Mart Raudsepp wrote:
So my point is that the whole of the council should consider the
objections of an individual council member, so that potentially bad
things don't end up accepted based on some kind of an uninformed
majority vote or concensus.
Probably the best way to accomplish something l
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> On 12:15 Thu 23 Apr , Tiziano Müller wrote:
>> Am Mittwoch, den 22.04.2009, 23:21 -0700 schrieb Donnie Berkholz:
>>> Here is an updated agenda. I've removed a few items that I consider
>>> lower priority and unlikely for u
On Wed, 2009-04-22 at 23:21 -0700, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
>
>
> Goals: Any unanswered queries? Figure out what to do with features
> receiving a "no."
I think the whole council should understand why something received a
"no" from someone, as they might be important technical (or subjective)
arg
On Thu, 23 Apr 2009 08:53:24 -0700
Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> Which other important topic should we drop for it? I'm thinking we
> probably won't even get to the last one, that's almost a wish list. I
> think there's a pretty reasonable chance we also wouldn't get to
> whatever other items came a
On 12:15 Thu 23 Apr , Tiziano Müller wrote:
> Am Mittwoch, den 22.04.2009, 23:21 -0700 schrieb Donnie Berkholz:
> > Here is an updated agenda. I've removed a few items that I consider
> > lower priority and unlikely for us to have time for during this
> > week's meeting. Also, I added the iss
On Wed, 22 Apr 2009 23:21:26 -0700
Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> Here is an updated agenda. I've removed a few items that I consider
> lower priority and unlikely for us to have time for during this
> week's meeting.
Please bring forward dleverton's "Portage repeatedly changing
behaviour" thing. With
Am Mittwoch, den 22.04.2009, 23:21 -0700 schrieb Donnie Berkholz:
> On 15:27 Fri 17 Apr , Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> > On 15:17 Fri 17 Apr , Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> > > 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 f
On 15:27 Fri 17 Apr , Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> On 15:17 Fri 17 Apr , Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> > 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've got a few items pending
On Sun, 19 Apr 2009 18:14:36 +0100
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Sun, 19 Apr 2009 19:10:50 +0200
> Peter Alfredsen wrote:
> > A reasonable default would be --disable-static. Then libs that have
> > in-tree consumers of their static libs could then make a use-flag,
> > users who need them could use
On Sunday 19 April 2009 18:14:36 Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Sun, 19 Apr 2009 19:10:50 +0200
>
> Peter Alfredsen wrote:
> > A reasonable default would be --disable-static. Then libs that have
> > in-tree consumers of their static libs could then make a use-flag,
> > users who need them could use E
On Sun, 19 Apr 2009 19:10:50 +0200
Peter Alfredsen wrote:
> A reasonable default would be --disable-static. Then libs that have
> in-tree consumers of their static libs could then make a use-flag,
> users who need them could use EXTRA_ECONF="--enable-static".
If you're going to do that, why not d
On Sun, 19 Apr 2009 12:21:55 -0400
Thomas Anderson wrote:
> Why are we trying to get rid of static libraries again? I have not
> seen any compelling reason to remove libraries that may be useful to
> our users. Perhaps I've missed some discussion(in which case, I'd
> love to read it), but this se
On Sun, Apr 19, 2009 at 05:58:53PM +0200, Peter Alfredsen wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Apr 2009 15:17:15 -0700
> Donnie Berkholz wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
On Fri, 17 Apr 2009 15:17:15 -0700
Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> 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.
Up or down vote on USE="static-libs". It seems it wasn't actually voted
on las
Mind you my opinion...
On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 11:32:42PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Apr 2009 15:27:30 -0700
> Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> > EAPI 4: Inclusion of prefix-related variables
While I'm a fan of prefix, a stronger case for existing
implementation (including more expositi
On Fri, 17 Apr 2009 15:27:30 -0700
Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> EAPI 4: Inclusion of prefix-related variables
> EAPI 4: Inclusion of "mtime preservation"
Can we put these on hold until EAPI 3 is up and running? We need to get
EAPI 3 sorted out before spending any of our limited time on EAPI 4. We
all
On Fri, 17 Apr 2009 15:17:15 -0700
Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> This is your friendly reminder! Same bat time (typically the 2nd & 4th
> Thursdays at 2000 UTC / 1600 EST), same bat channel (#gentoo-council @
> irc.freenode.net) !
>
> If you have something you'd wish for us to chat about, maybe even v
On 15:17 Fri 17 Apr , Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> 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've got a few items pending that I would like to propose. It should be
clear that there
This is your friendly reminder! Same bat time (typically the 2nd & 4th
Thursdays at 2000 UTC / 1600 EST), same bat channel (#gentoo-council @
irc.freenode.net) !
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
19 matches
Mail list logo
