On Wednesday 20 September 2006 23:06, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> A GLEP doesn't have to be bureaucracy. It can be nothing more than a
> way of ensuring that the correct technical decisions are made. For a
> project that could end up affecting a lot of people, getting the design
> right and determinin
Alin Nastac wrote:
> Our civilized disputes are taken place in public because we are an open
> organization. If this looks bad in the eyes of some, so be it, but
> please keep your opinions out of this list.
Except that they're not always that civilized, which was his entire point.
--
Kind Regar
Dice R. Random wrote:
> What control mechanisms are there within the Gentoo community to keep
> a few bad apples from spoiling the whole barrel, as it were? I do not
> wish to name any names, but it seems to me from having skimmed this
> list for the past few years that there are a couple people w
On 9/21/06, Wernfried Haas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Please keep in mind that only a few of the approximately 300 Gentoo
developers are taking part in this discussion and only a few of them
actually seem to get a bit more heated than it should be.
If you think they are behaving poorly, feel free
On 9/21/2006, "Alec Warner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> However the behaviour displayed in this list, and in particular this
>> thread are downright embarassing. I used to be proud of being a gentoo
>> user and following a group of dedicated and clever developers. Now I
>> just want to fin
However the behaviour displayed in this list, and in particular this
thread are downright embarassing. I used to be proud of being a gentoo
user and following a group of dedicated and clever developers. Now I
just want to find a quick and easy way to get rid of it. You have had
your antics display
On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 23:53:39 +0100
Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 18:42:13 -0400 Alec Warner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> | As Donnie said; if this is the thanks one gets for trying out a new
> | idea; then why try at all.
>
> The complaints are not that Stuart
Daniel Ostrow wrote:
Here is my take on the issue, it's something I saw happen when Gentoo on
Mac OSX was announced, again with Sunrise, and now with Seeds (also note
I'm not making a value judgment about any of the aforementioned
projects, I just note a similar progression of events). There are
On 9/21/06, Luca Barbato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Could you please planning something about acting as liason between
projects touched by seeds?
E.G. random guy starts contributing a media seed, I'd like to be
notified and maybe have also x11 people notified, just in case the seed
overlay is do
On Wednesday 20 September 2006 19:50, Stephen Bennett wrote:
> Sharing the idea and looking for consultation is one thing. Saying
> "Gentoo is now doing this, like it or not" is quite another.
funny, i dont recall him forcing anyone to help him
-mike
pgp1ZuNPbbA3B.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Oh look, we just got Slashdotted by someone doing their level best to create a
smear campaign, or at least to spread FUD:
http://linux.slashdot.org/linux/06/09/20/2246231.shtml
As I said on IRC, new project, new whiteboard. why don't we leave it up to
On Thu, 21 Sep 2006 01:29:58 +0200
Jakub Moc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Oh noes! Someone had an unexpected and unconsulted idea that he wanted
> to share with others, shoot him!!!111! OMG, so much for inovation and
> progress...
Sharing the idea and looking for consultation is one thing. Saying
In that case, why don't we just consider Stuart's initial mail on this
thing to *be* the effing announcement and be done with it? Fact is, no
matter how something is brought up, there is a dependable group of
people who will have something against it (oh fuck it, we know I'm
referring to Ciaran h
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 18:42:13 -0400 Alec Warner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> | As Donnie said; if this is the thanks one gets for trying out a new
> | idea; then why try at all.
>
> The complaints are not that Stuart tried a new idea. Stop trying to
> spin things that way
Stuart Herbert wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I've created a new project, called Gentoo Seeds [1]. The aim of the project
> is to create stage4 tarballs which can be used to 'seed' new boxes with
> ready-built Gentoo solutions.
Interestingly enough releng was planning some stage4 support for the
next release
On Wed, 2006-09-20 at 18:42 -0400, Alec Warner wrote:
> This whole thread is quite disappointing to me. Someone comes up with a
> new way to use Gentoo; to make it a viable tool for a job; to make it
> USEFUL. This is what we are about here (or were?).
>
> "Put another way, the Gentoo philosophy
On Wednesday 20 September 2006 18:53, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> The complaints are that he allegedly did it
> without consultation, and that he sprang this unexpectedly.
he started a new project and he announced, whoopity do
stop making a big deal over nothing
-mike
pgppKe9FuRp5z.pgp
Description
On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 18:42:13 -0400 Alec Warner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| As Donnie said; if this is the thanks one gets for trying out a new
| idea; then why try at all.
The complaints are not that Stuart tried a new idea. Stop trying to
spin things that way. The complaints are that he allegedl
This whole thread is quite disappointing to me. Someone comes up with a
new way to use Gentoo; to make it a viable tool for a job; to make it
USEFUL. This is what we are about here (or were?).
"Put another way, the Gentoo philosophy is to create better tools."
Am Mittwoch, 20. September 2006 23:33 schrieb Chris White:
> On Wednesday 20 September 2006 13:27, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > I was under the impression that you were supposed to GLEP anything
> > of this scope and get council approval... The "anyone can make a
> > project" rule doesn't replace the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 23:42:02 +0200 Jakub Moc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> | Not that bugging people w/ pointless paperwork would contribute
> | anything useful to this new project or get any work done... What
> | exactly is the
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 23:42:02 +0200 Jakub Moc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> | Not that bugging people w/ pointless paperwork would contribute
> | anything useful to this new project or get any work done... What
> | exactly is there to GLEP at this point?
>
> A GLEP is not po
On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 23:42:02 +0200 Jakub Moc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| Not that bugging people w/ pointless paperwork would contribute
| anything useful to this new project or get any work done... What
| exactly is there to GLEP at this point?
A GLEP is not pointless paperwork if done correctly
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 22:41:11 +0200 Jakub Moc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> | Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> | > I was under the impression that you were supposed to GLEP anything
> | > of this scope and get council approval... The "anyone can make a
> | > project" rule doesn't rep
On Wed, 2006-09-20 at 21:27 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 20:27:50 +0100 "Stuart Herbert"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> | I was hoping to avoid having to say this - actually I was hoping to
> | avoid this whole drama - but we _don't_ need releng's approval to do
> | this. T
On Wednesday 20 September 2006 13:27, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> I was under the impression that you were supposed to GLEP anything of
> this scope and get council approval... The "anyone can make a project"
> rule doesn't replace the requirement to GLEP large changes.
Why? It's in an overlay so it
On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 22:41:11 +0200 Jakub Moc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
| > I was under the impression that you were supposed to GLEP anything
| > of this scope and get council approval... The "anyone can make a
| > project" rule doesn't replace the requirement to GLEP larg
On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 16:45:24 -0400 Seemant Kulleen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| On Wed, 2006-09-20 at 20:33 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
| > On Tue, 19 Sep 2006 20:00:59 +0100 Stuart Herbert
| > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| > | I've created a new project, called Gentoo Seeds [1]. The aim of
| > |
On Wednesday 20 September 2006 15:33, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Sep 2006 20:00:59 +0100 Stuart Herbert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> | I've created a new project, called Gentoo Seeds [1]. The aim of the
> | project is to create stage4 tarballs which can be used to 'seed' new
> | boxes with ready
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> I was under the impression that you were supposed to GLEP anything of
> this scope and get council approval... The "anyone can make a project"
> rule doesn't replace the requirement to GLEP large changes.
>
http://dev.gentoo.org/~chriswhite/xml_source/flame.xml - Code Lis
On Wed, 2006-09-20 at 20:33 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Sep 2006 20:00:59 +0100 Stuart Herbert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> | I've created a new project, called Gentoo Seeds [1]. The aim of the
> | project is to create stage4 tarballs which can be used to 'seed' new
> | boxes with
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Sep 2006 20:00:59 +0100 Stuart Herbert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> | I've created a new project, called Gentoo Seeds [1]. The aim of the
> | project is to create stage4 tarballs which can be used to 'seed' new
>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Stuart Herbert wrote:
> On 9/20/06, Danny van Dyk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> As long as we have no package sets support in portage, I do indeed think
>> that this is the best way to go. Didn't realize that you mentioned it,
>> too.
>> @Stuart: What
On Tue, 19 Sep 2006 20:00:59 +0100 Stuart Herbert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| I've created a new project, called Gentoo Seeds [1]. The aim of the
| project is to create stage4 tarballs which can be used to 'seed' new
| boxes with ready-built Gentoo solutions.
Wouldn't this be considered a wide r
On Wednesday 20 September 2006 16:27, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 20:27:50 +0100 "Stuart Herbert"
> | I was hoping to avoid having to say this - actually I was hoping to
> | avoid this whole drama - but we _don't_ need releng's approval to do
> | this. To delay progress, Chris wi
On 9/20/06, Danny van Dyk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
As long as we have no package sets support in portage, I do indeed think
that this is the best way to go. Didn't realize that you mentioned it,
too.
@Stuart: What do you think?
Right now, I'm not too concerned about the lack of package set
su
On 9/20/06, Danny van Dyk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi Stuart,
The pages are correct.
Cool.
He didn't called you a liar.
"You haven't spoken to anyone on the genkernel or catalyst development
teams." - was in response to me saying that I had. It's difficult to
interpret that as anything
On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 20:27:50 +0100 "Stuart Herbert"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| I was hoping to avoid having to say this - actually I was hoping to
| avoid this whole drama - but we _don't_ need releng's approval to do
| this. To delay progress, Chris will need to make a formal complaint
| to th
Stuart Herbert wrote:
To delay progress, Chris will need to make a formal complaint
to the Council.
About what? Our own metastructure proposal explicitly says competing
projects are allowed. There is no complaint, there's just attempts to
convince each other that a formal hierarchy is actuall
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Andrew Gaffney wrote:
> That's not the issue. The issue is that there should *already* be a
> releng liason, but nobody from releng seems to know anything about this
> project.
>
I dunno . . . does releng really need to be involved, except if these s
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> Joshua Jackson wrote:
>> However, as
>> Chris stated loudly, that this is something that falls directly in
>> line with Release Engineerings goal. Its not a top level project that
>> creates something entirely new. Its a extens
On Wednesday 20 September 2006 15:26, Andrew Gaffney wrote:
> That's not the issue. The issue is that there should *already* be a releng
> liason, but nobody from releng seems to know anything about this project.
they havent even started releasing anything yet, they're just getting started
why ar
Stuart Herbert wrote:
Besides, I'm sure we'll delay our own progress whilst we figure out
how to make seeds work well ;-) I think folks are getting carried
away here! Let's get stuff working first, eh?
I think its also worth mentioning that the whole thing is also currently
in *planning* sta
Am Mittwoch, 20. September 2006 20:56 schrieb Donnie Berkholz:
> Danny van Dyk wrote:
> > * How do you want to implement the profiles?
> >
> > * Re: the meta-ebuilds you'd been talking about in this thread:
> > Have you yet considered to use the profiles' packages file?
>
> I've mentioned this idea
On 9/20/06, Matthew Marlowe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
3) We are where we are at today. Stuart comes up with a great idea for the
seeds project which might help address the virtualization address image and
it appears releng doesnt like it, so progress could be delayed by another 6
months to year
Donnie Berkholz wrote:
Andrew Gaffney wrote:
Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Wednesday 20 September 2006 12:38, Alec Warner wrote:
I think Chris's primary concern is one of "Tell us whats up before it
happens."
why should he care ? some Gentoo guys take catalyst and produce
stage4s directed at cert
Joshua Jackson wrote:
> However, as
> Chris stated loudly, that this is something that falls directly in
> line with Release Engineerings goal. Its not a top level project that
> creates something entirely new. Its a extension of the release of
> images that allow you to install a system.
Sure, ne
Danny van Dyk wrote:
> * How do you want to implement the profiles?
>
> * Re: the meta-ebuilds you'd been talking about in this thread: Have you
> yet considered to use the profiles' packages file?
I've mentioned this idea to Stuart. Thanks for bringing it up again. Do
you think it's the best w
Andrew Gaffney wrote:
> Mike Frysinger wrote:
>> On Wednesday 20 September 2006 12:38, Alec Warner wrote:
>>> I think Chris's primary concern is one of "Tell us whats up before it
>>> happens."
>>
>> why should he care ? some Gentoo guys take catalyst and produce
>> stage4s directed at certain app
On Wed, Sep 20, 2006 at 10:49:40AM -0400, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
>
> Because it's *REALLY* stupid and shows just how unprofessional we are
> when we have multiple groups doing the *EXACT* same thing using
> different policies and procedures and all pushing it as if it were
> *OFFICIAL* for the di
On Wednesday 20 September 2006 12:38, Alec Warner wrote:
> I think Chris's primary concern is one of "Tell us whats up before it
> happens."
why should he care ? some Gentoo guys take catalyst and produce stage4s
directed at certain applications
they arent talking about any of the tools releng
Stuart Herbert wrote:
> On 9/20/06, Chris Gianelloni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Uhh... "seeds"?
>
> Yes, seeds. Seems to describe what we're working towards as well as
> any other name.
>
>> "bring the work to the main tree"?
>>
>> As in... duplicate functionality already provided by catalyst
Hi,
I'm one of the people working on seeds.
It's not a new project afaic i produce seed-alike things anyway because
I need to run a large serverpark on gentoo and I can't hand-install
servers anymore. We generate custom stage4's tailored to our environment.
One of the reasons i was/am interes
Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> I apologise to everyone for my responses to this.
Thank you.
Donnie
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
On 9/20/06, Chris Gianelloni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Catalyst doesn't provide ongoing maintenance or migration of installed
> systems ... you need more than just a spec file for one of these seeds.
Like what? It sounds like they aren't providing anything but tarballs.
Tarballs, VMware im
On Wed, 2006-09-20 at 15:07 +0100, Stuart Herbert wrote:
> > Why hasn't anybody even *tried* to contact Release Engineering on
> > something like this, considering we already have all of the tools
> > necessary to complete this, as well as the expertise?
>
> We have, and folks there have been very
On Wed, 2006-09-20 at 07:04 -0700, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> > "bring the work to the main tree"?
> >
> > As in... duplicate functionality already provided by catalyst for quite
> > some time?
>
> Catalyst doesn't provide ongoing maintenance or migration of installed
> s
On Tue, 2006-09-19 at 21:11 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> why does it need to be part of releng ? GNAP does releases with catalyst,
> but
> it's part of embedded
We also consider Koon to be a part of Release Engineering and he works
with us and we work with him for GNAP. He even has access to
On 9/20/06, Chris Gianelloni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Uhh... "seeds"?
Yes, seeds. Seems to describe what we're working towards as well as
any other name.
"bring the work to the main tree"?
As in... duplicate functionality already provided by catalyst for quite
some time?
No. As in, bri
Chris Gianelloni wrote:
"bring the work to the main tree"?
As in... duplicate functionality already provided by catalyst for quite
some time?
Catalyst doesn't provide ongoing maintenance or migration of installed
systems ... you need more than just a spec file for one of these seeds.
Why h
On Tue, 2006-09-19 at 20:00 +0100, Stuart Herbert wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I've created a new project, called Gentoo Seeds [1]. The aim of the project
> is to create stage4 tarballs which can be used to 'seed' new boxes with
> ready-built Gentoo solutions.
Uhh... "seeds"?
> Until we've gone through a f
On 9/20/06, Daniel Ostrow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Wed, 2006-09-20 at 00:56 +0200, Carsten Lohrke wrote:
> First step should imho be, that you work with the Portage team on having
> proper set support implemented. Current meta ebuilds do suck, really.
No need for meta ebuilds...stage4 specs
On Tue, 19 Sep 2006 21:11:17 -0400
Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> why does it need to be part of releng ?
releng and seeds will be doing similar tasks, releasing stage tarballs.
-Thomas
pgpIH4JTTufWm.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Tuesday 19 September 2006 19:32, Thomas Cort wrote:
> Stuart Herbert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > [1] http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/seeds/
>
> Why is this being done as a top level project instead of as a subproject
> of Release Engineering?
why does it need to be part of releng ? GNAP does
On Tue, 19 Sep 2006 20:00:59 +0100
Stuart Herbert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [1] http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/seeds/
Why is this being done as a top level project instead of as a subproject
of Release Engineering?
-Thomas
pgpNbVfRl5I2l.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Wed, 2006-09-20 at 00:56 +0200, Carsten Lohrke wrote:
> First step should imho be, that you work with the Portage team on having
> proper set support implemented. Current meta ebuilds do suck, really.
No need for meta ebuilds...stage4 specs + catalyst.
--Dan
signature.asc
Description: This
First step should imho be, that you work with the Portage team on having
proper set support implemented. Current meta ebuilds do suck, really.
Carsten
pgpY3uwbpcikw.pgp
Description: PGP signature
67 matches
Mail list logo
