On Thu, Jul 27, 2006 at 11:31:28PM -0700, Josh Saddler wrote:
i'll miss you greatly, brix. You made my laptop and wireless (madwifi) worlds
much much happier places. i'm on devaway, but when I'm back, if no one else
has
done it, i'll xmlify your pcmciautils doc -- you were the one who took
Hi
we currently have both webdav and nowebdav ueflags, this is confusing:
# grep webdav /usr/portage/profiles/use.local.desc
dev-util/git:webdav - Adds support for push'ing to HTTP repositories via DAV
dev-util/subversion:nowebdav - Disables WebDAV support via neon library
Luis Francisco Araujo wrote:
3 - Users ask on this mailing list if there exist any developer
interested to include X, or Y ebuild into the tree. (Probably we could
create a template for this?)
The user should send the ebuild changes together with the mail. Make it look
like on LKML including
On Friday 28 July 2006 10:18, Stefan Schweizer wrote:
Hi
we currently have both webdav and nowebdav ueflags, this is confusing:
# grep webdav /usr/portage/profiles/use.local.desc
dev-util/git:webdav - Adds support for push'ing to HTTP repositories via
DAV dev-util/subversion:nowebdav -
On Thu, 2006-07-27 at 18:21 -0400, Stephen P. Becker wrote:
Stefan Schweizer wrote:
In last weeks council meeting [1] it was decided that the Sunrise project is
no longer suspended. I can give a short overview of the current status of
the overlay:
- we currently have 154 ebuilds in 58
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Stefan Schweizer wrote:
Luis Francisco Araujo wrote:
3 - Users ask on this mailing list if there exist any developer
interested to include X, or Y ebuild into the tree. (Probably we could
create a template for this?)
The user should send the
On Fri, Jul 28, 2006 at 11:35:24AM +0200, Martin Schlemmer wrote:
Mike asked you repeatedly to voice your issues or concerns in relation
to Project Sunrise, which you failed to reply to.
How many times are we supposed to raise our concerns about a project
whose founders already agreed to run
On Fri, 2006-07-28 at 12:02 +0200, Henrik Brix Andersen wrote:
On Fri, Jul 28, 2006 at 11:35:24AM +0200, Martin Schlemmer wrote:
Mike asked you repeatedly to voice your issues or concerns in relation
to Project Sunrise, which you failed to reply to.
How many times are we supposed to raise
Paul de Vrieze wrote:
I'd like to explain why subversion has a nowebdav useflag. Basically one
of the features of subversion is its ability to work over the http
protocol. Many subversion installations use the apache module to serve
subversion (even our own overlay project does). To disable
On Thu, 2006-07-27 at 09:24 -0600, Steve Dibb wrote:
Chris Gianelloni wrote:
I'd say no bugs, 30 days, passes internal tests, being run by users =
stablise, for the majority of packages (obviously, there may be some
exceptions...).
Luckily, you're not making the call. ;]
The
On Thu, 2006-07-27 at 11:11 -0700, Richard Fish wrote:
On 7/27/06, Chris Gianelloni [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Please don't interpret my original message as a complaint. It isn't.
It is mostly a question of the process. My understanding of
stabilization bugs was that they should be the
* Luis Francisco Araujo [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb:
Hi,
Well, my idea is more focused on getting closer the developer with the
user, in the sense that they would be like a team (as i already said) ,
where the developer is the official figure in the group. So, at some
so far okay, but we
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Enrico Weigelt wrote:
The gentoo devs currently do much of the upstream's work.
Fixing bugs or even adding new stuff which does not directly have to
do w/ gentoo should be done exlusively by the upstream.
Not true at all.
We (as developers)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Robert Cernansky wrote:
Oh, if I can speak for me as a user I'll not like it. One of the major
advantage of Gentoo is easy maintenace (not mindless, but easy if you
know what you are doing) thanks to portage system. Another is
availability of
Robert Cernansky wrote:
If I have some application that is not included in portage why
I decide to make an ebuild? Because I hope that then it will be
accepted and included to portage, so maintained by developers (big
thanks for this). If I have to take care of package + ebuild +
Am Freitag, 28. Juli 2006 10:18 schrieb Stefan Schweizer:
Hi
we currently have both webdav and nowebdav ueflags, this is
confusing:
# grep webdav /usr/portage/profiles/use.local.desc
dev-util/git:webdav - Adds support for push'ing to HTTP repositories
via DAV dev-util/subversion:nowebdav -
On Fri, 28 Jul 2006 14:26:31 -0400 Luis Francisco Araujo [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Robert Cernansky wrote:
Oh, if I can speak for me as a user I'll not like it. One of the
major advantage of Gentoo is easy maintenace (not mindless, but
easy if you know what you are doing) thanks to portage
On Fri, 28 Jul 2006 11:51:46 -0700 Donnie Berkholz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Robert Cernansky wrote:
If I have some application that is not included in portage why
I decide to make an ebuild? Because I hope that then it will be
accepted and included to portage, so maintained by developers
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Robert Cernansky wrote:
On Fri, 28 Jul 2006 11:51:46 -0700 Donnie Berkholz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Robert Cernansky wrote:
If I have some application that is not included in portage why
I decide to make an ebuild? Because I hope that then it
On Fri, Jul 28, 2006 at 21:27:31 +0200, Robert Cernansky wrote:
On Fri, 28 Jul 2006 14:26:31 -0400 Luis Francisco Araujo [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Robert Cernansky wrote:
Oh, if I can speak for me as a user I'll not like it. One of the
major advantage of Gentoo is easy maintenace (not
On Fri, 28 Jul 2006 15:26:37 -0400 Luis Francisco Araujo [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
An ebuild offer several advantages even for tiny packages.
If it is self-maintained ebuild, it depends on complexity of
it. Currently I have one application outside the portage tree and
I found out to
On Fri, 28 Jul 2006 21:49:02 +0200 Alexandre Buisse [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Jul 28, 2006 at 21:27:31 +0200, Robert Cernansky wrote:
I just understand it so, that if a user submits a new ebuild he has to
in fact maintain it. So overall maintenance time required by his
operating
Hi Chris,
on Friday, 2006-07-28 at 09:41:09, you wrote:
Well, we would hope that people using the package would file a bug, but
this obviously doesn't always happen.
Even if it happens that doesn't mean anything is gonna change :)
I'd like to get involved and help out with stuff like this but
On Fri, 2006-07-28 at 22:09 +0200, Robert Cernansky wrote:
On Fri, 28 Jul 2006 21:49:02 +0200 Alexandre Buisse [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Jul 28, 2006 at 21:27:31 +0200, Robert Cernansky wrote:
I just understand it so, that if a user submits a new ebuild he has to
in fact
Danny van Dyk wrote:
5 packages, and only one has nowebdav, and you want to make it a default
USE flag? I strongly disagree here. Make it a plain useflag and notify
users of subversion that the behaviour changed. Much better than
informing users of the other 4 packages that the behaviour
On Fri, 2006-07-28 at 11:51 -0700, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
Robert Cernansky wrote:
If I have some application that is not included in portage why
I decide to make an ebuild? Because I hope that then it will be
accepted and included to portage, so maintained by developers (big
thanks for
Miroslav Šulc wrote:
I would also appreciate more information on Java ebuilds development. I
don't remember I've seen somewhere slotting howto for Java ebuilds,
but I may miss something.
For Java specific information, check out the developer guide:
Sven Vermeulen wrote:
[...]
You get a good 'old welcome from me, Wolf. Welcome.
From me as well. Welcome aboard, Wolf! :D
--
Peter Gordon (codergeek42)
Gentoo Forums Global Moderator
GnuPG Public Key ID: 0xFFC19479 / Fingerprint:
DD68 A414 56BD 6368 D957 9666 4268 CB7A FFC1 9479
My Blog:
28 matches
Mail list logo
