Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo Council Reminder for August 7

2008-08-04 Thread Stephen Bennett
 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 would like to put forward the following suggestion for the Council's
consideration:

While the current state of PMS is not perfect, it is a reasonably
close approximation to existing and historical behaviour of EAPI 0.
Given this, and that getting a perfect definition is not feasible on a
timescale shorter than several years, it should be treated as a draft
standard, and any deviations from it found in the gentoo tree or
package managers should have a bug filed against either the deviator
or PMS to resolve the differences.

On the differences between EAPI 0 and EAPI 1, a much smaller topic,
it is complete and can stand as a full specification

Alternatively, what (specific) changes are required to PMS before such
a statement can be made?



Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Item for 10 Jan 2008 Council meeting

2008-01-09 Thread Stephen Bennett



I'm adding Developer Relations to this email and will be filing a formal
complaint against you.  Have a good day.
  

lol.
--
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list



Re: [gentoo-dev] new-style virtual/editor

2007-10-05 Thread Stephen Bennett
On Fri, 5 Oct 2007 11:46:29 -0700
Donnie Berkholz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 How many packages depend on virtual/editor? Should it be a virtual at 
 all?

The system set depends on it, and last I knew didn't allow for any-of
deps.
-- 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list



Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in media-tv/linuxtv-dvb-apps: ChangeLog linuxtv-dvb-apps-1.1.1.20070924.ebuild

2007-09-25 Thread Stephen Bennett
On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 11:10:34 +0200
Robert Buchholz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 I already wondered a while back:
 sed only fails if the file does not exist, but not if there was no 
 replacement. Is there any way to force it to?

Off the top of my head...

sed -e '1{x;s/^/0/;x;ta;:a}'
-e 's/$STRING/$REPLACEMENT/'
-e 'Tb;x;s/^/1/;x;:b;${p;x;/^0/Q1;Q0};'
-- 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list



Re: [gentoo-dev] more QA action

2007-06-26 Thread Stephen Bennett
On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 08:10:28 -0700
Mike Doty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 Piotr Jaroszyński wrote:
  Hello,
  
  1. QAcanfix keyword
  Just wanted to remind you of the QAcanfix keyword, don't hesitate
  to use it more often as currently there are no open bugs marked
  with it, but also don't forget about the kittens and always give
  the maintainer a chance :)
 What is this?

It's a bugzilla keyword used to say that QA can fix the bug without
the maintainer's intervention.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list



Re: [gentoo-dev] QA issue: No stable skype in Tree

2007-06-17 Thread Stephen Bennett
On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 16:06:32 +0200
_JusSx_ [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 Let's remove it from portage. why should we use it? I run it for a
 bit I can say it's awful... it is closed-source, is not it? so I
 think it's better not to install it...

Not everyone sees that as a reason not to use a potentially useful
piece of software. We're not debian.
-- 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list



Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC]: gentoo-politics ML

2007-06-12 Thread Stephen Bennett
On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 21:00:55 +0200
Wernfried Haas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 On Mon, Jun 11, 2007 at 02:35:42PM +0200, Alexander Gabert wrote:
   You left the project and it's your choice to continue working with
  it and on it.
 
 Nonono, you got it all wrong.
 He didn't leave, he was fired [1].

Which means that he left, just that it wasn't his decision. Did you
have anything resembling a point to make?
-- 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list



Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC]: gentoo-politics ML

2007-06-12 Thread Stephen Bennett
On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 23:10:32 +0200
Benjamin Judas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 ...which means that he has a documented history of trolling not only
 on mailinglists but also in irc-channels; not only against developers
 but also against volunteering users.

So do most people on this list.
-- 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list



Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Gentoo/Alpha status

2007-06-10 Thread Stephen Bennett
On Sun, 10 Jun 2007 20:13:11 +0100
Steve Long [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 thanks for increasing the SNR.

Pot, meet kettle.

And yes, I know I'm doing the same. However, I'm not complaining about
it, and I don't particularly care.
-- 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list



Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo/Alpha status

2007-06-09 Thread Stephen Bennett
On Sat, 09 Jun 2007 15:05:56 +
Jose Luis Rivero (YosWinK) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 P.D: for those of you worried out there: *NO*. Gentoo/Alpha is *not*
 going to have a different default package manager than the rest of
 Gentoo ;)

...yet.

*flees*
-- 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list



Re: [gentoo-dev] [PMS] Version Naming Clarification

2007-06-07 Thread Stephen Bennett
On Thu, 7 Jun 2007 19:42:45 +0200
Marius Mauch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 Thing is: if you see sys-fs/ntfs-3g, is that an atom or a CPV? You
 don't know unless you actually check the tree.

Is there any place in the tree where a dep atom and a CPV are both
accepted? Should there be?
-- 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list



Re: [gentoo-dev] [PMS] Version Naming Clarification

2007-06-07 Thread Stephen Bennett
On Thu, 7 Jun 2007 22:33:21 +0200
Harald van Dijk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 An ebuild's PROVIDE list.

According to PMS at least, PROVIDE only allows category/package, with
no versioning.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list



Re: [gentoo-dev] [PMS] Version Naming Clarification

2007-06-07 Thread Stephen Bennett
On Thu, 7 Jun 2007 22:38:49 +0100
Ciaran McCreesh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 If Portage currently happens to, say, disable sandbox if an ebuild
 sets GIVE_ME_A_COOKIE=yes globally, it does not mean that ebuilds
 may rely upon this behaviour, nor does it mean that Portage cannot
 change in such a way that breaks this behaviour. The acceptance
 question is relevant only for legitimate behaviour; things accepted
 by fluke aren't considered accepted.

However, the fact that Portage currently accepts it is tangentially
related to the matter at hand, because it's a piece of code that may
get confused by this sort of ambiguity. Fortunately it's (relatively
speaking) trivial to fix, because the ambiguity only happens due to
behaviour that shouldn't really be there.
-- 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list



Re: [gentoo-dev] Living in a bubble

2007-06-05 Thread Stephen Bennett
On Tue, 05 Jun 2007 22:29:02 +0200
Benjamin Judas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 I am sick of hearing such jokes.

Then ignore them, and don't blow them out of proportion so that
everyone else who didn't see them in its original context, and probably
doesn't particularly want to, has to see them in the middle of a
large thread on -dev. I really cannot see a single reason why starting
this thread is/was a remotely good idea.
-- 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list



Re: [gentoo-dev] Living in a bubble

2007-06-05 Thread Stephen Bennett
 21:36 @spb next step is making paludis the officially supported
 package manager on alpha

This is what is known as a joke. Most people can recognise it as such.
-- 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list



Re: [gentoo-dev] Living in a bubble

2007-06-05 Thread Stephen Bennett
On Tue, 05 Jun 2007 22:08:38 +0100
George Prowse [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 Was your behaviour wrong? Not particularly. Was it in bad taste? 
 Definitely. Could his email to the list stop others from making the
 same mistakes? Hopefully.

Bad taste depends entirely upon context and upon the people reading it.
In the context that the original comment was made, everyone active at
the time recognised it for what it was, so it wasn't bad taste. On this
list, it is. The mistake was in taking a joke amongst a group of
friends out of that context and into a much wider one full of people
liable to get their panties in a twist.
-- 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list



Re: [half-PROCTORS] Re: [gentoo-dev] Bye Gentoo!

2007-05-31 Thread Stephen Bennett
On Thu, 31 May 2007 14:58:00 +0200
Wernfried Haas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 I take this as a compliment to Bryan, but then still you are implying
 that most of the people here are not sane.

Remember people, you can't compliment anyone now, because doing so
implies that everyone else is less valuable than they are.

Seriously, get a grip.
-- 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list



Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Should _p0 be allowed as a version suffix?

2007-05-06 Thread Stephen Bennett
On Sat, 05 May 2007 18:40:13 -0700
Zac Medico [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 Let's sure we talking about the same thing when we say implicit
 _p0.  The patch attached to bug 171259 will make ntp-4.2.4_p0
 greater than ntp-4.2.4, but ntp-4.2.4_p will still be considered
 equal to ntp-4.2.4_p0.

OK, that change makes sense, and is in fact what PMS in its current
wording requires. One or the other should be changed to match, and I
think the PMS version at the moment makes more sense.
-- 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list



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

2007-05-05 Thread Stephen Bennett
On Sat, 5 May 2007 17:12:03 +0200
Marius Mauch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


 a g42 news item shouldn't be issued for minor syntax
 changes in config files that could just as well handled completely
 automatically in postinst/CONFIG_PROTECT.

And these changes can't be handled that way, since paludis configs can
and do exist in home directories as well as in /etc.
-- 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list



Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Should _p0 be allowed as a version suffix?

2007-05-05 Thread Stephen Bennett
On Sat, 05 May 2007 18:02:30 -0700
Zac Medico [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 Should we ban the _p0 suffix from the tree

Possibly, though I don't see a real reason for it.

 or should be change the version comparison behavior so that
 implicit _p0 is less than explicit _p0?

No.
-- 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list



[gentoo-dev] GLEP 42 news items

2007-05-02 Thread Stephen Bennett
Anyone have a reason why we can't start to put them in the tree?
Portage support is, I'm told, coming in a month or so, and other
package managers have supported glep42 for a while now. The format is
well specified by the GLEP, so compatibility shouldn't be an issue.

The one thing I can see needing to be decided first is an open question
in the glep: do we want to put the news items straight into gentoo-x86,
or a seperate repository that will be merged into the tree during the
cvs-rsync process?
-- 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list



Re: [gentoo-dev] tests

2007-05-01 Thread Stephen Bennett
On Tue, 01 May 2007 14:52:30 -0700
Josh Saddler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 anyway, on the subject of tests...as others have covered the *first*
 time this was discussed on the lists, mandatory tests being run every
 time the user installs a package? no. oh hell no. we don't seem to do
 that much with the packages in our tree now, do we?

Care to turn that into a reasoned argument rather than what appears to
be a knee-jerk reaction?
-- 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list



Re: [gentoo-dev] tests

2007-05-01 Thread Stephen Bennett
On Tue, 01 May 2007 19:46:56 -0400
Daniel Gryniewicz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 There is one serious problem with this:  Who's going to do the work to
 figure all this out for the 11,000 odd packages in the tree?  This
 seems like a *huge* amount of work, work that I have no plan on doing
 for the 100-odd packages I (help) maintain, let alone the 4-10
 different versions of each package.  I highly doubt other maintainers
 want to do this kind of work either.

Last I heard the intention was to tie it to the EAPI=1 bump, so that
packages can be updated one by one as they move to the newer eapi.
Current (ie EAPI=0) ebuilds will continue to function as they have done.
-- 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list



Re: [gentoo-dev] [ANN] Multiple version suffixes illegal in gentoo-x86

2007-04-25 Thread Stephen Bennett
On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 09:56:02 -0700
Brian Harring [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 Best I can figure, the offered reason is it needs to be blocked 
 before it becomes widespread thus cannot be blocked any further- 
 which isn't much of a reason since the support is long term there 
 already, and doesn't state *why* it needs to be blocked (just states 
 it needs to be blocked).

It's better stated as we need to put a hold on this so that a reasoned
discussion can be had, and a decision made, before use becomes so
widespread as to force the issue regardless of what is decided on
technical merits.
-- 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list



Re: [gentoo-dev] Change in mentoring requirements

2007-04-14 Thread Stephen Bennett
On Sat, 14 Apr 2007 22:46:10 +
Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 We have different
 types of developers amongst us, so how do we count the 6 months
 period? Let me explain more fully. At this point, I could mentor
 someone into becoming a new moderator in the forums, but I don't
 think anyone would support me being an ebuild dev mentor - not being
 one myself yet.

It's long been the case that individual projects can set additional
criteria for recruits joining them -- I don't see why that shouldn't
also apply to people mentoring recruits to join that project.
-- 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list



[gentoo-dev] PMS renewed call for comments

2007-04-11 Thread Stephen Bennett
The open bug list is down to two, on which I want more input before
resolving them. We could also use more eyes again to bring up any other
issues before it's reckoned final.

The PDF is still at http://dev.gentoo.org/~spb/pms.pdf; anon SVN is
still available at http://svn.attenuate.org/pms.
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list



Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: extending project xml to have stuff that the project is working on and collect them as Gentoo current goals

2007-04-10 Thread Stephen Bennett
On Tue, 10 Apr 2007 23:34:25 +0300
Petteri Räty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 As the recent thread showed there is a lot going on in Gentoo land
 although it doesn't always seem so. I propose we extend project xml to
 describe current stuff going on in the project in question and their
 estimated completion date. Then we require this file to be updated
 monthly. What do you think?

I'm going to echo Mike here -- the additions are good, the forced
update schedule not so good. However, there's something in the subject
line not in the body which I also like:

 and collect them as Gentoo current goals

I wouldn't have chosen those words, but a list somewhere of all the new,
shiny and/or important stuff people are working on could be nice if it
can be done well. The GWN's future zone was a step in this direction
but seems to have died off lately and never really (IMO) got enough
material to realise the potential. Of course, this relies upon people
in Gentoo actually doing new, shiny and/or important things first,
before telling people about them.
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list



Re: [gentoo-dev] [soc] Python bindings for Paludis

2007-03-31 Thread Stephen Bennett
On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 15:24:03 -0400
Seemant Kulleen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 To make it more clear.  If the gcc developers decided to stick some
 malicious code into gcc, it affects the entire linux community, the
 entire BSD community and would take out a few other communities as
 well. The effects are far reaching and shared by everyone.  If an
 official package manager is outside of Gentoo's control, and the
 maintainer(s) of that piece of software decide to do anything
 malicious (examples: inject some dodgy code, remove documentation,
 take out access to the repository, etc) for whatever reason (say,
 they get pissed off at a few Gentoo people and decide that the entire
 Gentoo community can be painted that way), then

... Gentoo developers can take the latest release of said package
manager and continue development from that. That's the wonderful thing
about the GPL, no?
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list



Re: [gentoo-dev] [soc] Python bindings for Paludis

2007-03-29 Thread Stephen Bennett
On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 13:33:31 -0700
Ned Ludd [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 The correct reply should of been. 
 I'm sorry I did not mean to offend anybody. I'll make an effort to
 not make any cheap shots

That would have been a possible response. Another reasonable response
would have been the one that he made, clarifying his original statement
in case someone took offence where none was meant. If one reads the
mails in a spirit of giving someone the benefit of the doubt rather
than automatically thinking the worst, there's no reason this subthread
needed to exist.
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list



Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposed addition to the Social Contract

2007-03-25 Thread Stephen Bennett
On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 17:35:21 +0200
Luca Barbato [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 Gentoo should use whichever basket could fit...

Just because there is a basket that can fit all our eggs should not
prevent us from looking, where possible, for other baskets that would
let us distribute them more evenly.
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list



Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Suggestion: INVALID - NOCHANGE in bugzilla

2007-03-25 Thread Stephen Bennett
On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 15:27:11 + (UTC)
Duncan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 Invalid (to me) implies a judgement of the work of the submitter,
 while NOTABUG (to me) implies more a simple variance of opinion,
 recognizing the other viewpoint as possibly valid (not invalid), but
 simply choosing a different route, making a different choice.

Then you're reading the wrong implication into it, which can happen
with any word you care to name.
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list



[gentoo-dev] ANN: PMS public release

2007-03-24 Thread Stephen Bennett
The first public draft of PMS is open for comment. The PDF is at
http://dev.gentoo.org/~spb/pms.pdf, and will be updated periodically
as changes are made. Anonymous SVN access to the LaTeX source is
available; I won't give the URL here since most won't need it and I'd
rather not run the risk of overloading the server. Find someone on IRC
if you need it, which will probably be only if you are producing
patches or reviewing changes just checked in.

Any feedback should be via Bugzilla, in the PMS/EAPI component of
Gentoo Hosted Projects, or IRC in #gentoo-pms on freenode. Based in
part on feelings expressed by others in the past, and in part on the
impossibility of tracking issues based in mailing list traffic,
discussion would probably be best kept off the gentoo-dev list. Issues
should be in Bugzilla, one issue per bug; any issues raised elsewhere
will most likely be directed there.
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list



Re: [gentoo-dev] About testing applications

2007-03-18 Thread Stephen Bennett
On Sun, 18 Mar 2007 21:46:40 +
Jeff Rollin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 Which is why I was saying there was no point in a ~/.config
 directory...

Generally speaking one lists the contents of one's home directory more
often than one lists ~/.config. It moves the clutter to a place where
it's not so noticeable, and is thus a good thing.
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list



Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC Package name additions

2007-03-16 Thread Stephen Bennett
On Sat, 17 Mar 2007 00:11:43 +0100
Carsten Lohrke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 There's absolutely no reason to absorb every single version naming
 scheme on earth. Gentoo's does work nicely and more than we have
 would only be irritating to the user. Simply use _predatecode  or
 whatever fits, but extending our naming scheme is unneeded and
 pointless.

And of course there is the issue of how older Portage releases will
react to ebuild names that they don't understand.
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list



Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC Package name additions

2007-03-16 Thread Stephen Bennett
On Fri, 16 Mar 2007 20:00:51 -0400
William L. Thomson Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 Understandable for sure. Thus not really putting any sort of time
 frame on implementation. Maybe EAPI=1 or beyond. Up to others that
 would implement it. Just was tossing it out there, providing some
 feedback.

EAPI doesn't help, at least not in its current form.
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list



Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: gentoo-dev vs lkml?

2007-03-15 Thread Stephen Bennett
On Thu, 15 Mar 2007 14:44:37 +
George Prowse [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 Joe was leaving anyway. Ask Joe to leave soon which saves every
 single problem. Joe just does what he was going to do, you get what
 you want and the company keeps on running smoothly. The company then
 has the choice of making it known to you that it will not be
 tolerated in the future.

Except that making it known is that much harder because you've just
tolerated it, and let them get what they wanted by doing so.
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list



Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo's problems

2007-03-15 Thread Stephen Bennett
On Thu, 15 Mar 2007 18:40:05 +0100
Jakob Buchgraber [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 So why don't you start rewriting, refactoring and improving the
 portage source? It definitely doesn't make sense to create a
 competing package management system.

I think you underestimate just how much rewriting and refactoring would
be required in order to produce something sane and scalable. Starting
from scratch really was the only real option to get anywhere
significant in a reasonable timeframe.
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list



Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Gentoo's problems

2007-03-15 Thread Stephen Bennett
On Thu, 15 Mar 2007 17:42:17 +
Steve Long [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 My understanding was that the portage team can't move forward with a
 new version until EAPI0 is done?

They can't move forward with changes that break ebuild compatibility
until EAPI-0 is documented and EAPI-1 can start to be defined. That's
not to say that user-side changes which don't affect the ebuild
interface can't happen.
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list



Re: [gentoo-dev] Introducing the Proctors - Draft Code of Conduct for Gentoo

2007-03-14 Thread Stephen Bennett
On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 16:38:20 +0100
Ioannis Aslanidis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 Ciaran, honestly and without any offense intention, what would be your
 answers to the questions you formulated? If you ask all that, assuming
 it's all rethoric, what is your opinion?

I think his intention was to demonstrate that the idea is implausible,
at best counterproductive and at worst disastrous. Which it is, and
which he did fairly well.
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list



Re: [gentoo-dev] Introducing the Proctors - Draft Code of Conduct for Gentoo

2007-03-14 Thread Stephen Bennett
On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 13:31:57 -0300
Mauricio Lima Pilla [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 Or maybe he wanted to make it sound like the idea was implausible,
 which it isn't IMO. 

And if refusing to use code credited to that individual means that we
can't use the linux kernel or bash?
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list



Re: [gentoo-dev] Introducing the Proctors - Draft Code of Conduct for Gentoo

2007-03-14 Thread Stephen Bennett
On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 22:56:31 +0100
Paul de Vrieze [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 Could you explain how this is implausible. Removing contributions by
 a certain person may be silly or impossible. Refusing to accept new
 contributions is, while a very harsh measure, a possibility.

Perhaps not implausible in its strictest sense, as it could be done. It
would, however, be a monumentally stupid idea in the general case, if
said user happened to be a contributor upstream to widely-used
packages, or happened to discover an important security bug in such a
package. Leaving users without important applications, or vulnerable to
security holes, because of what is essentially a personal dislike, is
frankly a moronic proposition.
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list



Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: gentoo-dev vs lkml?

2007-03-14 Thread Stephen Bennett
On Thu, 15 Mar 2007 00:35:14 +
George Prowse [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 So you'd rather let one of the best employees go rather than chastise
 a worker who is leaving soon? Thats just cutting off your nose to
 spite your face.

I'd rather make it known that that sort of backhanded tactics to get rid
of someone you don't like won't work whoever uses them.
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list



Re: [gentoo-dev] Introducing the Proctors - Draft Code of Conduct for Gentoo

2007-03-13 Thread Stephen Bennett
On Tue, 13 Mar 2007 19:01:33 +
Jeff Rollin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 UTC and GMT being the same, right? so 2100UTC is exactly nine hours
 after 1200GMT?

For all relevant purposes, yes.
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list



Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: Why this nonsense has to continue (Was: Some council topics for March meeting)

2007-03-12 Thread Stephen Bennett
On Mon, 12 Mar 2007 17:53:10 +
Steve Long [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 Um I'm guessing that since you're at Uni, you knew you'd be in this
 situation at this stage of your course. I wonder at how someone
 clearly so gifted could have overlooked that matter when undertaking
 such a vital project.

What exactly are you saying that I overlooked?
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list



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

2007-03-12 Thread Stephen Bennett
On Mon, 12 Mar 2007 18:00:09 +
Steve Long [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 Yes so in a /technical/ sense he's the lead. You defer to his greater
 knowledge. Or are you more political than technical?

Nowhere did I say anything of the sort. Stop jumping to conclusions
based on incorrect assumptions and incomplete information.

 Oh no of course not. Paludis is in fact being led in the most
 appropriate political fashion, rather than the best technical
 approach for the job.

What does Paludis's leadership have to do with any of this?
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list



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

2007-03-12 Thread Stephen Bennett
On Mon, 12 Mar 2007 17:46:41 +
Steve Long [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 Except it's one that needs Paludis ready before it can be considered
 complete. /me thinks are they really that clever? /me remembers
 ciaranm's incredibly smart posts from ~2 years ago when he couldn't
 stand being treated like a noob.

Did you even read the thread before posting this? That particular
conclusion jumped to by one person on misinterpreted a previous email
has been debunked several times already. Oh, and bashing ciaranm
doesn't make you cool.
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list



Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: How others handle bad behaviour on mailinglists

2007-03-12 Thread Stephen Bennett
On Mon, 12 Mar 2007 17:57:09 +
Steve Long [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 And if you think the way you have carried on is anything approaching
 decent, you clearly haven't read the guidelines... Can we stop now
 please?

Based on a cursory view of my gentoo-dev folder, we had stopped for a
good five days until earlier today.
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list



Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: Re: How others handle bad behaviour on mailinglists

2007-03-12 Thread Stephen Bennett
On Mon, 12 Mar 2007 19:35:03 +
Steve Long [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 Guess what sunshine? It's not just about you:
 http://distrowatch.com/weekly.php?issue=20070312#future

The only possible conclusion I can see to draw from this post is that
because distrowatch posts an uninformed article about how Gentoo is
dying, you need to drag up a dead thread for no apparent reason. Please
enlighten me if there's something I missed.
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list



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

2007-03-11 Thread Stephen Bennett
On Sun, 11 Mar 2007 13:15:56 +
Steve Long [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 FWIW it
 wasn't the nature of the insult, it was just that there was an insult
 at all

I didn't see one.
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list



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

2007-03-11 Thread Stephen Bennett
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. Everyone stop continuing the thread.
It's over. Dead. Gone. Etc.
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list



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

2007-03-11 Thread Stephen Bennett
On Sun, 11 Mar 2007 19:24:49 +0100
Jakub Moc [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

    __  __   _    _ ___    _
 |__  / _ \|  \/  |/ ___| | / ___|_   _/ _ \|  _ \| |
   / / | | | |\/| | |  _| | \___ \ | || | | | |_) | |
  / /| |_| | |  | | |_| |_|  ___) || || |_| |  __/|_|
 /\___/|_|  |_|\(_) |/ |_| \___/|_|   (_)

Nice job of not polluting the list with noise there. 
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list



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

2007-03-10 Thread Stephen Bennett
On Sat, 10 Mar 2007 22:06:21 +0100
Andrej Kacian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 BTW, I never understood why are certain people so touchy about
 homosexuality, while others joke about it with their peers daily (and
 very personally).

The whole exchange made me think of http://xkcd.com/c65.html
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list



Re: [gentoo-dev] New eclass: gkrellm-plugin

2007-03-08 Thread Stephen Bennett
On Thu, 8 Mar 2007 19:04:20 +0100
Ioannis Aslanidis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 How is it that it should not be done? Is it because the file is
 usually a symlink? Or because there is simply no need to do it?

Because it's the package's licence. Guess where we already store
licence information.

 Who takes care of ECLASS now?

The package manager. Who else?
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list



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

2007-03-06 Thread Stephen Bennett
On Tue, 6 Mar 2007 21:27:00 +0100
Paul de Vrieze [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 That remainst to be debateable. It is however also true that he is a
 party with a vested interest in the process. As such we must be warry
 of what we allow.

Everyone involved has a vested interest. If they weren't interested
they wouldn't be involved.
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list



Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Why this nonsense has to continue (Was: Some council topics for March meeting)

2007-03-05 Thread Stephen Bennett
On Mon, 05 Mar 2007 16:00:01 +
Steve Long [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 Thing I don't understand is why spb took it on when he knew he was
 going to be out of commission with his Uni.

I'm not out of commission. PMS is simply not at the top of my list of
priorities at the moment.
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list



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

2007-03-05 Thread Stephen Bennett
On Sat, 03 Mar 2007 02:20:48 -0500
Chris Gianelloni [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 The EAPI=0 document was supposed to be a QA project.  What it is now,
 I have no idea. 

A QA subproject which has not yet released a public draft.

 What the Council is interested
 in is a specification of expected behavior of an EAPI=0 compatible
 package manager.

Which is exactly what PMS is.

 We asked for a specification.  If the PMS
 team is unable or unwilling to provide us with what we asked under
 the terms we asked for it

We're working to provide it. So far, I haven't been asked for it under
any particular terms other than at some point in the future, and we
realise that it will take a while to finish.
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list



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

2007-03-05 Thread Stephen Bennett
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 timeline, instead of deadline.  It was done on
 purpose really just to shut people the hell up.  We're not out to get
 anybody, we're just wanting to make sure we're all on track and moving
 forward.

And, now that what was actually meant has been clarified, I'll be more
than happy to provide relevant information and answer questions the
Council might have related to the matter.
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list



Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Little respect towards Daniel please

2007-03-05 Thread Stephen Bennett
On Mon, 5 Mar 2007 23:07:58 +0100
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 1. Anyone who is impolite get's kicked off.

Who defines 'impolite'? It's a cultural thing, and given that we have
developers and users from all over the world, we span a lot of vastly
different cultures.

 2. Anyone who repeatedly and seemingly on purpose tries to harm the
 discussion will be kicked off.

And how do you judge whether someone is deliberately trying to harm the
discussion or is just being careless with his wording or generally
misguided?
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list



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

2007-03-04 Thread Stephen Bennett
On Sat, 3 Mar 2007 20:46:35 -0700
Daniel Robbins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 To co-lead a Gentoo project? You need to be a dev to do that. I
 couldn't join any projects even as a member until I became a dev, and
 I created the distro. You are effectively co-leading (likely leading)
 PMS as a non-dev - worse than that, as someone who has been explicitly
 removed from a dev role.

He's not leading it. He's writing parts of it under my lead, despite
the fact that he's probably better qualified technically than I am to
lead it.

 Again, you're not just submitting a patch but architecting the
 strategic direction for package manager interoperability which has
 strategic implications for Gentoo, and is more than just a
 user-submitted contribution.

Nope. He's documenting the existing situation for package manager
interoperability. Wherever PMS goes against existing practise it's been
discussed either on -dev or with the portage developers past and
present. Again, he's not influencing future direction this way.
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list



Re: [gentoo-dev] CONFIG_PROTECT_MASK=/etc/env.d

2007-03-04 Thread Stephen Bennett
No response means no objections means in it goes.

On Fri, 2 Mar 2007 01:07:47 +
Stephen Bennett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 Can't remember whether I already mailed about this, but better safe
 than sorry. Currently /etc/env.d is added to CONFIG_PROTECT_MASK in
 make.globals, and as far as i can tell nowhere in profiles. Anyone
 object if I add it to base/make.defaults?
 -- 
 gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
 
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list



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

2007-03-03 Thread Stephen Bennett
On Fri, 2 Mar 2007 23:28:56 -0700
Daniel Robbins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 OK, but it appears that PMS is not hosted on Gentoo infrastructure,
 and its development is not controlled by Gentoo. Therefore it is not a
 Gentoo project, and therefore the Council, QA, etc. should not be
 treating it if it is a Gentoo project.

It's controlled by me, and last I knew I was a Gentoo developer.
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list



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

2007-03-03 Thread Stephen Bennett
On Fri, 2 Mar 2007 23:51:42 -0700
Daniel Robbins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 Gentoo projects are controlled by and generally run entirely by Gentoo
 developers. You are not a Gentoo developer, yet you define the
 direction of PMS and Paludis. Therefore, PMS and Paludis can't be
 considered official Gentoo projects.

(I'm picking this mail to respond to in lieu of the entire thread...)

Paludis is not and never has been a Gentoo project. PMS is a Gentoo
project with external contributors, and hence can't be hosted on Gentoo
svn. I define the direction PMS takes, and I control its subversion
repository; Ciaran just happens to be doing a lot of the actual work
writing it. There is nothing Paludis specific in it; it defines that
set of behaviour upon which ebuilds may rely, which is for obvious
reasons a subset of what Portage currently supports. If Paludis
supports something that Portage doesn't, then it can't be used in the
tree and doesn't belong in PMS, at least until Portage grows the
support and it can be put into a later EAPI revision. The only
connection between PMS and Paludis is a correlation between the people
writing each. 
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list



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

2007-03-03 Thread Stephen Bennett
On Sat, 3 Mar 2007 01:58:30 -0800 (PST)
Alec Warner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 So you are saying you cannot see Daniel's point of view at all?  That
 Gentoo should perhaps have input on a specification whose goal is to
 essentially define what a Gentoo Package Manager should be?

Gentoo, and any other parties, will have ample opportunity for input
long before it gets finalised. Right now, though, soliciting comments
from all and sundry will be more distracting than productive. We know
it's currently incomplete and full of holes; we don't need to be told
it.

  Really, I find this weird and ambiguous and you should probably be
  reinstated as a dev or be bumped off of PMS, which should be
  managed by Gentoo developers only.

If you want to make such a distinction, then it's managed by me, and I
am a Gentoo developer.

 Because it is difficult to determine 'people who know what they are
 talking about'.  I would say Brian Harring is one of those, but I
 have a feeling you would disagree with me.

The second requirement is an ability to work effectively with the other
people writing it.
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list



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

2007-03-03 Thread Stephen Bennett
On Sat, 03 Mar 2007 11:40:39 -0800
Josh Saddler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

  Keep your spewing
 on-topic: technical issues, not on your personal issues.

Please do.
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list



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

2007-03-03 Thread Stephen Bennett
On Sat, 3 Mar 2007 13:17:56 -0700
Daniel Robbins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 So, again, since you are participating as a key member in an official
 Gentoo project, which is a developer-only privilege

While this was no doubt true a while ago, a lot of people have been
trying hard over the last year or more to make sure that it's not the
case any more. Just because someone doesn't have a gentoo.org email
address doesn't mean they don't have useful contributions, and
shouldn't prevent them from helping where they can.
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list



[gentoo-dev] CONFIG_PROTECT_MASK=/etc/env.d

2007-03-01 Thread Stephen Bennett
Can't remember whether I already mailed about this, but better safe
than sorry. Currently /etc/env.d is added to CONFIG_PROTECT_MASK in
make.globals, and as far as i can tell nowhere in profiles. Anyone
object if I add it to base/make.defaults?
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list



Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: EAPI spec (was Re: Re: let's clear things up (was Slacker archs))

2007-02-26 Thread Stephen Bennett
On Sun, 25 Feb 2007 18:51:51 +
Steve Long [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 Um I put it badly, sorry (i've had the flu) - I meant Chris in his
 capacity of releng, catalyst etc. You only want to review, np. ++ to
 moving ahead.

And if he'd like to do so, I'll be happy to give him access to it.

 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 mostly paludis devs, and sorry it won't be ready til
 Paludis is. pfft.

Noone said that. At present the only people working on it are also
working on Paludis, but that can change should people take an interest.
As for it won't be ready til Paludis is, that's not what was stated
-- what ciaranm said was that his personal priority will switch to
getting PMS finished once paludis is ready. That doesn't mean that
other people can't work on it and finish it before that, and I for one
currently have PMS above Paludis on my priorities list and don't intend
to wait for the latter.
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list



Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: EAPI spec (was Re: Re: let's clear things up (was Slacker archs))

2007-02-22 Thread Stephen Bennett
On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 13:18:13 +0100
Ioannis Aslanidis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

  As for Ciaran bashing Jakub, I can't help but nod (and gasp at
  some of Jakub's comments) - for quite some time now.
 
 Bashing on someone is always wrong.
 Bashing on someone gets you banned.

Tell that to Jakub.
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list



Re: EAPI spec (was Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: let's clear things up (was Slacker archs))

2007-02-22 Thread Stephen Bennett
On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 10:20:47 -0500
Chris Gianelloni [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 This I understand.  However, your previous comments (and spb's saying
 he's busy with some other things) has made some people, myself
 included, wonder if you could possibly use some more help.  We aren't
 talking about forcing you to take on certain people, but rather
 seeing if you need people, period.  We can come to an agreement on
 who to add, if you require the help.  The point being that manpower
 should not be the limiting factor here in getting this done when
 there are numerous people who are familiar enough with portage and
 want to to help.

If the right sort of people are interested in helping, then I for one
won't refuse help. However, for fairly obvious reasons I don't want to
give out access willy-nilly. Any good, experienced ebuild devs with a
sufficient knowledge of everything relevant and a large degree of
common sense who want to help out can find me on IRC.
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list



Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: EAPI spec (was Re: Re: let's clear things up (was Slacker archs))

2007-02-22 Thread Stephen Bennett
On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 17:10:38 +0100
Marien Zwart [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 I am a bit unsure about what the goal for PMS is here. It does not
 seem to be to document what a certain (the current?) version of
 portage does, as the defacto standard. Instead you want to document
 what portages *intention* is, or something like that. That obviously
 sounds like an excellent idea, but as far as I know most of the PMS
 contributors are also Paludis devs. Paludis, being an alternative to
 portage, is *also* trying to handle ebuilds the way portage is
 intended to handle them. So what I'm afraid of is that by the time
 that Paludis 1.0_pre is released we will simultaneously see PMS
 released to the public, and Paludis 1.0_pre supporting that PMS
 perfectly, with all deviations on the part of portage (or pkgcore)
 being considered bugs in their implementation of the specification.

The intention is much as you initially surmised -- to describe
portage's intended behaviour, or perhaps more accurately that subset of
Portage's current behaviour which ebuilds and eclasses upon which are
allowed to rely. Certainly by the time it is finished and sent to the
Council for approval I expect whatever is the current Portage release
to be compatible, and in most cases where I've deviated thus far from
what Portage allows or does I've asked the current portage team whether
it seems reasonable to do so.

In some cases there are ebuilds in the tree relying upon behaviour that
is not specified by PMS, or intended to be. These are the cases where
only one or two packages rely upon undocumented and often unintentional
by-products of Portage behaviour, and it seems more sensible to fix
those few ebuilds instead of adding a lot of compatibility junk to the
standard. A good example of this would be the recent -dev thread on
global ebuild variables and pkg_setup.
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list



Re: EAPI spec (was Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: let's clear things up (was Slacker archs))

2007-02-21 Thread Stephen Bennett
On Wed, 21 Feb 2007 08:28:51 +0100
Denis Dupeyron [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 You forgot to mention that the small group is either a subset of the
 interested parties or is commissioned by them. Which doesn't appear to
 be the case here.

Given that people wouldn't be working on it if they weren't interested,
it seems fairly obviously to be a subset of the interested parties.
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list



[gentoo-dev] New developer: Richard Brown (rbrown)

2007-02-21 Thread Stephen Bennett
Everybody say hi, or alternative greetings of your choice, to our new
recruit, Richard Brown, who will be helping with various QA-related
projects and possibly attempting to kick some life into the Ruby herd.

He, in his own words, works and lives in Hampshire in the UK, doing a
mix of website development and system administration, never having
moved away after getting his degree. Has been using linux for 10 years,
and gentoo for almost 3, and when not doing that he's spending time
with his fiancée, reading or attempting to keep his pro status in wii
bowling. He is also unable to use C++ pointer to member types in
templates properly.

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.
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list



Re: EAPI spec (was Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: let's clear things up (was Slacker archs))

2007-02-20 Thread Stephen Bennett
On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 07:24:54 -0800
Brian Harring [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 Possible they've gone and shifted the name (or disabled
 notification); either way, think it's probably worth getting a status
 update on it in council this coming month.

Right now I'm placing a higher priority on getting a degree. It'll be
done when it's done, which is not now.
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list



Re: EAPI spec (was Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: let's clear things up (was Slacker archs))

2007-02-20 Thread Stephen Bennett
On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 17:22:07 -0700
Daniel Robbins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 Is there any way that the public can view the PMS spec that you have
 created so far?
 
 I am not totally familiar with how you are going about developing PMS,
 but based on some of your comments in this thread I'm a little bit
 concerned.

At this stage, individuals can ask for a copy, or for read access to
the repository, if we think that their input is likely to be more
productive than distracting. Once it is sufficiently complete, read
access will be opened to the public and drafts will likely be sent to
-dev for comment. For the same reasons that the repository isn't
public, though, such drafts are currently given out on the
understanding that they won't be distributed further.
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list



Re: [gentoo-dev] imagemagick-6.3.0.5 without truetype doesn't compile

2007-02-18 Thread Stephen Bennett
On Mon, 19 Feb 2007 01:37:55 +0200
Mohammed Hagag [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 emerging imagemagick-6.3.0.5 without truetype USE flag which depends
 on propritary corefonts fails with compilation error.

bugs.gentoo.org is your friend.
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list



Re: [gentoo-dev] A Gentle Reminder

2007-02-11 Thread Stephen Bennett
On Sun, 11 Feb 2007 07:56:29 -0500
Mike Frysinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 wonder if there'd be a way of levaraging the glsa access tags ...
 
 if (remote in access) screw over $ARCH in KEYWORDS
 -mike

If it's a security-unsupported arch we probably don't even care about
that enough to lose keywords. If a particular sysadmin does care about
security of his unsupported experimental systems, he can use his
package manager's capabilities to remove insecure packages rather than
us forcing it on everyone. When it comes to this sort of machine,
working beats secure but broken any day.
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list



Re: [gentoo-dev] A Gentle Reminder

2007-02-11 Thread Stephen Bennett
On Sun, 11 Feb 2007 22:23:44 +0100
Jakub Moc [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 Oh sure... Next time, blame me for Sept 11, keep amusing us by your
 bullshit.

If you like, I can say that you killed Jesus and were single-handedly
responsible for the extinction of the dinosaurs. Would that make you
happy?
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list



[gentoo-dev] A Gentle Reminder

2007-02-08 Thread Stephen Bennett
If any of you were thinking of removing the latest stable version of a
package, don't. Even if you're the package maintainer, even if there
are open security bugs against it, even if someone has filed you a bug
requesting that it be removed. If it's the latest stable version on any
architecture, you don't remove it. If you do, we'll know, and we won't
be happy.

There. It's not that hard to understand, is it?
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list



Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo standard UIDs

2007-02-01 Thread Stephen Bennett
On Thu, 01 Feb 2007 10:26:49 -0500
William L. Thomson Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 I inquired about it several months back on irc, but can't recall the
 details at this time. Pretty sure it's not implemented yet, but there
 might be some efforts in that direction.

http://svn.pioto.org/viewvc/creandus/
http://svn.pioto.org/viewvc/creandus-overlay/
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list



Re: [gentoo-dev] tr1 dependencies

2007-01-31 Thread Stephen Bennett
On Wed, 31 Jan 2007 23:36:33 +0100
Rémi Cardona [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 Newbie idea : g++ and boost both provide virtual/tr1
 
 Newbie question : besides the fact that you would have to rebuild 
 packages if you changed the virtual, is there anything painfully
 obvious why that would be a bad idea ?

And what exactly is required of a package providing virtual/tr1? If it
has to implement the entirity of the TR, then g++-4.1 can't provide the
virtual and the purpose is lost since the most used parts of the
extension will be those provided by GCC. If, on the other hand, you
require the virtual to provide only the parts currently implemented in
g++, what happens in the future for packages that require other parts
of the tr1 extension?

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list



Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [RFC] Depending on active version

2007-01-31 Thread Stephen Bennett
On Tue, 30 Jan 2007 17:06:51 +0100
Marius Mauch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 The idea is to add a special category (let's call it active for
 now) that has the following properties:
 - this category doesn't exist in portdir or vdb (= no ebuilds)
 - when portage ($pkgmanager) encounters a active/foo atom in a
 dependency string it executes some special code (e.g.
 $PORTDIR/scripts/active-check/foo =active/foo-1) to determine if
 that atom is satisfied

Given that in the general case the package manager can't change the
active provider and will have to bail with an appropriate message that
the user needs to change it themselves, the obvious solution to this is
the previously-discussed-somewhere-I-can't-remember ebuild function,
called on depgraph creation, to check that it will be able to compile
in the current system environment. It's considerably simpler and more
generally useful than subverting DEPEND to add weird special-case hacks
to it.
-- 
gentoo-portage-dev@gentoo.org mailing list



Re: [gentoo-dev] Abusing RESTRICT={no,}userpriv (was [RFC] ACCEPT_RESTRICT for questionable values of RESTRICT)

2007-01-12 Thread Stephen Bennett
On Fri, 12 Jan 2007 19:36:06 +
Tristan Heaven [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 On Sat, 2007-01-13 at 00:53 +0900, Georgi Georgiev wrote:
 They have to be able to read /usr/games/lib.

In which case adding the portage user to the games group seems overall
to be a better solution than requiring root privileges to build.
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list



Re: [gentoo-dev] Abusing RESTRICT={no,}userpriv (was [RFC] ACCEPT_RESTRICT for questionable values of RESTRICT)

2007-01-12 Thread Stephen Bennett
On Fri, 12 Jan 2007 15:08:15 -0800
Robin H. Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 Putting the portage user into the special group would mean that
 somebody could steal the MySQL password - so do you
 RESTRICT=userpriv, or fail the build?

If someone can subvert Portage's build process they can root your
system no matter what uid is used for the build itself. Userpriv and
sandbox are not and cannot be security measures; they only guard
against accidental breakage in makefiles, so that argument is
relatively bogus since if malice is brought into the equation the
portage user has effective root already.
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list



Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: making USE_EXPANDed variables incremental

2007-01-02 Thread Stephen Bennett
On Tue, 2 Jan 2007 21:14:19 +0100
Marius Mauch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 The main problem I see is that if it's becoming a real incremental
 (across all config layers) it would change behavior for users as
 they'd need to prefix their use-expanded vars with -* to retain their
 current config. But I guess that's why you added that final clause
 about profile scope.

Indeed. Personally, I quite like the idea of doing it that way, but I
can see how others might not want to change it. The motivation for
bringing this up came from writing PMS, which is why I'm only really
concerned about profiles -- that document isn't concerned about user
configuration, which is why I added the final clause.
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list



Re: [gentoo-dev] [rfc] transition system loggers to 'adm' user/group

2007-01-01 Thread Stephen Bennett
On Mon, 01 Jan 2007 09:46:55 -0800
Mike Doty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 does syslog-ng and metalog have similar functionality?

SYNOPSIS
   syslog-ng  [ -dFsvVy ] [ -f config-filename ] [ -p
pid-filename ] [ -C chroot-dir ] [ -u user ] [ -g group ]
...
   -u  user, --group=user
  Switch to user.


I'd have to guess so.
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list



[gentoo-dev] RFC: making USE_EXPANDed variables incremental

2007-01-01 Thread Stephen Bennett
Following a discussion in #gentoo-portage earlier this evening, it was
suggested that I send out an RFC email for this. So, does anyone object
to requiring that any variable listed in USE_EXPAND be treated as
incremental, at least as far as profile inheritance is concerned?
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list



Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: making USE_EXPANDed variables incremental

2007-01-01 Thread Stephen Bennett
On Mon, 01 Jan 2007 13:24:49 -0800
Donnie Berkholz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 That means that the base profiles must have a minimal setting that is
 added to in lower profiles, rather than a reasonable default that's
 entirely reset in lower profiles (perhaps to a smaller setting),
 correct?

It would mean that all USE_EXPANDed variables get stacked in the same
way that USE does. The base profile defines a set of defaults, which
gets flags added to or removed from it in other profiles. At present,
from what zmedico told me, it's handled in a weird manner which
essentially does half the job, letting you add flags but not remove
them in subprofiles.
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list



Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: making USE_EXPANDed variables incremental

2007-01-01 Thread Stephen Bennett
On Mon, 01 Jan 2007 17:24:03 -0800
Donnie Berkholz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 Stephen Bennett wrote:
  The proposal means that all variables listed in USE_EXPAND get
  handled exactly as USE does where profile inheritance is concerned.
  Subprofiles can add to and remove from the value in the parent
  profile just as they can for USE.
 
 Did I misread what you said earlier?
 
 Stephen Bennett wrote:
  At present,
  from what zmedico told me, it's handled in a weird manner which
  essentially does half the job, letting you add flags but not remove
  them in subprofiles.

At present -- that's the behaviour that I want to change by making
them incremental.
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list



Re: [gentoo-dev] Marking GPL-incompatible linkage?

2006-12-24 Thread Stephen Bennett
On Fri, 22 Dec 2006 21:22:54 +0100
Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 I wonder if with ACCEPT_LICENSES it would be possible to get a way to 
 represent this issue, like a unredistributable fake license,
 disabled during GRP building for instance, so that the packages
 needing that license wouldn't be built in binary form and
 redistributed by us.
 
 Any proposal on this issue?

Well, we have a bindist USE flags for more or less this purpose -- it's
hardly an optimal solution, but in this case from the sound of things
the problematic linking could be disabled when building a binary
distribution.

Obviously though that doesn't work in the more general case where said
linkage is not based on an optional dep, so something better would be
useful. I'm not sure LICENSE is the right way forward here -- it would
work with the currently proposed syntax, but seems somehow an abuse of
the system. On the other hand, though, I don't have a better option to
hand at the moment, and it is a licensing issue after all...

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list



Re: [gentoo-dev] GPL-2 vs GPL-2+

2006-12-24 Thread Stephen Bennett
On Fri, 22 Dec 2006 21:56:54 +0100
Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 GPL-2:
 Note: this license states that the software is licensed under GNU
 General Public License version 2, and you might not be able to
 consider it licensed under any later version.
 
 GPL-2+:
 Note: this license explicitly allows licensing under GNU General
 Public License version 2 or, at your option, any later version.
 
 Comments, ideas, proposals?

From a purist point of view, I'd be inclined to go with this route.
Pragmatically though, given the number of packages that do have the or
later clause compared to the number that don't, it might be simpler to
split them into GPL-2 (implying or later) and GPL-2-only. That's just
a possible naming quibble though -- the idea I like.

The suggestion to convert all GPL-2-or-later packages to || ( GPL-2
GPL-3 ) won't scale -- what happens when GPL-2.1 or GPL-3.1 appear?
It's also an awful lot of work for something that is, when you get down
to it, wrong.


-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list



Re: [gentoo-dev] Marking GPL-incompatible linkage?

2006-12-24 Thread Stephen Bennett
On Sun, 24 Dec 2006 18:51:24 +0100
Vlastimil Babka [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 How bout using RESTRICT? RESTRIC=bindist or something, for the 
 unconditional violations?

RESTRICT does not at present affect visibility of packages. I'd like to
keep it that way.
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list



Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Dependencies on system packages

2006-12-11 Thread Stephen Bennett
On Mon, 11 Dec 2006 11:03:18 +
Steve Long [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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 imp
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list



Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Dependencies on system packages

2006-12-11 Thread Stephen Bennett
On Mon, 11 Dec 2006 11:35:34 +
Stephen Bennett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 On Mon, 11 Dec 2006 11:03:18 +
 Steve Long [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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
 imp

My mail client, touchpad, and right hand are retarded. That should read:

understand fully the implications of breaking it, and know why it's a
good idea in this particular case.

However, if you're in a position to be invoking that clause, you should
know about it anyway.
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list



Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Dependencies on sys-apps/portage

2006-12-11 Thread Stephen Bennett
On Sun, 10 Dec 2006 09:39:41 +0100 (MET)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christian Faulhammer) wrote:

  I maintain the three ELOG viewers app-portage/ 
 {elogviewer,kelogviewer,elgov} which need the ELOG feature found in  
 Portage 2.1.  So I think a dependency on that version is ok, as long
 as it isn't in base-profile.

Yeah. Read what I said. The dep is (semi-)valid at the moment, but I'd
like to change the base profile so that it isn't needed and can be
removed.
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list



[gentoo-dev] Dependencies on sys-apps/portage

2006-12-09 Thread Stephen Bennett
There are a lot of packages in the tree which DEPEND on some version of
sys-apps/portage, mostly for historical reasons. Try to avoid doing
this in your packages where possible -- if it's a genuine dependency
then obviously it should be there, but if the dep is only in the ebuild
to avoid hitting a bug that was in portage-2.0.49-r3 (for example),
it's unnecessary now. I'm going to be removing some of these redundant
deps.

On which note, the current base profile specifies portage-2.0.51.22 or
later -- can anyone see a reason not to require 2.1? There are a lot of
packages that dep on portage-2.1 for the wrong reasons above, which
I'd like to be able to clean up.
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list



[gentoo-dev] Dependencies on system packages

2006-12-09 Thread Stephen Bennett
And, on a more general note, don't bother depending on a package listed
in base/packages. It's pointless and just create more noise.


On Sun, 10 Dec 2006 01:11:17 +
Stephen Bennett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 There are a lot of packages in the tree which DEPEND on some version
 of sys-apps/portage, mostly for historical reasons. Try to avoid doing
 this in your packages where possible -- if it's a genuine dependency
 then obviously it should be there, but if the dep is only in the
 ebuild to avoid hitting a bug that was in portage-2.0.49-r3 (for
 example), it's unnecessary now. I'm going to be removing some of
 these redundant deps.
 
 On which note, the current base profile specifies portage-2.0.51.22 or
 later -- can anyone see a reason not to require 2.1? There are a lot
 of packages that dep on portage-2.1 for the wrong reasons above,
 which I'd like to be able to clean up.
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list



Re: [gentoo-dev] Dependencies on system packages

2006-12-09 Thread Stephen Bennett
On Sun, 10 Dec 2006 03:22:52 +0100
Piotr Jaroszyński [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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.

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list



Re: [gentoo-dev] udev coldplugging and /etc/init.d/modules

2006-12-01 Thread Stephen Bennett
On Fri, 01 Dec 2006 15:40:33 +0100
Sven Köhler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 Unfortunatly, the order of loading of modules defines the ordner of
 the network-interfaces (if you different types of network cards).

This is what udev's interface renaming capability is for. Define names
for your interfaces according to their MAC address, for example, and
all is good. It's also more reliable than relying on the order of
module loading to get it right.

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list



Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Ignoring/overwriting IUSE from an eclass

2006-11-06 Thread Stephen Bennett
On Sun, 05 Nov 2006 21:36:10 -0600
Ryan Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 I'm sorry, but is anyone else sick and disgusted with Ciaran talking
 to people like this?  This isn't called for and shouldn't be
 tolerated.

No. Perhaps he could have been a bit more subtle, but it was entirely
called for given the previous email in the thread. If people can't cope
with being told that they're wrong, that's their problem.
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list



Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Ignoring/overwriting IUSE from an eclass

2006-11-06 Thread Stephen Bennett
On Mon, 06 Nov 2006 07:22:48 -0600
Ryan Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 After sleeping on it, I've decided my problem is personal, so i've
 just taken my own advice and set up a simple mail filter so I don't
 have to listen to this crap anymore.  Unless, of course people
 respond, which is inevitable.  But, I encourage anyone else tired of
 the bullshit to do the same, and maybe we can get the signal to noise
 ratio down to a reasonable level.

And I encourage anyone else taking such measures not to bother telling
the list about it, to avoid making the signal to noise ratio even
worse. Thanks.
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list



  1   2   3   >