Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]

2008-06-19 Thread Luca Barbato
David Leverton wrote: On Thursday 19 June 2008 01:23:33 Chris Gianelloni wrote: Considering that the most recent official release is 2008.0_beta2, I don't see where you have a point, at all. http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/releng/#doc_chap5 The latest release of Gentoo Linux is: Gentoo Linux

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]

2008-06-19 Thread Luca Barbato
Chris Gianelloni wrote: On Fri, 2008-06-13 at 12:22 +0200, Luca Barbato wrote: David Leverton wrote: On Friday 13 June 2008 11:10:46 Nirbheek Chauhan wrote: Interesting to note, however, that Paludis doesn't accept inline comments, and this behaviour predates PMS. There's a reason for Paludis

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]

2008-06-19 Thread Luca Barbato
David Leverton wrote: On Thursday 19 June 2008 04:09:26 George Prowse wrote: In the end, PMS is just a way for them to spread their own agenda Lies and FUD. No maybe it would be best for all if paludis and it's developers were to concentrate on making paludis for a different distro.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]

2008-06-19 Thread Nirbheek Chauhan
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 8:39 AM, George Prowse wrote: ++ It's about time someone said this and I honestly think that lots of developers will be thinking the same. ++ I'm not a developer, but I'm a Gentoo Summer of Code student[0] so maybe my

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]

2008-06-19 Thread David Leverton
On Thursday 19 June 2008 08:41:34 Luca Barbato wrote: The point is to avoid breaking Portage versions that users might reasonably be using, even if only briefly. Do you really expect /all/ users doing a new installation to choose the scary beta instead of the nice safe release? What

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]

2008-06-19 Thread David Leverton
On Thursday 19 June 2008 08:44:41 Luca Barbato wrote: Chris Gianelloni wrote: On Fri, 2008-06-13 at 12:22 +0200, Luca Barbato wrote: Care to share the logic and wise reasoning ? [ ${IDEA_ORIGIN} != Ciaran ] die I tend to agree. The reason has already been explained multiple times,

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]

2008-06-19 Thread David Leverton
On Thursday 19 June 2008 08:46:02 Luca Barbato wrote: David Leverton wrote: On Thursday 19 June 2008 04:09:26 George Prowse wrote: In the end, PMS is just a way for them to spread their own agenda Lies and FUD. No Yes. ...are you issuing a press release for exherbo? What the hell

[gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]

2008-06-19 Thread Duncan
Chris Gianelloni [EMAIL PROTECTED] posted [EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:43:12 -0700: Quite frankly, I'd prefer see Gentoo take control over the specification that defines the most important single feature of Gentoo and remove the non-Gentoo developers from its

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]

2008-06-19 Thread Roy Marples
On Thursday 19 June 2008 02:43:12 Chris Gianelloni wrote: Nope. What I see as a problem is that the primary author and current de facto maintainer is so much of an asshole that he was forcibly removed from the Gentoo project, which PMS is supposed to be written for, and has ostracized (at

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]

2008-06-19 Thread Patrick Börjesson
On 2008-06-19 04:09, George Prowse uttered these thoughts: In the end, PMS is just a way for them to spread their own agenda and force it on both the developers and the users so maybe it would be best for all if paludis and it's developers were to concentrate on making paludis for a

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]

2008-06-19 Thread Nirbheek Chauhan
On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 5:58 PM, Patrick Börjesson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 2008-06-19 04:09, George Prowse uttered these thoughts: In the end, PMS is just a way for them to spread their own agenda and force it on both the developers and the users so maybe it would be best for all if

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]

2008-06-19 Thread David Leverton
On Thursday 19 June 2008 14:02:13 Nirbheek Chauhan wrote: The point is that their replies to the mailing list waste a lot of time and energy since people will *always* reply to them. Replies? On a mailing list? Whatever is the world coming to? I completely agree. They should stop pushing it

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]

2008-06-19 Thread Nirbheek Chauhan
On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 6:40 PM, David Leverton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thursday 19 June 2008 14:02:13 Nirbheek Chauhan wrote: The point is that their replies to the mailing list waste a lot of time and energy since people will *always* reply to them. Replies? On a mailing list?

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]

2008-06-19 Thread Richard Brown
On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 14:19, Nirbheek Chauhan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 6:40 PM, David Leverton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thursday 19 June 2008 14:02:13 Nirbheek Chauhan wrote: The point is that their replies to the mailing list waste a lot of time and energy since

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]

2008-06-19 Thread David Leverton
On Thursday 19 June 2008 14:19:32 Nirbheek Chauhan wrote: On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 6:40 PM, David Leverton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thursday 19 June 2008 14:02:13 Nirbheek Chauhan wrote: The point is that their replies to the mailing list waste a lot of time and energy since people will

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]

2008-06-19 Thread Nirbheek Chauhan
On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 6:56 PM, David Leverton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thursday 19 June 2008 14:19:32 Nirbheek Chauhan wrote: On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 6:40 PM, David Leverton On Thursday 19 June 2008 14:02:13 Nirbheek Chauhan wrote: The point is that their replies to the mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]

2008-06-19 Thread Arun Raghavan
On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 6:51 PM, Richard Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idiot This is the second time in 8 days that you are doing this. Please stop filling our inboxes with this puerile trolling. Devrel team: I do appreciate that the Gentoo Way has been to keep the

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]

2008-06-19 Thread David Leverton
On Thursday 19 June 2008 14:52:01 Nirbheek Chauhan wrote: oh noes, too many posts with the same 3 people replying everywhere and spreading their minority irrelevant opinion as though it really mattered! What a gargantuan waste of time and energy11!~ If you disagree with people's opinions,

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]

2008-06-19 Thread Patrick Börjesson
On 2008-06-19 18:32, Nirbheek Chauhan uttered these thoughts: On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 5:58 PM, Patrick Börjesson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 2008-06-19 04:09, George Prowse uttered these thoughts: In the end, PMS is just a way for them to spread their own agenda and force it on both the

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]

2008-06-19 Thread Jeroen Roovers
On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 09:06:21 +0100 David Leverton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The reason has already been explained multiple times, kindly stop with the personal attacks and silly conspiracy theories. In this case the attacks seem to be targeting a person who has been attacking an entire ~300

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]

2008-06-19 Thread Robert Bridge
On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 12:11:11 +0100 Roy Marples [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thursday 19 June 2008 02:43:12 Chris Gianelloni wrote: Nope. What I see as a problem is that the primary author and current de facto maintainer is so much of an asshole that he was forcibly removed from the Gentoo

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]

2008-06-19 Thread Ferris McCormick
On Thu, 2008-06-19 at 18:28 +0100, Robert Bridge wrote: On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 12:11:11 +0100 Roy Marples [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thursday 19 June 2008 02:43:12 Chris Gianelloni wrote: Nope. What I see as a problem is that the primary author and current de facto maintainer is so

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]

2008-06-19 Thread David Leverton
On Thursday 19 June 2008 18:06:17 Jeroen Roovers wrote: In this case the attacks seem to be targeting a person who has been attacking an entire ~300 person project for a few years now. Is it considered acceptable to attack someone as long as the attacker thinks they deserve it? I honestly

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]

2008-06-19 Thread Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Arun Raghavan wrote: | On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 6:51 PM, Richard Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idiot | | This is the second time in 8 days that you are doing this. Please stop | filling our inboxes with this puerile

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]

2008-06-19 Thread Ciaran McCreesh
On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 20:45:45 + Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The userrel team has decided to request a 5 day ban to the -dev ml for rbrown for his repeated misbehaviour, as noticed above, and that' now in place. It's good to see the userrel team is active. Will you be

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]

2008-06-19 Thread Jan Kundrát
Luca Barbato wrote: http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/releng/#doc_chap5 The latest release of Gentoo Linux is: Gentoo Linux 2007.0 for Alpha, AMD64, HPPA, IA64, MIPS, PPC, S390, SH, SPARC, and x86 architectures. Good point, doc team please update those places. The GDP has zero control over

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]

2008-06-19 Thread Jan Kundrát
Jeroen Roovers wrote: PS: I wanted to respond to many more of your comments, but then I always thought: who is this man anyway and does he perhaps contribute to Gentoo in some obscure way? Now I tend to think you don't. David seems to be a PMS contributor [1]. Cheers, -jkt [1]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]

2008-06-19 Thread Luca Barbato
Jan Kundrát wrote: The GDP has zero control over /proj/en/releng (well, in fact any developer can commit to that area, but you generally aren't supposed to change a project's web page without their approval). This document is maintained by releng. Ok Additionally, if you really expect any

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]

2008-06-18 Thread Chris Gianelloni
On Fri, 2008-06-13 at 11:14 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: But some EAPI-0 accepting Portage versions don't accept inline comments. Using inline comments in the tree will break those Portage versions. Yes, and EAPI=0 accepting Portage versions also didn't accept things like package.use and

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]

2008-06-18 Thread Chris Gianelloni
On Fri, 2008-06-13 at 11:22 +0100, David Leverton wrote: PS: An example of something in PMS that is different from Portage: inline comments are disallowed. The only reason I can think for doing this is to not make Paludis change it's behaviour. Fortunately you don't have to think, you

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]

2008-06-18 Thread Chris Gianelloni
On Fri, 2008-06-13 at 12:22 +0200, Luca Barbato wrote: David Leverton wrote: On Friday 13 June 2008 11:10:46 Nirbheek Chauhan wrote: Interesting to note, however, that Paludis doesn't accept inline comments, and this behaviour predates PMS. There's a reason for Paludis not accepting

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]

2008-06-18 Thread Chris Gianelloni
On Fri, 2008-06-13 at 11:23 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: Did you check whether Portage that's included in current Gentoo releases supports inline comments in profiles? Yeah, the version in 2008.0_beta2 surely does. Perhaps you meant something else? Well, either that, or you're just posting

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]

2008-06-18 Thread Chris Gianelloni
On Fri, 2008-06-13 at 11:27 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: Well, then it should be updated to match current Portage behaviour. PMS is not supposed to document How portage worked at one point of time or The intersection of the capabilities of Portage and Paludis. It should follow the current

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]

2008-06-18 Thread Chris Gianelloni
On Fri, 2008-06-13 at 12:44 +, Duncan wrote: Ciaran's right on this one. It may have been a bug in portage, now fixed, but at least until a stable current release media set, a working PMS can't change the EAPI-0 definition to fail with portage on the old release media, however stale it

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]

2008-06-18 Thread Chris Gianelloni
On Sun, 2008-06-15 at 15:50 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: Do you think that the differences between the proportion of patches from 'Paludis people' that are accepted or rejected and the proportion of patches from 'Portage people' or 'Pkgcore people' indicates a problem? Nope. What I see as

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]

2008-06-18 Thread Chris Gianelloni
On Sun, 2008-06-15 at 16:04 +0100, David Leverton wrote: On Sunday 15 June 2008 15:42:28 Peter Volkov wrote: For example, currently, PMS team does not include anybody from portage team - official PM team and thus this team can't represent Gentoo interests. The Portage team is perfectly

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]

2008-06-18 Thread Mauricio Lima Pilla
Chris++ On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 10:43 PM, Chris Gianelloni [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sun, 2008-06-15 at 15:50 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: Do you think that the differences between the proportion of patches from 'Paludis people' that are accepted or rejected and the proportion of

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]

2008-06-18 Thread George Prowse
++ It's about time someone said this and I honestly think that lots of developers will be thinking the same. In the end, PMS is just a way for them to spread their own agenda and force it on both the developers and the users so maybe it would be best for all if paludis and it's developers

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]

2008-06-18 Thread David Leverton
On Thursday 19 June 2008 04:09:26 George Prowse wrote: In the end, PMS is just a way for them to spread their own agenda Lies and FUD. maybe it would be best for all if paludis and it's developers were to concentrate on making paludis for a different distro. Trollix may be a good place to

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]

2008-06-18 Thread David Leverton
On Thursday 19 June 2008 01:23:33 Chris Gianelloni wrote: Considering that the most recent official release is 2008.0_beta2, I don't see where you have a point, at all. http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/releng/#doc_chap5 The latest release of Gentoo Linux is: Gentoo Linux 2007.0 for Alpha, AMD64,

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]

2008-06-15 Thread Peter Volkov
В Чтв, 12/06/2008 в 09:36 +0200, Markus Ullmann пишет: The PMS maintainers were withholding information on compatibility issues they've seen. As such we can't be sure this will pop up again in the future and so I strongly suggest dismissing this as something official for gentoo. Dismissing

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]

2008-06-15 Thread Ciaran McCreesh
On Sun, 15 Jun 2008 18:42:28 +0400 Peter Volkov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: By formalizing I mean the following: call for and form PMS team. Team must represent portage developers and could paludis and pkgcore. All suggestions for PMS draft must go into bugzilla and after patch for PMS is

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]

2008-06-15 Thread David Leverton
On Sunday 15 June 2008 15:42:28 Peter Volkov wrote: For example, currently, PMS team does not include anybody from portage team - official PM team and thus this team can't represent Gentoo interests. The Portage team is perfectly welcome to contribute if they wish. zmedico is on the alias,

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]

2008-06-15 Thread Peter Volkov
В Вск, 15/06/2008 в 15:50 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh пишет: On Sun, 15 Jun 2008 18:42:28 +0400 Peter Volkov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: By formalizing I mean the following: call for and form PMS team. Team must represent portage developers and could paludis and pkgcore. All suggestions for PMS

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]

2008-06-15 Thread Ciaran McCreesh
On Sun, 15 Jun 2008 22:27:35 +0400 Peter Volkov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: How would a voting system be better than the current if anyone doesn't like it, don't commit it until whatever they don't like is fixed process? Voting makes the process converging. It helps to avoid same arguments

[gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]

2008-06-13 Thread Duncan
Ciaran McCreesh [EMAIL PROTECTED] posted [EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Fri, 13 Jun 2008 06:26:12 +0100: On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 09:30:54 +0530 Arun Raghavan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And why do you have to be plain insulting about it? Nobody can magically spot every single bug in any

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]

2008-06-13 Thread Ciaran McCreesh
On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 08:16:57 + (UTC) Duncan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I agree entirely. Why the pkgcore people refuse to do basic automated tests is completely beyond me. That may or may not be, but it's beside the point. The point is that a bug was found, that fact was stated, and

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]

2008-06-13 Thread Patrick Lauer
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 09:30:54 +0530 Arun Raghavan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And why do you have to be plain insulting about it? Nobody can magically spot every single bug in any piece of code presented to them. In fact it's why the given enough eyes ... adage is one of

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]

2008-06-13 Thread Fernando J. Pereda
On 13 Jun 2008, at 11:01, Patrick Lauer wrote: Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 09:30:54 +0530 Arun Raghavan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And why do you have to be plain insulting about it? Nobody can magically spot every single bug in any piece of code presented to them. In fact it's

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]

2008-06-13 Thread Ciaran McCreesh
On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 11:01:19 +0200 Patrick Lauer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Just to pour some oil on the flames - Y'all are aware that paludis can't parse a valid make.conf and does ignore package.keywords at times, yes? Yep. We don't claim to or aim to completely support Portage configs.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]

2008-06-13 Thread Patrick Lauer
Fernando J. Pereda wrote: Just to pour some oil on the flames - Then don't do it. You are doing a very bad marketing for the pkgcore guys with your whinnings. Dude. Shut up. I'm not a pkgcore guy. If anything I'm a portage supporter. That I accidentally host pkgcore.org doesn't mean I'm

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]

2008-06-13 Thread Ciaran McCreesh
On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 11:16:31 +0200 Patrick Lauer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yes, we are aware of that bug in a feature we consider highly experimental. Hmm, I'd have guessed config files are moderately relevant. You didn't notice the large warning telling you not to use Portage config files?

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]

2008-06-13 Thread Fernando J. Pereda
On 13 Jun 2008, at 11:16, Patrick Lauer wrote: Then don't do it. You are doing a very bad marketing for the pkgcore guys with your whinnings. I'm not a pkgcore guy. If anything I'm a portage supporter. That I accidentally host pkgcore.org doesn't mean I'm one of them. Were you able to

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]

2008-06-13 Thread Patrick Lauer
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 11:16:31 +0200 Patrick Lauer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yes, we are aware of that bug in a feature we consider highly experimental. Hmm, I'd have guessed config files are moderately relevant. You didn't notice the large warning telling

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]

2008-06-13 Thread Ciaran McCreesh
On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 11:53:02 +0200 Patrick Lauer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You didn't notice the large warning telling you not to use Portage config files? I did. But how else can I compare things or move back to portage if I don't like it? You can set up a Paludis config. It's nice

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]

2008-06-13 Thread Nirbheek Chauhan
On Fri, Jun 13, 2008 at 2:52 PM, Ciaran McCreesh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And why don't y'all fix a bug like that? We do what PMS requires regarding handling of inline comments (which is the same as what some EAPI 0 accepting Portage versions do, so PMS can't allow inline comments), and

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]

2008-06-13 Thread Ciaran McCreesh
On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 15:40:46 +0530 Nirbheek Chauhan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, Jun 13, 2008 at 2:52 PM, Ciaran McCreesh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And why don't y'all fix a bug like that? We do what PMS requires regarding handling of inline comments (which is the same as what some

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]

2008-06-13 Thread Nirbheek Chauhan
On Fri, Jun 13, 2008 at 3:27 PM, Ciaran McCreesh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Where possible, we exclude things that break Portage. Are you suggesting that we should instead ignore what EAPI-0-supporting Portage does and does not handle and just document things the way we'd like them to be? Wait,

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]

2008-06-13 Thread David Leverton
On Friday 13 June 2008 11:10:46 Nirbheek Chauhan wrote: Interesting to note, however, that Paludis doesn't accept inline comments, and this behaviour predates PMS. There's a reason for Paludis not accepting them, and the same reason applies to the question of allowing them in PMS or not,

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]

2008-06-13 Thread Nirbheek Chauhan
On Fri, Jun 13, 2008 at 3:44 PM, Ciaran McCreesh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But some EAPI-0 accepting Portage versions don't accept inline comments. Using inline comments in the tree will break those Portage versions. This one's especially an issue when you consider how long it's been since

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]

2008-06-13 Thread David Leverton
On Friday 13 June 2008 11:18:53 Nirbheek Chauhan wrote: Wait, what? Where possible ? You'd prefer us to do impossible things too? PMS is supposed to be a specification which is as close to Gentoo's Official Package manager's behaviour as possible while (preferably) leaving out deprecated

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]

2008-06-13 Thread Luca Barbato
David Leverton wrote: On Friday 13 June 2008 11:10:46 Nirbheek Chauhan wrote: Interesting to note, however, that Paludis doesn't accept inline comments, and this behaviour predates PMS. There's a reason for Paludis not accepting them, and the same reason applies to the question of allowing

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]

2008-06-13 Thread Nirbheek Chauhan
On Fri, Jun 13, 2008 at 3:49 PM, David Leverton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Friday 13 June 2008 11:10:46 Nirbheek Chauhan wrote: Interesting to note, however, that Paludis doesn't accept inline comments, and this behaviour predates PMS. There's a reason for Paludis not accepting them, and the

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]

2008-06-13 Thread Ciaran McCreesh
On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 15:48:53 +0530 Nirbheek Chauhan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: PMS is supposed to be a specification which is as close to Gentoo's Official Package manager's behaviour as possible while (preferably) leaving out deprecated behaviour. But right now you're saying: We're writing a

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]

2008-06-13 Thread Fernando J. Pereda
On 13 Jun 2008, at 12:18, Nirbheek Chauhan wrote: We're writing a spec that's somewhat like Portage, but where it breaks Paludis, we prefer to get Portage to change it's behaviour instead. Don't crib about this however. We could just have easily have created a whole new spec which broke Portage

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]

2008-06-13 Thread Ciaran McCreesh
On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 15:52:30 +0530 Nirbheek Chauhan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Interesting to note, however, that Paludis doesn't accept inline comments, and this behaviour predates PMS. Paludis behaviour there matches Portage behaviour at the time it was written, except that instead of

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]

2008-06-13 Thread David Leverton
On Friday 13 June 2008 11:23:29 Nirbheek Chauhan wrote: On Fri, Jun 13, 2008 at 3:49 PM, David Leverton There's a reason for Paludis not accepting them, and the same reason applies to the question of allowing them in PMS or not, therefore PMS doesn't allow them. There's no evil conspiracy

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]

2008-06-13 Thread Brian Harring
On Fri, Jun 13, 2008 at 11:32:20AM +0100, David Leverton wrote: On Friday 13 June 2008 11:23:29 Nirbheek Chauhan wrote: On Fri, Jun 13, 2008 at 3:49 PM, David Leverton There's a reason for Paludis not accepting them, and the same reason applies to the question of allowing them in PMS or

[gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]

2008-06-13 Thread Duncan
Nirbheek Chauhan [EMAIL PROTECTED] posted [EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Fri, 13 Jun 2008 15:52:30 +0530: Well, then it should be updated to match current Portage behaviour. PMS is not supposed to document How portage worked at one point of time or The intersection of the capabilities

[gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]

2008-06-12 Thread Markus Ullmann
Donnie Berkholz schrieb: Status of PMS - ferringb said: I'd like the council to please discuss the current status of PMS, if the running of it satisfys the councils requirements of a *neutral* standard, if the proposed spec actually meets said standards, and if said spec is

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]

2008-06-12 Thread Ciaran McCreesh
On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 09:36:18 +0200 Markus Ullmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: After investing more than two hours to just read the Mails that popped up yesterday regarding this stuff, I'd say we can't really take this serious. The PMS maintainers were withholding information on compatibility

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]

2008-06-12 Thread Luca Barbato
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: No, we were trying to get the pkgcore people to write some frickin' test cases for their code rather than continuing to screw up the process by incorrectly claiming support for an EAPI. That isn't what has been perceived. Whoever will take the portage specification will

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]

2008-06-12 Thread Ciaran McCreesh
On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 09:52:13 +0200 Luca Barbato [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You should instead be asking the pkgcore guys why they should be allowed to continue keeping a package in the tree when they're blatantly ignoring the EAPI process. The eapi process is something not defined so they

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]

2008-06-12 Thread Luca Barbato
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: Package manager maintainers refusing to do basic testing before claiming support for a new EAPI has very messy consequences. If package manager maintainers aren't going to do the responsible thing, the whole point of EAPIs is lost. Thats a circular argument since portage

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]

2008-06-12 Thread Ciaran McCreesh
On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 10:12:47 +0200 Luca Barbato [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ciaran McCreesh wrote: Package manager maintainers refusing to do basic testing before claiming support for a new EAPI has very messy consequences. If package manager maintainers aren't going to do the responsible

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]

2008-06-12 Thread Denis Dupeyron
On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 10:16 AM, Ciaran McCreesh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Are you seriously suggesting that the portage and pkgcore developers think that they should be able to release a package manager that claims to support an EAPI when it in fact doesn't? Please stop your incessant and

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]

2008-06-12 Thread Ciaran McCreesh
On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 10:24:14 +0200 Denis Dupeyron [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 10:16 AM, Ciaran McCreesh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Are you seriously suggesting that the portage and pkgcore developers think that they should be able to release a package manager that claims

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]

2008-06-12 Thread Brian Harring
On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 09:16:51AM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 10:12:47 +0200 Luca Barbato [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ciaran McCreesh wrote: Package manager maintainers refusing to do basic testing before claiming support for a new EAPI has very messy consequences. If

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]

2008-06-12 Thread Ciaran McCreesh
On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 01:40:06 -0700 Brian Harring [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Are you seriously suggesting that the portage and pkgcore developers think that they should be able to release a package manager that claims to support an EAPI when it in fact doesn't? When paludis hit the tree, it

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]

2008-06-12 Thread David Leverton
On Thursday 12 June 2008 08:36:18 Markus Ullmann wrote: After investing more than two hours to just read the Mails that popped up yesterday regarding this stuff, I'd say we can't really take this serious. The PMS maintainers were withholding information on compatibility issues they've seen.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]

2008-06-12 Thread George Prowse
Luca Barbato wrote: Ciaran McCreesh wrote: Package manager maintainers refusing to do basic testing before claiming support for a new EAPI has very messy consequences. If package manager maintainers aren't going to do the responsible thing, the whole point of EAPIs is lost. Thats a circular

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]

2008-06-12 Thread Ciaran McCreesh
On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 18:32:35 +0100 George Prowse [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If the bickering is stopping development then maybe it should be given to a 3rd party to complete and have the last word. Considering third parties have at best contributed a few small patches, I don't see that getting

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]

2008-06-12 Thread Wernfried Haas
On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 09:36:18AM +0200, Markus Ullmann wrote: After investing more than two hours to just read the Mails that popped up yesterday regarding this stuff, I'd say we can't really take this serious. The PMS maintainers were withholding information on compatibility issues

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]

2008-06-12 Thread David Leverton
On Thursday 12 June 2008 22:21:48 Wernfried Haas wrote: Agreed, if this is the way PMS is done, we should either get rid of it or do it differently. The current status as presented here is inacceptable. Could someone please explain what's wrong with PMS, other than needs moar XML and I hate

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]

2008-06-12 Thread George Prowse
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 18:32:35 +0100 George Prowse [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If the bickering is stopping development then maybe it should be given to a 3rd party to complete and have the last word. Considering third parties have at best contributed a few small patches, I

[gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]

2008-06-12 Thread Duncan
David Leverton [EMAIL PROTECTED] posted [EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Thu, 12 Jun 2008 22:58:26 +0100: On Thursday 12 June 2008 22:21:48 Wernfried Haas wrote: Agreed, if this is the way PMS is done, we should either get rid of it or do it differently. The current status as presented

[gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]

2008-06-12 Thread Duncan
Duncan [EMAIL PROTECTED] posted [EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Fri, 13 Jun 2008 00:42:34 +: Umm... pardon me for speaking my mind a bit here, and nothing personal, particularly since I have the utmost respect for the talent and skills of the people involved, but after seeing a

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]

2008-06-12 Thread David Leverton
2008/6/13 Duncan [EMAIL PROTECTED]: In this instance, it's the pulling teeth to get info on a claimed known bug from PMS folks on pkgcore, while at the same time, complaints about the non-clarity of PMS is met with remarks (by the same group of people) of (paraphrased) filed a patch yet? In

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]

2008-06-12 Thread Arun Raghavan
On Fri, Jun 13, 2008 at 6:43 AM, David Leverton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 2008/6/13 Duncan [EMAIL PROTECTED]: In this instance, it's the pulling teeth to get info on a claimed known bug from PMS folks on pkgcore, while at the same time, complaints about the non-clarity of PMS is met with