(Everything here is meant to be educational, not really commenting on
anything else.)
On Thu, 2007-02-22 at 12:04 -0800, Brian Harring wrote:
> Said spec covers profiles also; mentioning at least the existance of
> the misc STAGE* settings isn't a horrible idea, even if not going into
> detail-
If that, what you stated in your last three paragraphs - and I do agree with
it - will be the case, this proposed PMS will be dismissed and Paludis
remains with a more or less accurate description, of what isn't a Gentoo
package manager.
Carsten
pgpf4jh4lkHfG.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On 2/22/07, Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
And if you want a perfect example of reverting to ad hominem rather
than technical discussion, I suggest you reread your own email.
I did. I don't see any ad hominem attacks. I was very careful not to
say anything nasty.
Even assuming I am
On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 22:35:59 +0100 Paul de Vrieze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| On Thursday 22 February 2007, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
| > On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 04:04:37 + Steve Long
| > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| > | > I'm saying that until there is an independent implementation,
| > | > the spec
On Thursday 22 February 2007, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> By that same argument, anybody who ever had to deal with abuse from bug
> wranglers wouldn't be using Gentoo. Which would mean a whole lot
> fewer users.
Grow up.
--
Paul de Vrieze
Gentoo Developer
Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Homepage: http:
On Thursday 22 February 2007, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 04:04:37 + Steve Long
>
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> | > I'm saying that until there is an independent implementation, the
> | > specification is worthless and will contain huge numbers of errors.
> |
> | Seriously? Wi
On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 12:04:58 -0800 Brian Harring <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| Said spec covers profiles also; mentioning at least the existance of
| the misc STAGE* settings isn't a horrible idea, even if not going
| into detail- anyone digging through the profiles will see them, and
| likely wond
On Thu, Feb 22, 2007 at 08:11:34PM +0100, Danny van Dyk wrote:
> Am Donnerstag, 22. Februar 2007 17:41 schrieb Brian Harring:
> > Further, getting away from the daft FUD we're trying to 'replace the
> > ebuild format' that was leveled.
> >
> > > Also have a look at our statements regarding overlays
Am Donnerstag, 22. Februar 2007 17:41 schrieb Brian Harring:
> On Thu, Feb 22, 2007 at 05:07:22PM +0100, Danny van Dyk wrote:
> > Am Donnerstag, 22. Februar 2007 14:26 schrieb Brian Harring:
> > > On Thu, Feb 22, 2007 at 04:13:11AM +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > > > On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 04:04:37
On Thu, Feb 22, 2007 at 06:42:39PM +0100, Kevin F. Quinn wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 17:10:38 +0100
> Marien Zwart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > The
> > idea was to not get any messy portage quirks documented as required
> > standard behaviour, the risk here is that we'll now get paludis quirk
On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 17:10:38 +0100
Marien Zwart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I am a bit unsure about what the goal for PMS is here. It does not
> seem to be to document what a certain (the current?) version of
> portage does, as the defacto standard. Instead you want to document
> what portages *i
On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 17:10:38 +0100 Marien Zwart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| I am a bit unsure about what the goal for PMS is here. It does not
| seem to be to document what a certain (the current?) version of
| portage does, as the defacto standard. Instead you want to document
| what portages *in
On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 05:26:56 -0800 Brian Harring <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| > | Seriously? Without an implementation, your spec of what should
| > | happen will have loads of errors?
| >
| > Yes. It will describe what people think is allowed, rather than what
| > really is.
|
| If you're writin
On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 17:10:38 +0100
Marien Zwart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The
> idea was to not get any messy portage quirks documented as required
> standard behaviour, the risk here is that we'll now get paludis quirks
> documented as required standard behaviour.
Well, that'll come out in re
On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 01:42:47 -0700 "Daniel Robbins"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| Also, talk about derailing Paludis - *your behavior* is what's
| derailing the future of Paludis and making people uncomfortable with
| your solo development style. I will not use Paludis, contribute to it,
| or sugges
On Thu, Feb 22, 2007 at 05:07:22PM +0100, Danny van Dyk wrote:
> Am Donnerstag, 22. Februar 2007 14:26 schrieb Brian Harring:
> > On Thu, Feb 22, 2007 at 04:13:11AM +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > > On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 04:04:37 + Steve Long
> > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > | In process
On Thu, Feb 22, 2007 at 04:13:11AM +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 04:04:37 + Steve Long
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> | In process terms, I can't understand why the team working on it isn't
> | a pkgcore dev (eg marienz if you can't communicate with ferringb)
>
> Because
Am Donnerstag, 22. Februar 2007 14:26 schrieb Brian Harring:
> On Thu, Feb 22, 2007 at 04:13:11AM +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 04:04:37 + Steve Long
> >
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > | > I'm saying that until there is an independent implementation,
> > | > the spec
On Wed, 2007-02-21 at 21:33 -0800, antarus wrote:
> I think the whole deal is blown out of proportion, mostly because many
> people dislike Ciaran, and unfortunately Ciaran dislikes (or distrusts,
> may be a better word) many other people (myself and Brian Harring
> included). If the aim is to
On Thu, 2007-02-22 at 04:13 +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> | and Gianelloni for the infrastructure.
>
> And what on earth do infrastructure have to do with a package manager
> specification?
Especially considering that I am not an infrastructure guy. I'll be
honest. I'm not concerned personall
On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 13:18:13 +0100
"Ioannis Aslanidis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > As for Ciaran bashing Jakub, I can't help but nod (and gasp at
> > some of Jakub's comments) - for quite some time now.
>
> Bashing on someone is always wrong.
> Bashing on someone gets you banned.
Tell that to
Brian Harring wrote:
| Seriously? Without an implementation, your spec of what should happen
| will have loads of errors?
Yes. It will describe what people think is allowed, rather than what
really is.
> Don't think so; making the point that if attempting to write the spe
On Thu, Feb 22, 2007 at 02:43:57PM +0100, Thomas R??sner wrote:
> Brian Harring schrieb:
> >On Thu, Feb 22, 2007 at 04:13:11AM +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> >
> >>On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 04:04:37 + Steve Long
> >><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>| > I'm saying that until there is an independent i
Brian Harring schrieb:
On Thu, Feb 22, 2007 at 04:13:11AM +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 04:04:37 + Steve Long
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| > I'm saying that until there is an independent implementation, the
| > specification is worthless and will contain huge numbers o
On Thu, Feb 22, 2007 at 04:13:11AM +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 04:04:37 + Steve Long
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> | > I'm saying that until there is an independent implementation, the
> | > specification is worthless and will contain huge numbers of errors.
> |
> | Se
As for Ciaran bashing Jakub, I can't help but nod (and gasp at
some of Jakub's comments) - for quite some time now.
Bashing on someone is always wrong.
Bashing on someone gets you banned.
--
Ioannis Aslanidis
0xB9B11F4E
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
On Wed, 21 Feb 2007 21:48:49 -0700
"Daniel Robbins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 2/21/07, Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Are you insane? What on earth could Jakub possibly contribute? If
> > you want a rough indication of Jakub's level of ebuild
> > understanding, take a look at
On 2/21/07, Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'm perfectly polite when I'm not replying to the dozenth deliberate
attempt to derail something into which I have put a lot of effort...
Look, I don't want to waste everyone's time by dismantling in painful
detail the foolishness of what y
On 2/22/07, Daniel Robbins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 2/21/07, Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Are you insane? What on earth could Jakub possibly contribute? If you
> want a rough indication of Jakub's level of ebuild understanding, take
> a look at bug 160328.
Is there any proce
Clearly you are more concerned about getting Paludis ready. spb has other
priorities, fair enough, but this is something that seems fairly important
for gentoo as a whole.
In process terms, I can't understand why the team working on it isn't a
pkgcore dev (eg marienz if you can't communica
On Wed, 21 Feb 2007 21:48:49 -0700 "Daniel Robbins"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| On 2/21/07, Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| > Are you insane? What on earth could Jakub possibly contribute? If
| > you want a rough indication of Jakub's level of ebuild
| > understanding, take a look at
On 2/21/07, Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Are you insane? What on earth could Jakub possibly contribute? If you
want a rough indication of Jakub's level of ebuild understanding, take
a look at bug 160328.
Is there any process in place to ban people from the gentoo-dev
mailing list
On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 04:04:37 + Steve Long
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| > I'm saying that until there is an independent implementation, the
| > specification is worthless and will contain huge numbers of errors.
|
| Seriously? Without an implementation, your spec of what should happen
| will ha
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> | Are you really saying that you won't be releasing this information
> | until such time as *Paludis* meets it, even though portage/pkgcore
> | may not? Isn't the *point* of this spec to try to bring everyone on
> | the same page?
>
> I'm saying that until there is an inde
Brian Harring wrote:
> Offhand, if the council (majority, no offense meant but not just
> one council member who is also a paludis dev) is happy with the state
> of things and timelines, then I'll gladly retract the request.
>
Is this the case; are the majority of the council happy?
--
gentoo-de
35 matches
Mail list logo
