfig[1] turned out to be very easy to
>> work with. Its config file format is easy to write by hand and the
>> parser resides in the library.
>> [1] http://www.hyperrealm.co
> All very nice, but our init scripts and config files for them should be
> POSIX shell compliant.
>
> If we move our network configuration to something other then shell then
> I guess we could look at this.
>
You're right, it's totally OT, my bad. I just thought the minor discussion
of standardi
Stephen P. Becker wrote:
> All of that said, how about we clear up all of the misinformation about
> how arch keywording really works, how deps get wrongly dropped, and then
> explain why mips has generally fallen behind. This isn't an excuse,
> but is merely a statement of facts which describe th
Brian Harring wrote:
> Offhand, if the council (majority, no offense meant but not just
> one council member who is also a paludis dev) is happy with the state
> of things and timelines, then I'll gladly retract the request.
>
Is this the case; are the majority of the council happy?
--
gentoo-de
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> | Are you really saying that you won't be releasing this information
> | until such time as *Paludis* meets it, even though portage/pkgcore
> | may not? Isn't the *point* of this spec to try to bring everyone on
> | the same page?
>
> I'm saying that until there is an inde
Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-02-22 at 04:13 +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>> | and Gianelloni for the infrastructure.
>>
>> And what on earth do infrastructure have to do with a package manager
>> specification?
>
> Especially considering that I am not an infrastructure guy. I'll be
>
Andrej Kacian wrote:
> As for the poisonous atmosphere - I don't know, I feel very good among the
> developers, and am still enjoying working on the tree just like on the day
> I joined. Don't let few loud flamers ruin your day.
>
Thanks for that Andrej. Makes me feel much better :)
--
gentoo-d
Stephen Bennett wrote:
> On Sun, 25 Feb 2007 18:51:51 +
> Steve Long <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> The PMS will presumably be the definitive statement of what should
>> happen for *all* gentoo PMs, and it so happens that the people who
>> are doing it are mos
Marius Mauch wrote:
>> And that still leaves the issue of EAPI 0 being the preexisting
>> implementation. What exactly is so wrong with that?
>
> Which implementation exactly? Portage isn't frozen, the behavioris more
> less constantly changing. Another issue are the things that just work by
> acc
Ioannis Aslanidis wrote:
> Maybe if Ciaran recognized his past faults, begged pardon and promised
> to be kinder from now and on, everything would be easier for everyone,
> everything would calm down.
>
I share your dream ;)
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>> On Sun, 04 Mar 2007 14:15:36 -0500 "William
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Sat, 3 Mar 2007 06:59:02 -0800 Brian Harring <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>> > as evidenced by
>> > every previous time you've gotten involved with anything I've done,
>> > and given how badly you tried to screw up GLEP 42 and how much of
>> > my time you wasted doing s
Petteri Räty wrote:
> I wonder if this thread would have been like this if deadline was called
> timetable in the original mail. I asked for access to PMS and got it so
> I don't see any problem it being in any way too secret.
>
Yay! A positive post!
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> The EAPI=0 document was supposed to be a QA project. What it is now, I
> have no idea. While the current PMS project is not what we asked for
> and *is* outside the scope of Gentoo
That's interesting to note.
> , due to our wishing to still *have*
> a specification of
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Mon, 5 Mar 2007 16:33:31 + Roy Marples <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>> On Mon, 5 Mar 2007 16:17:54 +
>> Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > What, and make everyone move the development discussion elsewhere?
>> > Have you noticed how little developmen
Harald van D?k wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 05, 2007 at 03:25:31PM +0000, Steve Long wrote:
>> > Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>> >> What kind of response do you think anyone else would have received had
>> >> they started repeatedly attacking a project when they didn
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Dear list,
>
> Why not simply naming the "formal logic rules" for the "official venue
> where developers (and ex-developers and users) can talk out their
> disagreements" to be:
> 1. Anyone who is impolite get's kicked off.
> 2. Anyone who repeatedly and seemingly on pu
Hi all,
There was a brief discussion a coupla weeks about getting better syntax
highlighting and context help for ebuilds. Well, sorry can't help with the
second yet, but I hacked together a syntax highlighting file for katepart
(as used in kwrite and kate of course ;) based on the BASH one. You
Bryan Østergaard wrote:
> Gentoo has an etiquette policy as well at
> http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/devrel/handbook/handbook.xml?part=3&chap=2
> for interested people.
>
> One thing worth noting is that we've just decided that the policy needs
> to be updated so hopefully we'll see a new/expanded
101 - 200 of 518 matches
Mail list logo
