[gentoo-dev] Farewell, Gentoo.
Hello, everybody! I would like to formally request that I be retired from the Gentoo project. A developer since 2006, there is a lot I would like to thank the community for. Over the past few years, I have learnt a lot, and have had the pleasure to work with and befriend many wonderful people. However, I can no longer find the time, nor the motivation, to continue working on the project. Despite my numerous comeback attempts, I believe it's time to face the facts and admit that I've changed as a person and Gentoo is no longer one of my priorities. I have other things in life I need to pursue. I will not be vanishing from the community altogether. You should still be able to find me on IRC (omp @ freenode). And, if you care enough, I have recently created a Twitter account (@ompskees) as well. Once again, thank you for everything, but my time has come. Adieu! -- David Shakaryan
Re: [gentoo-dev] New developer : Chris Henhawke (bunder)
Denis Dupeyron wrote: It's my pleasure to introduce Chris Henhawke as a new developer among us. He is a forums veteran where he goes under the name of bunder, and has been a moderator there for about 9 months. Finally! I can't believe it took you nine months. ;) -- David Shakaryan -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
[gentoo-dev] Last Rights: x11-themes/openbox-themes
# David Shakaryan [EMAIL PROTECTED] (24 Apr 2008) # Masked for removal in 30 days. (bug #197277) # Extremely old compilation of themes not utilising new features. # Openbox is intended to move to a new theme format in the future. x11-themes/openbox-themes -- David Shakaryan -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Last Rights: x11-themes/openbox-themes
David Shakaryan wrote: # David Shakaryan [EMAIL PROTECTED] (24 Apr 2008) # Masked for removal in 30 days. (bug #197277) # Extremely old compilation of themes not utilising new features. # Openbox is intended to move to a new theme format in the future. x11-themes/openbox-themes Argh! Regarding the subject, homophones suck at 2am. :( -- David Shakaryan -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
[gentoo-dev] Last Rites: app-vim/conky-syntax
# David Shakaryan [EMAIL PROTECTED] (22 Apr 2008) # Masked for removal in 30 days. (bug #208878) # Dropping conky-syntax in favour of upstream syntax script. # Please enable the vim-syntax flag for conky instead. app-vim/conky-syntax -- David Shakaryan -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
[gentoo-dev] Last rites: x11-themes/openbox-themes
# David Shakaryan [EMAIL PROTECTED] (30 Dec 2007) # Masked pending removal 30 Jan 2008. # Extremely old themes not exhibiting Openbox's newer theming options. # Openbox will be moving to an XML-based theming engine in the future. x11-themes/openbox-themes -- David Shakaryan -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] gentoo-commits list lives!
Mike Frysinger wrote: can you tweak the URIs to use the shorter form please iow, use: http://sources.gentoo.org/sys-apps/... instead of: http://sources.gentoo.org/viewcvs.py/gentoo-x86/sys-apps/... The tree is not the only repository on sources.gentoo.org. -- David Shakaryan -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] gentoo-commits list lives!
David Shakaryan wrote: Mike Frysinger wrote: can you tweak the URIs to use the shorter form please iow, use: http://sources.gentoo.org/sys-apps/... instead of: http://sources.gentoo.org/viewcvs.py/gentoo-x86/sys-apps/... The tree is not the only repository on sources.gentoo.org. Hrm, mark_alec pointed out on IRC that the first example forwards it to the full one. Oopsies. -- David Shakaryan -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] emerge feature suggestions
kou yu wrote: Arfrever Temporary package.provided. What do you mean? He meant add the packages which he wants excluded to package.provided prior to installing, which would make portage believe they are already installed. Then, of course, you would remove said packages from package.provided as you probably do want them updated in the future. A misuse of package.provided, but it does achieve the same outcome Rumi's suggestion would. -- David Shakaryan -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: Forbid using versions in DESCRIPTION
Marijn Schouten (hkBst) wrote:
Perhaps we should just move DESCRIPTIONs to metadata. That would make it
impossible to use ${PV} and more importantly also remove some duplication.
I think that this is a great idea, for the reasons which you stated. I
certainly hope this will not be yet another situation where everyone
agrees and no one takes any action to actually implement anything.
--
David Shakaryan
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: Forbid using versions in DESCRIPTION
Tiziano Müller wrote: As far as I understood it, having DESCRIPTION in the ebuild itself (rather than in metadata) means that DESCRIPTION is allowed to change between versions, whether automatically by using a version-dependent variable or manually. Well, from what I understand, DESCRIPTION should generally stay the same between different versions of the same package. While two versions of the same package may have some slight differences, the general purpose of the package should remain the same, and DESCRIPTION is after all just a short general description. I don't see any/enough exceptions to warrant all the duplication and unnecessary complexity. -- David Shakaryan -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Introducing the Proctors - Draft Code of Conduct for Gentoo
Vlastimil Babka wrote: Ciaran McCreesh wrote: Then why are there public archives? Note the subtle difference between receiving and reading in public archives. Some people may prefer their mail client. Disallowing someone from receiving mail from the list just to make it possibly a little bit more difficult to read the discussions, which I personally find not the case, does not really serve any purpose and is rather silly. If one who was banned from receiving mail from the list really wanted to view said mail, I highly doubt having to visit a mailing list archive would stop him from doing so. All in all, while public archives exist, disallowing people from receiving mail is quite useless and a waste of time. -- David Shakaryan GnuPG Public Key: 0x4B8FE14B signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Some council topics for March meeting
Jan Kundrát wrote: Josh Saddler wrote: Technical point here -- the devmanual has never been in GuideXML; it was converted from RST into docbook. Was it? IIRC it was a custom GuideXML-like format, but certainly not a Docbook. A quick glance at the Docbook DTD [1] and the devmanual itself [2] seems to confirm that... The following excerpt from the 'Contributing to This Document' page [1] states that it is DevBook, not DocBook or GuideXML, although it appears to be similar to the latter. This document is produced using the DevBook XML build system. You can download a snapshot of the system as well as the relevant XML files from Subversion. You can also view the XML of any page by replacing index.html with text.xml in the URL. If you'd rather just work with plain text, that's fine too — the formatting can be easily done by someone else (meaning, us). [1] http://devmanual.gentoo.org/appendices/contributing/index.html -- David Shakaryan GnuPG Public Key: 0x4B8FE14B signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Little respect towards Daniel please
Fernando J. Pereda wrote: Please go back to your hacking and improve Gentoo. You just can't 'remove Ciaran from gentoo-dev', live with it, or leave Gentoo if you don't like the way we do things now. I agree. Daniel, you need to accept the fact that you no longer have the power to do any idiotic thing you want anymore. -- David Shakaryan GnuPG Public Key: 0x4B8FE14B signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] New developer: Richard Brown (rbrown)
Stephen Bennett wrote: Please welcome Richard to our ranks, or accuse him of being an evil cabalist (he works on Paludis, particularly maintaining its Ruby bindings), as you see fit. Welcome, Richard. Excellent choice of programming language! :) -- David Shakaryan GnuPG Public Key: 0x4B8FE14B signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposal for adding berlios to thirdpartymirrors.
David Shakaryan wrote: The proposed mirror name is 'berlios' and the three mirrors are: - http://download.berlios.de - http://download2.berlios.de - ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub Added, with the exception of the third. See my previous post[1] to this thread for a reason. [1] http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/44845 -- David Shakaryan GnuPG Public Key: 0x4B8FE14B signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] The long story behind our new developer: Peter Weller (welp)
Markus Ullmann wrote: Once upon a time there were some devs and a welp and they had a potentially crazy idea. Those crazy welps! Now you know the story behind our new amd64/bugday/xfce dev from UK. I think he deserves the usual happy welcome :) Welcome welpie! :) -- David Shakaryan GnuPG Public Key: 0x4B8FE14B signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
[gentoo-dev] Proposal for adding berlios to thirdpartymirrors.
Excerpt from the official site:
BerliOS Developer is a free service to Open Source developers offering
easy access to the best in CVS/SVN, mailing lists, bug tracking, message
boards/forums, task management, site hosting, permanent file archival,
full backups, and total web-based administration.
To summarise the above sentence, it is a service similar to SourceForge.
Although BerliOS currently has only three mirrors, this would most
probably change as the number of projects hosted by BerliOS increases.
As of writing this email, BerliOS is hosting 4842 projects. There are
206(?) files being fetched from BerliOS by ebuilds in the tree. This was
counted per ebuild, not per package.
The proposed mirror name is 'berlios' and the three mirrors are:
- http://download.berlios.de
- http://download2.berlios.de
- ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub
Something along the lines of mirror://berlios/${PN}/${P}.tar.bz2 can be
used in SRC_URI.
I'm sure all of you understand that not much work would be necessary for
the the transition as it can occur over time, for example when package
maintainers modify an ebuild. So, what do you folks think?
--
David Shakaryan
GnuPG Public Key: 0x4B8FE14B
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposal for adding berlios to thirdpartymirrors.
Piotr Jaroszyński wrote: I had asked about it once and was told that berlios mirrors are unreliable(changing files) and should be avoided. Although things change, so is it still the case? Unless BerliOS changes the URL of one of their mirrors (such as from download.berlios.de to something else), this shouldn't be relevant. The file names for the actual packages are up to the project. If such a large change was to occur, having berlios in thirdpartymirrors would only help, as we'd only have to change it there, and not in every ebuild. -- David Shakaryan GnuPG Public Key: 0x4B8FE14B signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] treecleaner maskings
Christian Heim wrote: #72585 - x11-wm/qvwm o requested by Jakub Moc on behalf of treecleaner o nothing depends on it o Pending Removal Dec 04th 2006 Although the treecleaners project has been suspended, I have, as a member of the desktop-wm herd, removed this package. -- David Shakaryan GnuPG Public Key: 0x4B8FE14B signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] missing metadata.xml
Bryan Østergaard wrote: On Wed, Nov 22, 2006 at 02:08:12PM -0700, Steve Dibb wrote: Hi guys, There are more than a few packages with missing metadata.xml in the portage tree. I've setup my funky little QA website to report on which ones fall in that category, and here is the list right here: http://spaceparanoids.org/gentoo/gpnl/qa.php?q=metadata I've spent the morning fixing up most of them, adding blank metadata.xml to them and assigning [EMAIL PROTECTED] as the main maintainer, which in hindsight was probably not the best approach (my apologies). Anyway, either way, it would be nice to get the few remaining packages cleaned up, and if one of your packages is on that list, please update or create the metadata. I'll still be going through the rest of them and sorting out which ones were last maintained by a dev that is now retired and continue assigning them to maintainer-needed. I think the most important thing about adding empty metadata.xml files with maintainer-needed as maintainer is that it _changes_ the package to be unmaintained by definition (that's what maintainer-needed means after all) and that we can't be sure that's actually true unless we spend a lot of time examining each package and asking potential maintainers if it's unmaintained. I see what you mean here, but asking potential maintainers doesn't seem like too much of a solution, as it would take a lot of time and energy. In my opinion, if the package is actually maintained, then it shouldn't be hard for the maintainer to fix the metadata, adding himself as the maintainer or at least assigning it to a herd. -- David Shakaryan GnuPG Public Key: 0x4B8FE14B -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: missing metadata.xml
Donnie Berkholz wrote: Christian Faulhammer wrote: Nice idea, but you should really add herdno-herd/herd as this is required if there is only a maintainer. Really? herd/ isn't valid? I'd rather see that than adding a fake herd. Neither are valid from what I understand. IIRC, kloeri said that every package should belong to a herd. -- David Shakaryan GnuPG Public Key: 0x4B8FE14B signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for November
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: Wow. That's about the pettiest and least relevant thing you could ask them to discuss. Why not ask for a vote on what colour the soft icecream machine should be whilst you're at it? Silly analogy. Clearly this is one of those easy to understand issues where everyone has an opinion, and rather than fix their mail client or behaviour they try to have a huge debate about it... Don't you people have any bugs to fix? This is not a question of opinion; this is one of consistency. All of the lists are currently doing it a certain way, whilst -core seems to be behaving differently. This is bound to cause confusion. As you mentioned, we should be dealing with more important things. Why not settle this once and for all, so we constantly don't have to spend time having this useless argument? -- David Shakaryan GnuPG Public Key: 0x4B8FE14B signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
[gentoo-dev] Last rites for quite a few desktop-wm packages
Finally, the long-needed cleanup for desktop-wm has come. The following packages have been masked for removal on 05 Dec 2006. See bug #153388, bugs listed in it's description, and the few-day-old thread on -dev for more information. x11-libs/nucleo x11-wm/aewm++ x11-wm/aewm++-goodies x11-wm/golem x11-wm/integrity x11-wm/lwm x11-wm/metisse x11-wm/papuawm x11-wm/pawm x11-wm/pwm x11-wm/trswm x11-wm/wmi x11-wm/xpde All flames should be directed towards me. Thank you. ;) -- David Shakaryan GnuPG Public Key: 0x4B8FE14B signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Only you can prevent broken portage trees
Paweł Madej wrote: I'm not a dev but I suppose i got resolution for that problem. Lets make another subproject (don't know how to name it properly) in bugzilla in which there will be only bugs affected by security flaw. That bugs will have highest priority from every other ones. And devs would have to look at them firstly What's wrong with simply setting high priority or severity on a bug like you can currently do? -- David Shakaryan GnuPG Public Key: 0x4B8FE14B signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Call For Interest: Scale5x
Christel Dahlskjaer wrote: Ah, sorry! Graham, the community coordinator for Scale already asked us to be present some while back and I said 'Ya.' I know myself, nightmorph, probably omp, perhaps spb atleast are intending to man the booth. :) Although I'm not completely sure yet, I am assuming that I should be able to attend, as I live only ~25 miles away from LAX. Looking forward to it. :) -- David Shakaryan GnuPG Public Key: 0x4B8FE14B signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Call For Interest: Scale5x
Peter Gordon wrote: On Tue, 2006-10-31 at 16:41 -0800, David Shakaryan wrote: Although I'm not completely sure yet, I am assuming that I should be able to attend, as I live only ~25 miles away from LAX. Looking forward to it. :) Lunch at BURGER KING. Awesome. :D Indeed! That's the top priority for Chris and me. ;) -- David Shakaryan GnuPG Public Key: 0x4B8FE14B signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
[gentoo-dev] Removal request for several desktop-wm packages
The desktop-wm herd is understaffed and has a bunch of dead packages lying around which no one wants to maintain. I tried to give a valid alternative for all of the packages I want removed. At first glance, it seems like all of the following packages also have a dead upstream. x11-wm/aewm++ -- alternative: pekwm x11-wm/aewm++-goodies -- see above x11-wm/amiwm -- no release since 1998-03-15 x11-wm/larswm -- alternative: pekwm x11-wm/lwm -- alternative: pekwm x11-wm/pwm -- bug #149593, alternative: ion x11-wm/wmi -- superceded by wmii Please see bug #153388 for further information along with a list of other bugs requesting removal of desktop-wm packages. Discussion can occur here, but all objections should also be posted on the bug itself. Flame now or forever hold your peace. ;) -- David Shakaryan GnuPG Public Key: 0x4B8FE14B signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Removal request for several desktop-wm packages
Luis Medinas wrote: Pwm is a different wm than ion but they are both provided on the same tarball so why remove pwm ? Are you trying to add a USE for ion to provide pwm ? Hrm... After a quick glance at the ebuilds and distfiles, it seems like they aren't using the same tarball. Also, the PWM site lists Ion as the successor. Maybe you are confusing ion with ion2 and ion3, which apparently provide nominal PWM2 and PWM3? -- David Shakaryan GnuPG Public Key: 0x4B8FE14B signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Removal request for several desktop-wm packages
Harald van Dijk wrote: On Sun, Oct 29, 2006 at 07:15:01PM -0800, David Shakaryan wrote: The desktop-wm herd is understaffed and has a bunch of dead packages lying around which no one wants to maintain. I tried to give a valid alternative for all of the packages I want removed. At first glance, it seems like all of the following packages also have a dead upstream. x11-wm/larswm -- alternative: pekwm While the last release is from over two years ago, it still works great and has no open bugs. Would you consider keeping it around at least as long as that remains so? (I'll comment on the bug later.) Sure. Just make a comment telling treecleaners to keep it. You can mention that I'm okay with that, if you wish. -- David Shakaryan GnuPG Public Key: 0x4B8FE14B signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] The Dreaded herd tag
Alec Warner wrote: I request that this tag be made optional in the metadata.xml DTD. ++ In my opinion, an empty tag or one with no-herd is rather silly when the requirement for the tag can just be removed. The alternative is, of course, requiring every package to belong to a real herd. Although this is not impossible, it would be quite hard to implement as quite a few packages do not really fit into any existing category, as you mentioned in #-dev. Also, someone will have to go through the ~2000 packages and figure out what herd they belong to, which seems like a strenuous job. I say the first is a much more feasible solution. I'll even be glad to help in removing the herd tags for the affected ebuilds if this is the path chosen. I say we act on this now, as the further off we put it until, the more metadata.xml files there will be to fix. -- David Shakaryan GnuPG Public Key: 0x4B8FE14B signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: remove my address
George Prowse wrote: Mike Frysinger wrote: On Wednesday 25 October 2006 01:53, Drake Wyrm wrote: I think someone is yanking your chain, vapier. i doubt it ... other people on irc mentioned receiving said e-mail as well Haven't seen said email here... From my understanding, it wasn't sent to the actual mailing list, but to a few specific @gentoo.org addresses. -- David Shakaryan GnuPG Public Key: 0x4B8FE14B signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Package Removal
Dan Meltzer wrote: I think you gave the wrong forum link :) I think the same. Silly cokehabit, always looking for an excuse to spam! :D -- David Shakaryan GnuPG Public Key: 0x4B8FE14B signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
[gentoo-dev] Massive package.mask cleanup
I have created a small script to go through entries in package.mask and list those which are masking non-existent packages or versions. I then used this list to clean up package.mask. I tried to only remove versions that were removed and have a newer version in place, along with packages that were removed, but I accidentally /might/ have removed other entries, although I doubt it. I kept masks for future versions in place, as the maintainer of the package might have wanted to mask it ahead of time. Attached is a diff between useless masks before my cleanup and useless masks after my clean up. If I have broken anything, yell at tsunam. ;) -- David Shakaryan GnuPG Public Key: 0x4B8FE14B --- useless-masks.output.old2006-10-22 00:42:47.0 -0700 +++ useless-masks.output2006-10-22 01:52:35.0 -0700 @@ -1,38 +1,5 @@ =x11-libs/libX11-1.1* -~x11-drivers/nvidia-drivers-1.0.9625 =dev-perl/AxKit-1.7 =dev-cpp/libgnomemm-2.16.0 =dev-cpp/libgnomeuimm-2.16.0 -=sci-libs/lapack-atlas-3.7.15 -=sci-libs/blas-atlas-3.7.15 -net-news/rol -=net-wireless/ieee80211-1.1.14* -net-im/jive-messenger -sys-apps/dbus-0.60 -sys-apps/hal-0.5.0 =x11-base/xorg-server-1.1.99 -x11-misc/superkaramba -~games-simulation/openttd-0.4.7 -=app-text/acroread-7.0.5-r3 -media-video/mvideo -=sys-kernel/rsbac-sources-2.4.99 -=dev-lang/gpc-20050331 -sys-kernel/xen-sources-2.6.14 -=app-emulation/xen-8885 -sys-kernel/xen-sources-2.6.16 -=x11-plugins/slashexec-1.1_beta1 -=mail-client/sylpheed-2.1* -dev-python/py2play-0.1.9 -=net-im/psi-0.10_rc2 -=media-video/ati-drivers-8.14.13-r3 -dev-dotnet/winelib -=mail-mta/sendmail-8.13.4-r1 -=mail-mta/sendmail-8.13.5 -=mail-mta/exim-4.50-r999 -=dev-lisp/cl-arnesi-1.2.0 -=dev-lisp/cl-arnesi-1.2.3* -dev-lisp/tbnl -=net-irc/ctrlproxy-2.7* -=sci-biology/vienna-rna-1.5_beta -=www-apache/mod_perl-1.99.16 -=app-editors/emacs-cvs-22.0.0* signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Massive package.mask cleanup
Alec Warner wrote: Jakub Moc wrote: Ciaran McCreesh napsal(a): On Sun, 22 Oct 2006 02:18:52 -0700 David Shakaryan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | I have created a small script to go through entries in package.mask | and list those which are masking non-existent packages or versions. I | then used this list to clean up package.mask. I tried to only remove | versions that were removed and have a newer version in place, along | with packages that were removed, but I accidentally /might/ have | removed other entries, although I doubt it. I kept masks for future | versions in place, as the maintainer of the package might have wanted | to mask it ahead of time. So what happens when users have an old, masked package installed that's no longer masked thanks to this change? Err, exactly nothing? If they didn't unmerge it, they'll continue to have it installed as they did before? For things like security packages; it is troublesome. 1.x has a sec vuln but 2.x fixes it; upstream isn't willing to backport and both stay in the tree. So we mask 1.x for sec reasons. It seems like you didn't understand exactly what I did. The masks I removed are *ONLY* those which are masking a package or version that is no longer in the tree. - If 2.x and 1.x are both in the tree, and one of them is masked, I didn't touch the mask. - If only 2.x is in the tree, and 1.x is masked, then I removed the mask as it is quite useless. - If only 1.x is in the tree, and 2.x is masked, I let the mask stay in case the developer masked it ahead of time. Hope that clears it up. -- David Shakaryan GnuPG Public Key: 0x4B8FE14B signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Massive package.mask cleanup
Marius Mauch wrote: On Sun, 22 Oct 2006 12:00:56 -0700 David Shakaryan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It seems like you didn't understand exactly what I did. The masks I removed are *ONLY* those which are masking a package or version that is no longer in the tree. And what if that was a preventive mask? The assumption of not-in-tree = can-be-removed-from-p.mask isn't valid in all cases. Also there isn't any particular need to cleanup package.mask so there is no reason for this to be done without prior notice. Marius Hypothetically speaking, if version 1.4 of a package is in package.mask and we are now at version 1.6, with 1.4 removed from the tree, is there really a reason why the mask for 1.4 should stay? I don't see why we'll re-add an older version later, and if we do, it's not too hard to mask it again if the problem which caused it to be masked still prevails. Feel free to undo any of my changes for which there is a clear reason to let the mask stay. -- David Shakaryan GnuPG Public Key: 0x4B8FE14B signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] New Devrel Subproject: Gentoo Devmatch
Alec Warner wrote: Developers volunteer to dual off against other developers (including retired developers!) in the ring. Good luck, Ciaran! :) -- David Shakaryan GnuPG Public Key: 0x4B8FE14B signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] New Developer: David Shakaryan (omp)
Chris White wrote: On Saturday 14 October 2006 12:12, Christian Heim wrote: Its my pleasure to introduce to you David Shakaryan (also known as omp), our latest addition joining to help out with desktop-misc and the commonbox-herd. some stuff So please welcome David as a new fellow developer among us! BURGER KING YES Thanks for the welcoming messages, everyone. :) -- David Shakaryan GnuPG Public Key: 0x4B8FE14B signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
[gentoo-dev] Re: [experiment] Sunrise try 2
Mike Frysinger wrote: On Saturday 24 June 2006 18:54, Edward Catmur wrote: * Security (from malicious contributors): Glad to see layman will only track the reviewed/ tree; still, anyone who checks out the sunrise/ tree (and has it in PORTDIR_OVERLAY) is vulnerable. - Remove from the examples any suggestion that one should check out the whole tree when contributing. Point out that one should not svn up sunrise/ as part of updating Portage. valid point i think The guide has been edited to inform users that they should *not* use the sunrise/ tree for any reason other than committing. Now, in the HowToCommit guide, near the instructions for checking out the sunrise/ tree, it clearly states that you should not set it as your PORTDIR_OVERLAY, but use the reviewed/ instead. ive never admined svn repos before, but would it be possible to shut off anon access to the non-reviewed tree ? i think that would cover this issue as people who get bit by bugs in the non-reviewed tree would (and should) be able to just go in and fix it themselves :) As far as I understand, not allowing anonymous users to check out the sunrise/ directory *is* going to be implemented in the future, but you should get a second word from genstef or jokey on that as I'm not completely sure. -- David Shakaryan GnuPG Public Key: 0x4B8FE14B signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
[gentoo-dev] Re: [experiment] Sunrise try 2
Mike Frysinger vapier at gentoo.org writes: the examples should use $ as the shell prompt, not # Fixed. Thanks for catching that. :) -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
