Re: [gentoo-dev] GWN Comments

2006-06-20 Thread Tobias Klausmann
Hi! On Mon, 19 Jun 2006, George Prowse wrote: I'd like to propose some form of ability to post user comments to GWN stories. I suppose a full blown CMS system would work, but for the ease of time I'm suggesting that perhaps we open up a GWN section on the forums and post the text of the

Re: [gentoo-dev] GWN Comments

2006-06-20 Thread Wernfried Haas
On Tue, Jun 20, 2006 at 11:12:21AM +0200, Tobias Klausmann wrote: Okay, I put it a bit strangely. What I meant was that a blog does not need registration (if it has sufficient anti-spam measures). A forum usually does. Well, moderators on a blog could do that too: most blogs allow comments

Re: [gentoo-dev] GWN Comments

2006-06-20 Thread Wernfried Haas
On Mon, Jun 19, 2006 at 11:32:39PM -0400, Alec Warner wrote: CAPTCHA Unluckily Captchas don't solve all problems. Don't remember who it was, but someone recently showed me a link to a page describing which captchas can easily be broken by automated tools. Iirc the summary was, that the only good

Re: [gentoo-dev] GWN Comments

2006-06-20 Thread Anders Hellgren
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Tue, 20 Jun 2006, Wernfried Haas wrote: On Mon, Jun 19, 2006 at 11:32:39PM -0400, Alec Warner wrote: CAPTCHA Unluckily Captchas don't solve all problems. Don't remember who it was, but someone recently showed me a link to a page describing

[gentoo-dev] Re: GWN Comments

2006-06-20 Thread Wiktor Wandachowicz
Patrick Lauer patrick at gentoo.org writes: I'd like to propose some form of ability to post user comments to GWN stories. I suppose a full blown CMS system would work, (Ab)using a blog for that might work Well, the Gentoo Forums users are already used to its commenting system. Especially

Re: [gentoo-dev] Pending Removal of $KV

2006-06-20 Thread Georgi Georgiev
maillog: 19/06/2006-16:34:55(-0700): Ryan Tandy types Arek (James Potts) wrote: If they don't actually build against the kernel, couldn't/shouldn't they look at either kernel-headers or the output of `uname -r`? Kernel headers being the virtual/linux-headers dependency that Georgi

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: GWN Comments

2006-06-20 Thread Caleb Tennis
This is a COOL idea! A global forum with a text-only copy of current GWN would enable more users to actually read it. And adding comments would be even more beneficial. I think that it would be best to place it near the top of forums listing, like this: Agreed. I think this would be a good

Re: [gentoo-dev] 1/2 OT: Comprehensive Source Database

2006-06-20 Thread Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò
On Tuesday 20 June 2006 04:02, Andrew Cowie wrote: I'm not sure if any other distros besides Ubuntu are using it yet, but certainly things will improve geometrically as they start to. Considering it's not Free Software nor Open Source for the most part, I would be surprised. -- Diego

Re: [gentoo-dev] GWN Comments

2006-06-20 Thread Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò
On Tuesday 20 June 2006 04:32, Alec Warner wrote: CAPTCHA Those are evil. You use one, I'm personally going to track you down and send you a thousand photos of Chris White and Jeffrey's goats circus stars together.. with a pole! -- Diego Flameeyes Pettenò -

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: GWN Comments

2006-06-20 Thread Wernfried Haas
On Tue, Jun 20, 2006 at 12:06:25PM +, Wiktor Wandachowicz wrote: The only problem could be to prevent creating topics in this forum by regular users, and giving the ability to post comments only. (Again not a comment on the idea in general from me as i still haven't talked to the others of

Re: [gentoo-dev] GWN Comments

2006-06-20 Thread Wernfried Haas
On Tue, Jun 20, 2006 at 04:14:19PM +0200, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote: Those are evil. You use one, I'm personally going to track you down and send you a thousand photos of Chris White and Jeffrey's goats circus stars together.. with a pole! Let's see if you can solve this one... 3

Re: [gentoo-dev] GWN Comments

2006-06-20 Thread Josh Saddler
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 With all the talk about forums and comments, that got me thinking: Heck, why not just have it posted to the forums? That way it and the comments can be viewed by the general public, but if you want to comment, you can just use your existing forum

Re: [gentoo-dev] 1/2 OT: Comprehensive Source Database

2006-06-20 Thread Josh Saddler
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote: On Tuesday 20 June 2006 04:02, Andrew Cowie wrote: I'm not sure if any other distros besides Ubuntu are using it yet, but certainly things will improve geometrically as they start to. Considering it's not Free

Re: [gentoo-dev] GWN Comments

2006-06-20 Thread Donnie Berkholz
Josh Saddler wrote: With all the talk about forums and comments, that got me thinking: Heck, why not just have it posted to the forums? That way it and the comments can be viewed by the general public, but if you want to comment, you can just use your existing forum account. No additional

[gentoo-dev] 2.6.17 kernel stabilisation plan

2006-06-20 Thread Daniel Drake
Hi, I'm hoping to be able to mark 2.6.17 stable on or around July 11th. I'll give around a weeks notice here when that is to happen. Hopefully we'll use this for the 2006.1 release too. If you find packages (e.g. out-of-tree drivers) in the stable tree which do not compile against 2.6.17

Re: [gentoo-dev] GWN Comments

2006-06-20 Thread Josh Saddler
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Donnie Berkholz wrote: Josh Saddler wrote: With all the talk about forums and comments, that got me thinking: Heck, why not just have it posted to the forums? That way it and the comments can be viewed by the general public, but if you want to

[gentoo-dev] [RFC] Useflags: qt, qt3, qt4?

2006-06-20 Thread Stefan Schweizer
Hi, with kde4 approaching and the new Qt-4 being in the tree we suddenly see the same problems that gtk had with the gtk2 flag again. I am currently using the flags that way: [ebuild R ] app-text/poppler-bindings-0.5.3 USE=cairo gtk qt qt4 0 kB so qt = qt3. Now that scheme will sure break

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Useflags: qt, qt3, qt4?

2006-06-20 Thread Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò
On Tuesday 20 June 2006 18:40, Stefan Schweizer wrote: 3) split the qt flag into a qt3 and a qt4 flag. This allows users to specifically pick qt3 or qt4 and the flag meanings are obvious - downsides are it is a lot of work. I would like migration to this idea, that would have been what I've

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Useflags: qt, qt3, qt4?

2006-06-20 Thread Harald van Dijk
On Tue, Jun 20, 2006 at 06:56:58PM +0200, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote: On Tuesday 20 June 2006 18:40, Stefan Schweizer wrote: 3) split the qt flag into a qt3 and a qt4 flag. This allows users to specifically pick qt3 or qt4 and the flag meanings are obvious - downsides are it is a lot

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Useflags: qt, qt3, qt4?

2006-06-20 Thread Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò
On Tuesday 20 June 2006 19:10, Joshua Jackson wrote: I don't want to go down the path again of having two nearly identical flags for a different slotted version of a framework. I'd like to see just qt with a maintainer deciding if its going to be qt3 or qt4. Unfeasible. GTK 1.2 was deprecated

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Useflags: qt, qt3, qt4?

2006-06-20 Thread Simon Stelling
I don't know all the details, but assuming no app supports qt3 and qt4 at the same time (i.e. you have two interfaces, one against each, which is pretty senseless), wouldn't something like qt? ( || (=x11-libs/qt-3* =x11-libs/qt-4*)) be the best solution? It would allow the maintainer to set a

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Useflags: qt, qt3, qt4?

2006-06-20 Thread Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò
On Tuesday 20 June 2006 19:41, Simon Stelling wrote: I don't know all the details, but assuming no app supports qt3 and qt4 at the same time (i.e. you have two interfaces, one against each, which is pretty senseless), wouldn't something like We're not talking about interfaces, but more likely

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Useflags: qt, qt3, qt4?

2006-06-20 Thread Donnie Berkholz
Henrik Brix Andersen wrote: On Tue, Jun 20, 2006 at 03:11:38PM -0400, Caleb Tennis wrote: I would personally like to stay with just the qt use flag. The use flag will be for support of whichever version of Qt is supported (v3 or v4) for the particular emerge. I would like a single 'qt' USE

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Useflags: qt, qt3, qt4?

2006-06-20 Thread Kevin F. Quinn
On Tue, 20 Jun 2006 14:22:21 -0700 Donnie Berkholz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Henrik Brix Andersen wrote: On Tue, Jun 20, 2006 at 03:11:38PM -0400, Caleb Tennis wrote: I would personally like to stay with just the qt use flag. The use flag will be for support of whichever version of Qt is

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Useflags: qt, qt3, qt4?

2006-06-20 Thread Donnie Berkholz
Kevin F. Quinn wrote: Problems with having 'qt' to mean latest and 'qt3' as specifically version 3 include: 1) Target package depends on build system (assuming 'qt' is interpreted as 'qt3' if only that is installed, rather than pulling in qt4 if not already present). What? There will still

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Useflags: qt, qt3, qt4?

2006-06-20 Thread Mike Owen
On 6/20/06, Stefan Schweizer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, with kde4 approaching and the new Qt-4 being in the tree we suddenly see the same problems that gtk had with the gtk2 flag again. snip From this user's perspective, simple is better. qt3 and qt4 as use flags are completely and

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Useflags: qt, qt3, qt4?

2006-06-20 Thread Donnie Berkholz
Mike Owen wrote: From this user's perspective, simple is better. qt3 and qt4 as use flags are completely and utterly obvious as to what they mean, and there is no confusion about them. Adding a plain qt flag in there brings back the gtk/gtk2 mess that we've presumably been trying to avoid in

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Useflags: qt, qt3, qt4?

2006-06-20 Thread Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò
On Wednesday 21 June 2006 00:52, Donnie Berkholz wrote: Yes, you will need to introduce a qt4 flag as upstreams port packages to qt5, if they choose to also retain a qt4 frontend. You're trying to compare gtk to qt directly. They are not the same. gtk regards only the graphic library, qt is a

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Useflags: qt, qt3, qt4?

2006-06-20 Thread Donnie Berkholz
Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote: On Wednesday 21 June 2006 00:52, Donnie Berkholz wrote: Yes, you will need to introduce a qt4 flag as upstreams port packages to qt5, if they choose to also retain a qt4 frontend. You're trying to compare gtk to qt directly. They are not the same. gtk regards

Re: [gentoo-dev] Pending Removal of $KV

2006-06-20 Thread Robin H. Johnson
On Tue, Jun 20, 2006 at 08:49:41PM +0900, Georgi Georgiev wrote: Could upstream have handled it better? Yes, most definitely. Did they? No, not yet. We're stuck picking up the pieces. What does upstream have to do with the decision to chmod u+s,go-r /usr/bin/gpg or not? If using a kernel

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Useflags: qt, qt3, qt4?

2006-06-20 Thread Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò
On Wednesday 21 June 2006 02:12, Donnie Berkholz wrote: I disagree with this and agree with Caleb's earlier suggestion. Presumably he has some clue what he's talking about when it comes to qt. I suppose he has, that does not mean that I don't have any at all. Probably, if you want to put it

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Useflags: qt, qt3, qt4?

2006-06-20 Thread Donnie Berkholz
Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote: On Wednesday 21 June 2006 02:12, Donnie Berkholz wrote: I disagree with this and agree with Caleb's earlier suggestion. Presumably he has some clue what he's talking about when it comes to qt. I suppose he has, that does not mean that I don't have any at all.

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Useflags: qt, qt3, qt4?

2006-06-20 Thread Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò
On Wednesday 21 June 2006 03:06, Donnie Berkholz wrote: I never said you didn't. And there's no need to bring in completely offtopic points here, we're trying to have a discussion about qt. I am talking about qt. Maybe I wasn't clear enough, I was thinking of KDE users, that are, casually, the

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Useflags: qt, qt3, qt4?

2006-06-20 Thread Donnie Berkholz
Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote: I am talking about qt. Maybe I wasn't clear enough, I was thinking of KDE users, that are, casually, the main users of Qt-related stuff. In this particular issue, KDE (3) users are the main part, they need poppler and other stuff built for Qt 3. There are

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Useflags: qt, qt3, qt4?

2006-06-20 Thread Dan Meltzer
On 6/20/06, Donnie Berkholz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote: [snip] I don't see how any other suggestion is simpler than mine for developers or users. Maybe I missed something in skimming the discussion. To summarize: - USE=qt enables support for the most current qt.

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Useflags: qt, qt3, qt4?

2006-06-20 Thread Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò
On Wednesday 21 June 2006 03:34, Donnie Berkholz wrote: OK, so we can add qt3 to make.defaults. Firulì Firulà (sounds of whistling in Italy at least) -* says nothing to you? :) I was looking at the less work possible for both users and bug wranglers. Still, I think you took too personally the

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Useflags: qt, qt3, qt4?

2006-06-20 Thread Donnie Berkholz
Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote: On Wednesday 21 June 2006 03:34, Donnie Berkholz wrote: OK, so we can add qt3 to make.defaults. Firulì Firulà (sounds of whistling in Italy at least) -* says nothing to you? :) Sure it does, but -* has always been unsupported and users are on their own to

Re: [gentoo-dev] Pending Removal of $KV

2006-06-20 Thread Mike Frysinger
On Tuesday 20 June 2006 20:18, Robin H. Johnson wrote: By handling it better, I mean that the code should at runtime try both interfaces, rather than pick one to compile into the binary. yeah, this differentiates good packages and mediocre packages ;) -mike pgpp6T4cBLu01.pgp Description: PGP