On Tue, 03 Apr 2007 10:10:30 -0700
antarus [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think there is a difference. Take the issue with the ubuntu
installer that left the root password in a
log in /var. Who was responsible? Ubuntu. Why? Because it's their
installer, their project.
And who would be
Alec Warner wrote:
The fact that Gentoo can continue with the codebase is irrelevant. I
think moreso the fact that a particular Package Manager would be the
'Gentoo Package Manager' means in my mind that Gentoo is responsible for
said Package Manager. If someone were to slip evil code into
Mike Kelly wrote:
Alec Warner wrote:
The fact that Gentoo can continue with the codebase is irrelevant. I
think moreso the fact that a particular Package Manager would be the
'Gentoo Package Manager' means in my mind that Gentoo is responsible for
said Package Manager. If someone were to
On 3/30/07, Mike Frysinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
a good topic for the next council meeting i think would be to start up a spec
of requirements that a package manager must satisfy before it'd be an
official package manager for Gentoo ... off the top of my head:
- the main developers need to
On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 20:02:28 +0200
Christopher Covington [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The first condition you list is a sort of nativism that I for one
would expect not to find in a successful copyleft project created on
the Internet. Why should the code Gentoo uses be written by Gentoo
On Sat, 2007-03-31 at 20:16 +0200, Andrej Kacian wrote:
On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 20:02:28 +0200
Christopher Covington [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The first condition you list is a sort of nativism that I for one
would expect not to find in a successful copyleft project created on
the Internet.
On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 15:24:03 -0400
Seemant Kulleen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The point being made, then, is that for an official package manager to
exist *for Gentoo*, it needs to be under *Gentoo's* control.
Well, the source is open, and there are already enough Gentoo devs working
on it, so
On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 15:24:03 -0400
Seemant Kulleen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
To make it more clear. If the gcc developers decided to stick some
malicious code into gcc, it affects the entire linux community, the
entire BSD community and would take out a few other communities as
well. The
On Saturday 31 March 2007, Andrej Kacian wrote:
Christopher Covington [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The first condition you list is a sort of nativism that I for one
would expect not to find in a successful copyleft project created on
the Internet. Why should the code Gentoo uses be written by
On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 15:24:03 -0400
Seemant Kulleen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
To make it more clear. If the gcc developers decided to stick some
malicious code into gcc, it affects the entire linux community, the
entire BSD community and would take out a few other communities as
well. The
Seemant Kulleen wrote:
The effects are far reaching and shared by everyone. If an official
package manager is outside of Gentoo's control, and the maintainer(s) of
that piece of software decide to do anything malicious (examples: inject
some dodgy code, remove documentation, take out access
Hi,
Ciaran McCreesh schrieb:
On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 22:47:46 +0200
Thomas Rösner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Other things I want from Gentoo right now depend on factors other
than the package manager, too; prebuilt packages
A package manager that supports a better binary package format
On Thu, Mar 29, 2007 at 10:04:57PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 22:47:46 +0200
Thomas Rösner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Other things I want from Gentoo right now depend on factors other
than the package manager, too; prebuilt packages
A package manager that supports a
On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 09:49:38 +0200
Thomas Rösner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A package manager that supports a better binary package format
(split out local metadata would be a good start) combined with a
third party binary provider could deliver that with no tree changes.
But then you'd
On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 20:14:58 -0700 (PDT)
Alec Warner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Better than many other package managers isn't exactly a glowing
commendation. When you consider the disadvantages associated with a
source-based distribution, Gentoo has to do a lot better than that
in order to
On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 02:07:33 -0700
Brian Harring [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Mar 29, 2007 at 10:04:57PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 22:47:46 +0200
Thomas Rösner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Other things I want from Gentoo right now depend on factors other
than the
On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 13:55:55 +0100
Ciaran McCreesh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If Ubuntu or Fedora do the job better then Gentoo has failed in its
goal of providing a near-ideal tool...
Semantically speaking, it hasn't failed - there's nothing about providing a
better (or nearer-ideal) tool than
On Tuesday 27 March 2007, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
Do you acknowledge that Portage is a severe limiting factor when it
comes to improving the Gentoo user experience as a whole?
what a lame question ... rather than waste time on this, why dont we get to
some relevant issues ...
to start with,
On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 14:04:15 -0400
Mike Frysinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tuesday 27 March 2007, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
Do you acknowledge that Portage is a severe limiting factor when it
comes to improving the Gentoo user experience as a whole?
what a lame question ... rather than
On Fri, 2007-03-30 at 14:04 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Tuesday 27 March 2007, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
Do you acknowledge that Portage is a severe limiting factor when it
comes to improving the Gentoo user experience as a whole?
what a lame question ... rather than waste time on this,
On Fri, 2007-03-30 at 19:35 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
a good topic for the next council meeting i think would be to start
up a spec of requirements that a package manager must satisfy before
it'd be an official package manager for Gentoo ... off the top of my
head:
- the main
On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 13:50:39 -0500
Homer Parker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Wouldn't this be the same as all MTAs providing sendmail
compatibility? Whereas existing tools still Just Work?
It depends upon the degree to which one specifies 'sendmail
compatibility'. Does it mean shares some of
On Fri, 2007-03-30 at 20:42 +0200, Matthias Langer wrote:
i don't think that personal issues should be taken into account when it
comes to choosing a new official package manager for gentoo.
It's relevant in that people have to work with the developers of the
package manager. Unlike most
On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 18:50:59 +0100
Ciaran McCreesh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A few years ago Gentoo had some serious advantages over the
competition. These days, Gentoo is at serious risk of being Red
Queened by Ubuntu and Fedora. Providing the same thing that was
provided two years ago isn't
On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 21:13:18 +0100
Roy Marples [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 18:50:59 +0100
Ciaran McCreesh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A few years ago Gentoo had some serious advantages over the
competition. These days, Gentoo is at serious risk of being Red
Queened by Ubuntu
On Fri, 2007-03-30 at 19:35 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 14:04:15 -0400
Mike Frysinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tuesday 27 March 2007, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
Do you acknowledge that Portage is a severe limiting factor when it
comes to improving the Gentoo user
On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 15:30:31 -0500
Larry Lines [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It seems as on topic to say it here as anywhere else. I like Portage.
I like it better than the Synaptic Package manager, yum, apt-get and
especially rpm. I feel like it delivers more functionality than all
of the
It depends upon the degree to which one specifies 'sendmail
compatibility'. Does it mean shares some of the same commandline
options or shares exactly the same configuration file format and all
bugs and produces identical output?
I think Mike mentioned compatiblebinaries. Not sure if he
On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 22:41:47 +0200
Michael Krelin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It depends upon the degree to which one specifies 'sendmail
compatibility'. Does it mean shares some of the same commandline
options or shares exactly the same configuration file format and
all bugs and produces
On Friday 30 March 2007, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
Gentoo's lack of progress is an extremely relevant issue...
dont push your own agendas under the guise that Gentoo is lacking progress
to start with, Paludis will never be an official package manager for
Gentoo so long as you are heavily
On Friday 30 March 2007, Seemant Kulleen wrote:
On Fri, 2007-03-30 at 20:42 +0200, Matthias Langer wrote:
i don't think that personal issues should be taken into account when it
comes to choosing a new official package manager for gentoo.
It's relevant in that people have to work with the
On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 16:51:54 -0400
Mike Frysinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Friday 30 March 2007, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
Gentoo's lack of progress is an extremely relevant issue...
dont push your own agendas under the guise that Gentoo is lacking
progress
Don't push your own agenda under
On Saturday 31 March 2007, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 21:13:18 +0100
Roy Marples [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 18:50:59 +0100
Ciaran McCreesh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A few years ago Gentoo had some serious advantages over the
competition. These days,
On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 09:13:10 +1200
Christopher Sawtell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In which case your Paludis fork of Gentoo will take off like a
scalded cat, and the world will come racing to your door begging for
your Mk II version of Gentoo. Go for it, the GPL ensures that you
have nothing to
Am Freitag, 30. März 2007 23:13 schrieb Christopher Sawtell:
On Saturday 31 March 2007, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 21:13:18 +0100
Roy Marples [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 18:50:59 +0100
Ciaran McCreesh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A few years ago
It depends upon the degree to which one specifies 'sendmail
compatibility'. Does it mean shares some of the same commandline
options or shares exactly the same configuration file format and
all bugs and produces identical output?
I think Mike mentioned compatiblebinaries. Not sure if he
Anant Narayanan wrote:
Hi Mike,
On 31-Mar-07, at 2:21 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
not really, why dont you apply some of your logic:
- you are not wanted as an official Gentoo developer ... the past
clearly
shows this
- the official package manager of Gentoo would need to be
completely
On Friday 30 March 2007, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
- you are not wanted as an official Gentoo developer ... the past
clearly shows this
Not really... The process by which I became an unofficial Gentoo
developer was so flawed that it got replaced as a result...
sure, the first time ... the
On Friday 30 March 2007, Anant Narayanan wrote:
The logic is flawed. I don't understand why Gentoo can't switch to
paludis so long as there are in-house Gentoo developers ready to
maintain and support it.
that is your opinion. mine is that the official package manager must be led
and
On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 20:29:46 -0400
Mike Frysinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
- the official package manager of Gentoo would need to be
completely in-house with respect to control, direction, etc...
Justify that. What does being in-house have to do with having
control? Are you claiming
On Friday 30 March 2007, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
Instead, you have to worry about Gentoo infra people pulling commit
access under the guise of 'security measures' and refusing devrel
requests to restore it.
agreed, that was complete bs ... it has since been rectified
But you're not addressing
On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 21:03:14 -0400
Mike Frysinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But you're not addressing the issue. If the Council requests a new
feature in Portage, will it happen?
if the Council felt the need to force something in, then yes, it
would happen
For how many more years do we
On Fri, 2007-03-30 at 22:22 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
Paludis is a package manager, not a distribution. And no, the GPL does
not mean there's nothing to lose -- the Zynot fork did a fair bit of
damage to Gentoo, and no-one wants a repeat of that mess...
Only in terms of morale. In fact,
On Fri, 2007-03-30 at 23:41 +0200, Danny van Dyk wrote:
In which case your Paludis fork of Gentoo will take off like a
Please, pretty please with sugar atop: Stop this FUD about forking
Gentoo. Paludis is not a fork of Gentoo, it's new package manager. The
relation between Portage and
On Saturday 31 March 2007, Seemant Kulleen wrote:
On Fri, 2007-03-30 at 23:41 +0200, Danny van Dyk wrote:
In which case your Paludis fork of Gentoo will take off like a
Please, pretty please with sugar atop: Stop this FUD about forking
Gentoo. Paludis is not a fork of Gentoo, it's new
On Sat, 2007-03-31 at 14:53 +1200, Christopher Sawtell wrote:
Correct, because the only way Ciaran can prove beyond doubt that his Paludis
is a viable option is to see hundreds, nay millions, of people using it. I'm
quite sure that he won't achieve that goal by bleating in here as frequently
Hi,
On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 15:28:52 -0400
Seemant Kulleen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 2007-03-30 at 20:42 +0200, Matthias Langer wrote:
i don't think that personal issues should be taken into account
when it comes to choosing a new official package manager for gentoo.
It's relevant
On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 01:19:45 +0530
Anant Narayanan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 28-Mar-07, at 1:45 AM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
Do you acknowledge that Portage is a severe limiting factor when it
comes to improving the Gentoo user experience as a whole?
I certainly don't think so. A lot of
On 29-Mar-07, at 2:26 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 01:19:45 +0530
Anant Narayanan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I certainly don't think so. A lot of people *switch* to Gentoo
because of portage. Portage is a core part of our distro, and I
don't see it being replaced for a long time
On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 22:46:14 +0530
Anant Narayanan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 29-Mar-07, at 2:26 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 01:19:45 +0530
Anant Narayanan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I certainly don't think so. A lot of people *switch* to Gentoo
because of portage.
On Thu, 2007-03-29 at 09:56 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 01:19:45 +0530
Anant Narayanan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 28-Mar-07, at 1:45 AM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
Do you acknowledge that Portage is a severe limiting factor when it
comes to improving the Gentoo user
On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 11:57:36 -0700
Ned Ludd [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Portage or the tree? Portage is just a way of using the tree, and
it's not a very good one...
Can you please stop taking cheap pot shots every chance you get. We
all get it. You are not a fan of portage.
And that
On Thu, 2007-03-29 at 20:06 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 11:57:36 -0700
Ned Ludd [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Portage or the tree? Portage is just a way of using the tree, and
it's not a very good one...
Can you please stop taking cheap pot shots every chance you get.
On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 12:25:00 -0700
Ned Ludd [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You are being dismissive of the hard work others are doing. I find
that downright offensive. You want to write a kickass package manager
then by all means do it. But trying to make yourself look good by
making others look bad
On Thu, 2007-03-29 at 21:02 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 12:25:00 -0700
Ned Ludd [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You are being dismissive of the hard work others are doing. I find
that downright offensive. You want to write a kickass package manager
then by all means do it.
Hi,
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
Have a look at [1] and all the open Portage should... bugs. Would
any of those improve the user experience for you? Can you think of
other features of a similar nature that would make your life easier?
Funny thing is: the only thing that I'd really care about are
On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 13:33:31 -0700
Ned Ludd [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The correct reply should of been.
I'm sorry I did not mean to offend anybody. I'll make an effort to
not make any cheap shots
That would have been a possible response. Another reasonable response
would have been the one
Ned Ludd wrote:
The correct reply should of been.
I'm sorry I did not mean to offend anybody. I'll make an effort to not
make any cheap shots
Man, stop playing the silly Ooh, we are all so fragile and offendable
game.
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 22:47:46 +0200
Thomas Rösner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Other things I want from Gentoo right now depend on factors other
than the package manager, too; prebuilt packages
A package manager that supports a better binary package format
(split out local metadata would be a good
On 29-Mar-07, at 11:20 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
Have a look at [1] and all the open Portage should... bugs. Would
any of those improve the user experience for you? Can you think of
other features of a similar nature that would make your life easier?
That Portage works does not mean that it is
On Thu, 2007-03-29 at 14:03 -0700, Ilya A. Volynets-Evenbakh wrote:
Ned Ludd wrote:
The correct reply should of been.
I'm sorry I did not mean to offend anybody. I'll make an effort to not
make any cheap shots
Man, stop playing the silly Ooh, we are all so fragile and offendable
On Fri, 2007-03-30 at 03:07 +0530, Anant Narayanan wrote:
Sure it's not ideal and I acknowledge that. But portage is tied very
closely to Gentoo for historical reasons, and it is not reasonable to
expect an alternate package manager to replace it (not in the near
future atleast).
On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 22:46:14 +0530
Anant Narayanan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 29-Mar-07, at 2:26 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 01:19:45 +0530
Anant Narayanan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I certainly don't think so. A lot of people *switch* to Gentoo
because of portage.
I fail to understand why the portage developers would refuse to
accept a patch that actually improves something (without causing
major regressions i.e.). If they do refuse such a patch (for
political reasons), then we have a serious problem. However, based on
past experience with the
snip
See above: not every developer is technically capable of evaluating
the
underpinnings of the tools we use. For most of us, those
underpinnings
do not matter.
I find the reasoning to be quite justified.
It's probably a little early to initiate such a proposal, seeing as
the
PMS is
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Seemant Kulleen wrote:
I wasn't indicating that a popularity contest should be held,
because I trust the developers will cast their vote only after
*technically* evaluating the options. I also don't think it's fair
for a small minority of
On Tuesday 27 March 2007, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 15:19:29 -0400
Mike Frysinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
one of Gentoo's priorities is to enable alternative package managers
to coexist sanely ... it is not one of Gentoo's priorities at this
time to replace Portage with
Hi Ciaran,
On 28-Mar-07, at 1:45 AM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
Do you acknowledge that Portage is a severe limiting factor when it
comes to improving the Gentoo user experience as a whole?
I certainly don't think so. A lot of people *switch* to Gentoo
because of portage. Portage is a core part
On Sunday 25 March 2007, Michael Krelin wrote:
the werent the same question nor were they the same answer
They weren't the same, but the second answer was definitely wrong:
So is alternative package manager support something that's considered
important and a priority by the Council?
On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 15:19:29 -0400
Mike Frysinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
one of Gentoo's priorities is to enable alternative package managers
to coexist sanely ... it is not one of Gentoo's priorities at this
time to replace Portage with a different package manager
Do you acknowledge that
the werent the same question nor were they the same answer
They weren't the same, but the second answer was definitely wrong:
So is alternative package manager support something that's considered
important and a priority by the Council?
yes
Did you not say that finding alternatives to
On Saturday 24 March 2007, Matthias Langer wrote:
In my opinion, any project that has reasonable potential to improve
Gentoo as a whole
which doesnt apply here
-mike
pgpkZMxj5OVdW.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 10:40:51 -0400
Mike Frysinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Saturday 24 March 2007, Matthias Langer wrote:
In my opinion, any project that has reasonable potential to improve
Gentoo as a whole
which doesnt apply here
Did you not say that finding alternatives to Portage
On Sunday 25 March 2007, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
Mike Frysinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Saturday 24 March 2007, Matthias Langer wrote:
In my opinion, any project that has reasonable potential to improve
Gentoo as a whole
which doesnt apply here
Did you not say that finding
On Sunday 25 of March 2007 16:58:10 Mike Frysinger wrote:
Did you not say that finding alternatives to Portage is one of Gentoo's
priorities?
no i did not, nor does that apply here
not to put anything in your mouth, but I am a little confused:
Piotr Jaroszyński wrote:
On Sunday 25 of March 2007 16:58:10 Mike Frysinger wrote:
Did you not say that finding alternatives to Portage is one of Gentoo's
priorities?
no i did not, nor does that apply here
not to put anything in your mouth, but I am a little confused:
On Sunday 25 of March 2007 17:54:24 Andrew Gaffney wrote:
Support for an alternative package manager != language bindings for said
package manager :P
heh, I just wanted a clarification of the Council standpoint in the matter of
finding alternatives to portage, which became quite vague after
On Sunday 25 March 2007, Piotr Jaroszyński wrote:
On Sunday 25 of March 2007 17:54:24 Andrew Gaffney wrote:
Support for an alternative package manager != language bindings for said
package manager :P
heh, I just wanted a clarification of the Council standpoint in the matter
of finding
the werent the same question nor were they the same answer
They weren't the same, but the second answer was definitely wrong:
So is alternative package manager support something that's considered
important and a priority by the Council?
yes
Did you not say that finding alternatives to
Piotr Jaroszyński wrote:
Hello,
I have already submitted my application, but want to advertise it over here
too :] Comments are welcome!
Summary:
Create Python bindings, associated documentation and test cases for the
Paludis public API, and allow subclassing of Paludis classes using
On Sat, Mar 24, 2007 at 01:46:45PM +1100, Jonathan Adamczewski wrote:
Paludis is a tool used for working with the Gentoo Portage tree - there is no
problem with it being part of a Gentoo Google Summer of
Code project as it will benefit the Gentoo project and its users.
Why not simply solve
On Sat, Mar 24, 2007 at 01:46:45PM +1100, Jonathan Adamczewski wrote:
Paludis is a tool used for working with the Gentoo Portage tree - there
is no problem with it being part of a Gentoo Google Summer of
Code project as it will benefit the Gentoo project and its users.
Why not simply solve
On Sat, Mar 24, 2007 at 01:31:08AM -0700, Alec Warner wrote:
[some stuff]
Thanks for the explanation, i guess that makes sense.
cheers,
Wernfried
--
Wernfried Haas (amne) - amne at gentoo dot org
Gentoo Forums: http://forums.gentoo.org
IRC: #gentoo-forums on freenode - email:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
We should not have third-party projects be part of SOC --
specifically,
things that are not Gentoo projects. I'd lobby this whether it was
pkgcore or paludis being proposed, so don't bother trying to pin
partisan accusations. Point is, it's not a
On Sat, Mar 24, 2007 at 01:50:19AM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Friday 23 March 2007, Josh Saddler wrote:
I'm very strongly against using Gentoo SoC time and resources for things
that are not officially part of Gentoo (yes, this statement could be
spun however you wish) or are not
On Saturday 24 of March 2007 13:54:51 Michael Cummings wrote:
Ditto. Gentoo SoC projects need to be for Gentoo developed and sponsored
code/projects, not third party projects, no matter how much they would
whither and die without a gentoo core. There was an example of gentoo+gnome
integration
Michael Cummings wrote: [Sat Mar 24 2007, 07:54:51AM CDT]
On Sat, Mar 24, 2007 at 01:50:19AM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Friday 23 March 2007, Josh Saddler wrote:
I'm very strongly against using Gentoo SoC time and resources for things
that are not officially part of Gentoo (yes, this
On Sat, 24 Mar 2007 08:09:09 +0100
Luca Barbato [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Check my counterproposal. I know it is more broad but it also fits
better Gentoo as whole.
For the ones that aren't following gentoo-soc:
- C/C++/Ruby/python bindings/API for package managers.
The idea is to have
Ah, a couple additional things.
Diego wrote me and commented that he's not a big fan of accepting
proposals from existing devs, since the goal of the program is to get
_new_ blood into open-source projects. I think that's a good point, and
my personal preference is to accept strong proposals
On Sat, 24 Mar 2007 09:30:55 -0700
Mike Doty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Grant Goodyear wrote:
[snip]
PS. So, anybody have any actual technical comments about this
proposal?
Yes. pioto's proposal is weak. lu_zero's counterproposal for
developing a method of having a package manager agnostic
On Saturday 24 of March 2007 17:30:55 Mike Doty wrote:
Yes. pioto's proposal is weak. lu_zero's counterproposal for developing
a method of having a package manager agnostic API is much more useful
than developing one language binding for one package manager.
1. pioto is a mentor this year...
On Sat, 24 Mar 2007 09:30:55 -0700
Mike Doty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yes. pioto's proposal is weak.
You mean Piotr, right? He's a different person from me.
--
Mike Kelly
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: [Sat Mar 24 2007, 11:38:45AM CDT]
On Sat, 24 Mar 2007 09:30:55 -0700
Mike Doty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Grant Goodyear wrote:
[snip]
PS. So, anybody have any actual technical comments about this
proposal?
Yes. pioto's proposal is weak. lu_zero's
Mike Kelly wrote:
On Sat, 24 Mar 2007 09:30:55 -0700
Mike Doty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yes. pioto's proposal is weak.
You mean Piotr, right? He's a different person from me.
I do.
--
===
Mike Doty kingtaco -at-
I'm very strongly against using Gentoo SoC time and resources for things
that are not officially part of Gentoo (yes, this statement could be
spun however you wish) or are not official Gentoo projects. And no, just
because a project has Gentoo developers in it doesn't mean that it's a
Gentoo
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
Assuming you mean piotr, who is not pioto... The difference is, piotr's
proposal is possible and doable within the timeframe, whereas lu_zero's
sounds nice if you don't know anything about any of the package
managers in question and can't be delivered within three
Josh Saddler wrote:
We should not have third-party projects be part of SOC
I see 3 important points missing from the discussion so far:
(not directed at any response in particular)
1. We mentored projects like Piotr's last year, it seemed to work OK and
as far as I'm aware there weren't any
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
Assuming you mean piotr, who is not pioto... The difference is, piotr's
proposal is possible and doable within the timeframe, whereas lu_zero's
sounds nice if you don't know anything about any of the package
managers in question and can't be delivered within three
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
Which is all very nice in theory, but completely impractical and
useless in practice. There's far too much difference and far too much
complexity implementation-wise to make this practical for any
non-trivial functionality.
I'd like to have more details, please.
Grant Goodyear wrote:
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: [Sat Mar 24 2007, 11:38:45AM CDT]
On Sat, 24 Mar 2007 09:30:55 -0700
Mike Doty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Grant Goodyear wrote:
[snip]
PS. So, anybody have any actual technical comments about this
proposal?
Yes. pioto's proposal is weak.
1 - 100 of 108 matches
Mail list logo
