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
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
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.
-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
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
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,
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
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
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
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
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
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
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?
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
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
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
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
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,
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
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
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
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
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
-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
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
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
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]
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
++
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
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
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,
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
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
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,
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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?
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
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
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
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
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
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,
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,
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
89 matches
Mail list logo