On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 12:52:37 -0800
Chris Gianelloni [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I went and created a tiny script[1] to change mips KEYWORDS to ~mips
in the tree, and created a patch[2] against the current CVS tree.
Were the Council to choose this course of action, the work is mostly
done.
On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 12:33:40 -0800
Chris Gianelloni [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is why I find it funny that people even bother to listen to
Ciaran, at all. All he cares about is his little pet projects/teams
and doesn't care if it increases workload for everybody else. I
mean, where would
On Thu, 10 Jan 2008 07:08:46 +
Ciaran McCreesh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In the mean time, I'll just say that if you don't drop the personal
attacks and apologise, I'll have no choice but to take it up with
devrel.
s|devrel|userrel|
Thanks,
JeR
--
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
On Thu, 2008-01-10 at 07:08 +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 12:33:40 -0800
Chris Gianelloni [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is why I find it funny that people even bother to listen to
Ciaran, at all. All he cares about is his little pet projects/teams
and doesn't care if
On Thu, Jan 10, 2008 at 11:49:24AM -0800, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
I've not been doing the GWN for a few months now
Yes, we noticed that.
What about 2007.1? As release engineering lead that *should* be your pet
project.
--
Alexander Færøy
--
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
On Thu, 10 Jan 2008 11:49:24 -0800
Chris Gianelloni [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Feel free to bring up an issue with Developer Relations. They'll
likely throw it out because YOU ARE NOT A DEVELOPER. Also, you'll
notice that rather than call you names, which is really your forte, I
have instead
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
Chris Gianelloni [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Feel free to bring up an issue with Developer Relations. They'll
likely throw it out because YOU ARE NOT A DEVELOPER. Also, you'll
notice that rather than call you names, which is really
your forte, I
have instead
On Wed, 9 Jan 2008 15:37:47 +0100
Christian Faulhammer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Christian Faulhammer [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
A quick check [...]
Hereby you have proven that you are not interested about
real arguments...some people have tried to gather facts and you pick
those that maybe have
On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 04:11:58 +0100
Matthias Langer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Really, this discussion is completely pointless unless some mips
users/developers join in - or aren't there any at all?
I'd imagine most of them are staying well clear of it because they've
already seen this discussion
On Tue, 08 Jan 2008 18:59:29 -0800
Chris Gianelloni [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The issue that was raised is that certain arch teams are incapable of
keeping up with the minimal workload they already have and what should
be done about it.
The issue was raised, with absolutely no proof or
On 1/8/08, Ciaran McCreesh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 8 Jan 2008 18:44:22 -0800
Alec Warner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Uh... So where do the original problems come from? Are you saying
that packages mysteriously start breaking on their own because
no-one's maintaining them?
Of
On Wed, 9 Jan 2008 06:58:40 -0800
Alec Warner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think the argument here is that developers control ebuilds. If a
given ebuild is causing 'trouble' for a maintainer it is within their
control to remove the ebuild. Just as if a given package is causing
the maintainer
Hi,
Christian Faulhammer [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
A quick check [...]
Hereby you have proven that you are not interested about
real arguments...some people have tried to gather facts and you pick
those that maybe have a weak reasoning or come from people you know how
to upset. Congratulations.
I'd imagine most of them are staying well clear of it because they've
already seen this discussion a dozen times before and know that it's
just the usual malcontents going around making largely bogus claims and
backing them up with lots of thinly veiled mips bashing rather than
anything
The issue was raised, with absolutely no proof or justification, and
every previous time said issue has been raised it's turned out to be
somewhere between highly misleading and utter bollocks.
Let's assume that you are right, and that dropping keywords is not a proper
thing to
do.
What's
On Wed, 9 Jan 2008 10:36:13 -0500 (EST)
Caleb Tennis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The issue was raised, with absolutely no proof or justification, and
every previous time said issue has been raised it's turned out to be
somewhere between highly misleading and utter bollocks.
Let's assume that
On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 17:49:40 +0100
Wulf C. Krueger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What's the proper fix for when keyword requests stagnate in
bugzilla?
That depends upon whether the keyword request is important.
Let's take a real world example: KDE 3.5.5 is old, buggy and has
some important
On Wed, 2008-01-09 at 17:01 +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
3.5.5 was good enough to be keyworded stable at one point. Thus, it
can't be *that* bad.
So what happens if a flaw is discovered in KDE 3.5.5 that allows root
access?
In your world you allow mips users to trivially install now flawed
On 1/9/08, Ciaran McCreesh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 17:49:40 +0100
Wulf C. Krueger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What's the proper fix for when keyword requests stagnate in
bugzilla?
That depends upon whether the keyword request is important.
Let's take a real world
On Wed, 9 Jan 2008 10:07:31 -0800
Alec Warner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Actually if they dump kde-3.5.5 and anything depending on it, then
they don't break the tree and everyone is happy, no?
Everyone except the users, who end up with pages and pages of horrible
Portage output...
--
Ciaran
On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 17:27:52 +
Roy Marples [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 2008-01-09 at 17:01 +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
3.5.5 was good enough to be keyworded stable at one point. Thus, it
can't be *that* bad.
So what happens if a flaw is discovered in KDE 3.5.5 that allows root
On Wednesday, 09. January 2008 19:16:24 Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
So what happens if a flaw is discovered in KDE 3.5.5 that allows root
access?
Then the one particular part of 3.5.5 that's affected gets fixed and
priority keyworded.
So you suggest that mips keeps doing nothing and expect
On Wed, 9 Jan 2008 19:29:53 +0100
Wulf C. Krueger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wednesday, 09. January 2008 19:16:24 Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
So what happens if a flaw is discovered in KDE 3.5.5 that allows
root access?
Then the one particular part of 3.5.5 that's affected gets fixed and
On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 20:50:38 +0200
Petteri Räty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So you just ignore for example my post about CIA activity for the
mips team?
That falls into the highly misleading category.
--
Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
Ciaran McCreesh kirjoitti:
On Tue, 08 Jan 2008 18:59:29 -0800
Chris Gianelloni [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The issue that was raised is that certain arch teams are incapable of
keeping up with the minimal workload they already have and what should
be done about it.
The issue was raised, with
On Wed, 9 Jan 2008 20:06:00 +0100
Wulf C. Krueger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wednesday, 09. January 2008 19:45:38 Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
Then the one particular part of 3.5.5 that's affected gets fixed
and priority keyworded.
So you suggest that mips keeps doing nothing and expect
On Wednesday 09 January 2008 18:16:24 Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 17:27:52 +
Roy Marples [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 2008-01-09 at 17:01 +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
3.5.5 was good enough to be keyworded stable at one point. Thus, it
can't be *that* bad.
So
On Wednesday, 09. January 2008 19:45:38 Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
Then the one particular part of 3.5.5 that's affected gets fixed
and priority keyworded.
So you suggest that mips keeps doing nothing and expect others to
work *more* in exchange for that?
Well, most users will simply ignore
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
a) Drop all keywords but those of mips. Leaves mips and, more
importantly, its users with a vulnerable and unmaintained set of
packages.
...and break the tree spectacularly, causing huge amounts of pain for
your fellow developers when they encounter horrible repoman
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Ciaran McCreesh a écrit :
On Wed, 9 Jan 2008 20:06:00 +0100
Wulf C. Krueger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wednesday, 09. January 2008 19:45:38 Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
Then the one particular part of 3.5.5 that's affected gets fixed
and priority
On Wed, 2008-01-09 at 14:44 +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
We want the Council to do something about this issue. You can deny
the issue all that you want or try to deflect conversation from the
actual issue, but your opinion isn't very important to the much of
the current developer pool,
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
And why does repoman do that?
Oh. Yeah. Because people with an attitude like yours think that the
correct way to fix a repoman message is to start nuking arch keywords,
ignoring what it does to the rest of the tree.
Dropping keywords works perfectly to have repoman
On Wed, 2008-01-09 at 15:11 +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
Heck, most of the repoman messages people are moaning about are caused
by developers doing exactly this.
No, most of the ones we're complaining about have nothing to do with
KEYWORDS, at all, and everything to do with changes to policy
On Wed, 2008-01-09 at 18:56 +0100, Jan Kundrát wrote:
Chris Gianelloni wrote:
I have foo 1.0, which is mips. There is foo 2.0, which is stable
everywhere else. The foo 1.0 ebuild does not conform to current ebuild
standards. I want to commit changes to foo 2.0, and repoman won't allow
On Wed, 2008-01-09 at 18:11 +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Wed, 9 Jan 2008 10:07:31 -0800
Alec Warner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Actually if they dump kde-3.5.5 and anything depending on it, then
they don't break the tree and everyone is happy, no?
Everyone except the users, who end up
On Wed, 2008-01-09 at 18:45 +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Wed, 9 Jan 2008 19:29:53 +0100
Wulf C. Krueger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wednesday, 09. January 2008 19:16:24 Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
So what happens if a flaw is discovered in KDE 3.5.5 that allows
root access?
Then the
On Wed, 2008-01-09 at 20:50 +0200, Petteri Räty wrote:
Ciaran McCreesh kirjoitti:
On Tue, 08 Jan 2008 18:59:29 -0800
Chris Gianelloni [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The issue that was raised is that certain arch teams are incapable of
keeping up with the minimal workload they already have and
On Wed, 2008-01-09 at 18:56 +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 20:50:38 +0200
Petteri Räty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So you just ignore for example my post about CIA activity for the
mips team?
That falls into the highly misleading category.
Yes, hard numbers are always
On Wed, 2008-01-09 at 20:45 +0100, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
a) Drop all keywords but those of mips. Leaves mips and, more
importantly, its users with a vulnerable and unmaintained set of
packages.
...and break the tree spectacularly, causing huge amounts of
On Sat, 2008-01-05 at 04:32 +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 20:20:18 -0800
Chris Gianelloni [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No offense to anyone, but holding back hundreds of developers and
thousands of users for a handful of developers
...and how exactly are hundreds of
On Sun, 2008-01-06 at 23:34 +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
Ok, so explain:
* How perpetually open bugs are a maintenance burden. They don't
generate emails and they don't require any work on the maintainer's
part. Is the mere fact that they show up in queries all you're
concerned about, and
On Sun, 2008-01-06 at 23:35 +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Sun, 06 Jan 2008 14:09:24 +0100
Matthias Langer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This kind of conversation is not technical at all... Ciaranm, are you
a MIPS user? If so, do you think that running KEYWORDS=mips is less
likely to result
On Sun, 2008-01-06 at 11:36 -0600, Ryan Hill wrote:
that has both sides happy here, but that won't happen if you don't admit
there's a problem.
He doesn't have to admit anything. He is neither an ebuild maintainer
nor an arch team developer. Basically, his opinion is useless in this
case, as
On Tue, 08 Jan 2008 14:04:49 -0800
Chris Gianelloni [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have foo 1.0, which is mips. There is foo 2.0, which is stable
everywhere else. The foo 1.0 ebuild does not conform to current
ebuild standards. I want to commit changes to foo 2.0, and repoman
won't allow me due
On Tue, 08 Jan 2008 18:38:07 -0800
Chris Gianelloni [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 2008-01-09 at 02:17 +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
Oh. Yeah. Because people with an attitude like yours think that the
correct way to fix a repoman message is to start nuking arch
keywords, ignoring what it
On Tue, 8 Jan 2008 18:44:22 -0800
Alec Warner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Uh... So where do the original problems come from? Are you saying
that packages mysteriously start breaking on their own because
no-one's maintaining them?
Of course they do
Ah, right. Because of the magical elf that
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
Alec Warner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Uh... So where do the original problems come from? Are you saying
that packages mysteriously start breaking on their own because
no-one's maintaining them?
Of course they do
Ah, right. Because of the magical elf that lives in
On Wed, 2008-01-09 at 02:47 +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Tue, 8 Jan 2008 18:44:22 -0800
Alec Warner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Uh... So where do the original problems come from? Are you saying
that packages mysteriously start breaking on their own because
no-one's maintaining them?
On Wed, 2008-01-09 at 02:47 +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Tue, 8 Jan 2008 18:44:22 -0800
Alec Warner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Uh... So where do the original problems come from? Are you saying
that packages mysteriously start breaking on their own because
no-one's maintaining them?
On 1/8/08, Ciaran McCreesh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 08 Jan 2008 18:38:07 -0800
Chris Gianelloni [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 2008-01-09 at 02:17 +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
Oh. Yeah. Because people with an attitude like yours think that the
correct way to fix a repoman
On Sun, 2008-01-06 at 09:12 +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Sun, 6 Jan 2008 10:08:47 +0100
Denis Dupeyron [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No. What he meant and doesn't dare to say is you didn't ask, but
demanded, in your usual dry and pesky I'm a spoiled 6-year old tone.
And this as usual
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
Caleb Tennis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If anyone has any examples of where they really are being held back
and where they really have given the arch teams plenty of time to do
something, I'd like to see them... Somehow I doubt it happens very
often, if at all.
Why? You
Hi,
Ciaran McCreesh [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Who knows how long that request would have languished if not for
the security bug?
Who knows indeed... Wouldn't the Council be better served with
examples where we do know?
URL:http://tinyurl.com/ypoxyg is a list of closed security bugs where
mips is
On Sun, 06 Jan 2008 14:09:24 +0100
Matthias Langer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This kind of conversation is not technical at all... Ciaranm, are you
a MIPS user? If so, do you think that running KEYWORDS=mips is less
likely to result in breakage than running KEYWORDS=~mips?
I think you'd need a
Hi,
Ciaran McCreesh [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Mon, 7 Jan 2008 00:35:41 +0100
Christian Faulhammer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
URL:http://tinyurl.com/ypoxyg is a list of closed security bugs
where mips is still cced. 163 is the total number, where surely
some duplicates can be found (PHP,
Christian Faulhammer kirjoitti:
Hi,
Ciaran McCreesh [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Mon, 7 Jan 2008 00:35:41 +0100
Christian Faulhammer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
URL:http://tinyurl.com/ypoxyg is a list of closed security bugs
where mips is still cced. 163 is the total number, where surely
some
On Sun, 2008-01-06 at 23:35 +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Sun, 06 Jan 2008 14:09:24 +0100
Matthias Langer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This kind of conversation is not technical at all... Ciaranm, are you
a MIPS user? If so, do you think that running KEYWORDS=mips is less
likely to result
On Sat, 5 Jan 2008 04:32:33 +
Ciaran McCreesh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 20:20:18 -0800
Chris Gianelloni [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No offense to anyone, but holding back hundreds of developers and
thousands of users for a handful of developers
...and how exactly are
If anyone has any examples of where they really are being held back and
where they really have given the arch teams plenty of time to do
something, I'd like to see them... Somehow I doubt it happens very
often, if at all.
Why? You aren't the person I or anyone else has to make a case to. In
Chris Gianelloni wrote:
This has been an issue for quite some time. Of course, the impact is
debatable, but it seems that we cannot agree ourselves on what is
agreeable, so I see this as a point to bring to the Council simply so it
can be resolved once and for all and things can resume normal
Luca Barbato wrote:
Chris Gianelloni wrote:
This has been an issue for quite some time. Of course, the impact is
debatable, but it seems that we cannot agree ourselves on what is
agreeable, so I see this as a point to bring to the Council simply so it
can be resolved once and for all and
On Sat, 5 Jan 2008 09:03:43 -0500 (EST)
Caleb Tennis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If anyone has any examples of where they really are being held back
and where they really have given the arch teams plenty of time to do
something, I'd like to see them... Somehow I doubt it happens very
often,
On Sat, 5 Jan 2008 12:47:51 +0200
Samuli Suominen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Mainly, talking about categories (yes, categories, no need to mention
single ebuilds at this point) xfce-* and media-* here.
So nothing that's a priority for the users of those archs then. Now
please provide specific
Ryan Hill wrote:
I don't think any of the current suggestions are very good, but I don't
have anything better, other than we get more mips/alt-arch ppl or access
to hardware. Like I said, I'm willing to buy hardware if I can find any
(must ship to Nowhere, Canada).
Alright, I put my money
Ryan Hill wrote:
PS: has anybody checked how viable is now qemu-system ?
Does it build with GCC 4 yet?
not yet...
--
Luca Barbato
Gentoo Council Member
Gentoo/linux Gentoo/PPC
http://dev.gentoo.org/~lu_zero
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
On Sat, 05 Jan 2008 18:19:10 +0100
Luca Barbato [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
PS: has anybody checked how viable is now qemu-system ?
Testing on qemu isn't anything like testing on real hardware. It's not
a reliable or useful way of doing arch work.
--
Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description:
Most of the time, when people are moaning about 'slacker' archs, they
don't have any kind of decent technical reason for doing so... In cases
where such a reason exists, the arch teams are usually quite happy to
prioritise if asked.
And the point of me asking for the council to talk about
On Fri, 4 Jan 2008 06:23:11 -0500 (EST)
Caleb Tennis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Most of the time, when people are moaning about 'slacker' archs,
they don't have any kind of decent technical reason for doing so...
In cases where such a reason exists, the arch teams are usually
quite happy to
On Fri, 4 Jan 2008 17:26:39 -0500 (EST)
Caleb Tennis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
X and Y are pretty much irrelevant. The important factor is Z, the
impact of leaving things the way they are.
Well, I'm asking the council to discuss when pretty much irrelevant
no longer applies.
Compared to
X and Y are pretty much irrelevant. The important factor is Z, the
impact of leaving things the way they are.
Well, I'm asking the council to discuss when pretty much irrelevant no longer
applies.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
On Fri, 2008-01-04 at 21:02 +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
X and Y are pretty much irrelevant. The important factor is Z, the
impact of leaving things the way they are.
...and the idea is to let the Council decide what level of Z is
acceptable. Currently, it appears as if the issue is
On Fri, 2008-01-04 at 22:37 +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
Really, I'd like to see some genuine examples of cases where people
think they have a legitimate value of Z...
How about we base X Y and Z on the number of verifiable users of said
arch? That's just as arbitrary and fits with the normal
On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 20:20:18 -0800
Chris Gianelloni [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No offense to anyone, but holding back hundreds of developers and
thousands of users for a handful of developers
...and how exactly are hundreds of developers and thousands of users
being held back? So far as I can
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
Luca Barbato [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'd suggest something like if nobody could test your update in a
timely way you should ask and possibly get an account on an arch box
in order to test it and bump if the minimal test pass
sounds fair?
Sounds like a great way to get
On Thu, 03 Jan 2008 18:40:43 -0600
Ryan Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have four versions of freetype sitting around that I'd really like
to get rid of
And what is the cost of you not getting rid of them? Is there any
particular reason it matters when it's done?
--
Ciaran McCreesh
On Thu, 03 Jan 2008 19:21:39 -0600
Ryan Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Thu, 03 Jan 2008 18:40:43 -0600
Ryan Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have four versions of freetype sitting around that I'd really
like to get rid of
And what is the cost of you not
Carsten Lohrke posted [EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted
below, on Thu, 05 Jan 2006 20:30:27 +0100:
On Thursday 05 January 2006 16:46, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
Yeah ok, let me end up these holidays, and I'll prepare a written request
to change the Linux part in something else
You should
On Fri, Jan 06, 2006 at 01:37:45AM -0700, Duncan wrote:
What word to use in place of distribution, when one wants to include the
BSDs and other non-distributions as well, other than
Linux/BSD[/*ix]][/OSX], or simply *ix... *IS* there such a term?
Well we could say meta operating system if
On Friday 06 January 2006 09:37, Duncan wrote:
Well, for that matter, distribution is considered at least by my *BSD
friends, to be a peculiarly Linux term. From their perspective, Linux has
1001 distributions, but they only have the one *BSD they choose to use.
That's what we started
Lance Albertson wrote:
I never meant that each subproject can't have their own goals. They need
to have those of course! I was more directed that there isn't a person
in charge of all the subprojects just to keep track of them (Not
governing them). i.e. if subproject foo is working on adding
Brian Harring posted [EMAIL PROTECTED],
excerpted below, on Wed, 04 Jan 2006 22:49:56 -0800:
Note I said 'intentional'; seems like people have been pushing for
gentoo as a whole to slow down (note the enterprise
concerns/complaints that hit the ml every 6 months for example).
Dunno.
On Thursday 05 January 2006 11:26, Duncan wrote:
This man speaks my mind. That's one of the things I'm worried about with
the Enterprise Gentoo thing, and why I think it will make a better
separate project than part of Gentoo itself.
I agree mostly, too. Just that QA has more aspects than
Patrick Lauer posted [EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted
below, on Mon, 02 Jan 2006 22:52:43 +0100:
Lance Albertson wrote:
When I say we have a niche we're perfect at,
I'm mainly referring to the source-based nature of our OS. There isn't
another distro out there that does it as well as us and we
On Tue, 2006-01-03 at 04:08 -0700, Duncan wrote:
Patrick Lauer posted [EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted
below, on Mon, 02 Jan 2006 22:52:43 +0100:
Lance Albertson wrote:
When I say we have a niche we're perfect at,
I'm mainly referring to the source-based nature of our OS. There isn't
Chris Gianelloni [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Tue, 2006-01-03 at 04:08 -0700, Duncan wrote:
I believe that's where the differing opinions begin to come in. Here's
mine. I don't believe that Gentoo, /as/ /Gentoo/, will ever be very
successful as an Enterprise distribution, and I don't think
Mark Loeser wrote:
Chris Gianelloni [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Tue, 2006-01-03 at 04:08 -0700, Duncan wrote:
I believe that's where the differing opinions begin to come in. Here's
mine. I don't believe that Gentoo, /as/ /Gentoo/, will ever be very
successful as an Enterprise distribution,
Lance Albertson [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Mark Loeser wrote:
Chris Gianelloni [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
I completely agree with you here. What Gentoo does is make a
meta-distribution, that one can utilize to build their own distribution
easily. This isn't limited to Linux, either, thanks to
87 matches
Mail list logo
