Grant Goodyear wrote:
It's interesting to compare http://wwwredesign.gentoo.org/ with
http://www.aaronshi.com/gentoo/mainindex.html. One of the things that I
always liked about the original design was the fact that the front page
held a considerable amount of information without needing much
On 21-11-2005 19:15:58 -0800, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
| virtual/x11 isn't xorg for all profiles.
Perhaps the relevant people (macos?) could get in touch with me, and we
can figure out what needs to happen.
It may be that we'll need to add x11-base/apple-xfree into the || list
as well.
On Monday 21 November 2005 12:04, Duncan wrote:
* Set the base tag. I sometimes save web pages for my own
use, and like them to work when I do. Adding a base href= ...
tag would be very useful, here. Without it, saving just the HTML to
disk breaks the page rather drastically, because it
On Monday 21 November 2005 12:50, Harald van Dijk wrote:
On Mon, Nov 21, 2005 at 02:18:21AM -0500, Curtis Napier wrote:
If you have access to a Macintosh, Windows, *BSD or any other OS or
Browser please test the site and include your OS and the browser
version in your feedback. I haven't
On Monday 21 November 2005 13:07, Thomas de Grenier de Latour wrote:
On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 02:18:21 -0500
Curtis Napier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm asking for everyone (developers and users alike) to please
have a look at the updated site and send any feedback you may
have.
Firefox-1.0.7
On Monday 21 November 2005 14:38, Alexey Chumakov wrote:
Hi Curtis,
First of all, thank you for the impressive new design. I really like
it!
Technically (@Windows XP SP2 RUS, 1024x768):
Firefox 1.0.7 Rus -- OK
Opera 8.5 Rus -- OK
MSIE 6 Rus -- OK
Some issues to discuss:
1. Why is the
On Tuesday 22 November 2005 01:32, Corey Shields wrote:
On Monday 21 November 2005 01:07 pm, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
I thought that Daniel was taking the red bubble letters. I also
remember the discussion about the infinity logo way back then and the
decision was made to keep it. For one,
Ok,
I'm going to build and test myself Bacula 1.38.1 and If you want I could help you to get this onto portage.
Thanks,
Herbert2005/11/21, Chris Lee [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
From: Herbert G. Fischer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, 21 November, 2005 07:23 Hi, I'm looking forward to use
What?? fix for IE?? haha... Why not do the Gentoo's site with XUL?
I think that doing for Safari/Konqueror, Mozilla and IE/Win is suficient, no?2005/11/22, Paul de Vrieze [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Monday 21 November 2005 12:50, Harald van Dijk wrote: On Mon, Nov 21, 2005 at 02:18:21AM -0500, Curtis
Carsten Lohrke wrote:
I have to say I'm somewhat disappointed by what I see compared to Aarons
proposed look¹.
Agreed!
a) Regarding the space below the two horizontal menus: A continuous image
looks much better than these cells with a lot of useless and redundant
links above them. If
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Jochen Maes schrieb:
| I think he's still single as he didn't mention anything related to
| females, llama's, goats etc. So some of the Gentoo crew's harem might
| be safe.
Harem? In CVS or SVN? Someone gimme the URL please
| I'd appreciate a
Luis F. Araujo wrote:
I agree. Why we don't use that original design? , i think removing all that
vertical scrolling for the front page is a good thing, and the search
box looks
handy too.
They would need to coordinate with infra on how they would like to
implement a search function. For
We have received *numerous* complaints from users about the decision to
remove stage 1 and 2 from the installation documentation. I realize it's
still available if users are willing to dig for it, but not all users do.
In my years of monitoring [EMAIL PROTECTED], we've received the most
On Tue, Nov 22, 2005 at 02:47:45PM +, Kurt Lieber wrote:
We have received *numerous* complaints from users about the decision to
remove stage 1 and 2 from the installation documentation. I realize it's
still available if users are willing to dig for it, but not all users do.
In my years
Kurt Lieber wrote:
We have received *numerous* complaints from users about the decision to
remove stage 1 and 2 from the installation documentation. I realize it's
still available if users are willing to dig for it, but not all users do.
In my years of monitoring [EMAIL PROTECTED], we've
On Tue, Nov 22, 2005 at 08:09:44AM -0600, Lance Albertson wrote:
Luis F. Araujo wrote:
I agree. Why we don't use that original design? , i think removing all that
vertical scrolling for the front page is a good thing, and the search
box looks
handy too.
They would need to coordinate
Donnie Berkholz wrote:
Joshua Baergen wrote:
| If the list keeps growing maybe we should consider a GLEP 37-style
| solution, like was suggested by Jason. It would allow us to make any
| further changes that are required (agreed, hopefully none) without
| having to change a bunch of packages
On Tue, 2005-11-22 at 14:47 +, Kurt Lieber wrote:
We have received *numerous* complaints from users about the decision to
remove stage 1 and 2 from the installation documentation. I realize it's
still available if users are willing to dig for it, but not all users do.
In my years of
On Tue, 2005-11-22 at 15:37 +0100, Andrea Barisani wrote:
On Tue, Nov 22, 2005 at 02:47:45PM +, Kurt Lieber wrote:
We have received *numerous* complaints from users about the decision to
remove stage 1 and 2 from the installation documentation. I realize it's
still available if users
On Tue, 2005-11-22 at 09:53 -0500, Stephen P. Becker wrote:
Kurt Lieber wrote:
We have received *numerous* complaints from users about the decision to
remove stage 1 and 2 from the installation documentation. I realize it's
still available if users are willing to dig for it, but not all
Chris Gianelloni wrote:
[..]
Now, on the topic of the tarballs.
Give me one example of something that you can do with a stage1 or stage2
tarball that you cannot with a stage3 tarball.
Answer: Download it in less than 10 minutes.
The question of interest is: Will we keep changing things
On Tue, Nov 22, 2005 at 10:10:14AM -0500, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
Personally, I would like to see stage1 and stage2 go away completely.
They serve no real purpose anymore after the changes we have made to the
stages to include a complete /var/db before 2005.0's release. They take
longer to
Now, on the topic of the tarballs.
Give me one example of something that you can do with a stage1 or stage2
tarball that you cannot with a stage3 tarball.
Stage1: Changing CHOST= and run ./bootstrap.sh
(well you can do it but it's dumb)
Stage3: has full cxx/berkdb/ssl/pam/libwrap and all
Stage1: Changing CHOST= and run ./bootstrap.sh
(well you can do it but it's dumb)
You can do the same from a stage3.
Stage3: has full cxx/berkdb/ssl/pam/libwrap and all the cruft pulled in
from having use flags enabled thats not easy to get rid of otherwise.
Fair point, however this is the
Doug Goldstein wrote:
I thought GLEP 37 was a way out kind of thing. Like several months if
not a year before it can be done.
I figured about the same, but
https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=112896#c16 begs to differ.
Thanks,
Donnie
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
On Tue, Nov 22, 2005 at 10:38:34AM -0500, Stephen P. Becker wrote:
I don't care what you do with the docs, but the stages 1, 3 need to
stay. stage2 has always been a bonus stage more or less added into the
mix cuz it's a byproduct of stage building (pre catalyst days).
I don't think anyone
On Tue, 2005-11-22 at 16:26 +0100, Marc Hildebrand wrote:
Chris Gianelloni wrote:
[..]
Now, on the topic of the tarballs.
Give me one example of something that you can do with a stage1 or stage2
tarball that you cannot with a stage3 tarball.
Answer: Download it in less than 10
On Tue, 2005-11-22 at 16:26 +0100, Henrik Brix Andersen wrote:
On Tue, Nov 22, 2005 at 10:10:14AM -0500, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
Personally, I would like to see stage1 and stage2 go away completely.
They serve no real purpose anymore after the changes we have made to the
stages to include a
On Tue, Nov 22, 2005 at 10:14:04AM -0500, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
On Tue, 2005-11-22 at 15:37 +0100, Andrea Barisani wrote:
On Tue, Nov 22, 2005 at 02:47:45PM +, Kurt Lieber wrote:
We have received *numerous* complaints from users about the decision to
remove stage 1 and 2 from the
Chris Gianelloni wrote:
On Tue, 2005-11-22 at 14:47 +, Kurt Lieber wrote:
We have received *numerous* complaints from users about the decision to
remove stage 1 and 2 from the installation documentation. I realize it's
still available if users are willing to dig for it, but not all users
On Tue, 2005-11-22 at 10:29 -0500, solar wrote:
Now, on the topic of the tarballs.
Give me one example of something that you can do with a stage1 or stage2
tarball that you cannot with a stage3 tarball.
Stage1: Changing CHOST= and run ./bootstrap.sh
(well you can do it but it's dumb)
Lance Albertson wrote:
If you are that overworked, perhaps you should find more people to help
with releng and the duties you have? I've been in a similar position as
yourself where its hard to find good quality folks that stick around,
and then you get used to doing everything yourself. I
Jochen Maes wrote:
Joshua, welcome!
Another!? Confusion! Pandemonium!
--
Joshua Baergen
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
On Tue, Nov 22, 2005 at 10:48:06AM -0500, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
Give me one example of something that you can do with a stage1 or stage2
tarball that you cannot with a stage3 tarball.
Answer: Download it in less than 10 minutes.
I'd love to see you do the same with a stage1 tarball +
Andrew Gaffney wrote:
Lance Albertson wrote:
If you are that overworked, perhaps you should find more people to help
with releng and the duties you have? I've been in a similar position as
yourself where its hard to find good quality folks that stick around,
and then you get used to doing
* On Nov 22 10:15, Chris Gianelloni (gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org) wrote:
It isn't pretty much anymore. It *is* exactly the same.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but if you're going to attempt to get the same
result as a stage1 with a stage3 - (which won't be exactly the same,
given the defaults of
On Tue, 2005-11-22 at 10:58 -0500, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
On Tue, 2005-11-22 at 10:29 -0500, solar wrote:
Now, on the topic of the tarballs.
Give me one example of something that you can do with a stage1 or stage2
tarball that you cannot with a stage3 tarball.
Stage1: Changing
On Wednesday 23 November 2005 00:46, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
Doug Goldstein wrote:
I thought GLEP 37 was a way out kind of thing. Like several months if
not a year before it can be done.
I figured about the same, but
https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=112896#c16 begs to differ.
The
On Tue, 2005-11-22 at 09:54 -0600, Lance Albertson wrote:
As I am now not only the Release Engineering lead, but also the x86
Release Coordinator, I am fielding nearly 100% of these issues.
I DO NOT HAVE THE TIME TO DO OTHER PEOPLE'S QA FOR THEM.
If you are that overworked, perhaps you
On Tue, 2005-11-22 at 17:15 +0100, Wernfried Haas wrote:
On Tue, Nov 22, 2005 at 10:48:06AM -0500, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
Give me one example of something that you can do with a stage1 or stage2
tarball that you cannot with a stage3 tarball.
Answer: Download it in less than 10
On Tue, 2005-11-22 at 11:19 -0500, Thomas Kirchner wrote:
* On Nov 22 10:15, Chris Gianelloni (gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org) wrote:
It isn't pretty much anymore. It *is* exactly the same.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but if you're going to attempt to get the same
result as a stage1 with a
On Tue, 2005-11-22 at 11:25 -0500, solar wrote:
Removing the stage1 and stage2 instructions from the Handbook has
already reduced the number of errors being reported by new users to me.
I hope that you can arrange for either the stage1 install instructions
to be put back in or split off
And again, we have the same situation that lead to my resignation:
People who have absolutely no clue of how releng works scream. Not about
BAD QA!!!11 this time, but about a decision that was made to make work
easier.
What is wrong with you, guys? You all have so good and enlightening
ideas! Why
On Tue, Nov 22, 2005 at 11:39:29AM -0500, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
Another Gentoo is about choice argument. Can I ask you something?
Where does it say that Gentoo is about choice? I see lots of places
that say that Gentoo allows you to customize, but nowhere do I see
anything that says that
Chris Gianelloni wrote:
On Tue, 2005-11-22 at 09:54 -0600, Lance Albertson wrote:
As I am now not only the Release Engineering lead, but also the x86
Release Coordinator, I am fielding nearly 100% of these issues.
I DO NOT HAVE THE TIME TO DO OTHER PEOPLE'S QA FOR THEM.
If you are that
Mike Frysinger posted [EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted
below, on Tue, 22 Nov 2005 15:03:31 +:
On Tue, Nov 22, 2005 at 08:09:44AM -0600, Lance Albertson wrote:
They would need to coordinate with infra on how they would like to
implement a search function. For now, I think its best if they
22.11.2005, 17:30:50, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
On Tue, 2005-11-22 at 09:54 -0600, Lance Albertson wrote:
Also, the problem is not so much needing manpower for testing as far as
Release Engineering is concerned. It is instead having some method in
place where devs actually perform QA on
On Tuesday 22 Nov 2005 10:09 pm, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
*sigh*
Another Gentoo is about choice argument. Can I ask you something?
Where does it say that Gentoo is about choice? I see lots of places
that say that Gentoo allows you to customize, but nowhere do I see
anything that says that
Harald van Dijk wrote:
(Note that I'm not going to argue either way whether this is a good
thing; I'm merely pointing out that the docs do say we're about choice.)
You still can choose between stage3 and stage3+GRP without having to do anything
but following the handbook :)
--
Simon Stelling
Paul de Vrieze posted [EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted
below, on Tue, 22 Nov 2005 11:20:28 +0100:
On Monday 21 November 2005 12:04, Duncan wrote:
* Set the base tag. I sometimes save web pages for my own use, and
like them to work when I do. Adding a base href= ... tag would be
very useful,
22.11.2005, 18:51:12, Simon Stelling wrote:
Harald van D?k wrote:
(Note that I'm not going to argue either way whether this is a good
thing; I'm merely pointing out that the docs do say we're about choice.)
You still can choose between stage3 and stage3+GRP without having to do
anything
The last link should settle it for you?
Can we now comfortably say that Gentoo is about choice? The other 652,998
links might reveal a few more places where we can get the choice idea from
but I hope that all these links should be sufficient to give anyone this
idea.
Ok, fine. Gentoo is
On Tue, 22 Nov 2005 14:47:45 + Kurt Lieber [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| In my years of monitoring [EMAIL PROTECTED], we've received the most
| complaints about this decision than any other single decision.
How many of those complaints were from users who understood the issues
involved, and how
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Thomas Kirchner schrieb:
| I'm against this change, personally. Stage1 has *always* been for
| advanced users. If someone screws up their own system (which is possible
| in any number of other ways, as well) then it's their fault. Gentoo
| isn't
22.11.2005, 19:03:49, Grant Goodyear wrote:
I keep hearing this, isn't there a real difference between a stage 1 and a
stage 3 install inasmuch as somebody who needs (or wants) to dramatically
tailor what's in the system profile can choose to do so from a stage 1 or 2,
but would have to
On Tue, 22 Nov 2005 12:03:49 -0600 Grant Goodyear [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| I keep hearing this, isn't there a real difference between a stage 1
| and a stage 3 install inasmuch as somebody who needs (or wants) to
| dramatically tailor what's in the system profile can choose to do so
| from a
22.11.2005, 19:13:36, Danny van Dyk wrote:
Thomas Kirchner schrieb: | I'm against this change, personally. Stage1 has
*always* been for | advanced users. If someone screws up their own system
(which is possible | in any number of other ways, as well) then it's their
fault. Gentoo | isn't
On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 00:06:38 +0100
Thomas de Grenier de Latour [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, 20 Nov 2005 23:23:19 +0100
Spider (D.m.D. Lj.) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, 2005-11-20 at 11:55 -0800, Michael Marineau wrote:
For users who do like the functionality just properly
On Tue, 2005-11-22 at 12:03 -0600, Grant Goodyear wrote:
Chris Gianelloni wrote: [Tue Nov 22 2005, 09:15:27AM CST]
Well, if we could educate the users that stage2 tarballs are totally
pointless, and that running bootstrap.sh followed by emerge -e system
from a stage3 is pretty much
On Tue, 2005-11-22 at 11:15 -0600, Lance Albertson wrote:
Chris Gianelloni wrote:
On Tue, 2005-11-22 at 09:54 -0600, Lance Albertson wrote:
As I am now not only the Release Engineering lead, but also the x86
Release Coordinator, I am fielding nearly 100% of these issues.
I DO NOT HAVE
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Jakub Moc schrieb:
| 22.11.2005, 19:13:36, Danny van Dyk wrote:
|
|
|Thomas Kirchner schrieb: | I'm against this change, personally.
Stage1 has
|*always* been for | advanced users. If someone screws up their own system
|(which is possible | in any
On Tue, 22 Nov 2005 00:04:53 -0500
Mike Frysinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
or you could make it the dropdown list so people can pick
bugs.gentoo.org/gentoo.org/forums.gentoo.org/whatever
Exactly, that's what i would like too. More specificaly, it
could be something like this:
On Tuesday 22 Nov 2005 11:32 pm, Stephen P. Becker wrote:
Ok, fine. Gentoo is about choice. So what about developers? Don't we
also have a choice? Sometimes we have to choose what is best for
ourselves (note, I'm not talking about anything selfish or malicious
here). Sometimes we have to
On Tue, 2005-11-22 at 23:10 +0530, Abhay Kedia wrote:
On Tuesday 22 Nov 2005 10:09 pm, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
*sigh*
Another Gentoo is about choice argument. Can I ask you something?
Where does it say that Gentoo is about choice? I see lots of places
that say that Gentoo allows you
On Tue, Nov 22, 2005 at 07:22:42PM +0100, Marius Mauch wrote:
Personally I'd just kill auto-use support in the next big portage
upgrade (and USE_ORDER with it as disabling auto-use is the only
real application of it that I'm aware of).
works for me
-mike
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: [Tue Nov 22 2005, 12:17:47PM CST]
On Tue, 22 Nov 2005 12:03:49 -0600 Grant Goodyear [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| I keep hearing this, isn't there a real difference between a stage 1
| and a stage 3 install inasmuch as somebody who needs (or wants) to
| dramatically tailor
On Tue, 2005-11-22 at 12:03 -0600, Grant Goodyear wrote:
Chris Gianelloni wrote: [Tue Nov 22 2005, 09:15:27AM CST]
Well, if we could educate the users that stage2 tarballs are totally
pointless, and that running bootstrap.sh followed by emerge -e system
from a stage3 is pretty much
On Tue, Nov 22, 2005 at 11:33:04AM -0500, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
Just because you downloaded them previously does not mean you didn't
download them.
Yes, but i already have them and don't need to download them any
more in this scenario.
Btw, if i use stage 3 and then emerge -e world to
On Wednesday 23 Nov 2005 12:29 am, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
As I stated before, you're more than able to take a stage3 tarball +
catalyst + the example catalyst spec files and build your own stage1
tarball. In fact, this is the exact same procedure that Release
Engineering uses in building
Chris Gianelloni wrote: [Tue Nov 22 2005, 01:06:03PM CST]
Who said that removing something isn't a part of the procedure to get an
identical build?
Yeah, my phrasing was lousy (which I noted in another e-mail, but I
doubt you had time to see it before replying to this one).
The point is that
On Tue, 2005-11-22 at 13:28 -0600, Grant Goodyear wrote:
The point is that following the proper steps, one *can* get the exact
same output. This would include using --newuse and cleaning out unused
packages, along with any other maintenance items that would be required.
That's fine with
22.11.2005, 20:57:15, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
The idea was to move out the stage1/stage2 docs to somewhere else. Then
create some sort of Advanced Installation Topics guide or something, to
list out the replacement procedures for customizing a system from a stage3
tarball, then, eventually,
Jakub Moc пишет:
22.11.2005, 20:57:15, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
Really, everybody is just up in arms over a knee-jerk reaction to not
reading carefully. What it boils down to is either not knowing the
facts, or trolling/flaming.
Why exactly is evaporating stage1 an ultimate goal here
Jakub Moc wrote:
22.11.2005, 20:57:15, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
The idea was to move out the stage1/stage2 docs to somewhere else. Then
create some sort of Advanced Installation Topics guide or something, to
list out the replacement procedures for customizing a system from a stage3
tarball,
On Tue, Nov 22, 2005 at 05:56:52PM +0100, Benjamin Judas wrote:
Also, why a GLEP for that? A GLEP for removing something from the
handbook? Wow! Bureaucracy-wise Gentoo seems to get more and more
european.
You mean more and more American? ;)
./Brix
--
Henrik Brix Andersen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, 2005-11-22 at 21:16 +0100, Jakub Moc wrote:
22.11.2005, 20:57:15, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
The idea was to move out the stage1/stage2 docs to somewhere else. Then
create some sort of Advanced Installation Topics guide or something, to
list out the replacement procedures for
On Tue, 2005-11-22 at 23:28 +0300, Alexey Chumakov wrote:
Before I insert my own word -- could somebody tell me, how and by whom
was the initial decision to eliminate the stage1 from mainstream made?
As I said before, it was made by and requested by me, after discussion
with Release
On Tue, 2005-11-22 at 15:42 -0500, Alec Joseph Warner wrote:
I'd point out that this was not well executed as a major change should
have been. We talked of major package changes, apache config changes,
of package breakage. Then one day you up and remove what some consider
a vital part of
On Tue, Nov 22, 2005 at 03:53:22AM +0100, Thomas de Grenier de Latour wrote:
A good start could be to do that the quick and ugly way, thanks to
Google (with some site:www.gentoo.org/some/thing/ and other black
magic in the query terms).
[...]
Two major obstacles are
- Google bases its search
On Tue, Nov 22, 2005 at 06:51:44PM +0100, Sven Vermeulen wrote:
On Tue, Nov 22, 2005 at 03:53:22AM +0100, Thomas de Grenier de Latour wrote:
A good start could be to do that the quick and ugly way, thanks to
Google (with some site:www.gentoo.org/some/thing/ and other black
magic in the
22.11.2005, 21:58:50, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
That FAQ section has nothing in common with the original stage1 docs. Sorry,
installing stage3 to remove all the use flags cruft subsequently, bootstrap
and re-emerge the system and then ponder which packages are not needed any
more (again,
Jochen Maes wrote:
Hello all,
I'd appreciate a nice welcome and a descent slap on the butt when you
pass him...
Joshua, welcome!
http://tinyurl.com/n9qb
I hope to see this list near hundred soon!
Regards,
Petteri
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
On Tue, 22 Nov 2005 18:51:44 +0100
Sven Vermeulen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A good start could be to do that the quick and ugly way, thanks
to Google (with some site:www.gentoo.org/some/thing/ and other
black magic in the query terms).
[...]
- Google bases its search functionality on cached
On Fri, 18 Nov 2005 19:09:57 -0800
Corey Shields [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(apologies for the messed up time in my last message)
On Friday 18 November 2005 06:53 pm, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
We've seen why this won't work in the past... Too few users know
how to do proper testing. We've had
On Sun, 20 Nov 2005 09:32:55 +1100
Ben Skeggs [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Anyway, the most important reason for the GLEP (IMO) is giving AT's
r/o access to CVS. When working on bugs, it's always fun to find out
that the problem has already been resolved and just hasn't made it to
your local
On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 11:19:17 +0100
Paul de Vrieze [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Friday 18 November 2005 18:09, Homer Parker wrote:
Now that GLEP 41 (AT/HT) has passed, we need to designate a
subdomain for their email. This will cover AT/HT's as well as forum
help, so needs to be generic.
On Tue, 2005-11-22 at 22:36 +0100, Jakub Moc wrote:
22.11.2005, 21:58:50, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
That FAQ section has nothing in common with the original stage1 docs.
Sorry,
installing stage3 to remove all the use flags cruft subsequently, bootstrap
and re-emerge the system and then
Marius Mauch wrote:
On Sun, 20 Nov 2005 09:32:55 +1100
Ben Skeggs [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Anyway, the most important reason for the GLEP (IMO) is giving AT's
r/o access to CVS. When working on bugs, it's always fun to find out
that the problem has already been resolved and just hasn't made
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Corey Shields schrieb:
|| Ahh, ok thanks for clearing that up.
||
|| Still screwed up. Lesson learned, make friends with a majority
|| of the council, write and propose a glep the day before
|| a meeting and then push it through. wow. sounds
||
23.11.2005, 0:26:03, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
However, Gentoo still provides stage1 and stage2 tarballs. This is for
development purposes (the Release Engineering team starts from a stage1
tarball to obtain a stage3) but shouldn't be used by users: a stage3 tarball
can very well be used to
Jakub Moc wrote:
*Now* I hope I've finally been sarcastic enough to justify the incredibly
pissed-off tone you've shown in your previous reply. I've not exactly seen any
flames or name calling here, and I'm not the one to blame for the fact
that you're feeling overloaded. Jump back in when you
Jakub Moc [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
You can do whatever you like. Nobody is forcing you to do anything.
That being said, you are not going to force *me* to do anything, either.
Hmm, have I missed an argument here? Actually, the above is incorrect. You
*are* forcing me to use stage3, but
Is it possible to have the font from the original Aaron Shi design?
George
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Hello everyone,
A few days ago i glanced over package.mask , and i was surprised
about how many non-existent ebuild/packages entries are there.
So, i wrote a script to try to get a list of those orphaned entries,
and it looks like there are more than 400 packages/ebuilds which are still
listed
Luis F. Araujo wrote:
Hello everyone,
A few days ago i glanced over package.mask , and i was surprised
about how many non-existent ebuild/packages entries are there.
So, i wrote a script to try to get a list of those orphaned entries,
and it looks like there are more than 400 packages/ebuilds
On Wednesday 23 November 2005 02:18, Luis F. Araujo wrote:
Hello everyone,
A few days ago i glanced over package.mask , and i was surprised
about how many non-existent ebuild/packages entries are there.
So, i wrote a script to try to get a list of those orphaned entries,
and it looks like
Marcus D. Hanwell wrote:
On Wednesday 23 November 2005 02:18, Luis F. Araujo wrote:
Hello everyone,
A few days ago i glanced over package.mask , and i was surprised
about how many non-existent ebuild/packages entries are there.
So, i wrote a script to try to get a list of those orphaned
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Luis F. Araujo wrote:
| So, i wrote a script to try to get a list of those orphaned entries,
| and it looks like there are more than 400 packages/ebuilds which are still
| listed in p.m but that don't exist in the tree anymore.
| (A bunch of them
On Tue, 22 Nov 2005 22:18:26 -0400
Luis F. Araujo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So, i wrote a script to try to get a list of those orphaned entries,
and it looks like there are more than 400 packages/ebuilds which are
still listed in p.m but that don't exist in the tree anymore.
(A bunch of them
Luis F. Araujo wrote:
Hello everyone,
A few days ago i glanced over package.mask , and i was surprised
about how many non-existent ebuild/packages entries are there.
please adjust your script.
=cat/foo-1.2 is valid even though foo-1.2 is no longer in the tree. I
looked at the top 4 line in
1 - 100 of 116 matches
Mail list logo
