On Tue, Jan 03, 2006 at 01:17:06PM -0500 or thereabouts, Chris Gianelloni
wrote:
Gentoo is not a distribution of Linux. Gentoo is not anything more than
a loosely bound group of developers all doing their own thing in a
collaborative and collective manner. You cannot use corporate thinking
On Wed, Jan 04, 2006 at 07:57:06PM -0800 or thereabouts, Greg KH wrote:
Which is why Gentoo has jumped the shark and is now on a long, slow
decline.
Ok, then what should Gentoo do to fix this percieved decline?
Exactly what a lot of folks will have kittens about; appoint a CEO, leader,
On Thu, Jan 05, 2006 at 07:51:39AM -0500 or thereabouts, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
This is what I don't get. So what if Gentoo is an amoeba? Does it
really matter? Would you rather that we dropped Gentoo/ALT, Hardened,
Embedded, and anything else interesting just so we can focus on a core
On Thu, Jan 05, 2006 at 11:37:32AM -0500 or thereabouts, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
That says to me exactly what I stated that you said.
Then it's apparent we're not communicating well. I'll leave it at that,
thank you for sharing your opinions and put this thread to bed.
--kurt
On Thu, Jan 05, 2006 at 11:23:07PM -0500 or thereabouts, Philip Webb wrote:
The final line suggests the writer has no serious interest in Gentoo.
Do your research. You know not of what you speak.
Appoint one person to lead: the Germans did that back in 1933
Excellent. I declare Godwin's
The datacenter that houses lists.gentoo.org will be down today from
approximately 1700 UTC until UTC to fix a power issue. List traffic
will queue during that time and be delivered after the servers come back
up.
--kurt
pgpV5xE2wUReL.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Mon, Apr 03, 2006 at 10:37:39PM -0400 or thereabouts, Stephen P. Becker
wrote:
which was titled fscking behave if I recall.
Kinda sad that we have to state the obvious, imo.
from infra will suspend unilaterally as they see fit, and there is
nothing devrel can even do about it to its
Because of changes to the way Apache is managed on Gentoo systems, we're
going to be working on upgrading things today. This may result in
intermittent downtime for bugs.gentoo.org and packages.gentoo.org.
--kurt
pgpjvHDwMeFDn.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Fri, Nov 18, 2005 at 07:31:30PM + or thereabouts, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
| Put USE=-* oneuse twouse reduse blueuse in make.conf to set the
| globals, and _then_ start tweaking in package.use.
...and then watch your system explode because you didn't set various
USE flags which should
On Fri, Nov 18, 2005 at 05:44:53PM -0500 or thereabouts, Curtis Napier wrote:
Maybe a new GLEP is in order? It makes sense to do it now since infra is
going to be setting up alias' anyway. While we're at it possibly an
@dev.g.o as well (as someone mentioned)? That way there is no confusion.
On Fri, Nov 18, 2005 at 06:07:40PM -0600 or thereabouts, Homer Parker wrote:
I'm guessing you didn't read the logs from the council meeting where it
got stipulated that this be done. [1] I also apologize (again) for it
hitting the list the day before it was to be voted on, and stated that
On Sat, Nov 19, 2005 at 05:33:17AM + or thereabouts, Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Fri, Nov 18, 2005 at 09:09:29PM -0400, Luis F. Araujo wrote:
What is the problem of giving them @g.o addresses?
read the first meeting where GLEP 41 was covered ...
If I'm understanding it correctly, the
On Sat, Nov 19, 2005 at 10:31:23AM +0100 or thereabouts, Thierry Carrez wrote:
What I find disturbing here is that nobody found the issue interesting
enough to read the October Council decisions as to what was needed to be
changed for the GLEP to be approved.
I think there's some validity to
Ignoring the yellow star issue, there are a few implementation
concerns/impossibilities with GLEP 41 in its current form.
For instance, the way GLEP 41 suggests doing r/o cvs is not going to work.
It suggests using a single account and placing an SSH key for each arch
tester in that account's
On Sat, Nov 19, 2005 at 07:07:01PM +0100 or thereabouts, Simon Stelling
wrote:
However, the council asked for it, and so it was changed. And the council
didn't ask for this on his own, they were just reflecting the majority of
devs, so we'll have to accept that.
If there's one thing I've
On Sat, Nov 19, 2005 at 08:03:55PM +0100 or thereabouts, Sven Vermeulen wrote:
On Sat, Nov 19, 2005 at 05:06:15PM +, Kurt Lieber wrote:
Now, the same question for email -- how do we manage aliases, especially
for inactive, retired and semi-retired arch testers? We could track usage
On Sat, Nov 19, 2005 at 01:51:15PM -0600 or thereabouts, Brian Harring wrote:
I'll again point out that the glep doesn't actually mandate it, states
it's the lowest common denominator that's acceptable.
And I'll point out that there's more than one issue that we're concerned
with here.
On Sat, Nov 19, 2005 at 05:06:15PM + or thereabouts, Kurt Lieber wrote:
For instance, the way GLEP 41 suggests doing r/o cvs is not going to work.
So, in the interests of trying to find a solution to this particular
problem...
As I understand the GLEP, the main requirement here is to give
On Sat, Nov 19, 2005 at 04:30:53PM -0600 or thereabouts, Brian Harring wrote:
Infra doesn't even do retirement beyond when _devrel_ asks them to. If
that process is slow, ask for help and someone will chip in and improve
it (mainly to minimize bottleneck involved).
OK, fine. Devrel does not
On Sat, Nov 19, 2005 at 05:44:41PM -0500 or thereabouts, Dan Meltzer wrote:
Funy, I was just pondering that myself... is authenticated rsync
really possible?
Yes, it has its own auth mechanism. We actually use it for some automated
cron jobs that we have.
The only downside to this that I
On Sat, Nov 19, 2005 at 04:52:08PM -0600 or thereabouts, Brian Harring wrote:
Devrel doesn't have much issues in actually retiring a dev from where
I'm sitting.
Then I guess we'll disagree on this.
The problem is in detection- an infra issue that could be solved by
either allowing normal
On Sat, Nov 19, 2005 at 05:59:46PM -0500 or thereabouts, Dan Meltzer wrote:
Sorry for two mails in a row.. but out of curiosity, instead of using
30 minute rsync, why not 30 minute mirror of cvs? KDE does this fairly
well, they even have it something like every 5 minutes, is there any
reason
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 Wed, Nov 23, 2005 at 10:38:39AM -0500 or thereabouts, Daniel Ostrow wrote:
And herein I think lies some confusion. Personally if I were an AT both
would be important but more to the point the more up to date issue
would be the most important.
I agree -- this was the main point of the
On Mon, Dec 05, 2005 at 04:40:28PM + or thereabouts, George Prowse wrote:
Is vendors.gentoo.org going to have the new redesign that curtis119 is
implementating?
The eventual plan is for all web sites residing under the *.gentoo.org
domain to have the new look and feel.
--kurt
On Tue, Dec 06, 2005 at 08:06:37PM +0100 or thereabouts, Henrik Brix Andersen
wrote:
A big thank you to whoever implemented this -
http://people.gentoo.org/brix/ now points to
http://dev.gentoo.org/~brix/ :)
You're welcome.
However, it would be nice if it wasn't just a 302 redirect so
On Sat, Dec 10, 2005 at 11:52:33AM + or thereabouts, Ian Leitch wrote:
For the time being and near future, I think moves should be done by hand.
What are your thoughts on this, infra?
As for moving packages by hand vs. using a tool, that's not really infra's
call. If you were asking
On Mon, Nov 06, 2006 at 11:25:19PM +0100 or thereabouts, Danny van Dyk wrote:
Kurt: Please write up a short text to explain why you think this is
necessary for Gentoo mailservers. Thanks in advance!
http://dev.gentoo.org/~klieber/spf.txt
--kurt
pgpql1vqP13J5.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Wed, Nov 08, 2006 at 10:25:47AM -0500 or thereabouts, Aron Griffis wrote:
Gentoo.org has elected to provide the SPF records, effectively marking
gentoo.org mail originating from other SMTP servers as rogue.
That simply is not true. Please read the write-up that I prepared that
explains
On Tue, Nov 07, 2006 at 04:24:59PM +0900 or thereabouts, Georgi Georgiev wrote:
I ain't no dev, but how is this trivial? A typical scenario is: a
gentoo-dev sends an e-mail to a mailing list (a non-gentoo mailing
list) and that mail gets nuked by a greedy spam filter because the SPF
On Wed, Nov 08, 2006 at 07:19:44PM +0200 or thereabouts, Alin Nastac wrote:
I say we should have +all (SPF-capable MTAs will consider any IP address
as authorized to send mail on behalf of g.o - equivalent with Message
source OK).
this interpretation is correct.
He says we should have ?all
On Wed, Nov 08, 2006 at 05:54:13PM + or thereabouts, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
We've identified one very widely used application that interprets SPF
records based upon how they're used by spammers rather than by how the
specification says they should be interpreted. In this case, SA is
On Wed, Nov 08, 2006 at 09:14:22PM +0100 or thereabouts, Diego 'Flameeyes'
Petten?? wrote:
If I were to send my gentoo mail through a mail.flameeyes.is-a-geek.org, with
its own SPF record, (I'm not as this is not a real domain I have access to,
nor a mailserver for what it's worth), with a
33 matches
Mail list logo
