On 08/16/2011 09:01 PM, Dale wrote:
Allow me to start this way. If you change a page, send me a link,
http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-doc-cvs/
Sven Vermeulen wrote:
On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 09:22:30AM -0500, Dale wrote:
Thanks for the reply. I also agree that the docs should be ready first
then the change. I have a friend that may be switching from Gentoo because
he can not get good docs on how to get his network working after the
Robin H. Johnson wrote:
On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 03:55:23PM -0500, Dale wrote:
Did he file a bug for this? We have been working on them.
Nope. He's a ghost Gentoo user. I don't think he is subscribed to any
mailing list or the forums. He just searches for clues and docs.
Ca
On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 03:55:23PM -0500, Dale wrote:
> > Did he file a bug for this? We have been working on them.
> Nope. He's a ghost Gentoo user. I don't think he is subscribed to any
> mailing list or the forums. He just searches for clues and docs.
Can you please data-capture that bug and
On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 09:22:30AM -0500, Dale wrote:
> Thanks for the reply. I also agree that the docs should be ready first
> then the change. I have a friend that may be switching from Gentoo because
> he can not get good docs on how to get his network working after the OpenRC
> update. I
Robin H. Johnson wrote:
On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 09:22:30AM -0500, Dale wrote:
Thanks for the reply. I also agree that the docs should be ready first
then the change. I have a friend that may be switching from Gentoo
because he can not get good docs on how to get his network working after
t
On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 09:22:30AM -0500, Dale wrote:
> Thanks for the reply. I also agree that the docs should be ready first
> then the change. I have a friend that may be switching from Gentoo
> because he can not get good docs on how to get his network working after
> the OpenRC update. I
On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 12:39 PM, Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote:
> But then the docs folks said the policy was only to document stable, and
> that they weren't going to document openrc until it was going stable.
Well, I can see their point - OpenRC was the future for probably 2
years before
Rich Freeman posted on Tue, 16 Aug 2011 08:34:09 -0400 as excerpted:
> Considering that we still haven't finished doing all of this for OpenRC
> yet, I wouldn't worry about the changes hitting you anytime soon. I'd
> consider a lessons-learned from OpenRC that we shouldn't stabilize
> packages un
Rich Freeman wrote:
Considering that we still haven't finished doing all of this for
OpenRC yet, I wouldn't worry about the changes hitting you anytime
soon. I'd consider a lessons-learned from OpenRC that we shouldn't
stabilize packages until AFTER the docs are updated. Otherwise it can
tend
On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 3:39 AM, Dale wrote:
> How long till all this is going to be a absolute requirement? That is my
> question.
Well, I don't speak for the teams that want to implement this, but my
recommendation is that it not become a requirement until everything is
in place to support it.
Duncan wrote:
Rich Freeman posted on Thu, 11 Aug 2011 08:20:21 -0400 as excerpted:
On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 2:04 AM, Dale wrote:
I understand that Fedora is wanting to do this. What I don't
understand is why. It seems it is udev that is wrecking this havoc.
Well, the answe
Rich Freeman posted on Thu, 11 Aug 2011 08:20:21 -0400 as excerpted:
> On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 2:04 AM, Dale wrote:
>> I understand that Fedora is wanting to do this. What I don't
>> understand is why. It seems it is udev that is wrecking this havoc.
>
> Well, the answer is a bit more nuanced.
Rich Freeman posted on Sat, 30 Jul 2011 10:28:56 -0400 as excerpted:
> Is there any kind of
> consensus in the FOSS community beyond Gentoo that FHS has had its
> day? What is the policy for other distros?
>From what I see on the general blogs, yes, /current/ FHS has had its
day. HOWEVER, one
On Sat, Jul 30, 2011 at 11:57:14AM +, Duncan wrote:
> Ciaran McCreesh posted on Sat, 30 Jul 2011 11:46:00 +0100 as excerpted:
>
> > It's important to consider the timeline here. Separate /usr was
> > accidentally broken by a sudden increase in dependencies from base
> > system packages to desk
Ciaran McCreesh posted on Sat, 30 Jul 2011 11:46:00 +0100 as excerpted:
> It's important to consider the timeline here. Separate /usr was
> accidentally broken by a sudden increase in dependencies from base
> system packages to desktopy things. It was only later that certain
> people decided that
16 matches
Mail list logo
