Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 42 news item for review: Radiant upgrade

2007-05-06 Thread Dan Meltzer
On Sunday 06 May 2007 4:48:33 am Petteri Räty wrote: Hans de Graaff kirjoitti: What I would like to happen is that the message is added to the tree once, shown to users who have dev-ruby/radiant in testing immediately, and only shown to other users of dev-ruby/radiant when they move radiant

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 42 news item for review: Radiant upgrade

2007-05-06 Thread Dan Meltzer
On Sunday 06 May 2007 1:58:57 pm Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Sun, 06 May 2007 10:38:14 -0700 Mike Doty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: how is that different than using e{info,warn,error}? It stays visible until the user explicitly acknowledges reading it. which elog could easily be extended to do.

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 42 news item for review: Radiant upgrade

2007-05-06 Thread Dan Meltzer
On Sunday 06 May 2007 2:11:14 pm Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Sun, 6 May 2007 14:08:01 -0400 Dan Meltzer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sunday 06 May 2007 1:58:57 pm Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Sun, 06 May 2007 10:38:14 -0700 Mike Doty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: how is that different than

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 42 news item for review: Radiant upgrade

2007-05-06 Thread Dan Meltzer
On Sunday 06 May 2007 2:21:02 pm Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Sun, 6 May 2007 14:17:29 -0400 Dan Meltzer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: which elog could easily be extended to do. But which elog does not do by default, and for good reason. and what good reason would that be? That elog

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 42 news item for review: Radiant upgrade

2007-05-06 Thread Dan Meltzer
On Sunday 06 May 2007 2:42:23 pm Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Sun, 6 May 2007 14:39:13 -0400 Dan Meltzer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: No, its designed to save messages for users to read. It was implemented because important information scrolled off the screen in major updates. If a user

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 42 news item for review: Radiant upgrade

2007-05-06 Thread Dan Meltzer
On Sunday 06 May 2007 3:02:38 pm Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Sun, 6 May 2007 14:53:22 -0400 Dan Meltzer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: One of the reasons GLEP 42 was necessary was because users *don't* read things delivered by other methods. And they are magically going to read the news

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 42 news item for review: Radiant upgrade

2007-05-06 Thread Dan Meltzer
On Sunday 06 May 2007 2:47:22 pm Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Sun, 6 May 2007 20:41:24 +0200 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ciaran, if you where a bit more verbose you could save time. If people read the rest of the thread and the GLEP we'd all save a lot more, and if people also tried out a

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 42 news item for review: Radiant upgrade

2007-05-06 Thread Dan Meltzer
On Sunday 06 May 2007 3:28:41 pm Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Sun, 6 May 2007 15:19:53 -0400 Dan Meltzer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sunday 06 May 2007 3:02:38 pm Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Sun, 6 May 2007 14:53:22 -0400 Dan Meltzer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: One of the reasons GLEP

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 42 news item for review: Radiant upgrade

2007-05-06 Thread Dan Meltzer
On Sunday 06 May 2007 3:31:32 pm Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Sun, 6 May 2007 15:26:06 -0400 Dan Meltzer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sunday 06 May 2007 2:47:22 pm Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Sun, 6 May 2007 20:41:24 +0200 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ciaran, if you where a bit more

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 42 news item for review: Radiant upgrade

2007-05-06 Thread Dan Meltzer
On Sunday 06 May 2007 3:53:47 pm Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Sun, 6 May 2007 15:43:45 -0400 Dan Meltzer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: No, I've read the other threads. You've not explained how this is a critical update that requires a news item. You've said repeatedly in response to related

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 42 news item for review: Radiant upgrade

2007-05-06 Thread Dan Meltzer
On Sunday 06 May 2007 4:06:18 pm Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Sun, 6 May 2007 16:00:56 -0400 Dan Meltzer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Er, making elog logged by default would not solve the requires an explicit read problem. Making elog require an explicit read would be far too annoying because

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 42 news item for review: Radiant upgrade

2007-05-06 Thread Dan Meltzer
On Sunday 06 May 2007 4:22:44 pm Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Sun, 6 May 2007 16:13:56 -0400 Dan Meltzer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So you want users to have to explicitly acknowledge all ewarn notices? Now *that*'s a way of making the system useless by overusing it. Err, warn notices

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 42 news item for review: Radiant upgrade

2007-05-06 Thread Dan Meltzer
On Sunday 06 May 2007 4:38:16 pm Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Sun, 06 May 2007 22:33:55 +0200 Jakub Moc [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ciaran McCreesh napsal(a): On Sun, 6 May 2007 16:00:56 -0400 Dan Meltzer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Er, making elog logged by default would not solve

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: modifications to GLEP42

2007-05-05 Thread Dan Meltzer
On Saturday 05 May 2007 5:34:29 pm Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Sat, 05 May 2007 14:26:48 -0700 Mike Doty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: After some discussion on #-dev there are some improvements that we can make on glep 42. Well, if you're going about improving it, start by adding in the

Re: [gentoo-dev] [news-item] Paludis 0.24

2007-05-04 Thread Dan Meltzer
On Friday 04 May 2007 4:49:47 pm Piotr Jaroszyński wrote: Hello, Thanks to zmedico we now have support for news items on infra-side and heck they are ready to use. And we should use them! Attaching news item for paludis 0.24. Justification: major config format change. How does this fit the

Re: [gentoo-dev] [news-item] Paludis 0.24

2007-05-04 Thread Dan Meltzer
On Friday 04 May 2007 6:58:44 pm Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Fri, 4 May 2007 18:50:00 -0400 Dan Meltzer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: How does this fit the following parts of the GLEP? Preemptive Preemptiveness is not a requirement for this particular news item. It's necessary in many places

Re: [gentoo-dev] [news-item] Paludis 0.24

2007-05-04 Thread Dan Meltzer
On Friday 04 May 2007 8:01:58 pm Dan Meltzer wrote: On Friday 04 May 2007 7:52:46 pm Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Fri, 4 May 2007 19:48:19 -0400 Dan Meltzer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That seems like a really bad road to go down. Would it not be better to extend elog to alert people

Re: [gentoo-dev] KDE 4 alpha 1 packages for Gentoo?

2007-05-03 Thread Dan Meltzer
On Thursday 03 May 2007 9:12:35 am Jos Poortvliet wrote: Dear people, In a few days KDE 4 alpha 1 will be released, and we would like to give as many people as possible the opportunity to have a look at the next generation linux desktop. Thus an article is being prepared to explain to people

Re: [gentoo-dev] Planning for automatic assignment of bugs

2007-04-26 Thread Dan Meltzer
On Thursday 26 April 2007 3:40:06 pm Robin H. Johnson wrote: So as a not-so-brief follow-up to solar's email, here is a brief proposal on the automatic assignment stuff, incl. one spot that we might need to add an attribute to metadata.xml. Assignment process, triggering:

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Resignation

2007-04-17 Thread Dan Meltzer
On 4/17/07, Steve Long [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jakub Moc wrote: So Since devrel has been so kind and suspended me, based on our brand new CoC, I don't feel any need to stay on this project any more. I'm therefore resigning from this project. OMG NO! Please reconsider. I'm pretty

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo's problems

2007-03-14 Thread Dan Meltzer
On 3/14/07, Ciaran McCreesh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, 15 Mar 2007 03:45:01 +0100 Luca Barbato [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ciaran McCreesh wrote: QA is supposed to avoid fixing other people's code where things are actively maintained. I usually ask before messing with other's stuff but

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Some council topics for March meeting

2007-03-13 Thread Dan Meltzer
On 3/13/07, Steve Long [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Duncan wrote: Has anyone stopped to think... he might have an ulterior motive here? Clearly, it's trolling, the quote above should demonstrate that beyond doubt. However, one must ask what the reason might be for such deliberate trolls. Yes

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Something positive! (was Re: Client-serve flags (again ;))

2007-03-11 Thread Dan Meltzer
This thread is gay. On 3/11/07, Stephen Bennett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sun, 11 Mar 2007 15:34:41 + Jeff Rollin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Huh? Excuse me, but as I tried to indicate in another message, I'm as much on YOUR side as anyone else's. Then stop continuing the thread.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Some council topics for March meeting

2007-03-05 Thread Dan Meltzer
On 3/5/07, Stephen Bennett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, 05 Mar 2007 12:49:10 -0500 Chris Gianelloni [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What we want to discuss is a possible timeline for completion, and what resources you may need to get it done within the agreed timeline. Notice that I used

Re: [gentoo-dev] Slacker archs

2007-02-19 Thread Dan Meltzer
I'm replying here because I couldn't decide whether or not it made more sense to reply to your email, your blog post, your reply to flameeyes blog post, your radio commercial, your television advertisement, or your phone call. The things that this doesn't do (Or if it does it isn't documented)

Re: [gentoo-dev] amd64 help

2007-01-28 Thread Dan Meltzer
Isn't this kind of against what glep40 set out to do? On 1/28/07, Christian Faulhammer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, As we all notice from time to time, amd64 team is lacking behind a bit, due to various reasons. a) manpower, b) a lot of keywording. Java team asked arch teams if they object

Re: [gentoo-dev] amd64 help

2007-01-28 Thread Dan Meltzer
On 1/28/07, Petteri Räty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Dan Meltzer wrote: Isn't this kind of against what glep40 set out to do? Top posting... Any way the thing was that the only change in these ebuilds are the eclasses/eclass functions used and the new eclasses have been proven stable already

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Some sync control

2007-01-17 Thread Dan Meltzer
see http://dev.gentoo.org/~antarus/projects/soc/glep-0052.txt and http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/42044/match= On 1/17/07, Georgi Georgiev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Quoting Robin H. Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED]: 2. See the results (and as-yet unpublished GLEP) of Antarus's Summer

Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposal for IRC channel/ user forum

2006-12-19 Thread Dan Meltzer
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 anything. On 12/19/06,

Re: [gentoo-dev] Council meeting summary for meeting on 20060914

2006-11-09 Thread Dan Meltzer
On 11/9/06, Bryan Østergaard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi all, here's the complete log from the Council Meeting + a short summary. Summary: All council members was present (Andrew Gaffney (agaffney) proxied for Chris Gianello (wolf31o2)). Agenda was: 1. Reply-to-list 2. SPF 3. QA update / plans

Re: [gentoo-dev] Package Removal

2006-10-23 Thread Dan Meltzer
I think you gave the wrong forum link :) On 10/23/06, George Prowse [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: A user has stated this in a thread. Could someone respond please? http://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-t-510146.html I suggest that the devs don't hard mask packages, especially ones depended on by

Re: [gentoo-dev] Last rites for XMMS

2006-10-22 Thread Dan Meltzer
On 10/22/06, Josh Saddler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote: [snip] I think masking is premature; there was never any sort of decision made in the previous discussion(s) about this. Relooking at the discussion, it appears

Re: [gentoo-dev] New Devrel Subproject: Gentoo Devmatch

2006-10-22 Thread Dan Meltzer
How much would gentoo make in a ciaran vs. devrel fight? On 10/22/06, Alec Warner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Purpose: To increase funding for Gentoo Infrastructure and events. Overview: Developers volunteer to dual off against other developers (including retired developers!) in the ring. We

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Gentoo Commitfests

2006-10-20 Thread Dan Meltzer
On 10/20/06, Mike Doty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Just a random thought that popped into my head: We could have a commit fest where everyone who wants to compete kicks in some small amount of money(say $5) maybe the foundation kicks in a little

Re: [gentoo-dev] Missing: Universal-CD - Gentoo discriminates shell and networkless users

2006-10-05 Thread Dan Meltzer
On 10/5/06, Jakub Moc [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Peter Weber wrote: You don't unterstand me, sorry. There is no Universal-CD, a User must to download the LiveCD which forces he/she to use the Ncurses/X11-Installer, because there is no Stage3-Tarball. OH RLY? Maybe just read the options you

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo 2006.1

2006-09-02 Thread Dan Meltzer
On 9/2/06, Stuart Herbert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 9/2/06, Alec Warner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Give us about 3000 more developers, and sure* ;) I don't think that that's good thing to be saying to our users. Is it a bad thing to be saying to your developers? We didn't need 3000 more

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo 2006.1

2006-09-02 Thread Dan Meltzer
On 9/2/06, Stuart Herbert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 9/2/06, Dan Meltzer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 9/2/06, Stuart Herbert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 9/2/06, Alec Warner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Give us about 3000 more developers, and sure* ;) I don't think that that's good thing

Re: [gentoo-dev] The gnome king is dead, long live the gnome king

2006-07-31 Thread Dan Meltzer
On 7/31/06, foser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello dear followers, tonight after a some deliberation I have decided to step down as gnome lead in favor of AllanonJL. As far as I am concerned AllanonJL has been the acting lead for quite a while now, while I was too busy to devote much time to

Re: [gentoo-dev] Resignation (was: Project Sunrise resumed)

2006-07-30 Thread Dan Meltzer
On 7/30/06, Mike Frysinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sunday 30 July 2006 18:07, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: Personally I'd expect the council to block the thing permanently. hard to address any sort of concerns here, so i guess i'll just regurgitate the council log to you it's hard for users to

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: unicode and userlocales useflag

2006-06-22 Thread Dan Meltzer
On 6/22/06, Graham Murray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Duncan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: There's a newer way to control the same thing that userlocales controlled, but I didn't understand it when it was posted here. Though, AFAIK, there is no way of retaining the old behaviour, of building all

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: [RFC] Useflags: qt, qt3, qt4?

2006-06-21 Thread Dan Meltzer
On 6/21/06, Duncan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Caleb Tennis [EMAIL PROTECTED] posted [EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Wed, 21 Jun 2006 10:03:21 -0400: [Stefan Schweizer wrote...] qt3 - enable optional qt3 support qt4 - enable optional qt4 support Maybe I just need a little time to warm

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Useflags: qt, qt3, qt4?

2006-06-20 Thread Dan Meltzer
On 6/20/06, Donnie Berkholz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote: [snip] I don't see how any other suggestion is simpler than mine for developers or users. Maybe I missed something in skimming the discussion. To summarize: - USE=qt enables support for the most current qt.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: A heretical thought? Blessing project sunrise as an almost-fork.

2006-06-14 Thread Dan Meltzer
On 6/14/06, Chris Gianelloni [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, 2006-06-14 at 22:34 +0200, Jakub Moc wrote: It's not irrelevant; you're just not reading it properly. You might notice that metadata.xml contains tags other than herd, like, say, maintainer. In the example that sparked this,

Re: [gentoo-dev] Project Sunrise -- Proposal

2006-06-10 Thread Dan Meltzer
On 6/10/06, Markus Ullmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Okay, so after figuring out open problems (thanks to kloeri and various other people for help here), we now have a resolution that should satisfy all involved parties here. This should adress dostrow's demands as well. 1) m-w / m-n requirement

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: GLEP 49 - Package manager requirements

2006-05-20 Thread Dan Meltzer
A secondary package manager is a package manager that instead of directly aiming at replacing portage as primary package manager. What does it do instead? The first restriction is that no packages in the tree must rely on the secondary package manager. While packages may provide a

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Making the developer community more open

2006-03-23 Thread Dan Meltzer
On 3/23/06, Daniel Goller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, 2006-03-22 at 09:15 -0500, Dan Meltzer wrote: Asking developers to proxy takes almost as much time as it does to ask them to maintain a package by themselves. wrong The developer is directly responsible for anything he commits

[gentoo-dev] Re: Making the developer community more open

2006-03-22 Thread Dan Meltzer
Asking developers to proxy takes almost as much time as it does to ask them to maintain a package by themselves. The developer is directly responsible for anything he commits, so he will have to still test the ebuild, still test any revisions, and still follow the package to make sure there are

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] QA Team's role

2006-02-28 Thread Dan Meltzer
On 2/28/06, Renat Lumpau [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, Feb 28, 2006 at 04:31:37PM -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote: today's lesson: proactive QA is frowned upon, it's only a bug when a user files a report at bugs.gentoo.org I don't think that's the lesson. It oughtta be: we need a way to

Re: [gentoo-dev] Request for Comment

2006-02-10 Thread Dan Meltzer
On 2/10/06, Klaus-J. Wolf [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, I am new to this list, but I am not new to Gentoo. Would you please discuss a GLEP draft, which I believe it might improve the usability of Gentoo? Text at: http://www.seismic.de/gentoo/gentoo_mask_proposal.html Seems like a huge

[gentoo-dev] Re: bootstrapping since gcc 3.4 is stable

2006-01-26 Thread Dan Meltzer
What eactly is your point? Of course they are. On 1/26/06, Mikey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thursday 26 January 2006 08:06, Chris Gianelloni spammed: On Wed, 2006-01-25 at 20:23 -0600, Mikey wrote: If you actually downloaded a pristine stage1 or a stage3 tarball you might notice that

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: Re: bootstrapping since gcc 3.4 is stable

2006-01-25 Thread Dan Meltzer
On 1/25/06, Mikey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wednesday 25 January 2006 19:13, Stephen P. Becker wrote: Ahh, so you were the idiot that ran those tests. Congratulations...you needlessly did a --emptytree world after you had already done --emptrytree system in order to bloat your results.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Find apps not ported to modular X

2006-01-19 Thread Dan Meltzer
On 1/19/06, Donnie Berkholz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Lares Moreau wrote: Could you post updates once a week(or two), similar to what [EMAIL PROTECTED] does with the aging ebuilds. I don't feel a play-by-play is necessary. I will be posting daily updates until it goes into ~arch, planned

Re: [gentoo-dev] A New Linux Way

2006-01-09 Thread Dan Meltzer
On 1/9/06, Mark Stewart [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Subject line: A New Linux Way Learn to send emails correctly? Text as follows: Hello fellow Linux Users! We here at SaviourLinux.com desire to create a united universal way. Please visit the website for more information, but here is the

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

2006-01-05 Thread Dan Meltzer
Here are my random two cents On 1/5/06, Chris Gianelloni [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, 2006-01-04 at 19:57 -0800, Greg KH wrote: On Thu, Jan 05, 2006 at 03:58:57AM +, Kurt Lieber wrote: On Tue, Jan 03, 2006 at 01:17:06PM -0500 or thereabouts, Chris Gianelloni wrote: Gentoo is

Re: [gentoo-dev] mozextension.eclass last call!

2005-12-30 Thread Dan Meltzer
On 12/30/05, Stefan Schweizer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 12/30/05, Dan Meltzer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 12/29/05, Jory A. Pratt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Unless there are any major objections tomorrow night I will commit

Re: [gentoo-dev] mozextension.eclass last call!

2005-12-29 Thread Dan Meltzer
On 12/29/05, Jory A. Pratt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Unless there are any major objections tomorrow night I will commit mozextension.eclass to the tree. You can find mozextension.eclass at http://dev.gentoo.org/~anarchy/eclass . You can

Re: [gentoo-dev] making dodoc and dohtml die when they fail and stricter is on

2005-12-26 Thread Dan Meltzer
On 12/26/05, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Monday 26 December 2005 13:59, Simon Stelling wrote: Actually stricter, and there are way too many people to put that in without knowing what that do... or is it a default nowadays, I'm not even sure. You're mixing up

Re: [gentoo-dev] making dodoc and dohtml die when they fail and stricter is on

2005-12-26 Thread Dan Meltzer
and my bad. I am not yet awake. It died cause of runpaths on strict, it just showed both, and I wasn't thinking when I sent earlier email... On 12/26/05, Dan Meltzer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 12/26/05, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Monday 26 December 2005 13:59

Re: [gentoo-dev] Allow upstream tags in metadata.xml (GLEP 46)

2005-12-26 Thread Dan Meltzer
On 12/26/05, Lares Moreau [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, 2005-12-27 at 00:59 +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Tue, 27 Dec 2005 01:45:00 +0100 Stefan Schweizer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | That will increase the sync time for all of our users - can we please | keep this info out of the

Re: [gentoo-dev] Allow upstream tags in metadata.xml (GLEP 46)

2005-12-26 Thread Dan Meltzer
On 12/26/05, Brian Harring [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, Dec 26, 2005 at 08:12:03PM -0500, Dan Meltzer wrote: On 12/26/05, Lares Moreau [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, 2005-12-27 at 00:59 +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Tue, 27 Dec 2005 01:45:00 +0100 Stefan Schweizer [EMAIL

Re: how to contribute to use/slot deps: was Re: [gentoo-dev] Multiple Repo Support

2005-12-24 Thread Dan Meltzer
On 12/24/05, Ciaran McCreesh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, 23 Dec 2005 23:56:37 -0800 Brian Harring [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | It's really pretty simple- get off your butt and chip in if you want | it, else you're on _our_ timeline (eg, we implement it when we deem | it sane/ready to go).

Re: how to contribute to use/slot deps: was Re: [gentoo-dev] Multiple Repo Support

2005-12-24 Thread Dan Meltzer
On 12/24/05, Curtis Napier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Dan Meltzer wrote: On 12/24/05, Ciaran McCreesh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, 23 Dec 2005 23:56:37 -0800 Brian Harring [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | It's really pretty simple- get off your butt and chip in if you want | it, else you're

Re: [gentoo-dev] X.Org 7.0 Release

2005-12-23 Thread Dan Meltzer
http://dev.gentoo.org/~spyderous/xorg-x11/migrating_to_modular_x_howto.txt followed it this morning :) On 12/23/05, Greg KH [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, Dec 23, 2005 at 03:40:57PM -0700, Joshua Baergen wrote: As many of you no doubt have noticed, spyderous and I finished bumping the

Re: [gentoo-dev] UPGRADE bugs.gentoo.org

2005-12-16 Thread Dan Meltzer
Here, have a goat. It's on me no, literally, get it off! On 12/16/05, Jeffrey Forman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: To all, After blowing my upgrade window by almost 2 hours bugzilla is back up, albeit missing the pretty Gentoo theme. I will be putting that in after I've taken a break, because

Re: [gentoo-dev] Multiple Repo Support

2005-12-16 Thread Dan Meltzer
Why not $(portageq newsdir) ? Currently, that would return only the one for main tree, but if/whenever multi repo support it added, it could return a space delimted list. This makes it simple to manage, and lets the portage crew a) figure out what they want to do b) implement it while keeping

Re: [gentoo-dev] Multiple Repo Support

2005-12-16 Thread Dan Meltzer
On 12/16/05, Zac Medico [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ciaran McCreesh wrote: | Brian agreed with you that the extended dep syntax will be necessary | at some point in the future. I also agree. So, knowing that glep 42 | doesn't require extended depset syntax, can we stop playing this game |

[gentoo-dev] Re: Changes to date format of current GLEPs (was: GLEP 42 (Critical News Reporting) round five)

2005-12-13 Thread Dan Meltzer
Well, it would be changing Glep 1... which probably needs an ammendatory GLEP On 12/13/05, Danny van Dyk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Ciaran McCreesh schrieb: | | Proposed change: | | | | ``Posted:`` | | Date of posting, in ``-mm-dd``

[gentoo-dev] RE: Changes to date format of current GLEPs

2005-12-13 Thread Dan Meltzer
Whoops, sending to the list is a good idea -- Forwarded message -- From: Dan Meltzer [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 15:51:16 -0500 Subject: Re: Changes to date format of current GLEPs To: Danny van Dyk [EMAIL PROTECTED] Nope, but the changes further on. Created

[gentoo-dev] Re: GLEP XX: Fix the GLEP process

2005-12-12 Thread Dan Meltzer
If everyone but infra was in favor of glep 41, are you saying it should be approved? /devils advocate On 12/12/05, Ciaran McCreesh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, 13 Dec 2005 11:15:43 +0900 Jason Stubbs [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | A GLEP should list whom has been solicited and provide

[gentoo-dev] Re: GLEP 42 (Critical News Reporting) round five

2005-12-12 Thread Dan Meltzer
instead On 12/12/05, Ciaran McCreesh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, 12 Dec 2005 22:30:52 -0500 Dan Meltzer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | Internationalisable |Being able to provide messages in multiple languages may be | beneficial. | | Not quite sure, is it required for GLEP's

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 42 (Critical news reporting) updates

2005-12-11 Thread Dan Meltzer
On 12/11/05, Wernfried Haas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sun, Dec 11, 2005 at 01:35:50AM +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: Although most package updates are clean and require little user action, occasionally an upgrade requires user intervention during the upgrade process. Recent examples of

Re: [gentoo-dev] ebuild suggestion: texmaker

2005-12-10 Thread Dan Meltzer
bugs.gentoo.org http://dev.gentoo.org/~plasmaroo/devmanual/ http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/ebuild-submit.xml not gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org On 12/10/05, Herbert Lists [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, A great software that would be fun to have on Gentoo is texmaker.

Re: [gentoo-dev] The deal with epkgmove

2005-12-10 Thread Dan Meltzer
Gcc has also moved to subversion... On 12/10/05, Jason Stubbs [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sunday 11 December 2005 00:56, Luca Barbato wrote: svn so far was good but I don't know which big projects had it deployed. KDE uses subversion, depending on what you call big of course. -- Jason

Re: [gentoo-dev] December Council Meeting

2005-12-10 Thread Dan Meltzer
On 12/10/05, Ciaran McCreesh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, 7 Dec 2005 23:49:59 + Mike Frysinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | current agenda: | none ?! How about a decision on what's to be done to fix the GLEP 41 mess? glep 41 was approved... people ranted, it fell off the maps... I

[gentoo-dev] Re: GLEP 42 (Critical news reporting) updates

2005-12-10 Thread Dan Meltzer
Point of Clarity, and the ``mysql-5`` database format changes. These changes actually occured in mysql 4.1, not mysql-5 On 12/10/05, Ciaran McCreesh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Main changes since the previous edition: * File format tweaks. * Changes to the way relevance headers work to make

Re: [gentoo-dev] Split ELF Debug (defult or not?)

2005-11-27 Thread Dan Meltzer
On 11/27/05, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sunday 27 November 2005 00:10, Luca Barbato wrote: It's great! Make it a FEATURE default on for common profiles. +1, and it would be better if the FEATURES, instead of removing the generated files, would disable the building

Re: [gentoo-dev] Split ELF Debug (defult or not?)

2005-11-27 Thread Dan Meltzer
Random thought May be completely off base. Could this debug info be NFS shared? assuming like computers, or would it be different on each computer. On 11/27/05, Tavis Ormandy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sat, Nov 26, 2005 at 12:50:30PM -0500, Ned Ludd wrote: I'm in favor of it enabled per

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Possible solution: email subdomain

2005-11-23 Thread Dan Meltzer
On 11/23/05, Duncan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Marius Mauch posted [EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Wed, 23 Nov 2005 15:40:49 +0100: On Wed, 23 Nov 2005 03:39:08 -0700 Duncan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Here's the proposal again. If there's an issue with it, shoot it down, but from

Re: Re[2]: [gentoo-dev] Re: Possible solution: email subdomain

2005-11-23 Thread Dan Meltzer
forgot my sarcasm tags :) Get the idea though? On 11/23/05, Jakub Moc [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 23.11.2005, 20:07:15, Dan Meltzer wrote: Can we get all current developers renamed to nick.developer then? just to alleiviate any confusion someone may have... [snip a buttload or two

Re: [gentoo-dev] Decision to remove stage1/2 from installation documentation

2005-11-23 Thread Dan Meltzer
On 11/23/05, Mike Owen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 11/22/05, Chris Gianelloni [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Give me one example of something that you can do with a stage1 or stage2 tarball that you cannot with a stage3 tarball. I may not be the typical user, but I use Stage1 to build servers,

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Decision to remove stage1/2 from installation documentation

2005-11-22 Thread Dan Meltzer
On 11/22/05, R Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Chris Gianelloni wrote: On Tue, 2005-11-22 at 16:26 +0100, Marc Hildebrand wrote: Chris Gianelloni wrote: [..] Now, on the topic of the tarballs. Give me one example of something that you can do with a stage1 or stage2 tarball that you

[gentoo-dev] Re: GLEP 42 Critical News Reporting Round Two

2005-11-20 Thread Dan Meltzer
Personally, I do not think the tree is the place for anything besides that which relates to the tree. I really do not think users would appreciate there sync being burdoned by Developer x broke his toe this week ; developer y is going to italy ; We recently recieved 3 new mirrors and have all

Re: [gentoo-dev] New Dev: Thunder

2005-11-20 Thread Dan Meltzer
BSD is dead jokes are dead. Lets move on to the next thing! Developers working on bsd are dead! SHortest development time ever thunder! oh, and who let ferringb write the intro's, needs more verbosity WHens Gentoo/Opensolaris coming? /me hides On 11/20/05, Brian Harring [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [gentoo-dev] implementation details for GLEP 41

2005-11-19 Thread Dan Meltzer
On 11/19/05, Kurt Lieber [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sat, Nov 19, 2005 at 05:44:41PM -0500 or thereabouts, Dan Meltzer wrote: Funy, I was just pondering that myself... is authenticated rsync really possible? Yes, it has its own auth mechanism. We actually use it for some automated cron

Re: [gentoo-dev] implementation details for GLEP 41

2005-11-19 Thread Dan Meltzer
at? On 11/19/05, Kurt Lieber [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sat, Nov 19, 2005 at 05:44:41PM -0500 or thereabouts, Dan Meltzer wrote: Funy, I was just pondering that myself... is authenticated rsync really possible? Yes, it has its own auth mechanism. We actually use it for some automated cron

Re: [gentoo-dev] Email subdomain

2005-11-18 Thread Dan Meltzer
As an AT... albiet a very busy/cannot help as much as I'd like one... The only useful thing I see in here is ro-cvs access. This facilitates testing by allowing the tester to get the ebuilds as they are committed, instead of syncing and hoping not to get banned from rsync servers. I could care

Re: [gentoo-dev] Need Help: Creating a new third party package

2005-11-16 Thread Dan Meltzer
On 11/16/05, Zou, Yixiong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, I am trying to create a gentoo package for some internal software. I followed several Howtos online and created the ebuild file for my package. But somehow ebuild always return me the same error over and over again: $ ebuild

[gentoo-dev] FEATURES=test and the internet

2005-11-16 Thread Dan Meltzer
I've been running my latest install with features=test, makes it simple to test packages requiring stablizization and all that... at least partially.. However, I've seen a few packages that fetch stuff during the test phase from the internet, which seems like a _really_ bad idea to me. For 1,

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 42 Critical News Reporting Round Two

2005-11-10 Thread Dan Meltzer
Forever. Gentoo releases mean absolutely nothing, they do absolutely nothing. The news should stay until the upgrade occurs On 11/10/05, Luca Barbato [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 16:07:37 -0800 Mike Owen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | What about something

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 43: GLEP File Hosting

2005-11-07 Thread Dan Meltzer
I suppose my only question is, why can't examples be inlined at the bottom of the glep, and simply use a in document link to reference them? On 11/7/05, Ciaran McCreesh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ok, this is a change to the GLEP process, so it itself needs to be a GLEP... All it does is propose

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 42 Critical News Reporting Round Two

2005-11-07 Thread Dan Meltzer
An internation standard that utilizes an international language... hrm On 11/7/05, Philip Webb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 051107 Ciaran McCreesh wrote: 7 Nov 2005 15:12:20 -0500 Philip Webb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm serious -- Gentoo should try to follow international standards The format

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 43: GLEP File Hosting

2005-11-07 Thread Dan Meltzer
Okay, it works according to my useless opinion :) On 11/7/05, Ciaran McCreesh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, 7 Nov 2005 19:34:44 -0500 Dan Meltzer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | I suppose my only question is, why can't examples be inlined at the | bottom of the glep, and simply use

Re: [gentoo-dev] Becoming Mirror

2005-11-05 Thread Dan Meltzer
this can be found in the docs at http://www.gentoo.org/doc/ On 11/5/05, Armindo Silva [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi! I am member of LUG, and we are interested in becoming a Gentoo Mirror! We are wanting to know info about system requirements and configuration. Cumps Armindo Silva --

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP ??: Critical News Reporting

2005-11-04 Thread Dan Meltzer
erm, and how exactly do you propose that the user who doesn't-read-the-site-because-it-has-no-useful-information-currently will learn about errata.g.o? On 11/3/05, Nathan L. Adams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Brian Harring wrote: Not necessarily the

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP ??: Critical News Reporting

2005-11-04 Thread Dan Meltzer
For simple translations? No. For translations that span the same bredth (old version checking is probably going to be fairly needed if we used xml as a main version, and all other pretifying stuff is necessary. On 11/4/05, Jan Kundrát [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Friday 04 of November 2005 19:39

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 42 Critical News Reporting Round Two

2005-11-04 Thread Dan Meltzer
``Content-Type:`` Must be ``text/plain``. Mandatory. Why have this header at all then? ``Posted:`` Date of posting, in ``dd-mmm-`` format (e.g. 14-Aug-2001). UTC time in ``hh-mm-ss +`` format may also be included. This field is mandatory. How will prescendse be handled if two

[gentoo-dev] Re: GLEP ??: Critical News Reporting

2005-11-01 Thread Dan Meltzer
Two things. One, if users run --sync in a cronjob, which many do, this preemptive goes out the window. Two, an alternative to that, if we are all recoding portage anyways :) Have portage place a special note next to any items with relevent news when -a or -p is passed, and then, emerge --news

[gentoo-dev] Re: GLEP 42 (Was: Getting Important Updates To Users)

2005-10-31 Thread Dan Meltzer
s/where headstarted by a blog post by Stuart/where headstarted by bug 11359/ To jump right in :) On 10/31/05, Chris White [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Attached in plain text form is glep 42 for the discussed thread. It's rather long, but I hope it details any sort of questions that may be

[gentoo-dev] Re: GLEP 42 (Was: Getting Important Updates To Users)

2005-10-31 Thread Dan Meltzer
a genius!). Make this part of system, convince the baselayout guys (this is a lot easier even) to make emerge an alias that calls $(news-update) after emerge, and whaddya know, we have liftoff! On 10/31/05, Dan Meltzer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: s/where headstarted by a blog post by Stuart/where

[gentoo-dev] Re: GLEP ??: Critical News Reporting

2005-10-31 Thread Dan Meltzer
-0500 Dan Meltzer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | WRT links in file updates, this seems completely backwards. If a user | was admining over ssh, it would be far easier for them to load www.g.o | in their browser vs. copying link from terminal to their browser, but | for that matter, why is ssh

  1   2   >