Chris Gianelloni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted
[EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on
Thu, 15 Jun 2006 14:39:35 -0400:
> On Thu, 2006-06-15 at 19:18 +0100, Stuart Herbert wrote:
>> Hi Kevin,
>>
>> On 6/15/06, Kevin F. Quinn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > I read the "should" as
>> > implying that a
On Wed, 14 Jun 2006 09:13:34 -0400, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
big snip.
> Except I'm not arguing about abandoned packages. I'm arguing about things
> like kernel sources, that proponents of sunrise say should be in the
> overlay, even after the kernel team says that it should *never* go into
>
On Wed, 2006-06-14 at 10:09 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Jun 2006 08:52:37 + (UTC) "Duncan"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> | But as Stuart Herbert pointed out, a project can be self-authorized,
> | by the current rules. Project Sunrise therefore didn't /need/
> | permission to com
On Wed, 2006-06-14 at 08:52 +, Duncan wrote:
> But as Stuart Herbert pointed out, a project can be self-authorized, by
> the current rules. Project Sunrise therefore didn't /need/ permission to
> come into existence and set up its own overlay. The announcement here,
> while perhaps it /should/
On Wed, 14 Jun 2006 08:52:37 + (UTC) "Duncan"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| But as Stuart Herbert pointed out, a project can be self-authorized,
| by the current rules. Project Sunrise therefore didn't /need/
| permission to come into existence and set up its own overlay. The
| announcement her
Chris Gianelloni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted
[EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Tue,
13 Jun 2006 17:32:38 -0400:
> What we *are* arguing against is having something in a
> non-project-specific overlay, that is not maintained by the project in
> question, and has *specifically* been rejected by
On Tue, 13 Jun 2006 20:30:27 +0200, Henrik Brix Andersen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 13, 2006 at 02:14:24PM -0400, Peter wrote:
>> I did. Sources don't affect anything. The ck-sources are in the tree,
> and
>> there is dire warning associated with them. Only the -mm sources have
>
On Tue, 13 Jun 2006 13:41:21 -0500 Grant Goodyear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| Henrik Brix Andersen wrote: [Tue Jun 13 2006, 01:30:27PM CDT]
| > On Tue, Jun 13, 2006 at 02:14:24PM -0400, Peter wrote:
| > > I did. Sources don't affect anything. The ck-sources are in the
| > > tree, and there is dire
Henrik Brix Andersen wrote: [Tue Jun 13 2006, 01:52:18PM CDT]
> All software runs on top of the core of the operating system, the
> kernel. If the kernel is buggy it will be reflected in all the
> software running on top of it, be it portage, compilers, daemons or
> graphical user environments.
Oh
On Tue, Jun 13, 2006 at 01:41:21PM -0500, Grant Goodyear wrote:
> Care to elaborate? The wise, all-knowing Zen argument isn't
> particularly helpful
All software runs on top of the core of the operating system, the
kernel. If the kernel is buggy it will be reflected in all the
software runnin
Henrik Brix Andersen wrote: [Tue Jun 13 2006, 01:30:27PM CDT]
> On Tue, Jun 13, 2006 at 02:14:24PM -0400, Peter wrote:
> > I did. Sources don't affect anything. The ck-sources are in the tree, and
> > there is dire warning associated with them. Only the -mm sources have any
> > sort of warning. If
On Tue, Jun 13, 2006 at 02:14:24PM -0400, Peter wrote:
> I did. Sources don't affect anything. The ck-sources are in the tree, and
> there is dire warning associated with them. Only the -mm sources have any
> sort of warning. If a user CHOOSES to use a hacked up kernel, then they
> obviously choose
On Tue, 13 Jun 2006 19:54:47 +0200, Henrik Brix Andersen wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 13, 2006 at 01:29:55PM -0400, Peter wrote: [snip]
>> This kernel source will not cause Armageddon to arrive, cause smoke to
>> issue from your power supply, nor interfere with other ebuilds.
>
> That's funny. Did you ju
13 matches
Mail list logo
