On Wednesday 20 September 2006 23:06, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
A GLEP doesn't have to be bureaucracy. It can be nothing more than a
way of ensuring that the correct technical decisions are made. For a
project that could end up affecting a lot of people, getting the design
right and determining
Dice R. Random wrote:
What control mechanisms are there within the Gentoo community to keep
a few bad apples from spoiling the whole barrel, as it were? I do not
wish to name any names, but it seems to me from having skimmed this
list for the past few years that there are a couple people who
Alin Nastac wrote:
Our civilized disputes are taken place in public because we are an open
organization. If this looks bad in the eyes of some, so be it, but
please keep your opinions out of this list.
Except that they're not always that civilized, which was his entire point.
--
Kind
On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 23:53:39 +0100
Ciaran McCreesh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 18:42:13 -0400 Alec Warner [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| As Donnie said; if this is the thanks one gets for trying out a new
| idea; then why try at all.
The complaints are not that Stuart tried a
However the behaviour displayed in this list, and in particular this
thread are downright embarassing. I used to be proud of being a gentoo
user and following a group of dedicated and clever developers. Now I
just want to find a quick and easy way to get rid of it. You have had
your antics
On 9/21/2006, Alec Warner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
However the behaviour displayed in this list, and in particular this
thread are downright embarassing. I used to be proud of being a gentoo
user and following a group of dedicated and clever developers. Now I
just want to find a quick
On 9/21/06, Wernfried Haas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Please keep in mind that only a few of the approximately 300 Gentoo
developers are taking part in this discussion and only a few of them
actually seem to get a bit more heated than it should be.
If you think they are behaving poorly, feel free
On Tue, 19 Sep 2006 21:11:17 -0400
Mike Frysinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
why does it need to be part of releng ?
releng and seeds will be doing similar tasks, releasing stage tarballs.
-Thomas
pgpIH4JTTufWm.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On 9/20/06, Daniel Ostrow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 2006-09-20 at 00:56 +0200, Carsten Lohrke wrote:
First step should imho be, that you work with the Portage team on having
proper set support implemented. Current meta ebuilds do suck, really.
No need for meta ebuilds...stage4 specs +
On Tue, 2006-09-19 at 20:00 +0100, Stuart Herbert wrote:
Hi,
I've created a new project, called Gentoo Seeds [1]. The aim of the project
is to create stage4 tarballs which can be used to 'seed' new boxes with
ready-built Gentoo solutions.
Uhh... seeds?
Until we've gone through a few
Chris Gianelloni wrote:
bring the work to the main tree?
As in... duplicate functionality already provided by catalyst for quite
some time?
Catalyst doesn't provide ongoing maintenance or migration of installed
systems ... you need more than just a spec file for one of these seeds.
Why
On 9/20/06, Chris Gianelloni [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Uhh... seeds?
Yes, seeds. Seems to describe what we're working towards as well as
any other name.
bring the work to the main tree?
As in... duplicate functionality already provided by catalyst for quite
some time?
No. As in, bring
On Tue, 2006-09-19 at 21:11 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
why does it need to be part of releng ? GNAP does releases with catalyst,
but
it's part of embedded
We also consider Koon to be a part of Release Engineering and he works
with us and we work with him for GNAP. He even has access to
On Wed, 2006-09-20 at 07:04 -0700, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
Chris Gianelloni wrote:
bring the work to the main tree?
As in... duplicate functionality already provided by catalyst for quite
some time?
Catalyst doesn't provide ongoing maintenance or migration of installed
systems ...
On 9/20/06, Chris Gianelloni [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Catalyst doesn't provide ongoing maintenance or migration of installed
systems ... you need more than just a spec file for one of these seeds.
Like what? It sounds like they aren't providing anything but tarballs.
Tarballs, VMware
Chris Gianelloni wrote:
I apologise to everyone for my responses to this.
Thank you.
Donnie
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Hi,
I'm one of the people working on seeds.
It's not a new project afaic i produce seed-alike things anyway because
I need to run a large serverpark on gentoo and I can't hand-install
servers anymore. We generate custom stage4's tailored to our environment.
One of the reasons i was/am
On Wednesday 20 September 2006 12:38, Alec Warner wrote:
I think Chris's primary concern is one of Tell us whats up before it
happens.
why should he care ? some Gentoo guys take catalyst and produce stage4s
directed at certain applications
they arent talking about any of the tools releng
On Wed, Sep 20, 2006 at 10:49:40AM -0400, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
Because it's *REALLY* stupid and shows just how unprofessional we are
when we have multiple groups doing the *EXACT* same thing using
different policies and procedures and all pushing it as if it were
*OFFICIAL* for the
Danny van Dyk wrote:
* How do you want to implement the profiles?
* Re: the meta-ebuilds you'd been talking about in this thread: Have you
yet considered to use the profiles' packages file?
I've mentioned this idea to Stuart. Thanks for bringing it up again. Do
you think it's the best way
Joshua Jackson wrote:
However, as
Chris stated loudly, that this is something that falls directly in
line with Release Engineerings goal. Its not a top level project that
creates something entirely new. Its a extension of the release of
images that allow you to install a system.
Sure,
Donnie Berkholz wrote:
Andrew Gaffney wrote:
Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Wednesday 20 September 2006 12:38, Alec Warner wrote:
I think Chris's primary concern is one of Tell us whats up before it
happens.
why should he care ? some Gentoo guys take catalyst and produce
stage4s directed at
On 9/20/06, Matthew Marlowe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
3) We are where we are at today. Stuart comes up with a great idea for the
seeds project which might help address the virtualization address image and
it appears releng doesnt like it, so progress could be delayed by another 6
months to year.
Stuart Herbert wrote:
Besides, I'm sure we'll delay our own progress whilst we figure out
how to make seeds work well ;-) I think folks are getting carried
away here! Let's get stuff working first, eh?
I think its also worth mentioning that the whole thing is also currently
in *planning*
On Wednesday 20 September 2006 15:26, Andrew Gaffney wrote:
That's not the issue. The issue is that there should *already* be a releng
liason, but nobody from releng seems to know anything about this project.
they havent even started releasing anything yet, they're just getting started
why are
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Andrew Gaffney wrote:
That's not the issue. The issue is that there should *already* be a
releng liason, but nobody from releng seems to know anything about this
project.
I dunno . . . does releng really need to be involved, except if these
Stuart Herbert wrote:
To delay progress, Chris will need to make a formal complaint
to the Council.
About what? Our own metastructure proposal explicitly says competing
projects are allowed. There is no complaint, there's just attempts to
convince each other that a formal hierarchy is
On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 20:27:50 +0100 Stuart Herbert
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| I was hoping to avoid having to say this - actually I was hoping to
| avoid this whole drama - but we _don't_ need releng's approval to do
| this. To delay progress, Chris will need to make a formal complaint
| to the
On 9/20/06, Danny van Dyk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Stuart,
The pages are correct.
Cool.
He didn't called you a liar.
You haven't spoken to anyone on the genkernel or catalyst development
teams. - was in response to me saying that I had. It's difficult to
interpret that as anything
On 9/20/06, Danny van Dyk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As long as we have no package sets support in portage, I do indeed think
that this is the best way to go. Didn't realize that you mentioned it,
too.
@Stuart: What do you think?
Right now, I'm not too concerned about the lack of package set
On Wednesday 20 September 2006 16:27, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 20:27:50 +0100 Stuart Herbert
| I was hoping to avoid having to say this - actually I was hoping to
| avoid this whole drama - but we _don't_ need releng's approval to do
| this. To delay progress, Chris will
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Tue, 19 Sep 2006 20:00:59 +0100 Stuart Herbert [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| I've created a new project, called Gentoo Seeds [1]. The aim of the
| project is to create stage4 tarballs which can be used to 'seed' new
|
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
I was under the impression that you were supposed to GLEP anything of
this scope and get council approval... The anyone can make a project
rule doesn't replace the requirement to GLEP large changes.
http://dev.gentoo.org/~chriswhite/xml_source/flame.xml - Code Listing
On Wednesday 20 September 2006 15:33, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Tue, 19 Sep 2006 20:00:59 +0100 Stuart Herbert [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| I've created a new project, called Gentoo Seeds [1]. The aim of the
| project is to create stage4 tarballs which can be used to 'seed' new
| boxes with
On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 16:45:24 -0400 Seemant Kulleen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| On Wed, 2006-09-20 at 20:33 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
| On Tue, 19 Sep 2006 20:00:59 +0100 Stuart Herbert
| [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| | I've created a new project, called Gentoo Seeds [1]. The aim of
| | the
On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 22:41:11 +0200 Jakub Moc [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
| I was under the impression that you were supposed to GLEP anything
| of this scope and get council approval... The anyone can make a
| project rule doesn't replace the requirement to GLEP large
On Wednesday 20 September 2006 13:27, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
I was under the impression that you were supposed to GLEP anything of
this scope and get council approval... The anyone can make a project
rule doesn't replace the requirement to GLEP large changes.
Why? It's in an overlay so it's
On Wed, 2006-09-20 at 21:27 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 20:27:50 +0100 Stuart Herbert
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| I was hoping to avoid having to say this - actually I was hoping to
| avoid this whole drama - but we _don't_ need releng's approval to do
| this. To delay
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 22:41:11 +0200 Jakub Moc [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
| I was under the impression that you were supposed to GLEP anything
| of this scope and get council approval... The anyone can make a
| project rule doesn't replace the
On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 23:42:02 +0200 Jakub Moc [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| Not that bugging people w/ pointless paperwork would contribute
| anything useful to this new project or get any work done... What
| exactly is there to GLEP at this point?
A GLEP is not pointless paperwork if done correctly.
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 23:42:02 +0200 Jakub Moc [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| Not that bugging people w/ pointless paperwork would contribute
| anything useful to this new project or get any work done... What
| exactly is there to GLEP at this point?
A GLEP is not pointless
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 23:42:02 +0200 Jakub Moc [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| Not that bugging people w/ pointless paperwork would contribute
| anything useful to this new project or get any work done... What
| exactly is there to
Am Mittwoch, 20. September 2006 23:33 schrieb Chris White:
On Wednesday 20 September 2006 13:27, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
I was under the impression that you were supposed to GLEP anything
of this scope and get council approval... The anyone can make a
project rule doesn't replace the
This whole thread is quite disappointing to me. Someone comes up with a
new way to use Gentoo; to make it a viable tool for a job; to make it
USEFUL. This is what we are about here (or were?).
Put another way, the Gentoo philosophy is to create better tools.
On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 18:42:13 -0400 Alec Warner [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| As Donnie said; if this is the thanks one gets for trying out a new
| idea; then why try at all.
The complaints are not that Stuart tried a new idea. Stop trying to
spin things that way. The complaints are that he allegedly
On Wednesday 20 September 2006 18:53, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
The complaints are that he allegedly did it
without consultation, and that he sprang this unexpectedly.
he started a new project and he announced, whoopity do
stop making a big deal over nothing
-mike
pgppKe9FuRp5z.pgp
Description:
On Wed, 2006-09-20 at 18:42 -0400, Alec Warner wrote:
This whole thread is quite disappointing to me. Someone comes up with a
new way to use Gentoo; to make it a viable tool for a job; to make it
USEFUL. This is what we are about here (or were?).
Put another way, the Gentoo philosophy is
Stuart Herbert wrote:
Hi,
I've created a new project, called Gentoo Seeds [1]. The aim of the project
is to create stage4 tarballs which can be used to 'seed' new boxes with
ready-built Gentoo solutions.
Interestingly enough releng was planning some stage4 support for the
next release and
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 18:42:13 -0400 Alec Warner [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| As Donnie said; if this is the thanks one gets for trying out a new
| idea; then why try at all.
The complaints are not that Stuart tried a new idea. Stop trying to
spin things that way. The
In that case, why don't we just consider Stuart's initial mail on this
thing to *be* the effing announcement and be done with it? Fact is, no
matter how something is brought up, there is a dependable group of
people who will have something against it (oh fuck it, we know I'm
referring to Ciaran
On Thu, 21 Sep 2006 01:29:58 +0200
Jakub Moc [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Oh noes! Someone had an unexpected and unconsulted idea that he wanted
to share with others, shoot him!!!111! OMG, so much for inovation and
progress...
Sharing the idea and looking for consultation is one thing. Saying
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Oh look, we just got Slashdotted by someone doing their level best to create a
smear campaign, or at least to spread FUD:
http://linux.slashdot.org/linux/06/09/20/2246231.shtml
As I said on IRC, new project, new whiteboard. why don't we leave it up
On Wednesday 20 September 2006 19:50, Stephen Bennett wrote:
Sharing the idea and looking for consultation is one thing. Saying
Gentoo is now doing this, like it or not is quite another.
funny, i dont recall him forcing anyone to help him
-mike
pgp1ZuNPbbA3B.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On 9/21/06, Luca Barbato [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Could you please planning something about acting as liason between
projects touched by seeds?
E.G. random guy starts contributing a media seed, I'd like to be
notified and maybe have also x11 people notified, just in case the seed
overlay is
First step should imho be, that you work with the Portage team on having
proper set support implemented. Current meta ebuilds do suck, really.
Carsten
pgpY3uwbpcikw.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Wed, 2006-09-20 at 00:56 +0200, Carsten Lohrke wrote:
First step should imho be, that you work with the Portage team on having
proper set support implemented. Current meta ebuilds do suck, really.
No need for meta ebuilds...stage4 specs + catalyst.
--Dan
signature.asc
Description: This
On Tue, 19 Sep 2006 20:00:59 +0100
Stuart Herbert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[1] http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/seeds/
Why is this being done as a top level project instead of as a subproject
of Release Engineering?
-Thomas
pgpNbVfRl5I2l.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Tuesday 19 September 2006 19:32, Thomas Cort wrote:
Stuart Herbert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[1] http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/seeds/
Why is this being done as a top level project instead of as a subproject
of Release Engineering?
why does it need to be part of releng ? GNAP does
58 matches
Mail list logo
