Dnia 2015-02-15, o godz. 09:43:24
Rich Freeman ri...@gentoo.org napisał(a):
On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 3:10 PM, hasufell hasuf...@gentoo.org wrote:
Rich Freeman:
On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 2:15 PM, hasufell hasuf...@gentoo.org
wrote:
A team is clearly violating GLEP39 and you don't care:
On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 3:10 PM, hasufell hasuf...@gentoo.org wrote:
Rich Freeman:
On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 2:15 PM, hasufell hasuf...@gentoo.org
wrote:
A team is clearly violating GLEP39 and you don't care:
When did I claim to not care?
That's my interpretation of the council mocking
Rich Freeman:
On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 2:15 PM, hasufell hasuf...@gentoo.org
wrote:
A team is clearly violating GLEP39 and you don't care:
When did I claim to not care?
That's my interpretation of the council mocking those who have brought
up issues by saying:
* we cannot hold votes,
Andreas K. Huettel:
Tim Harder:
Also, I would advise caution on considering it dysfunctional and
disbanding it due to this.
I cannot follow that argumentation. Because no one wants to join, the
team is functional?
I'm seeing a lot of commits by mr_bones and tupone recently. Doesn't look
On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 11:08 AM, hasufell hasuf...@gentoo.org wrote:
So let's summarize:
* the council said it will deal with it
Cite? I just posted what the council ACTUALLY said, and this wasn't
on it. I'd re-post it, but I think it was only two posts ago for my
part.
What we have now
A team is clearly violating GLEP39 and you don't care:
It may have one or many leads, and the leads are selected by the members of
the project. This selection must occur at least once every 12 months, and may
occur at any time.
Instead we are getting tree inconsistency, because people start
On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 2:15 PM, hasufell hasuf...@gentoo.org wrote:
A team is clearly violating GLEP39 and you don't care:
When did I claim to not care?
It may have one or many leads, and the leads are selected by the members of
the project. This selection must occur at least once every 12
hasufell wrote:
from what comments I got back no one really wanted to join (at least
under the current system). I wasn't going to force the games team to
elect a new lead when it appears none cared much at that point who
the lead was. Also, I would advise caution on considering it
Tim Harder:
Also, I would advise caution on considering it dysfunctional and
disbanding it due to this.
I cannot follow that argumentation. Because no one wants to join, the
team is functional?
I'm seeing a lot of commits by mr_bones and tupone recently. Doesn't look
defunct to me.
--
Rich Freeman:
On Sun, Feb 8, 2015 at 12:38 PM, hasufell hasuf...@gentoo.org wrote:
The council has (at least implicitly) stated that people may stop using
common eclasses that standardize stuff in gentoo if they don't like them
(that includes python, ruby, perl... eclasses as well, FYI).
On 2015-02-10 12:38, hasufell wrote:
- Motion: The council encourages the games team to accept join
requests and elect a lead. In the event they don't elect a lead
within 6 weeks, we will consider the team as dysfunctional and thus
disband it.
Accepted with 6 yes votes and 1
Tim Harder:
On 2015-02-10 12:38, hasufell wrote:
- Motion: The council encourages the games team to accept join
requests and elect a lead. In the event they don't elect a lead
within 6 weeks, we will consider the team as dysfunctional and thus
disband it.
Accepted with 6 yes votes
On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 12:38 PM, hasufell hasuf...@gentoo.org wrote:
Rich Freeman:
On Sun, Feb 8, 2015 at 12:38 PM, hasufell hasuf...@gentoo.org wrote:
The council has (at least implicitly) stated that people may stop using
common eclasses that standardize stuff in gentoo if they don't like
07.02.2015 23:12, hasufell пишет:
In addition... there is no work that needs to be done that has not
already been done, other than banning an eclass or stating that it is
the way to go.
How would you do that without breaking all user apps? Clearly - by
slowly migrating away from it and do not
Rich Freeman:
On Sat, Feb 7, 2015 at 3:12 PM, hasufell hasuf...@gentoo.org wrote:
You are making it sound like there is some huge work to be done. There
isn't. And no one has to step up to change the current situation, except
the council.
If you feel so strongly about it, then join the
On Sun, Feb 8, 2015 at 12:38 PM, hasufell hasuf...@gentoo.org wrote:
The council has (at least implicitly) stated that people may stop using
common eclasses that standardize stuff in gentoo if they don't like them
(that includes python, ruby, perl... eclasses as well, FYI).
Maybe we should
Ben de Groot:
EAPI=5
inherit toolchain-funcs
This breaks consistency. Now users cannot rely on games.eclass anymore.
We should either abandon it completely or follow it consistently.
I thought we had abandoned it already?
Is there anything to be gained from using games.eclass here? It
On 7 February 2015 at 23:06, hasufell hasuf...@gentoo.org wrote:
DEPEND=
unzip is missing from DEPEND
I thought portage auto-depends on this. But I can add || ( unzip zip )
to be explicit.
I don't know, but it's definitely not in @system. Afair we are only
allowed to omit deps from that
On Sat, Feb 7, 2015 at 10:06 AM, hasufell hasuf...@gentoo.org wrote:
The council just chose the worst way, because it didn't want to upset
either party involved in the discussion.
The council simply upheld GLEP 39 - people don't HAVE to work with a
project team to work on packages. There is
Rich Freeman:
On Sat, Feb 7, 2015 at 10:06 AM, hasufell hasuf...@gentoo.org wrote:
The council just chose the worst way, because it didn't want to upset
either party involved in the discussion.
The council simply upheld GLEP 39 - people don't HAVE to work with a
project team to work on
On Sat, Feb 7, 2015 at 3:12 PM, hasufell hasuf...@gentoo.org wrote:
You are making it sound like there is some huge work to be done. There
isn't. And no one has to step up to change the current situation, except
the council.
Are we that politics driven now?
If you feel so strongly about it,
On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 2:45 PM, Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org wrote:
Dnia 2015-02-06, o godz. 17:20:48
hasufell hasuf...@gentoo.org napisał(a):
Rich Freeman:
On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 11:59 AM, hasufell hasuf...@gentoo.org wrote:
Ben de Groot (yngwin):
yngwin 15/02/05 20:09:33
Dnia 2015-02-06, o godz. 17:20:48
hasufell hasuf...@gentoo.org napisał(a):
Rich Freeman:
On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 11:59 AM, hasufell hasuf...@gentoo.org wrote:
Ben de Groot (yngwin):
yngwin 15/02/05 20:09:33
Added:stockfish-6.ebuild metadata.xml Manifest ChangeLog
Michał Górny:
Dnia 2015-02-06, o godz. 17:20:48
hasufell hasuf...@gentoo.org napisał(a):
Rich Freeman:
On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 11:59 AM, hasufell hasuf...@gentoo.org wrote:
Ben de Groot (yngwin):
yngwin 15/02/05 20:09:33
Added:stockfish-6.ebuild metadata.xml
On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 11:59 AM, hasufell hasuf...@gentoo.org wrote:
Ben de Groot (yngwin):
yngwin 15/02/05 20:09:33
Added:stockfish-6.ebuild metadata.xml Manifest ChangeLog
Log:
Initial commit (bug #318337)
EAPI=5
inherit toolchain-funcs
This breaks
Rich Freeman:
On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 11:59 AM, hasufell hasuf...@gentoo.org wrote:
Ben de Groot (yngwin):
yngwin 15/02/05 20:09:33
Added:stockfish-6.ebuild metadata.xml Manifest ChangeLog
Log:
Initial commit (bug #318337)
EAPI=5
inherit toolchain-funcs
26 matches
Mail list logo
