Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Gentoo Commitfests

2006-10-21 Thread Ciaran McCreesh
On Fri, 20 Oct 2006 15:00:26 -0500 Mike Doty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | I think this is a fun way to build some team spirit. I think it's a fun way to ruin QA by encouraging people to commit broken stuff. -- Ciaran McCreesh Mail: ciaranm at ciaranm.org Web :

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Gentoo Commitfests

2006-10-21 Thread Donnie Berkholz
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Fri, 20 Oct 2006 15:00:26 -0500 Mike Doty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | I think this is a fun way to build some team spirit. I think it's a fun way to ruin QA by encouraging people to commit broken stuff. How exactly does it do that? Thanks, Donnie signature.asc

[gentoo-dev] GeNUS : how I currently manage my gentoo network (200+ machines)

2006-10-21 Thread Hubert Mercier
Hi, When I recently officially joined the Gentoo Project, I had the idea to share a part of my work, in the way of a scripts set I've been working on for more than 2 years now, which I called GeNUS (Gentoo Network Update System). My lab and teaching department massively used Linux for 4

Re: [gentoo-dev] GeNUS : how I currently manage my gentoo network (200+ machines)

2006-10-21 Thread Alin Nastac
Hubert Mercier wrote: Since this work saved me a lot of work / time / money in the past two years, I thought maybe it could help others. Just let me know if we could do something with this, if it sounds usefull/less to you, etc... Sounds pretty useful to me :-P signature.asc Description:

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Portage local package revisions

2006-10-21 Thread George Shapovalov
субота, 21. жовтень 2006 01:05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Ви написали: [...] I'm writing to ask for your opinion on a change to sys-apps/portage that would allow users to maintain local revisions of ebuilds, such as net-www/apache-2.0.58-r2-local1. [...] Um, I am not clear on what exactly your

[gentoo-dev] support for i386

2006-10-21 Thread Mike Frysinger
we're going to have to cut off support for i386 targets starting with glibc-2.6 ... the upstream plans are to require TLS and i386 does not have the atomic instructions required to support it some other implications ... the glibc-compat20 people will also be stuck with glibc-2.5 (as that

[gentoo-dev] amd64 and ia64 keywords

2006-10-21 Thread Alin Nastac
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't amd64 and ia64 architectures nearly the same? Beside 3dnow/sse instruction sets of course. If so, shouldn't we have the same kewords (amd64 ia64, ~amd64 ~ia64 or none) on every package that don't use 3dnow/sse instructions? I only ask this because I think

Re: [gentoo-dev] amd64 and ia64 keywords

2006-10-21 Thread Bryan Østergaard
On Sat, Oct 21, 2006 at 11:04:03AM +0300, Alin Nastac wrote: Please correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't amd64 and ia64 architectures nearly the same? Beside 3dnow/sse instruction sets of course. If so, shouldn't we have the same kewords (amd64 ia64, ~amd64 ~ia64 or none) on every package that

Re: [gentoo-dev] amd64 and ia64 keywords

2006-10-21 Thread Mike Frysinger
On Saturday 21 October 2006 04:04, Alin Nastac wrote: Please correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't amd64 and ia64 architectures nearly the same? rofl not a chance http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IA64 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMD64 my guess is you're confusing EM64T and IA64 ... in that case,

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Gentoo Commitfests

2006-10-21 Thread Ferris McCormick
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Fri, 20 Oct 2006, Donnie Berkholz wrote: Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Fri, 20 Oct 2006 15:00:26 -0500 Mike Doty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | I think this is a fun way to build some team spirit. I think it's a fun way to ruin QA by encouraging

Re: [gentoo-dev] amd64 and ia64 keywords

2006-10-21 Thread Alin Nastac
Mike Frysinger wrote: my guess is you're confusing EM64T and IA64 ... in that case, people with EM64T cpu's use the amd64 KEYWORD yeah, I confused those 2 arches :-[ signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] support for i386

2006-10-21 Thread Roy Bamford
On 2006.10.21 09:02, Mike Frysinger wrote: we're going to have to cut off support for i386 targets starting with glibc-2.6 ... the upstream plans are to require TLS and i386 does not have the atomic instructions required to support it some other implications ... the glibc-compat20 people will

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Gentoo Commitfests

2006-10-21 Thread Luca Barbato
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: It's offering incentives to get as many commits as possible. The easiest way to get as many commits as possible is to go on a mass keywording or stabling spree. It'd be very easy for someone to do a Manson -- do you really think no-one would? Even if no-one does take

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Gentoo Commitfests

2006-10-21 Thread Luis Francisco Araujo
Luca Barbato wrote: Ciaran McCreesh wrote: It's offering incentives to get as many commits as possible. The easiest way to get as many commits as possible is to go on a mass keywording or stabling spree. It'd be very easy for someone to do a Manson -- do you really think no-one would? Even if

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Gentoo Commitfests

2006-10-21 Thread Tobias Scherbaum
I think this is a fun way to build some team spirit. Thoughts? I think it's a *very* bad idea - both from a QA and a team spirit point of view. Instead of having such commitfests and bounties for the one who managed to get as many as possible commits done within - say - 5 minutes I'd rather

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Gentoo Commitfests

2006-10-21 Thread Stephen Bennett
I was going to reply to this, but I think Tobias just said everything I was planning to. The first sentence in particular. On Sat, 21 Oct 2006 12:24:59 +0200 Tobias Scherbaum [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think this is a fun way to build some team spirit. Thoughts? I think it's a *very*

Re: [gentoo-dev] new arch, WAS: support for i386

2006-10-21 Thread Francesco Riosa
Roy Bamford ha scritto: On 2006.10.21 09:02, Mike Frysinger wrote: we're going to have to cut off support for i386 targets starting with glibc-2.6 ... the upstream plans are to require TLS and i386 does not have the atomic instructions required to support it some other implications ... the

Re: [gentoo-dev] new arch, WAS: support for i386

2006-10-21 Thread Stephen Bennett
On Sat, 21 Oct 2006 11:05:44 + Francesco Riosa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: may be the time to add a new arch 386 ? If by new arch you mean new KEYWORD, no. It's pointless, and you'd have a hell of a time finding anyone to maintain the keywords. A seperate i386 profile under default-linux/x86,

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Gentoo Commitfests

2006-10-21 Thread Jeroen Roovers
On Fri, 20 Oct 2006 23:44:50 -0700 Ilya A. Volynets-Evenbakh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It's not the commits that should be encouraged - it's the bug fixing, and GWN section on bugzilla stats is pretty good. Actually, bug fixing, i.e. closing bugs, is not representative of the work you put in. I

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Portage local package revisions

2006-10-21 Thread Philip Walls
On Fri, Oct 20, 2006 at 05:26:00PM -0700, Brian Harring wrote: On Fri, Oct 20, 2006 at 11:05:22PM +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello all, In designing an enterprise infrastructure around Gentoo at my place of employment, I have discovered a feature that would improve Gentoo's

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Portage local package revisions

2006-10-21 Thread Joel Martin
Instead of -rY-localX, I do -rX0Y the following in my local overlays. This gets the same effect and maintains both version numbers. And if you are worried about a revision number exceeding 99, then just do -rX00Y. This works without requiring code change to portage. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Portage local package revisions

2006-10-21 Thread Ciaran McCreesh
On Sat, 21 Oct 2006 12:51:19 + Philip Walls [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | This argument here can also be applied to the -r#.# solution you | mentioned, so I think the decision between -r#.# and -local# is really | just a matter of aesthetics. I'm on the fence as to which is best. The -r#.#.#.#

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Portage local package revisions

2006-10-21 Thread Joel Martin
Simon Stelling wrote: [Sat Oct 21 2006, 09:27:24AM EDT] This only assures that your version will be preferred as long as the version number is the same, but is really not what malverian is after. true. -- Joel Martin (kanaka) Open Source no BILL . no GATES Costs nothing

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Portage local package revisions

2006-10-21 Thread Philip Walls
On Sat, Oct 21, 2006 at 03:27:24PM +0200, Simon Stelling wrote: Joel Martin wrote: Instead of -rY-localX, I do -rX0Y the following in my local overlays. This gets the same effect and maintains both version numbers. And if you are worried about a revision number exceeding 99, then just do

[gentoo-dev] RC_STRICT_NET_CHECKING or the net dependency

2006-10-21 Thread Roy Marples
Hi List Whilst working on a new C program to work out init script dependencies (99% done and working and very very fast) it suddenly struct me as to why we still have RC_STRICT_NET_CHECKING (see conf.d/rc for what it does). baselayout-1.13 now handles multiple provides. That means that you

Re: [gentoo-dev] vim syntax global use flag

2006-10-21 Thread Ciaran McCreesh
On Sat, 21 Oct 2006 10:21:37 -0400 Caleb Cushing [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | I was thinking a while back (dangerous) ;-). That it would be a good | idea to have a global use flag for all packages that have related vim | syntax ebuilds. say I set the use flag (let's call it vim-syntax) for | pam,

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Gentoo Commitfests

2006-10-21 Thread Alec Warner
Mike Doty wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Just a random thought that popped into my head: We could have a commit fest where everyone who wants to compete kicks in some small amount of money(say $5) maybe the foundation kicks in a little something too. Then the person with

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Portage local package revisions

2006-10-21 Thread Brian Harring
On Sat, Oct 21, 2006 at 02:27:19PM +, Philip Walls wrote: On Sat, Oct 21, 2006 at 02:34:08PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Sat, 21 Oct 2006 12:51:19 + Philip Walls [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | This argument here can also be applied to the -r#.# solution you | mentioned, so I

[gentoo-dev] Trustees 2006 election results

2006-10-21 Thread Alexandre Buisse
Hi everyone, here are our 2006 trustees : seemant g2boojum wolf31o2 mcummings stuart Master ballot and personal confirmation emails will follow. Thanks to KingTaco and g2boojum for the technical support :) Congratulations to our new trustees! For reference, the complete ranked list is:

[gentoo-dev] Master ballot for 2006 trustees election

2006-10-21 Thread Alexandre Buisse
Here comes the master ballot for the trustees election. Personal confirmation emails will follow in a little while. - confirmation 299e - g2boojum seemant wolf31o2 rl03 mcummings pauldv stuart - confirmation 2afa - seemant g2boojum mcummings wolf31o2 rl03 pauldv

Re: [gentoo-dev] Master ballot for 2006 trustees election

2006-10-21 Thread Ciaran McCreesh
On Sat, 21 Oct 2006 18:37:46 +0200 Alexandre Buisse [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | Here comes the master ballot for the trustees election. Personal | confirmation emails will follow in a little while. Aaand the graphs. You know how these work by now. seemant (1) g2boojum (2) wolf31o2 (3) |

[gentoo-dev] Thanks

2006-10-21 Thread Grant Goodyear
My thanks to nattfodd and KingTaco for processing the votes in the recent Trustee election. Thanks also go to Seemant who got the election rolling, agriffis who wrote the votify/countify software and who was nice enough to generate the previous roster of Foundation members, infra who generated a

Re: [gentoo-dev] Thanks

2006-10-21 Thread Seemant Kulleen
Ditto :) I'd also like to thank Grant for taking care of the counting etc at the end of the election, and for being my rock in Gentooland. And big thanks to Ciaran for jump-starting the movement to have another round of nominations and elections -- they were certainly successful the second time :)

Re: [gentoo-dev] amd64 and ia64 keywords

2006-10-21 Thread Jonathan Smith
Alin Nastac wrote: Please correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't amd64 and ia64 architectures nearly the same? Beside 3dnow/sse instruction sets of course. If so, shouldn't we have the same kewords (amd64 ia64, ~amd64 ~ia64 or none) on every package that don't use 3dnow/sse instructions? no, they

Re: [gentoo-dev] vim syntax global use flag

2006-10-21 Thread Mike Kelly
On Sat, 21 Oct 2006 10:21:37 -0400 Caleb Cushing [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I was thinking a while back (dangerous) ;-). That it would be a good idea to have a global use flag for all packages that have related vim syntax ebuilds. say I set the use flag (let's call it vim-syntax) for pam, then

Re: [gentoo-dev] vim syntax global use flag

2006-10-21 Thread Alec Warner
Mike Kelly wrote: On Sat, 21 Oct 2006 10:21:37 -0400 Caleb Cushing [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I was thinking a while back (dangerous) ;-). That it would be a good idea to have a global use flag for all packages that have related vim syntax ebuilds. say I set the use flag (let's call it

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Portage local package revisions

2006-10-21 Thread Ciaran McCreesh
On Sat, 21 Oct 2006 21:35:06 +0200 Marius Mauch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | Still have the issue with the = operator though, not sure which way | to go there: The = operator (without a *) shouldn't ever be used in ebuilds or profiles. Not using the ~ operator is asking for disaster... -- Ciaran

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Portage local package revisions

2006-10-21 Thread Marius Mauch
On Sat, 21 Oct 2006 20:40:45 +0100 Ciaran McCreesh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sat, 21 Oct 2006 21:35:06 +0200 Marius Mauch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | Still have the issue with the = operator though, not sure which way | to go there: The = operator (without a *) shouldn't ever be used in

[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-core] Trustees 2006 election results

2006-10-21 Thread Michael Cummings
*wow* Thank you for all the hard work in pulling this together. Congrats to everyone, ~mcummings (weeve, this is the year of the softserve) On Sat, 2006-10-21 at 18:29 +0200, Alexandre Buisse wrote: Hi everyone, here are our 2006 trustees : seemant g2boojum wolf31o2 mcummings stuart

[gentoo-dev] New developer: Jurek Bartuszek (jurek)

2006-10-21 Thread Petteri Räty
It's my pleasure to introduce to you Jurek jurek Bartuszek. He is joining is to help with the dotnet packages. He lists Windows API and linux kernel programming among his many talents. I wonder how well those two get along :) He hails from Warsaw, Polad and is a full time student at Warsaw

Re: [gentoo-dev] amd64 and ia64 keywords

2006-10-21 Thread Simon Stelling
Ilya A. Volynets-Evenbakh wrote: | No worries, there are people who even wanted to merge amd64 with x86. Yeah, that's almost as daft as suggesting a single keyword to cover both sparc v8 and sparc v9, or ip22 and ip27. Err... No, IP22 and IP27 are nearly identical as far as userland

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Portage local package revisions

2006-10-21 Thread Brian Harring
On Sat, Oct 21, 2006 at 09:35:06PM +0200, Marius Mauch wrote: On Sat, 21 Oct 2006 08:31:31 -0700 Brian Harring [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Be aware that if you reuse the vercmp logic, you're getting the special case float comparison rules, meaning 1.02 is less then 1.1 in comparison...

[gentoo-dev] [ANNOUNCE] Creation of eselect-1.0.x branch

2006-10-21 Thread Danny van Dyk
Hi all, this announce is aimed at everyone who commits to eselect's repository. As of r326, the eselect SVN repository contains a 1.0.x branch. Trunk will now be used for the upcoming 1.2.x release. In future, please * Fix bugs of existing modules in trunk/ and backport them to

Re: [gentoo-dev] amd64 and ia64 keywords

2006-10-21 Thread Ilya A. Volynets-Evenbakh
Simon Stelling wrote: Ilya A. Volynets-Evenbakh wrote: | No worries, there are people who even wanted to merge amd64 with x86. Yeah, that's almost as daft as suggesting a single keyword to cover both sparc v8 and sparc v9, or ip22 and ip27. Err... No, IP22 and IP27 are

Re: [gentoo-dev] support for i386

2006-10-21 Thread Mike Frysinger
On Saturday 21 October 2006 04:53, Roy Bamford wrote: cut off as in nothing for i386 or leave i386 at glibc-2.5? i havent really decided ... i would like to settle on one version though for no-nptl/i386/glibc-compat20/etc... What is the lowest IA32 arch that will be supported ? i486 -mike

Re: [gentoo-dev] RC_STRICT_NET_CHECKING or the net dependency

2006-10-21 Thread Richard Fish
On 10/21/06, Roy Marples [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: RC_STRICT_NET_CHECKING is used in the init script depdency process, and quite frankly I'd like to punt it and replace it with ... rc-update! Yes, just put the init scripts that net should provide in your runlevel. boot contains net.lo by

Re: [gentoo-dev] RC_STRICT_NET_CHECKING or the net dependency

2006-10-21 Thread Mike Frysinger
On Saturday 21 October 2006 10:05, Roy Marples wrote: baselayout-1.13 now handles multiple provides. That means that you have can 3 or more services that provide logger and baselayout will pick the right one based on what's running, then what's run the runlevel and finally alphabetical order.

[gentoo-dev] dev-lang/swi-prolog-lite masked for removal

2006-10-21 Thread Keri Harris
dev-lang/swi-prolog-lite is masked and will be removed from the tree in 30 days. Standalone 'lite' versions of SWI's prolog have not been released upstream for four years. The remaining full-versioned ebuilds in dev-lang/swi-prolog-lite are outdated and buggy development snapshots. All

[gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: Gentoo Commitfests

2006-10-21 Thread Ryan Hill
Ilya A. Volynets-Evenbakh wrote: So, are you proposing to encourage people to do commits for the sake of commits? Make people do revbumps/keywording just to get their commits in, without doing proper testing? Or to hold on number of commits till commitfest? I would hope that people would be

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: Gentoo Commitfests

2006-10-21 Thread Ilya A. Volynets-Evenbakh
Ryan Hill wrote: Ilya A. Volynets-Evenbakh wrote: So, are you proposing to encourage people to do commits for the sake of commits? Make people do revbumps/keywording just to get their commits in, without doing proper testing? Or to hold on number of commits till commitfest? I