Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposal: sys-pam category

2005-06-05 Thread Nathan L. Adams
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 foser wrote: On Sun, 2005-06-05 at 18:34 +0200, Jonas Geiregat wrote: I do agree with you but some package just have completely wrong place within portage, such package placements migh confuse the user. To give an example: mzscheme was placed in

Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposal: sys-pam category

2005-06-05 Thread Nathan L. Adams
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Ned Ludd wrote: *poof* we now reshuffle, but then we can do auth with ldap. So lets move all the */ldap* related subjects under it sys-auth/... Then a month or six later comes along sys-ldap and it gets moved there. The logic will go full

Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposal: sys-pam category

2005-06-05 Thread Nathan L. Adams
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Nathan L. Adams wrote: Well obviously there needs to be a consensus on *how* to logically organize things before anyone goes willy nilly changing stuff. Do you group by what the package is used for (email vs. game vs. web browser) or by what

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo Enterprise deployment tools

2005-06-22 Thread Nathan L. Adams
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Thierry Carrez wrote: Omkhar Arasaratnam wrote: I think most of the assumptions that you're making involve giving your user population root access. Don't ?? The assumptions I am making are clearly not involving giving a user population

Re: [gentoo-dev] EBUILD_FORMAT support

2005-07-06 Thread Nathan L. Adams
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Sven Wegener wrote: On Wed, Jul 06, 2005 at 08:41:43PM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote: On Wednesday 06 July 2005 08:20 pm, Sven Wegener wrote: We would like to introduce a new ebuild variable named EBUILD_FORMAT, seems like the name is much longer

[gentoo-dev] Closing bugs [was: New Bugzilla HOWTO]

2005-07-08 Thread Nathan L. Adams
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Duncan wrote: Well, not blocker g, but ... http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=73181 This brings up a point that really irks me. In the bug, I believe the dev implies that the reported bug has merit /yet he closes the bug before actually

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Closing bugs [was: New Bugzilla HOWTO]

2005-07-09 Thread Nathan L. Adams
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Martin Schlemmer wrote: Problem is many of us have sometimes already too many bugs to care about users reporting something, and then never coming back, not even talking about keeping to poke the reporter to come back and say the fix works fine,

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Closing bugs [was: New Bugzilla HOWTO]

2005-07-09 Thread Nathan L. Adams
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Jory A. Pratt wrote: I have sat here and read you all rant on and on about these issues, Jory, I take issue with that. I am not ranting. I am proposing a way to *improve* QA. but you still are not taking into account that when a bug is

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Closing bugs [was: New Bugzilla HOWTO]

2005-07-09 Thread Nathan L. Adams
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Jon Portnoy wrote: On Sat, Jul 09, 2005 at 10:54:46AM -0400, Nathan L. Adams wrote: So when can we discuss the salaries you're going to pay the team leads to waste fairly significant quantities of time staring over everybody's shoulder? 8

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Closing bugs [was: New Bugzilla HOWTO]

2005-07-09 Thread Nathan L. Adams
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Gregorio Guidi wrote: Any proposal that implies an enourmous increase of our human resources is really useless for us. Please accept the fact that we cannot change our resources at will, and adapt any suggestion to this simple principle. Now

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Closing bugs [was: New Bugzilla HOWTO]

2005-07-09 Thread Nathan L. Adams
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Sat, 09 Jul 2005 11:11:17 -0400 Nathan L. Adams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | I do software development, systems integration, and bug squashing for | a living. Gentoo's 'moving target' development model

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Closing bugs [was: New Bugzilla HOWTO]

2005-07-09 Thread Nathan L. Adams
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Sat, 09 Jul 2005 11:11:17 -0400 Nathan L. Adams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | I do software development, systems integration, and bug squashing for | a living. Gentoo's 'moving target' development model

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Closing bugs [was: New Bugzilla HOWTO]

2005-07-09 Thread Nathan L. Adams
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Marco Matthies wrote: Nathan L. Adams wrote: Jory, I take issue with that. I am not ranting. I am proposing a way to *improve* QA. Some thoughts from a humble user: Any improvement must neither excessively waste developer nor user time

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Closing bugs [was: New Bugzilla HOWTO]

2005-07-09 Thread Nathan L. Adams
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Jon Portnoy wrote: I didn't say that. I'm saying that (a) team leads do not want to waste their time in such a way just to give you warm fuzzies (b) devs do not particularly want their team lead reviewing every single action they take, it

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Closing bugs [was: New Bugzilla HOWTO]

2005-07-09 Thread Nathan L. Adams
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Jory A. Pratt wrote: Nathan you have this misconception that just cause a bug apears on one system it is gonna apear on multiple systems. What are you talking about? This whole discussion was framed with the situation where the *developer*

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Closing bugs [was: New Bugzilla HOWTO]

2005-07-10 Thread Nathan L. Adams
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Henrik Brix Andersen wrote: Dear Nathan, On Sat, 2005-07-09 at 12:04 -0400, Nathan L. Adams wrote: But come on guys, I'm suggesting *one* look at a bug by an independent party before marking it done. Great! Thank you for your offer

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Closing bugs [was: New Bugzilla HOWTO]

2005-07-10 Thread Nathan L. Adams
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 R Hill wrote: Nathan L. Adams wrote: But come on guys, I'm suggesting *one* look at a bug by an independent party before marking it done. That's reasonable, but I don't see that party being a Team Lead or even a dev. If there's a bug filed

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Closing bugs [was: New Bugzilla HOWTO]

2005-07-10 Thread Nathan L. Adams
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Jon Portnoy wrote: On Sun, Jul 10, 2005 at 09:49:16AM -0400, Nathan L. Adams wrote: To restate the problem: When a dev submits a fix for a bug, it should be verified and peer reviewed before the bug is marked done. That's not a problem

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Closing bugs [was: New Bugzilla HOWTO]

2005-07-10 Thread Nathan L. Adams
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Daniel Drake wrote: Nathan L. Adams wrote: What do you think about adding the step only to certain critical products, such as Portage or maybe Catalyst or even the Installation Docs? You're now significantly altering your proposal, from

Re: [gentoo-dev] New Bugzilla HOWTO Update

2005-07-10 Thread Nathan L. Adams
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Chris White wrote: Doc is still here: http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/bugzilla-howto.xml After a good ammount of user input the bugzilla doc has been updated. The new version uses ggdb3 instead of g for debugging and contains a new section on

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Closing bugs [was: New Bugzilla HOWTO]

2005-07-10 Thread Nathan L. Adams
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Sun, 10 Jul 2005 11:08:41 -0400 Nathan L. Adams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | Maybe as a start, the Developer's Guide can be revised to state that: | | Ideally any bug that a fix is submitted for should be verified

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Closing bugs [was: New Bugzilla HOWTO]

2005-07-10 Thread Nathan L. Adams
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 R Hill wrote: Ah, okay. You're talking about patch review. Now this makes sense. I've always considered the Verified status to be indicative that a third party has been able to reproduce the bug, not that a fix has been approved. My mistake.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Closing bugs [was: New Bugzilla HOWTO]

2005-07-10 Thread Nathan L. Adams
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Maurice van der Pot wrote: If the developer shortage was not as big as it is, we could probably really do something with your proposition. Then why not lay the ground work, documentation-wise, now? Then as you add on developers they have a nice

Re: [gentoo-dev] Abuse by gentoo developer

2005-07-19 Thread Nathan L. Adams
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 The will not allow it and I will not allow someone to go fooling in an ebuild I maintain. Not trying to be an ass here but we have something called respect for others when it comes to the tree and what they maintain. Poor Jory. Respect isn't

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: upgrade's and rc-scripts

2005-07-27 Thread Nathan L. Adams
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Brian D. Harring wrote: Vapier had suggested yanking (on unmerge, not replacement) any config_protected file that has the same md5/mtime as what it was originally merged with. As and end-user, that would be mana from heaven. :) Nathan

Re: [gentoo-dev] Devconference archives

2005-08-16 Thread Nathan L. Adams
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Chris Gianelloni wrote: That being said, thanks to IU for doing the webcast... now everybody gets to see what we look like... *grin* If you're like me, you have a perfect face... for email. :P -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1

Re: [gentoo-dev] Bugzilla handling for maintainer-wanted things

2005-08-18 Thread Nathan L. Adams
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Fernando J. Pereda wrote: I think APPROVED doesn't reflect the idea; since nobody 'approved' the ebuild. A developer just checked it looks good and 'seems to work'. REVIEWED or CHECKED make more sense imho. I like REVIEWED; it seems to reflect

Re: [gentoo-dev] Bugzilla handling for maintainer-wanted things

2005-08-19 Thread Nathan L. Adams
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Ciaran McCreesh wrote: Oh come on, haven't you heard my rants about the state of the tree and the number of monkeys who have commit access? Yes I've read those rants, among others.. :) But with everyone screaming 'not enough manpower' the number

Re: [gentoo-dev] Bugzilla handling for maintainer-wanted things

2005-08-19 Thread Nathan L. Adams
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 10:36:43 -0400 Nathan L. Adams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | But with everyone screaming 'not enough manpower' the number of devs | with commit access is just bound to increase. So why not focus on how

Re: [gentoo-dev] Bugzilla handling for maintainer-wanted things

2005-08-19 Thread Nathan L. Adams
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Chris Gianelloni wrote: *sigh* Please stay away from that bug. It is assigned to the games team, as it is a games bug, and it will be gotten to when we have the time and not before. Nathan is once again using a discussion to fuel his own

Re: [gentoo-dev] Bugzilla handling for maintainer-wanted things

2005-08-20 Thread Nathan L. Adams
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 20:53:50 -0400 Nathan L. Adams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | Because that won't help in the slightest. | | So you're saying that peer review is good, but peer reviewing things | by default is bad

Re: [gentoo-dev] Bugzilla handling for maintainer-wanted things

2005-08-20 Thread Nathan L. Adams
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Sat, 20 Aug 2005 10:03:18 -0400 Nathan L. Adams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | Ciaran McCreesh wrote: | On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 20:53:50 -0400 Nathan L. Adams | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | wrote: | | Because that won't help

Re: [gentoo-dev] Bugzilla handling for maintainer-wanted things

2005-08-20 Thread Nathan L. Adams
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Chris Gianelloni wrote: Reviewing an ebuild has nothing to do with inclusion. For inclusion in the tree, it also needs to be tested. You don't take the slightest look at an ebuild (the code) before including it? Anyhow, whether its testing or

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Bugzilla handling for maintainer-wanted things

2005-08-20 Thread Nathan L. Adams
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Donnie Berkholz wrote: Ciaran McCreesh wrote: | | WONTFIX doesn't seem the right tool for the job: | | | |WONTFIX | | The problem described is a bug which will never be fixed. | | And the ebuild attached will never be 'fixed' in the

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Bugzilla handling for maintainer-wanted things

2005-08-20 Thread Nathan L. Adams
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Fernando J. Pereda wrote: On Sat, Aug 20, 2005 at 07:00:02PM -0400, Nathan L. Adams wrote: WONTFIX refers to the bug, not the attached ebuild. And it won't be 'fixed' unless the ebuild is improved, so WONTFIX is fine. As R Hill already

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Bugzilla handling for maintainer-wanted things

2005-08-20 Thread Nathan L. Adams
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Duncan wrote: Not to sound harsh, but... [snip the we're just volanteers argument] All F/OSS projects (even Linux with its numerous corporate sponsors) are, at their core, volanteer projects. Yet the good ones still manage to build peer review into

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Bugzilla handling for maintainer-wanted things

2005-08-21 Thread Nathan L. Adams
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Jon Portnoy wrote: I hate to be the bearer of bad news Somehow, I doubt that... ;) but that's because you don't realize how many devs are sitting back and giggling at this thread 8) I didn't realize you got together with other devs for giggle

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Bugzilla handling for maintainer-wanted things

2005-08-21 Thread Nathan L. Adams
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Dan Meltzer wrote: This time I'll say something useful :) Nathan, you seem to be misunderstanding open source. You get the I can ask for features or suggest things part, but not that I can add features or do things part. No one is stopping

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Bugzilla handling for maintainer-wanted things

2005-08-21 Thread Nathan L. Adams
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Henrik Brix Andersen wrote: And - as I told you the last time you brought this issue up - you're more than welcome to start reviewing ebuilds and commits as well. I'm starting to do just that. I've even asked Ciaran to review a particular ebuild I

[gentoo-dev] Re: Most common ebuild mistakes?

2005-08-21 Thread Nathan L. Adams
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Luca Barbato wrote: http://dev.gentoo.org/~plasmaroo/devmanual/ Thanks, I've been wondering where Ciaran's docs went. :) Now, there one question that I won't be able to answer for myself anytime soon: What are the most common ebuild mistakes? A

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Most common ebuild mistakes?

2005-08-21 Thread Nathan L. Adams
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Donnie Berkholz wrote: Nathan L. Adams wrote: | What are the most common ebuild mistakes? http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/devrel/handbook/handbook.xml?part=2chap=3 Thanks everyone. I'll bug each of you individually if I need clarification. Nathan

Re: [gentoo-dev] tentative x86 arch team glep

2005-09-05 Thread Nathan L. Adams
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Kevin F. Quinn wrote: Well, it strikes me that most if not all of the organisational questions are not relevant to a tester; the only technical question that is relevant is 9 (keyword marking), and even that would be reworded for the tester

Re: [gentoo-dev] tentative x86 arch team glep

2005-09-05 Thread Nathan L. Adams
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Tom Martin wrote: I'm not sure I like this. I think it would be too slow. I'd rather have a concept of maintainer arch (the reason I still like the old keyword ordering, because there was at least *some* idea of maintainer arch. In fact, I used to

Re: [gentoo-dev] tentative x86 arch team glep

2005-09-05 Thread Nathan L. Adams
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Kevin F. Quinn wrote: On 5/9/2005 13:41:54, Jason Stubbs ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: On Monday 05 September 2005 20:21, Simon Stelling wrote: Ciaran McCreesh wrote: If it isn't fit to be marked stable, it shouldn't be out of package.mask. ~arch

Re: [gentoo-dev] local USE flag gimp for xsane

2005-09-05 Thread Nathan L. Adams
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Patrick Kursawe wrote: Hi all, I am going to add a local USE flag gimp to xsane which triggers building of xsane as a plugin for the GIMP. Bye, Patrick Or how about an xsane flag for GIMP that makes the xsane plugin a dependency. :)

Re: [gentoo-dev] ROX: maintainer-wanted and apps out of date

2005-09-12 Thread Nathan L. Adams
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Ciaran McCreesh wrote: And as for taking it as a PISSOFF... We've had exactly one person do that so far. All the rest of the feedback we receive -- which is a heck of a lot -- is of the thanks for the pointers, please could someone check this

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo Council meeting, Thursday 15th, 1900 UTC

2005-09-12 Thread Nathan L. Adams
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Mike Frysinger wrote: right ... once a GLEP has been hammered out and approved, there isnt really anything left for managers/council to do ... it's then up to whoever to get it done ;) They *could* do some 'creative re-org' a.k.a. remove some

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo Council meeting, Thursday 15th, 1900 UTC

2005-09-13 Thread Nathan L. Adams
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Mike Frysinger wrote: if you read this whole thread you'll find that it is a grey area with different devrel people saying/thinking different things in terms of what devrel's responsibilities are It sounds like somebody needs to take a look at

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo Council meeting, Thursday 15th, 1900 UTC

2005-09-13 Thread Nathan L. Adams
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Mike Frysinger wrote: GLEP's are developed after the details are ironed out in public developer forums ... their purpose isnt to fast track changes through the Gentoo council to kill long threads not saying that is what you meant, just making

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo Council meeting, Thursday 15th, 1900 UTC

2005-09-14 Thread Nathan L. Adams
Jon Portnoy wrote: Sounds to me more like people who aren't familiar with the internal structure of Gentoo don't need to be the peanut gallery when it comes to internal structural issues, but that's just me 8) It sounds to me like those 'more familiar with the internal structure Gentoo'

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo alt-projects meeting 9/26 1900 UTC

2005-09-15 Thread Nathan L. Adams
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Kito wrote: Greetings, On behalf of the g/fbsd and macos teams, I'd like to call a meeting for all members of the gentoo-alt projects (and anyone else who would like to attend) on Monday September 26 at 19:00 UTC. Items on the Agenda so

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo alt-projects meeting 9/26 1900 UTC

2005-09-16 Thread Nathan L. Adams
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote: I don't trust automatic correction, false positives can always happen, currently my way to proceed with such problems is opening a big bug and poking maintainers to fix them :) The esyntaxer tool will warn

Re: [gentoo-dev] Getting Important Updates To Users

2005-10-31 Thread Nathan L. Adams
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Chris Gianelloni wrote: On Mon, 2005-10-31 at 01:42 +, Stuart Herbert wrote: There is *only one time* we can guarantee that we'll have a user's attention. That's right after the message that tells a user how many CONFIG_PROTECT files they need

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP ??: Critical News Reporting

2005-11-03 Thread Nathan L. Adams
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Ciaran McCreesh wrote: [a reply] 1. Store the actual guides as GuideXML at a central place such as http://errata.gentoo.org/ 2. Write a simple 'publishing' tool that extracts a summary and a link. This is what gets pumped into portage and shown

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP ??: Critical News Reporting

2005-11-03 Thread Nathan L. Adams
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 08:49:42 -0500 Nathan L. Adams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | 6. Ciaran is completely biased against XML (or anything that isn't | stored as a simple flat file) ;) It's not bias. I give XML exactly what

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP ??: Critical News Reporting

2005-11-03 Thread Nathan L. Adams
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Tue, 1 Nov 2005 14:32:47 +0100 Jakub Moc [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | What do you mean they aren't tied to ebuilds? I don't really | understand what this feature should do then, it seems. Once again, | what's wrong with

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP ??: Critical News Reporting

2005-11-03 Thread Nathan L. Adams
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Chris Gianelloni wrote: On Tue, 2005-11-01 at 12:26 +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Tue, 01 Nov 2005 13:16:03 +0100 Thierry Carrez [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | For them to know about it, they need to be warned when they do their | emerge -p world or

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP ??: Critical News Reporting

2005-11-03 Thread Nathan L. Adams
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 19:29:45 -0500 Nathan L. Adams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | Flat files can be great in certain situations. Flat files do indeed | make the parsing trivial. However SIMPLE CODE ISN'T ALWAYS THE MOST

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP ??: Critical News Reporting

2005-11-03 Thread Nathan L. Adams
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 19:45:08 -0500 Nathan L. Adams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | Just keep in mind that portage is supposed to be non-interactive and | most users like it that way. (Although the countdown when cleaning out

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: GLEP 42 (Was: Getting Important Updates To Users)

2005-11-03 Thread Nathan L. Adams
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Stuart Herbert wrote: On Tue, 2005-11-01 at 14:51 -0500, Chris Gianelloni wrote: Did you specifically ask them if it is because we have different news in different locations? Somehow I think you're obscuring some facts to make your own argument.

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP ??: Critical News Reporting

2005-11-03 Thread Nathan L. Adams
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 20:02:58 -0500 Nathan L. Adams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | So if you didn't want people to actually review and comment on *your* | GLEP, why did you write: | | The attached GLEP is a draft proposal

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP ??: Critical News Reporting

2005-11-03 Thread Nathan L. Adams
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 20:05:45 -0500 Nathan L. Adams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | Ciaran McCreesh wrote: | On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 19:45:08 -0500 Nathan L. Adams | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | wrote: | | Just keep in mind that portage

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP ??: Critical News Reporting

2005-11-03 Thread Nathan L. Adams
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 20:24:27 -0500 Nathan L. Adams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | I'm also commenting on the part that *wrongly* states It is not | reasonable to expect all users to have an MTA, *web browser*, email | client

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP ??: Critical News Reporting

2005-11-03 Thread Nathan L. Adams
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Brian Harring wrote: Not necessarily the website imo, some central store where it's pushed out to all of the locations though (which I suspect you're getting at). I forgot to clarify one point. I'm saying that http://errata.g.o/ should be the

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP ??: Critical News Reporting

2005-11-03 Thread Nathan L. Adams
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Stephen P. Becker wrote: *ALL* of the official docs are GuideXML; Gentoo *expects* users to have a web browser by default. Otherwise a vast majority of users would never get Gentoo installed in the first place. The lightweight requirement appears

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP ??: Critical News Reporting

2005-11-03 Thread Nathan L. Adams
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Stephen P. Becker wrote: So you installed your server without reading *any* documenation? (Don't lie). And you expect that the average user installs a Gentoo server without at least referencing the documentation? Pa-leaze. Funny, I've done

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP ??: Critical News Reporting

2005-11-03 Thread Nathan L. Adams
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 20:36:03 -0500 Nathan L. Adams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | So you installed your server without reading *any* documenation? Actually, yes, I did. I can quite easily do installs without the documentation

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP ??: Critical News Reporting

2005-11-03 Thread Nathan L. Adams
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Lance Albertson wrote: Nathan L. Adams wrote: *ALL* of the official docs are GuideXML; Gentoo *expects* users to have a web browser by default. Otherwise a vast majority of users would never get Gentoo installed in the first place

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP ??: Critical News Reporting

2005-11-03 Thread Nathan L. Adams
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Grant Goodyear wrote: Nathan L. Adams wrote: [Thu Nov 03 2005, 07:02:58PM CST] -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Ciaran McCreesh wrote: Read the list of requirements in the GLEP. The plain text solution meets all of them. XML fails

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP ??: Critical News Reporting

2005-11-04 Thread Nathan L. Adams
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Paul de Vrieze wrote: What is worse is that some users might not update for a prolongued time (6 months). At that time they will not find the information in the erata list anymore. But they will get the RELEVANT news delivered by emerge/enews.

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP ??: Critical News Reporting

2005-11-04 Thread Nathan L. Adams
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Thierry Carrez wrote: Paul de Vrieze wrote: Oh god help. This also points to another reason why this is not such a good idea. Writing guideXML is a lot more work than writing an e-mail format file (ciaran's proposed format for those who didn't

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP ??: Critical News Reporting

2005-11-04 Thread Nathan L. Adams
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Chris Gianelloni wrote: On Thu, 2005-11-03 at 20:24 -0500, Nathan L. Adams wrote: *ALL* of the official docs are GuideXML; Gentoo *expects* users to have a web browser by default. Otherwise a vast majority of users would never get Gentoo installed

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP ??: Critical News Reporting

2005-11-04 Thread Nathan L. Adams
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Chris Gianelloni wrote: On Thu, 2005-11-03 at 20:36 -0500, Nathan L. Adams wrote: So you installed your server without reading *any* documenation? (Don't lie). And you expect that the average user installs a Gentoo server without at least

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP ??: Critical News Reporting

2005-11-04 Thread Nathan L. Adams
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Chris Gianelloni wrote: On Fri, 2005-11-04 at 10:58 -0500, Nathan L. Adams wrote: I've done several Gentoo installs and never knew the plain text versions existed. I think you might want to check the assumption that just because they exists

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP ??: Critical News Reporting

2005-11-04 Thread Nathan L. Adams
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Chris Gianelloni wrote: Yeah, see, this is a case where not understanding the structure of Gentoo gives you the wrong impression. The GDP's policy applies to the GDP. That is not a global developer policy of any kind. It is a policy by a

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP ??: Critical News Reporting

2005-11-04 Thread Nathan L. Adams
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Grobian wrote: Danny van Dyk wrote: IMHO a text based file has a big advantage in this proposed application over fileformats which use XML: Any administrator can read it with his editor of choice, right from the console. This is an