On Tuesday 06 March 2007, Grant Goodyear wrote:
If I understand the process correctly, spb et al are writing their best
vision of an ebuild spec, while trying to strike a reasonable
compromise between what portage does and what it should be doing, but
once they're done it's going to be
On Sunday 04 March 2007, Mike Kelly wrote:
My glep 27 implementation is essentially complete, though without
making some changes to PAM and shadow, it won't really function for
ROOT!=/ with a GNU userland. Because of this, I don't really deem it
ready for general use yet.
i dont think pam
On Saturday 03 March 2007, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
No, it's that you're dead set on derailing it and being as unhelpful as
possible. You have absolutely nothing to contribute, as evidenced by
every previous time you've gotten involved with anything I've done, and
given how badly you tried to
On Sunday 04 March 2007, Andrej Kacian wrote:
Dňa Sat, 3 Mar 2007 20:46:35 -0700
Daniel Robbins [EMAIL PROTECTED] napísal:
On 3/3/07, Ciaran McCreesh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why is it a developer-only privilege? You just made that up.
To co-lead a Gentoo project? You need to be a dev
On Saturday 03 March 2007, Simon Stelling wrote:
Daniel Robbins wrote:
1) Any material created by Gentoo developers, as part of an official
Gentoo Project, needs to have copyright assigned to the Gentoo
Foundation, whether or not it is currently included in the Portage
tree. This protects
On Tue, 6 Mar 2007 21:27:00 +0100
Paul de Vrieze [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That remainst to be debateable. It is however also true that he is a
party with a vested interest in the process. As such we must be warry
of what we allow.
Everyone involved has a vested interest. If they weren't
Paul de Vrieze wrote: [Tue Mar 06 2007, 02:27:00PM CST]
That remainst to be debateable. It is however also true that he is a party
with a vested interest in the process. As such we must be warry of what we
allow.
I think you (and many others, including drobbins) have missed something
On Sat, 2007-03-03 at 02:12 -0700, Daniel Robbins wrote:
I'm also very interested to find out about this. I would be
disappointed to find that the Foundation has chosen to not fulfill or
neglect one of the key purposes for which it was created.
Copyright assignment was pretty much dropped by
On Sat, 03 Mar 2007 02:20:48 -0500
Chris Gianelloni [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The EAPI=0 document was supposed to be a QA project. What it is now,
I have no idea.
A QA subproject which has not yet released a public draft.
What the Council is interested
in is a specification of expected
On Mon, 2007-03-05 at 16:56 +, Stephen Bennett wrote:
On Sat, 03 Mar 2007 02:20:48 -0500
Chris Gianelloni [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The EAPI=0 document was supposed to be a QA project. What it is now,
I have no idea.
A QA subproject which has not yet released a public draft.
Now,
On Mon, 05 Mar 2007 12:49:10 -0500
Chris Gianelloni [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What we want to discuss is a possible timeline for completion, and
what resources you may need to get it done within the agreed timeline.
Notice that I used timeline, instead of deadline. It was done on
purpose
On 3/5/07, Stephen Bennett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 05 Mar 2007 12:49:10 -0500
Chris Gianelloni [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What we want to discuss is a possible timeline for completion, and
what resources you may need to get it done within the agreed timeline.
Notice that I used
Josh Saddler wrote: [Mon Mar 05 2007, 03:51:08PM CST]
Technical point here -- the devmanual has never been in GuideXML; it was
converted from RST into docbook.
Oh! My apologies.
Thanks,
g2boojum
--
Grant Goodyear
Gentoo Developer
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.gentoo.org/~g2boojum
GPG
Josh Saddler wrote:
Technical point here -- the devmanual has never been in GuideXML; it was
converted from RST into docbook.
Was it? IIRC it was a custom GuideXML-like format, but certainly not a
Docbook. A quick glance at the Docbook DTD [1] and the devmanual itself
[2] seems to confirm
Jan Kundrát wrote:
Josh Saddler wrote:
Technical point here -- the devmanual has never been in GuideXML; it was
converted from RST into docbook.
Was it? IIRC it was a custom GuideXML-like format, but certainly not a
Docbook. A quick glance at the Docbook DTD [1] and the devmanual itself
Dňa Sat, 3 Mar 2007 20:46:35 -0700
Daniel Robbins [EMAIL PROTECTED] napísal:
On 3/3/07, Ciaran McCreesh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why is it a developer-only privilege? You just made that up.
To co-lead a Gentoo project? You need to be a dev to do that. I
couldn't join any projects even as
On Sat, Mar 03, 2007 at 11:40:39AM -0800, Josh Saddler wrote:
zOMG Cabal conspiracy!!1oneone!
So, who'se conspiring against you now? Devrel? The Council? Oh...*Brian*
this time. Or just anyone whom you've never liked or has disagreed with
you about anything?
Oh wait, I bet you think we're
On Sat, 3 Mar 2007 20:46:35 -0700
Daniel Robbins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
To co-lead a Gentoo project? You need to be a dev to do that. I
couldn't join any projects even as a member until I became a dev, and
I created the distro. You are effectively co-leading (likely leading)
PMS as a
Daniel Robbins wrote:
On 3/3/07, Ciaran McCreesh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why is it a developer-only privilege? You just made that up.
To co-lead a Gentoo project? You need to be a dev to do that. I
couldn't join any projects even as a member until I became a dev, and
I created the distro.
Daniel Robbins wrote:
On 3/3/07, Ciaran McCreesh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why is it a developer-only privilege? You just made that up.
To co-lead a Gentoo project? You need to be a dev to do that. I
couldn't join any projects even as a member until I became a dev, and
I created the distro.
On Sat, 3 Mar 2007 20:46:35 -0700 Daniel Robbins
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 3/3/07, Ciaran McCreesh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why is it a developer-only privilege? You just made that up.
To co-lead a Gentoo project?
I'm not co-leading it. You keep making things up. Stop doing that.
--
On Sat, Mar 03, 2007 at 08:46:35PM -0700, Daniel Robbins wrote:
[snip]
Would you be kind enough to stop hijacking the thread ? You are
responsible for this last flame... just quit it please.
- ferdy
--
Fernando J. Pereda Garcimartín
Gentoo Developer (Alpha,net-mail,mutt,git)
20BB BDC3 761A
On Sat, 3 Mar 2007 13:17:56 -0700
Daniel Robbins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So, again, since you are participating as a key member in an official
Gentoo project, which is a developer-only privilege, you should either
have your dev access reinstated or be removed from the project.
This is
Today, being a dev (which essentially means having commit access
to Gentoo repositories) is mostly about taking responsibility for what
is finally committed.
FWIW, FreeBSD has a long and glorious history of proxy-maintainership in
their ports tree -- that model seems to work pretty well for
I note that FSF-Europe uses what it calls a Fiduciary Licence
Agreement to gain the ability to prosecute license violations for
software whose copyright is distributed amongst many owners.
Discussion here:
http://www.fsf-europe.org/projects/fla/fla.html
and the boilerplate for FTF's agreement in
In defense of my confusion, certainly appears from the perspective of
the gentoo-dev ml that you are leading at the very least the
day-to-day management of the project.
But if I am wrong, I *sincerely* apologize. Let me see if I have all
the facts right.
Summary Of PMS:
PMS is a project that
Daniel Robbins wrote:
Rationale: You (Ciaran) have already been explicitly banned from
Gentoo development yet are acting as the project's official spokesman
on this list which is clearly a Gentoo development list. I am asking
that you have a basic respect for your removal from Gentoo, despite
OK. If that's not possible, I'll push for the banned from gentoo
development status as it obviously makes sense, will help Gentoo, and
will not impact PMS. If Ciaran is sticking around on this list using
PMS as a pretext to insult various people and projects, then this is
more than acceptable
Hello Daniel
On Sun, Mar 04, 2007 at 10:32:40AM -0700, Daniel Robbins wrote:
If people are truly concerned about productivity, then I would expect
them to support it.
To me it seems that you aren't concerned about productivity, otherwise
you wouldn't top-post. Please stop doing it and learn
Dňa Sun, 4 Mar 2007 10:32:40 -0700
Daniel Robbins [EMAIL PROTECTED] napísal:
Really, I don't see any reason for any party to fight my suggestion,
as it would benefit everyone. If people are truly concerned about
productivity, then I would expect them to support it.
I am concerned about PMS to
On Sun, 4 Mar 2007 10:03:54 -0700 Daniel Robbins
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In defense of my confusion, certainly appears from the perspective of
the gentoo-dev ml that you are leading at the very least the
day-to-day management of the project.
No, as I've already told you, I'm just the one who
On Sun, 4 Mar 2007 10:32:40 -0700 Daniel Robbins
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Really, I don't see any reason for any party to fight my suggestion,
as it would benefit everyone. If people are truly concerned about
productivity, then I would expect them to support it.
If people are truly concerned
On Sun, 2007-03-04 at 12:55 +0200, Petteri Räty wrote:
The Gentoo Java project has many users contributing to it and I wouldn't
have it any other way.
Users contributing is one thing. A former dev that was kicked now
contributing as a user is quite different IMHO.
One strike is not the same
On Sun, Mar 04, 2007 at 10:32:40AM -0700, Daniel Robbins wrote:
OK. If that's not possible, I'll push for the banned from gentoo
development status as it obviously makes sense, will help Gentoo, and
will not impact PMS. If Ciaran is sticking around on this list using
PMS as a pretext to insult
Dňa Sun, 04 Mar 2007 13:24:32 -0500
William L. Thomson Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] napísal:
The Gentoo Java project has many users contributing to it and I wouldn't
have it any other way.
Users contributing is one thing. A former dev that was kicked now
contributing as a user is quite
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
It's
wasting everyone's time and annoying a lot of people.
This sniplet was brought to you by the almighty Flaming Guide [1]:
| One thing is to frequently refer to us or our. Pretend like people
| are with you on this, so the uncertain ones will flock to your side!
|
|
Ciaran,
What I do know is that you should not be allowed to insult random
developers like Jakub when it suits you. If things get slightly more
unpleasant or unproductive for a brief period of time while I find an
appropriate mechanism to remove you from this list (due to AWOL
project
On Sun, 4 Mar 2007 13:03:39 -0700 Daniel Robbins
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If anyone should apologize, the Gentoo project leadership should
apologize for not removing you from the list sooner. This project is
screwed if people who act like you are allowed to stick around.
One more time. Please
On 3/4/07, Ciaran McCreesh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
you've managed to launch groundless attacks against
me, a whole bunch of other Gentoo developers, the Council, the
Foundation and devrel.
Well, I think it's a good thing to question whether the Council, the
Foundation and devrel are really
On Sat, 2007-03-03 at 07:32 +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
I'm also curious as to why people should be expected to assign
copyright to a group that is known for licence violations and removing
attribution from documents. How does this protect anything?
Yeah, you cry foul when people paint you
Seemant Kulleen napsal(a):
On Sat, 2007-03-03 at 07:32 +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
I'm also curious as to why people should be expected to assign
copyright to a group that is known for licence violations and removing
attribution from documents. How does this protect anything?
Yeah, you
On Sun, 4 Mar 2007 10:03:54 -0700
Daniel Robbins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
a) move PMS discussion off this list
That is the whole joke here: It was more or less you who started this
discussion.
The original mail was Mike mentioning something about a
deadline on the PMS project as agenda item for
On Mon, 05 Mar 2007 00:08:40 +0100 Jakub Moc [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yeah, you cry foul when people paint you with an overly broad
brush. Is it known? As far as I remember, the issue was
acknowledged when brought up, and then fixed. The issue hasn't
come up again with your docs. It
Ciaran McCreesh napsal(a):
On Mon, 05 Mar 2007 00:08:40 +0100 Jakub Moc [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Erm, to be precise here, noone has removed any ciaranm's attributions
from devmanual, they've all been moved to the end of the document
originally, so that people wouldn't be forced to scroll
Daniel Robbins wrote:
Ciaran,
What I do know is that you should not be allowed to insult random
developers like Jakub when it suits you. If things get slightly more
unpleasant or unproductive for a brief period of time while I find an
appropriate mechanism to remove you from this list (due to
I already removed myself from Gentoo - no need. Will be unsubscribing
from -dev at the end of the day.
On 3/4/07, bret curtis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Daniel Robbins wrote:
Ciaran,
What I do know is that you should not be allowed to insult random
developers like Jakub when it suits you. If
bret curtis napsal(a):
No, you sir, should not be here.
I've been a 'developer' since before you left us for Microsoft. I've
read the -dev and -core since that time, only chiming in from time to
time but this frankly is crazy.
This sniplet was brought to you by the almighty Flaming Guide
On Saturday 03 March 2007, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
I'd like it spelt out please.
stop playing games
So why not start by imposing deadlines upon more important projects
like Portage USE deps, a Portage GLEP 42 implementation, a Portage GLEP
23 implementation, a stable Portage API, tree-wide
Mike Frysinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Saturday 03 March 2007, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
There is absolutely nothing Paludis specific in PMS. Nor is there
anything Pkgcore specific, and the only Portage specific content is
where we feel it's necessary to explain *why* something is a
On Sat, 3 Mar 2007 03:09:33 -0500 Mike Frysinger [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Saturday 03 March 2007, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
I'd like it spelt out please.
stop playing games
No, I'm being entirely serious here. Everything I've heard about what
PMS is supposed to achieve has been discussing
On Saturday 03 March 2007, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
If there's some value to be
found in having PMS ready in the short term that I'm missing then I
want to hear it so that I can spend more time working on PMS and less
on other things.
where did anyone say short term ? in fact, the portion of
On Sat, 3 Mar 2007 01:26:07 -0700 Daniel Robbins
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 3/3/07, Ciaran McCreesh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But you appear to act as the project lead for PMS.
No, I'm just the one who isn't yet sufficiently jaded by the whole
people who don't know what PMS is jumping in
On Sat, 3 Mar 2007 03:34:49 -0500 Mike Frysinger [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Saturday 03 March 2007, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
If there's some value to be
found in having PMS ready in the short term that I'm missing then I
want to hear it so that I can spend more time working on PMS and
less
On Saturday 03 March 2007, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
If there's some value to be found in having PMS ready by a particular
date that I'm missing then I want to hear it so that I can spend more
time working on PMS and less on other things.
semantics aside, how much time you dedicate is entirely up
On Sat, 3 Mar 2007 04:02:50 -0500 Mike Frysinger [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Saturday 03 March 2007, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
If there's some value to be found in having PMS ready by a
particular date that I'm missing then I want to hear it so that I
can spend more time working on PMS and
On 3/3/07, Ciaran McCreesh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Also, you are at least a developer of PMS, if not the lead. If PMS is
an official Gentoo project, then since when can official Gentoo
projects have non-dev devs?
How many non-developers contribute to the tree? How many non-developers
have
On Sat, 3 Mar 2007 02:12:48 -0700 Daniel Robbins
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It's one thing to make a contribution or submit a patch - it's quite
another to be actively and very significantly involved in a key
technical project that is supposedly defining an interoperability spec
for the key
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
(Pkgcore is in parts based upon Portage code -- whether or not this is
a good thing is irrelevant to this discussion)
Nice way of adding in that little cover my ass so's I can snipe at a
competing project parenthetical statement.
That statement is in itself irrelevant to
On Sat, 3 Mar 2007 02:12:48 -0700 Daniel Robbins
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
Right now, you're effectively doing an end-run around the entire
Gentoo management structure. Fortunately for you, it doesn't look like
anyone cares.
Not really. We're working on a document, as requested by the Gentoo
On Sat, 03 Mar 2007 01:54:30 -0800 Josh Saddler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
(Pkgcore is in parts based upon Portage code -- whether or not this
is a good thing is irrelevant to this discussion)
Nice way of adding in that little cover my ass so's I can snipe at a
On Fri, 2 Mar 2007 23:28:56 -0700
Daniel Robbins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
OK, but it appears that PMS is not hosted on Gentoo infrastructure,
and its development is not controlled by Gentoo. Therefore it is not a
Gentoo project, and therefore the Council, QA, etc. should not be
treating it if
On Fri, 2 Mar 2007 23:51:42 -0700
Daniel Robbins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Gentoo projects are controlled by and generally run entirely by Gentoo
developers. You are not a Gentoo developer, yet you define the
direction of PMS and Paludis. Therefore, PMS and Paludis can't be
considered official
On Sat, 3 Mar 2007 01:58:30 -0800 (PST) Alec Warner
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So you are saying you cannot see Daniel's point of view at all? That
Gentoo should perhaps have input on a specification whose goal is to
essentially define what a Gentoo Package Manager should be? Because
right now
On 3/3/07, Ciaran McCreesh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why does it matter whether it's written by Gentoo developers? What
matters is that it's written by people who know what they're talking
about and who can write reasonably decent technical material, and as the
primary author of the devmanual, a
Daniel Robbins wrote:
1) Any material created by Gentoo developers, as part of an official
Gentoo Project, needs to have copyright assigned to the Gentoo
Foundation, whether or not it is currently included in the Portage
tree. This protects all of our collective contributions against
misuse,
On 03/03/07, Ciaran McCreesh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Because it is difficult to determine 'people who know what they are
talking about'. I would say Brian Harring is one of those, but I
have a feeling you would disagree with me. All I really know is that
I am not one of those people. I
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
I find it amusing that no-one complaining about this has actually asked
to see it.
I think ferringb did, just not very successfully.
--
Kind Regards,
Simon Stelling
Gentoo/AMD64
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
I'd like it spelt out please.
Here we go:
So why not start by imposing deadlines upon more important projects
like Portage USE deps, [snip]
USE deps can't be used anyway in EAPI=0 because it would break current
versions of portage. So we need EAPI=1, but you can't
Daniel Robbins wrote:
On 3/3/07, Ciaran McCreesh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why does it matter whether it's written by Gentoo developers? What
matters is that it's written by people who know what they're talking
about and who can write reasonably decent technical material, and as the
primary
On Sat, 3 Mar 2007 01:58:30 -0800 (PST)
Alec Warner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So you are saying you cannot see Daniel's point of view at all? That
Gentoo should perhaps have input on a specification whose goal is to
essentially define what a Gentoo Package Manager should be?
Gentoo, and any
On Sat, 03 Mar 2007 11:35:51 +0100 Simon Stelling [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
I find it amusing that no-one complaining about this has actually
asked to see it.
I think ferringb did, just not very successfully.
Not so far as I've heard...
--
Ciaran McCreesh
Mail
On Sat, 03 Mar 2007 11:51:27 +0100 Simon Stelling [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
I'd like it spelt out please.
Here we go:
So why not start by imposing deadlines upon more important projects
like Portage USE deps, [snip]
USE deps can't be used anyway in EAPI=0
On Sat, Mar 03, 2007 at 01:44:24PM +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Sat, 03 Mar 2007 11:35:51 +0100 Simon Stelling [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
I find it amusing that no-one complaining about this has actually
asked to see it.
I think ferringb did, just not very
On Sat, Mar 03, 2007 at 01:46:56PM +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Sat, 03 Mar 2007 11:51:27 +0100 Simon Stelling [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
I'd like it spelt out please.
Here we go:
So why not start by imposing deadlines upon more important projects
like
On Sat, 3 Mar 2007 05:57:35 -0800 Brian Harring [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Sat, Mar 03, 2007 at 01:44:24PM +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Sat, 03 Mar 2007 11:35:51 +0100 Simon Stelling [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
I find it amusing that no-one complaining about
On Sat, 3 Mar 2007 03:27:37 -0700 Daniel Robbins
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If those reasons no longer apply, then your developer status should be
handed back. You can't sorta participate - you're either in or
you're not, and it looks like you're in. Right now it seems like you
are fully engaged
On Sat, 3 Mar 2007 06:00:32 -0800 Brian Harring [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I disagree. It's very easy and probably the best way of doing
things to say If ebuilds want to use slot deps, use deps or blah,
they set EAPI=1. Otherwise, continue as normal.. So far as I'm
aware, everything
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
.Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
No, I'm just the one who isn't yet sufficiently jaded by the whole
people who don't know what PMS is jumping in and trying to derail it
thing to have given up discussing it in public yet.
Mike Frysinger wrote:
i consider
On Sat, 03 Mar 2007 15:44:17 +0100 Marijn Schouten (hkBst)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Mike Frysinger wrote:
i consider having a spelled out EAPI=0 spec to be quite valuable
and worth spending time on and i have to say that i get the feeling
that i'm not alone on this point
I don't think
General suggestion ciaran, calm the hell down and just wait for the
council. Not helping your case for why you think I shouldn't see the
stupid thing at all with rants like this (not saying I want you to
succeed in blocking me from the doc mind you).
On Sat, Mar 03, 2007 at 02:14:11PM +,
On Saturday 03 March 2007 23:14, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Sat, 3 Mar 2007 05:57:35 -0800 Brian Harring [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Two angles on the behaviour BS; either related to the fact I'm dead
set on the spec reflecting portage behaviour, and being finished, or
it's related to the fact the
On Sun, 4 Mar 2007 01:51:39 +0900 Jason Stubbs [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
There were two separate specifications - glep42 and multiple
repositories - that should have been discussed seperately. On a
seperate thread, Marius said something to the effect of specs are
much easier to extend than to
On Sunday 04 March 2007 02:05, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Sun, 4 Mar 2007 01:51:39 +0900 Jason Stubbs [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
There were two separate specifications - glep42 and multiple
repositories - that should have been discussed seperately. On a
seperate thread, Marius said something
Hi Daniel,
I'm also curious as to why people should be expected to assign
copyright to a group that is known for licence violations and
removing attribution from documents. How does this protect
anything?
Copyright assignment (first to Gentoo Technologies, Inc., then to
Gentoo
Danny van Dyk wrote:
2) There are countries who acutally adhere to the Berne Convention
(1886). This means even the deed of commiting sources with a Copyright
(C) Gentoo Foundation is useless in most countries of the EU.
Hi,
Danny van Dyk schrieb:
2) There are countries who acutally adhere to the Berne Convention
(1886). This means even the deed of commiting sources with a Copyright
(C) Gentoo Foundation is useless in most countries of the EU.
E.g, *none* of the stuff that I ever commited to Gentoo's
On Sun, 4 Mar 2007 03:13:45 +0900 Jason Stubbs [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I don't remember the specifics, but I remember that there was
something that didn't seem to go along with our vision.
We disagreed over whether repositories should be named by the user or
the repository itself.
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
If it's later on, there won't be lots
of holes that we know are there that he can use as some kind of twisted
proof that PMS sucks.
zOMG Cabal conspiracy!!1oneone!
So, who'se conspiring against you now? Devrel? The Council? Oh...*Brian*
this time. Or just anyone whom
On Sat, 03 Mar 2007 11:40:39 -0800 Josh Saddler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
If it's later on, there won't be lots
of holes that we know are there that he can use as some kind of
twisted proof that PMS sucks.
zOMG Cabal conspiracy!!1oneone!
No, just a few noisy people
On 3/3/07, Ciaran McCreesh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Which would be worth what, for me? As far as I can see, there's
absolutely nothing for me to gain by being labelled an official Gentoo
developer, and an awful lot to lose.
I think you're missing the point - I am not trying to convince you to
On Sat, 03 Mar 2007 11:40:39 -0800
Josh Saddler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Keep your spewing
on-topic: technical issues, not on your personal issues.
Please do.
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
On Sat, 3 Mar 2007 13:17:56 -0700
Daniel Robbins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So, again, since you are participating as a key member in an official
Gentoo project, which is a developer-only privilege
While this was no doubt true a while ago, a lot of people have been
trying hard over the last year
On Sat, 3 Mar 2007 13:17:56 -0700 Daniel Robbins
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So, again, since you are participating as a key member in an official
Gentoo project, which is a developer-only privilege
Why is it a developer-only privilege? You just made that up.
and should be removed from PMS.
Am Samstag, 3. März 2007 19:48 schrieb Thomas Rösner:
Hi,
Danny van Dyk schrieb:
2) There are countries who acutally adhere to the Berne Convention
(1886). This means even the deed of commiting sources with a
Copyright (C) Gentoo Foundation is useless in most countries
of the EU.
On Sat, Mar 03, 2007 at 08:24:23PM +0100, Danny van Dyk wrote:
Am Samstag, 3. M?rz 2007 19:48 schrieb Thomas R?sner:
Hi,
Danny van Dyk schrieb:
2) There are countries who acutally adhere to the Berne Convention
(1886). This means even the deed of commiting sources with a
Copyright
On 3/3/07, Ciaran McCreesh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why is it a developer-only privilege? You just made that up.
To co-lead a Gentoo project? You need to be a dev to do that. I
couldn't join any projects even as a member until I became a dev, and
I created the distro. You are effectively
On Sat, 3 Mar 2007 06:00:32 -0800
Brian Harring [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thats off the top of the head, and just the stuff I've had on hold
for EAPI=1. Would expect user/group management (glep27 off the top
of the head) would be on the radar also, although thats firmly in
pioto's court.
PMS: Deadlines and interested parties.
Council Project: Gentoo branded and certified hardware.
Council Project: Hardware vendor certification.
--Taco
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
On Fri, 02 Mar 2007 07:44:16 -0800 Mike Doty [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
PMS: Deadlines and interested parties.
Can the Council provide a list of other projects that have had
deadlines imposed upon them by Gentoo?
--
Ciaran McCreesh
Mail: ciaranm at ciaranm.org
Web
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Fri, 02 Mar 2007 07:44:16 -0800 Mike Doty [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
PMS: Deadlines and interested parties.
Can the Council provide a list of other projects that have had
deadlines imposed upon them by Gentoo?
You can do your own research; I have no idea if someone
1 - 100 of 128 matches
Mail list logo
