Re: [gentoo-dev] last call for xml2 (#116346)

2006-06-08 Thread Roy Marples
On Wednesday 07 June 2006 12:03, Mike Frysinger wrote: you guys have had plenty of time to do this ... so last call before i scrub xml2 from use.desc and repoman starts complaining :P -mike Stable samba-3.0.22 has both xml and xml2 still. -- Roy Marples [EMAIL PROTECTED] Gentoo/Linux

Re: [gentoo-dev] Default useflag cleanups: -apm -foomaticdb -fortran -imlib -motif -oss -xmms

2006-06-08 Thread Robin H. Johnson
On Mon, Jun 05, 2006 at 08:58:46PM +0100, Luis Medinas wrote: Xmms will be removed soon... Lot's of users still use xmms mostly because it has many plugins that others don't. Xmms is still stable but the upstream is dead so it won't take our patchset. In the end of this year i would like to

[gentoo-dev] parallel fun in src_install - going beyond the serial monotony of 'make install'

2006-06-08 Thread Robin H. Johnson
In the present devmanual, for src_install, it notes that make install DESTDIR=${D} is the preferred way to fire off the install, and to not use emake, for fear of parallel issues. This has four nasty side effects: - Global assumption that make is GNU Make (Hi flameeyes). - Doesn't pass

Re: [gentoo-dev] parallel fun in src_install - going beyond the serial monotony of 'make install'

2006-06-08 Thread Robin H. Johnson
On Thu, Jun 08, 2006 at 01:58:07AM -0700, Robin H. Johnson wrote: For a start, practically all Makefiles generated by a recent version (newer than 2001 for definite) are parallel safe. There are a few minor cases I saw where this wasn't true, but those packages also had other parallel build

Re: [gentoo-dev] last call for xml2 (#116346)

2006-06-08 Thread Mike Frysinger
On Thursday 08 June 2006 02:58, Roy Marples wrote: On Wednesday 07 June 2006 12:03, Mike Frysinger wrote: you guys have had plenty of time to do this ... so last call before i scrub xml2 from use.desc and repoman starts complaining :P Stable samba-3.0.22 has both xml and xml2 still. tell

Re: [gentoo-dev] fix binary debug support, part elevenity billion + 1

2006-06-08 Thread Mike Frysinger
On Wednesday 07 June 2006 19:12, Alec Warner wrote: I would be more concerned with convincing the rest of the developers. adding crap in base profile.bashrc will affect 99% of users, so it better be friggin correct and useful, otherwise you will piss a ton of people off. versus the people who

Re: [gentoo-dev] parallel fun in src_install - going beyond the serial monotony of 'make install'

2006-06-08 Thread Harald van Dijk
On Thu, Jun 08, 2006 at 01:58:07AM -0700, Robin H. Johnson wrote: In the present devmanual, for src_install, it notes that make install DESTDIR=${D} is the preferred way to fire off the install, and to not use emake, for fear of parallel issues. Actually, it uses `make DESTDIR=${D}

Re: [gentoo-dev] fix binary debug support, part elevenity billion + 1

2006-06-08 Thread Mike Frysinger
On Wednesday 07 June 2006 16:10, Zac Medico wrote: Grant Goodyear wrote: Zac Medico wrote: [Wed Jun 07 2006, 01:30:38PM CDT] Mike Frysinger wrote: this is a *huge* con ... developers are lazy, *i'm* lazy ... i certainly do not want to go through every single package i maintain and add

Re: [gentoo-dev] Default useflag cleanups: -apm -foomaticdb -fortran -imlib -motif -oss -xmms

2006-06-08 Thread Mike Frysinger
On Monday 05 June 2006 15:58, Luis Medinas wrote: On Mon, 2006-06-05 at 21:22 +0200, Wernfried Haas wrote: On Mon, Jun 05, 2006 at 07:03:57PM +0200, Stefan Schweizer wrote: today I would like to propose a few default keywords for removal. They are outdated and no longer needed on current

Re: [gentoo-dev] Default useflag cleanups: -apm -foomaticdb -fortran -imlib -motif -oss -xmms

2006-06-08 Thread Luis Medinas
On Thu, 2006-06-08 at 01:30 -0700, Robin H. Johnson wrote: On Mon, Jun 05, 2006 at 08:58:46PM +0100, Luis Medinas wrote: Xmms will be removed soon... Lot's of users still use xmms mostly because it has many plugins that others don't. Xmms is still stable but the upstream is dead so it won't

[gentoo-dev] Shouldn't gcc-4.1-related bugs have some kind of priority as gcc-4.1 is now unmasked?

2006-06-08 Thread Matteo Azzali
This is just a mine question, but it seems that since gcc-4.1 got it's way into portage (~branch) things are getting slower. Lots of the bugs blocking bug #117482 - http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=117482 - have a patch in the report or an ebuild for revision bump, tested working. They

Re: [gentoo-dev] Shouldn't gcc-4.1-related bugs have some kind of priority as gcc-4.1 is now unmasked?

2006-06-08 Thread Alec Warner
Matteo Azzali wrote: This is just a mine question, but it seems that since gcc-4.1 got it's way into portage (~branch) things are getting slower. Lots of the bugs blocking bug #117482 - http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=117482 - have a patch in the report or an ebuild for revision bump,

Re: [gentoo-dev] parallel fun in src_install - going beyond the serial monotony of 'make install'

2006-06-08 Thread Mike Frysinger
On Thursday 08 June 2006 06:08, Harald van Dijk wrote: On Thu, Jun 08, 2006 at 01:58:07AM -0700, Robin H. Johnson wrote: In the present devmanual, for src_install, it notes that make install DESTDIR=${D} is the preferred way to fire off the install, and to not use emake, for fear of

Re: [gentoo-dev] fix binary debug support, part elevenity billion + 1

2006-06-08 Thread Zac Medico
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Mike Frysinger wrote: On Wednesday 07 June 2006 16:10, Zac Medico wrote: Grant Goodyear wrote: Zac Medico wrote: [Wed Jun 07 2006, 01:30:38PM CDT] Mike Frysinger wrote: this is a *huge* con ... developers are lazy, *i'm* lazy ... i certainly do

Re: [gentoo-dev] Shouldn't gcc-4.1-related bugs have some kind of priority as gcc-4.1 is now unmasked?

2006-06-08 Thread Matteo Azzali
Hum, maybe my little english is not good to explain my thoughts. I already have a /usr/local/portage overlay bigger than 500Kb. What I was asking is if it's a normal behaviour that emerge stops for unstable branch users. I asked myself this after looking some ebuilds that have more than 4

Re: [gentoo-dev] last call for xml2 (#116346)

2006-06-08 Thread Roy Marples
On Thursday 08 June 2006 11:00, Mike Frysinger wrote: On Thursday 08 June 2006 02:58, Roy Marples wrote: On Wednesday 07 June 2006 12:03, Mike Frysinger wrote: you guys have had plenty of time to do this ... so last call before i scrub xml2 from use.desc and repoman starts complaining :P

Re: [gentoo-dev] Shouldn't gcc-4.1-related bugs have some kind of priority as gcc-4.1 is now unmasked?

2006-06-08 Thread Chris Bainbridge
On 08/06/06, Matteo Azzali [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hum, maybe my little english is not good to explain my thoughts. I already have a /usr/local/portage overlay bigger than 500Kb. I can beat that, try 23MB :-/ Anyway, back to your point - yes, there are lots of bugs with patches

Re: [gentoo-dev] fix binary debug support, part elevenity billion + 1

2006-06-08 Thread Kevin F. Quinn
On Thu, 08 Jun 2006 06:49:39 -0400 Alec Warner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Mike Frysinger wrote: On Wednesday 07 June 2006 19:12, Alec Warner wrote: I would be more concerned with convincing the rest of the developers. adding crap in base profile.bashrc will affect 99% of users, so it

Re: [gentoo-dev] [ANNOUNCE] Project Sunrise - Gentoo User Overlay

2006-06-08 Thread Chris Gianelloni
On Thu, 2006-06-08 at 02:42 +0200, Stefan Schweizer wrote: Hi, I have founded a new Gentoo Project for the Gentoo User Overlay. The intention is to give contributors a single place to put their ebuilds - a place where they can be downloaded, updated and be moved to portage more easily

Re: [gentoo-dev] fix binary debug support, part elevenity billion + 1

2006-06-08 Thread Ned Ludd
On Thu, 2006-06-08 at 06:49 -0400, Alec Warner wrote: Mike Frysinger wrote: On Wednesday 07 June 2006 19:12, Alec Warner wrote: I would be more concerned with convincing the rest of the developers. adding crap in base profile.bashrc will affect 99% of users, so it better be friggin

Re: [gentoo-dev] [ANNOUNCE] Project Sunrise - Gentoo User Overlay

2006-06-08 Thread Thomas Cort
On Thu, 08 Jun 2006 09:20:18 -0400 Chris Gianelloni [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Please keep the games bugs in bugzilla. Making this change is a direct change in games team policy without any prior notice to the games team and without our permission. No one needs permission to put ebuilds from

Re: [gentoo-dev] Shouldn't gcc-4.1-related bugs have some kind of priority as gcc-4.1 is now unmasked?

2006-06-08 Thread Chris Gianelloni
On Thu, 2006-06-08 at 13:42 +0100, Chris Bainbridge wrote: On 08/06/06, Matteo Azzali [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hum, maybe my little english is not good to explain my thoughts. I already have a /usr/local/portage overlay bigger than 500Kb. I can beat that, try 23MB :-/ Anyway,

Re: [gentoo-dev] fix binary debug support, part elevenity billion + 1

2006-06-08 Thread Alec Warner
Ned Ludd wrote: On Thu, 2006-06-08 at 06:49 -0400, Alec Warner wrote: Mike Frysinger wrote: On Wednesday 07 June 2006 19:12, Alec Warner wrote: I would be more concerned with convincing the rest of the developers. adding crap in base profile.bashrc will affect 99% of users, so it better

Re: [gentoo-dev] [ANNOUNCE] Project Sunrise - Gentoo User Overlay

2006-06-08 Thread Chris Gianelloni
On Thu, 2006-06-08 at 09:32 -0400, Thomas Cort wrote: On Thu, 08 Jun 2006 09:20:18 -0400 Chris Gianelloni [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Please keep the games bugs in bugzilla. Making this change is a direct change in games team policy without any prior notice to the games team and without our

Re: [gentoo-dev] Shouldn't gcc-4.1-related bugs have some kind of priority as gcc-4.1 is now unmasked?

2006-06-08 Thread Matteo Azzali
Ehrm, I'm already becomed developer (some days) *, I'm already the author of lots of patches/comment in those reports, and as you pointed out I must follow rules and can't jump maintainers (who surely have better understanding of the issue involved than me). That's the cause of the question,my

Re: [gentoo-dev] [ANNOUNCE] Project Sunrise - Gentoo User Overlay

2006-06-08 Thread Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò
On Thursday 08 June 2006 15:46, Chris Gianelloni wrote: Having to troll through some overlay only increases our work load. +1 for chris -- Diego Flameeyes Pettenò - http://farragut.flameeyes.is-a-geek.org/ Gentoo/Alt lead, Gentoo/FreeBSD, Video, AMD64, Sound, PAM, KDE pgpciKqnLh3FT.pgp

Re: [gentoo-dev] Shouldn't gcc-4.1-related bugs have some kind of priority as gcc-4.1 is now unmasked?

2006-06-08 Thread Stephen P. Becker
[EMAIL PROTECTED] * (I'm not sending mails through gentoo.org account cause http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/infrastructure/dev-email.xml asks me to not use it to send mails unless absolutely necessary. , and I have others mean of sending emails) You should always use it on official

Re: [gentoo-dev] [ANNOUNCE] Project Sunrise - Gentoo User Overlay

2006-06-08 Thread Stephen P. Becker
Having to troll through some overlay only increases our work load. That and it would become an an official Gentoo BMG-style repo. Please, let us not officially encourage the ricers. Some of us work very hard to discourage this type of user behavior. -Steve -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing

Re: [gentoo-dev] [ANNOUNCE] Project Sunrise - Gentoo User Overlay

2006-06-08 Thread Jon Portnoy
On Thu, Jun 08, 2006 at 09:32:13AM -0400, Thomas Cort wrote: On Thu, 08 Jun 2006 09:20:18 -0400 Chris Gianelloni [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Please keep the games bugs in bugzilla. Making this change is a direct change in games team policy without any prior notice to the games team and

Re: [gentoo-dev] fix binary debug support, part elevenity billion + 1

2006-06-08 Thread Donnie Berkholz
Ned Ludd wrote: -for conf in ${PN}-${PV}-${PR} ${PN}-${PV} ${PN}; do +for conf in default ${PN}-${PV}-${PR} ${PN}-${PV} ${PN}; do Call it 'default' ? Switch the order around so it's 'default PN PN-PV PN-PV-PR' -- that way you can have a package-specific setting, and override it for specific

Re: [gentoo-dev] [ANNOUNCE] Project Sunrise - Gentoo User Overlay

2006-06-08 Thread Carsten Lohrke
On Thursday 08 June 2006 02:42, Stefan Schweizer wrote: Initially jokey and myself will be working on this. The current focus is to migrate ebuilds from bugzilla into the overlay and to get contributors to commit their changes to the overlay instead of updating the bugzilla every time. Can't

Re: [gentoo-dev] [ANNOUNCE] Project Sunrise - Gentoo User Overlay

2006-06-08 Thread Alec Warner
Jon Portnoy wrote: On Thu, Jun 08, 2006 at 09:32:13AM -0400, Thomas Cort wrote: On Thu, 08 Jun 2006 09:20:18 -0400 Chris Gianelloni [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Please keep the games bugs in bugzilla. Making this change is a direct change in games team policy without any prior notice to the

[gentoo-dev] Re: [ANNOUNCE] Project Sunrise - Gentoo User Overlay

2006-06-08 Thread Stefan Schweizer
Jon Portnoy wrote: On Thu, Jun 08, 2006 at 09:32:13AM -0400, Thomas Cort wrote: On Thu, 08 Jun 2006 09:20:18 -0400 Chris Gianelloni [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Please keep the games bugs in bugzilla. Making this change is a direct change in games team policy without any prior notice to the

Re: [gentoo-dev] [ANNOUNCE] Project Sunrise - Gentoo User Overlay

2006-06-08 Thread foser
On Thu, 2006-06-08 at 11:12 -0400, Alec Warner wrote: It is my understanding the the Sunrise overlay is not open to anyone to commit, so it is not a contrib/ The sunrise project is the owner of the overlay and they are responsible for it's contents. The people commiting are responsible

Re: [gentoo-dev] fix binary debug support, part elevenity billion + 1

2006-06-08 Thread Ned Ludd
On Thu, 2006-06-08 at 07:49 -0700, Donnie Berkholz wrote: Ned Ludd wrote: -for conf in ${PN}-${PV}-${PR} ${PN}-${PV} ${PN}; do +for conf in default ${PN}-${PV}-${PR} ${PN}-${PV} ${PN}; do Call it 'default' ? Switch the order around so it's 'default PN PN-PV PN-PV-PR' -- that way you

Re: [gentoo-dev] [ANNOUNCE] Project Sunrise - Gentoo User Overlay

2006-06-08 Thread Chris Gianelloni
On Thu, 2006-06-08 at 11:12 -0400, Alec Warner wrote: It is my understanding the the Sunrise overlay is not open to anyone to commit, so it is not a contrib/ The sunrise project is the owner of the overlay and they are responsible for it's contents. The people commiting are responsible

[gentoo-dev] Re: [ANNOUNCE] Project Sunrise - Gentoo User Overlay

2006-06-08 Thread Stefan Schweizer
foser wrote: I don't think the problem with maintainer-wanted ebuilds is that they are crappy, but that there is no dev willing to maintain them and ensure their quality over time. 'sunrise' (who came up with that name ? cheap asian poetry attempt) doesn't change that by adding it to an

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [ANNOUNCE] Project Sunrise - Gentoo User Overlay

2006-06-08 Thread Lance Albertson
Stefan Schweizer wrote: Please do not comment on this if you have no real improvements to make and just fell like commenting, flaming it. Please stop ending every reply by ignoring the real issues and claiming its just people 'flaming'. If you honestly think that every person that replies

[gentoo-dev] Re: [ANNOUNCE] Project Sunrise - Gentoo User Overlay

2006-06-08 Thread Peter
On Thu, 08 Jun 2006 02:42:03 +0200, Stefan Schweizer wrote: Hi, I have founded a new Gentoo Project for the Gentoo User Overlay. The intention is to give contributors a single place to put their ebuilds - a place where they can be downloaded, updated and be moved to portage more easily

Re: [gentoo-dev] [ANNOUNCE] Project Sunrise - Gentoo User Overlay

2006-06-08 Thread Henrik Brix Andersen
On Thu, Jun 08, 2006 at 10:13:45AM -0400, Stephen P. Becker wrote: That and it would become an an official Gentoo BMG-style repo. Please, let us not officially encourage the ricers. Some of us work very hard to discourage this type of user behavior. I wholeheartedly agree with Stephen on

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [ANNOUNCE] Project Sunrise - Gentoo User Overlay

2006-06-08 Thread Chris Gianelloni
On Thu, 2006-06-08 at 17:29 +0200, Stefan Schweizer wrote: Jon Portnoy wrote: On Thu, Jun 08, 2006 at 09:32:13AM -0400, Thomas Cort wrote: On Thu, 08 Jun 2006 09:20:18 -0400 Chris Gianelloni [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Please keep the games bugs in bugzilla. Making this change is a

Re: [gentoo-dev] [ANNOUNCE] Project Sunrise - Gentoo User Overlay

2006-06-08 Thread Chris Gianelloni
On Thu, 2006-06-08 at 17:45 +0200, foser wrote: Instead of tackling the real problem -the lack of maintainers to deal with all requests- 'sunrise' is trying to create a backdoor for unreliable maintained stuff to enter the tree. Don't forget the free reign it gives to the sunrise development

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [ANNOUNCE] Project Sunrise - Gentoo User Overlay

2006-06-08 Thread Chris Gianelloni
On Thu, 2006-06-08 at 18:04 +0200, Stefan Schweizer wrote: Please do not comment on this if you have no real improvements to make and just fell like commenting, flaming it. No. A flame is being insulting to someone. Pointing out problems with an idea is not flaming. Please quit trying to use

Re: [gentoo-dev] [ANNOUNCE] Project Sunrise - Gentoo User Overlay

2006-06-08 Thread Josh Saddler
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Carsten Lohrke wrote: On Thursday 08 June 2006 02:42, Stefan Schweizer wrote: Initially jokey and myself will be working on this. The current focus is to migrate ebuilds from bugzilla into the overlay and to get contributors to commit their

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [ANNOUNCE] Project Sunrise - Gentoo User Overlay

2006-06-08 Thread Ryan Tandy
Peter wrote: Nonetheless, the bug is active, with a good number of people subscribing to it and contributing to it. The sunshine overlay would be an ideal place to store a kernel source tree or any project which would never find a home in portage. Pardon me if I'm totally confused, but isn't

Re: [gentoo-dev] [ANNOUNCE] Project Sunrise - Gentoo User Overlay

2006-06-08 Thread Chris Bainbridge
On 08/06/06, foser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't think the problem with maintainer-wanted ebuilds is that they are crappy, but that there is no dev willing to maintain them and ensure their quality over time. 'sunrise' (who came up with that name ? cheap asian poetry attempt) doesn't change

Re: [gentoo-dev] [ANNOUNCE] Project Sunrise - Gentoo User Overlay

2006-06-08 Thread Lance Albertson
Henrik Brix Andersen wrote: Personally, I dislike the idea of having officially supported (read: hosted on *.gentoo.org infrastructure) overlays for unmaintained ebuilds for which nobody did any real quality assurance. I fear this will drag Gentoo back into the old-ages of having a reputation

Re: [gentoo-dev] fix binary debug support, part elevenity billion + 1

2006-06-08 Thread Donnie Berkholz
Ned Ludd wrote: On Thu, 2006-06-08 at 07:49 -0700, Donnie Berkholz wrote: Ned Ludd wrote: -for conf in ${PN}-${PV}-${PR} ${PN}-${PV} ${PN}; do +for conf in default ${PN}-${PV}-${PR} ${PN}-${PV} ${PN}; do Call it 'default' ? Switch the order around so it's 'default PN PN-PV PN-PV-PR' -- that

Re: [gentoo-dev] [ANNOUNCE] Project Sunrise - Gentoo User Overlay

2006-06-08 Thread Grant Goodyear
Stefan Schweizer wrote: [Wed Jun 07 2006, 07:42:03PM CDT] Initially jokey and myself will be working on this. The current focus is to migrate ebuilds from bugzilla into the overlay and to get contributors to commit their changes to the overlay instead of updating the bugzilla every time. I'm

Re: [gentoo-dev] [ANNOUNCE] Project Sunrise - Gentoo User Overlay

2006-06-08 Thread Chris Bainbridge
On 08/06/06, Jon Portnoy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I do very much object to using any gentoo.org infrastructure or subdomains to do so. If someone is going to tackle that, it should be done outside of Gentoo proper. We don't need to be stuck maintaining and supporting a semiofficial overlay.

Re: [gentoo-dev] [ANNOUNCE] Project Sunrise - Gentoo User Overlay

2006-06-08 Thread Patrick McLean
Chris Bainbridge wrote: On 08/06/06, Jon Portnoy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I do very much object to using any gentoo.org infrastructure or subdomains to do so. If someone is going to tackle that, it should be done outside of Gentoo proper. We don't need to be stuck maintaining and supporting a

Re: [gentoo-dev] [ANNOUNCE] Project Sunrise - Gentoo User Overlay

2006-06-08 Thread Alec Warner
Grant Goodyear wrote: Stefan Schweizer wrote: [Wed Jun 07 2006, 07:42:03PM CDT] Initially jokey and myself will be working on this. The current focus is to migrate ebuilds from bugzilla into the overlay and to get contributors to commit their changes to the overlay instead of updating the

Re: [gentoo-dev] eselect-compiler updates and unmasking

2006-06-08 Thread Donnie Berkholz
Jeremy Huddleston wrote: I finally had a few free cycles, so I fixed up the eselect-compiler ebuild to better handle the transition from gcc-config and updated toolchain.eclass to better work with multilib. I've had a bunch of help from the amd64 devs/testers/users this past week testing it

Re: [gentoo-dev] eselect-compiler updates and unmasking

2006-06-08 Thread Donnie Berkholz
Donnie Berkholz wrote: This aliases g77 to gfortran and gfortran to g77. They are entirely different compilers and do not accept all the same options. This is incredibly broken behavior, it masks issues in a number of packages and creates new issues in many others. Please fix it. It also

[gentoo-dev] Retirement

2006-06-08 Thread Ryan Phillips
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Howdy All, I've decided that its time for me to move on from Gentoo. I have no ill feelings and still enjoy using the distribution. With work and everything else going on in life I don't have much time to devote to the distribution anymore. I am

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [ANNOUNCE] Project Sunrise - Gentoo User Overlay

2006-06-08 Thread Henrik Brix Andersen
On Thu, Jun 08, 2006 at 12:27:47PM -0400, Chris Gianelloni wrote: Does anyone else see this as a problem? I think it is clear from the comments in this thread that your view is shared by many other Gentoo developers. Regards, Brix -- Henrik Brix Andersen [EMAIL PROTECTED] Gentoo

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [ANNOUNCE] Project Sunrise - Gentoo User Overlay

2006-06-08 Thread Henrik Brix Andersen
On Thu, Jun 08, 2006 at 12:26:50PM -0400, Peter wrote: And, I'm fine with that. That's their job -- to protect the quality of their project, and to keep things relatively safe and manageable. Nonetheless, the bug is active, with a good number of people subscribing to it and contributing to

Re: [gentoo-dev] Project Sunrise thread -- a try of clarification

2006-06-08 Thread Markus Ullmann
To clarify things a bit (hopefully): 1) security This is not the main tree, just a normal overlay. Okay, some non-devs contribute here but doesn't change the fact that it is just an overlay as any other out there in the world. Well, it is a bit different. Here are some devs keeping an eye on the

Re: [gentoo-dev] Project Sunrise thread -- a try of clarification

2006-06-08 Thread Lance Albertson
Markus Ullmann wrote: 6) problems on infra hardware Well Lance arised that, so if infra has that big concerns about this project (I personally see no hard reason for it, but let the infra guys handle it how they want), then feel free to drop me a note and we host it elsewhere. I really see

Re: [gentoo-dev] Project Sunrise thread -- a try of clarification

2006-06-08 Thread Henrik Brix Andersen
On Thu, Jun 08, 2006 at 08:58:48PM +0200, Markus Ullmann wrote: This is not the main tree, just a normal overlay. Okay, some non-devs contribute here but doesn't change the fact that it is just an overlay as any other out there in the world. Well, it is a bit different. Here are some devs

Re: [gentoo-dev] Project Sunrise thread -- a try of clarification

2006-06-08 Thread Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò
On Thursday 08 June 2006 20:58, Markus Ullmann wrote: 3) replacement for bugs.g.o I would prefer if people would still comment on the bugs when they do some changes on the overlay so that at least we know that. Some ebuilds found their way into the overlay, we talked about that internally and

Re: [gentoo-dev] Project Sunrise thread -- a try of clarification

2006-06-08 Thread Peter Volkov (pva)
On Чтв, 2006-06-08 at 21:20 +0200, Henrik Brix Andersen wrote: It's not a normal overlay as I see it. You've promoted it to be an official overlay. The difference is huge in my opinion. IMO such overlay should be official! Why not to keep all (partially) broken ebuilds in one place? This is the

Re: [gentoo-dev] Project Sunrise thread -- a try of clarification

2006-06-08 Thread Peter Volkov (pva)
On Чтв, 2006-06-08 at 21:20 +0200, Henrik Brix Andersen wrote: It's not a normal overlay as I see it. You've promoted it to be an official overlay. The difference is huge in my opinion. IMO such overlay should be official! Why not to keep all (partially) broken ebuilds in one place? This is the

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [ANNOUNCE] Project Sunrise - Gentoo User Overlay

2006-06-08 Thread Chris Gianelloni
On Thu, 2006-06-08 at 12:26 -0400, Peter wrote: I think this answers an important shortcoming of the bugzilla approach: vis, some bugs will never make it to the tree -- for any number of reasons. Take, for example, http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=103354, which has an enhancement request

Re: [gentoo-dev] Project Sunrise thread -- a try of clarification

2006-06-08 Thread Markus Ullmann
Henrik Brix Andersen wrote: It's not a normal overlay as I see it. You've promoted it to be an official overlay. The difference is huge in my opinion. Well partly you're right. As it is promoted that way it is a bit more official but anyway still an overlay. Will you also review the code

Re: [gentoo-dev] [ANNOUNCE] Project Sunrise - Gentoo User Overlay

2006-06-08 Thread Wernfried Haas
Hi, Both the current discussion as well as the overlay docs don't seem to cover the support topic as far i could see. This is an issue for us forums people though - our daily work involves classifying misplaced threads into officially supported (read: in the tree) and unsupported (someone

Re: [gentoo-dev] [ANNOUNCE] Project Sunrise - Gentoo User Overlay

2006-06-08 Thread Chris Gianelloni
On Thu, 2006-06-08 at 17:48 +0100, Chris Bainbridge wrote: The time it takes to actually apply fixes etc. is another point. This is where I'd respectfully disagree. Bugzilla is a poor system for sharing and managing the flow of ebuilds and patches. It would be nice if there were a way for

Re: [gentoo-dev] [ANNOUNCE] Project Sunrise - Gentoo User Overlay

2006-06-08 Thread Markus Ullmann
My intention was to solve some parts with him directly and then send out some solutions but he wants to do everything on list, so I'm sending it out for you to know. -- LOGPOST -- [22:09:15] jokey so after reading your posts I get the impression you fear that this project will end up in some BMG

Re: [gentoo-dev] [ANNOUNCE] Project Sunrise - Gentoo User Overlay

2006-06-08 Thread Luca Barbato
Grant Goodyear wrote: Stefan Schweizer wrote: [Wed Jun 07 2006, 07:42:03PM CDT] My reasoning is that bugzilla provides a place for community development of an ebuild (including commentary!), which would not be true of just the overlay. If one were instead to add a magical bugs whiteboard

[gentoo-dev] Re: Re: [ANNOUNCE] Project Sunrise - Gentoo User Overlay

2006-06-08 Thread Peter
On Thu, 08 Jun 2006 15:51:25 -0400, Chris Gianelloni wrote: First, let me say that I'm approaching this from a user's perspective. I have no insight or knowledge as to the history of the overlay project or any of the people involved. I _do_ know that since late 2004 when I first switched to

Re: [gentoo-dev] Project Sunrise thread -- a try of clarification

2006-06-08 Thread Ciaran McCreesh
On Thu, 08 Jun 2006 23:52:50 +0400 Peter Volkov (pva) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | Will you also review the code each and every ebuild pull down over | the internet? | | And that is really exciting moment. :) The main difference between | such overlay and wiki is that reading text never does `rm

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: [ANNOUNCE] Project Sunrise - Gentoo User Overlay

2006-06-08 Thread Alec Warner
Why? Because having two year old bugs is simply inexcusable. Especially when many have not had any activity for a long time. Having maintainer-wanted bugs for months on end is silly. Giving a user who files a ebuild request or submits an ebuild deserves the chance to take ownership of it. It's a

Re: [gentoo-dev] Project Sunrise thread -- a try of clarification

2006-06-08 Thread Stuart Herbert
On 6/8/06, Henrik Brix Andersen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Will you also review the code each and every ebuild pull down over the internet? The policy for overlays.gentoo.org hosting [1] is hopefully clear: as the project leads, they're ultimately responsible (and therefore accountable) for what

Re: [gentoo-dev] Project Sunrise thread -- a try of clarification

2006-06-08 Thread Henrik Brix Andersen
On Thu, Jun 08, 2006 at 09:35:07PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Thu, 08 Jun 2006 23:52:50 +0400 Peter Volkov (pva) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | Will you also review the code each and every ebuild pull down over | the internet? | | And that is really exciting moment. :) The main

Re: [gentoo-dev] Project Sunrise thread -- a try of clarification

2006-06-08 Thread Henrik Brix Andersen
On Thu, Jun 08, 2006 at 10:05:38PM +0100, Stuart Herbert wrote: On 6/8/06, Henrik Brix Andersen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Will you also review the code each and every ebuild pull down over the internet? The policy for overlays.gentoo.org hosting [1] is hopefully clear: as the project leads,

Re: [gentoo-dev] Project Sunrise thread -- a try of clarification

2006-06-08 Thread Chris Gianelloni
On Thu, 2006-06-08 at 20:58 +0200, Markus Ullmann wrote: To clarify things a bit (hopefully): 1) security This is not the main tree, just a normal overlay. Okay, some non-devs contribute here but doesn't change the fact that it is just an overlay as any other out there in the world. Well,

Re: [gentoo-dev] Project Sunrise thread -- a try of clarification

2006-06-08 Thread Stuart Herbert
Hi Henrik, On 6/8/06, Henrik Brix Andersen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: While reading the policy above, I stumbled across this line: Bug Tracking: bugs.g.o is the OneTrueBugTrackingSystem(tm), even for overlays. Could you please elaborate on this? Sure ... in the discussion we had on -dev

Re: [gentoo-dev] Project Sunrise thread -- a try of clarification

2006-06-08 Thread Chris Gianelloni
On Thu, 2006-06-08 at 21:57 +0200, Markus Ullmann wrote: Well at least briefly. We decided to maintain it in an official way and thus keep an eye on the quality of the checkins. As said, at least a briefly view at it and also a repoman scan. A repoman scan won't catch subtle bugs caused in

Re: [gentoo-dev] [ANNOUNCE] Project Sunrise - Gentoo User Overlay

2006-06-08 Thread Chris Gianelloni
On Thu, 2006-06-08 at 22:20 +0200, Luca Barbato wrote: Grant Goodyear wrote: Stefan Schweizer wrote: [Wed Jun 07 2006, 07:42:03PM CDT] My reasoning is that bugzilla provides a place for community development of an ebuild (including commentary!), which would not be true of just the

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: [ANNOUNCE] Project Sunrise - Gentoo User Overlay

2006-06-08 Thread Chris Gianelloni
On Thu, 2006-06-08 at 16:23 -0400, Peter wrote: I did not read anything that implied o.g.o would bypass anything other than a lengthy wait in bugzilla land. Other distros have their experimental/testing branches, why can't gentoo? *cough* ~arch *cough* What everybody seems to miss is that

Re: [gentoo-dev] Project Sunrise thread -- a try of clarification

2006-06-08 Thread Chris Gianelloni
On Thu, 2006-06-08 at 21:35 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Thu, 08 Jun 2006 23:52:50 +0400 Peter Volkov (pva) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | Will you also review the code each and every ebuild pull down over | the internet? | | And that is really exciting moment. :) The main difference

Re: [gentoo-dev] Project Sunrise thread -- a try of clarification

2006-06-08 Thread Donnie Berkholz
Chris Gianelloni wrote: No, but the ebuilds are also checked by the team in question, that actually knows the packages, versus a couple of developers that will be overworked, dealing with packages that they are completely unfamiliar with and have no experience with. I just don't see the two

Re: [gentoo-dev] Project Sunrise thread -- a try of clarification

2006-06-08 Thread Markus Ullmann
First let me state this one really important thing: The sunrise project is a project on its own. We're about to convert it to a TLP to make clear that it shares nothing with the overlay project except the hardware ressources and the overlay feature of portage. Chris Gianelloni wrote: On Thu,

[gentoo-dev] Re: Re: Re: [ANNOUNCE] Project Sunrise - Gentoo User Overlay

2006-06-08 Thread Peter
On Thu, 08 Jun 2006 18:09:04 -0400, Chris Gianelloni wrote: On Thu, 2006-06-08 at 16:23 -0400, Peter wrote: I did not read anything that implied o.g.o would bypass anything other than a lengthy wait in bugzilla land. Other distros have their experimental/testing branches, why can't gentoo?

Re: [gentoo-dev] Retirement

2006-06-08 Thread Stuart Herbert
Hi Ryan, On 6/8/06, Ryan Phillips [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Howdy All, I've decided that its time for me to move on from Gentoo. I have no ill feelings and still enjoy using the distribution. With work and everything else going on in life I don't have much time to devote to the distribution

[gentoo-dev] herds.xml

2006-06-08 Thread Grant Goodyear
So, what would people think of moving herds.xml from gentoo/misc into the portage tree, with the rationale being that local tools could use that information for various useful purposes (compiling statistics, doing something that I can't think of right now, whatever)? -g2boojum- -- Grant Goodyear

Re: [gentoo-dev] Project Sunrise thread -- a try of clarification

2006-06-08 Thread Chris Gianelloni
On Thu, 2006-06-08 at 15:22 -0700, Donnie Berkholz wrote: Chris Gianelloni wrote: No, but the ebuilds are also checked by the team in question, that actually knows the packages, versus a couple of developers that will be overworked, dealing with packages that they are completely unfamiliar

Re: [gentoo-dev] Project Sunrise thread -- a try of clarification

2006-06-08 Thread Chris Gianelloni
On Fri, 2006-06-09 at 00:30 +0200, Markus Ullmann wrote: I know that when I spoke of security, I was not only talking about the security of letting non-developers commit to an overlay that is, by design, for end users, but also of the implications of ensuring that any packages in these

Re: [gentoo-dev] Project Sunrise thread -- a try of clarification

2006-06-08 Thread Markus Ullmann
Chris Gianelloni wrote: On Fri, 2006-06-09 at 00:30 +0200, Markus Ullmann wrote: I know that when I spoke of security, I was not only talking about the security of letting non-developers commit to an overlay that is, by design, for end users, but also of the implications of ensuring that any

Re: [gentoo-dev] herds.xml

2006-06-08 Thread Ioannis Aslanidis
On 6/9/06, Grant Goodyear [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So, what would people think of moving herds.xml from gentoo/misc into the portage tree, with the rationale being that local tools could use that information for various useful purposes (compiling statistics, doing something that I can't think of

[gentoo-dev] Re: [ANNOUNCE] Project Sunrise - Gentoo User Overlay

2006-06-08 Thread Stefan Schweizer
Stefan Schweizer wrote: ..commit their changes to the overlay instead of updating the bugzilla every time. it is actually encouraged to update bugzilla when changes are made in the overlay. Here are some more things I found in the current thread: chris It also doesn't answer the questions of

Re: [gentoo-dev] Shouldn't gcc-4.1-related bugs have some kind of priority as gcc-4.1 is now unmasked?

2006-06-08 Thread Drake Wyrm
Matteo Azzali [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * (I'm not sending mails through gentoo.org account cause http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/infrastructure/dev-email.xml asks me to not use it to send mails unless absolutely necessary. , and I have others mean of sending emails) I

Re: [gentoo-dev] herds.xml

2006-06-08 Thread Brian Harring
On Fri, Jun 09, 2006 at 02:54:08AM +0200, Ioannis Aslanidis wrote: On 6/9/06, Grant Goodyear [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So, what would people think of moving herds.xml from gentoo/misc into the portage tree, with the rationale being that local tools could use that information for various useful

Re: [gentoo-dev] Project Sunrise thread -- a try of clarification

2006-06-08 Thread Ciaran McCreesh
On Fri, 09 Jun 2006 02:49:14 +0200 Markus Ullmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | No. It clearly says that you would be doing the basic QA checks and | repoman checking on initial commit. You even said it right above | where I commented! | | You're doing some witch hunting here... I said we keep

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [ANNOUNCE] Project Sunrise - Gentoo User Overlay

2006-06-08 Thread Luis Francisco Araujo
Peter wrote: On Thu, 08 Jun 2006 02:42:03 +0200, Stefan Schweizer wrote: Hi, I have founded a new Gentoo Project for the Gentoo User Overlay. The intention is to give contributors a single place to put their ebuilds - a place where they can be downloaded, updated and be moved to portage

Re: [gentoo-dev] [ANNOUNCE] Project Sunrise - Gentoo User Overlay

2006-06-08 Thread Luis Francisco Araujo
Chris Bainbridge wrote: On 08/06/06, foser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't think the problem with maintainer-wanted ebuilds is that they are crappy, but that there is no dev willing to maintain them and ensure their quality over time. 'sunrise' (who came up with that name ? cheap asian poetry

Re: [gentoo-dev] [ANNOUNCE] Project Sunrise - Gentoo User Overlay

2006-06-08 Thread Luis Francisco Araujo
Chris Bainbridge wrote: On 08/06/06, Jon Portnoy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I do very much object to using any gentoo.org infrastructure or subdomains to do so. If someone is going to tackle that, it should be done outside of Gentoo proper. We don't need to be stuck maintaining and supporting a

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: [ANNOUNCE] Project Sunrise - Gentoo User Overlay

2006-06-08 Thread Luis Francisco Araujo
Peter wrote: On Thu, 08 Jun 2006 15:51:25 -0400, Chris Gianelloni wrote: First, let me say that I'm approaching this from a user's perspective. I have no insight or knowledge as to the history of the overlay project or any of the people involved. I _do_ know that since late 2004 when I first

Re: [gentoo-dev] Project Sunrise thread -- a try of clarification

2006-06-08 Thread Luis Francisco Araujo
Stuart Herbert wrote: On 6/8/06, Henrik Brix Andersen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Will you also review the code each and every ebuild pull down over the internet? The policy for overlays.gentoo.org hosting [1] is hopefully clear: as the project leads, they're ultimately responsible (and

[gentoo-dev] Project Sunrice: arch team perspective

2006-06-08 Thread Stephen P. Becker
Starting a new thread here for a new angle... As Stuart mentioned, bugs for any ebuild on o.g.o would go through Gentoo bugzilla. It seems like genstef and jokey have completely ignored support from arch teams for this overlay. What are you proposing with respect to arch keywords and

  1   2   >