I took a look at FreeBSD and Mozilla, two open-source projects that I
think do a great job, and wrote down some observations. I combined them
with a bunch of information from their sites and from some papers
written about them.
I attached a bunch of conclusions that may be useful in figuring out
s
See the attached text file. It didn't want to paste well.
Some of them are more ideas than set-in-stone goals, so keep that in
mind.
Thanks,
Donnie
Gentoo desktop goals for 2005
=
=
Leads: Donnie Berkholz, Brandon Hale
Overall goals
==
On Monday 17 January 2005 12:43 am, Roman Gaufman wrote:
> Sorry if I annoyed anyone, its a very real problem indeed.
e-mail threads tend to blow up fast
sometimes we need to stop, take a breath, and give each other great big man
(non-gay) hugs
-mike
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 22:37:13 -0500, Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sunday 16 January 2005 10:26 pm, Roman Gaufman wrote:
> > You didnt get it, did you. For the record, you just wasted as much
> > time. Congrats.
>
> what i dont get is why the fuck you're still here
>
> you've miss
On Sunday 16 January 2005 10:26 pm, Roman Gaufman wrote:
> You didnt get it, did you. For the record, you just wasted as much
> time. Congrats.
what i dont get is why the fuck you're still here
you've missed the obvious points of why the kde breakup wont work well for the
smaller arch teams ...
On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 22:18:57 -0500, Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sunday 16 January 2005 10:13 pm, Roman Gaufman wrote:
> > There is an old russian joke about this:
>
> well i'm glad you feel the need to waste our time with your crap
> -mike
You didnt get it, did you. For the rec
Hi,
This is an automatically created email message.
http://gentoo.tamperd.net/stable has just been updated with 9940 ebuilds.
The page shows results from a number of tests that are run against the ebuilds.
The tests are:
* if a version has been masked for 30 days or more.
* if an arch was in KEY
On Sunday 16 January 2005 10:13 pm, Roman Gaufman wrote:
> There is an old russian joke about this:
well i'm glad you feel the need to waste our time with your crap
-mike
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 21:59:20 -0500, Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sunday 16 January 2005 09:15 pm, Roman Gaufman wrote:
> > Quote from above "./configure will be cached by the time the
> > monolithic packages are removed" -- What part of that needs
> > clarifying?
>
> and i can sa
On Sunday 16 January 2005 09:15 pm, Roman Gaufman wrote:
> Quote from above "./configure will be cached by the time the
> monolithic packages are removed" -- What part of that needs
> clarifying?
and i can say 'gentoo will bootstrap in 10 minutes' but it wouldnt make it
true
-mike
--
gentoo-dev@
Also, Dan, isnt it possible to make the separate packages inherit
keywords from their related metapackage? - or do we need the
flexibility for each of them to have different keywords?
On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 02:37:27 +, Roman Gaufman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 21:29:34 -0500,
On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 21:29:34 -0500, Stephen P. Becker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Anyway, if anybody actually has something useful to say, perhaps from
> users or developers that have a clue, we'd like to hear from you.
> Otherwise, I declare this thread over. We're dropping kde on mips if
> the
> Read my last email, and stop being an idiot.
You misunderstood me. You run a script to keyword packages referenced
in the kde*-meta ebuilds. Once you've emerged the kde^-meta package in
question - you automatically tested all the ebuilds you are about to
keyword. Its no different than keywording
> re-consider your statement about how you see no
> difference in testing KDE over those ABIs (and even different endians).
No, thats not what I said. I said I see no difference testing kde-meta
compared to testing monolithic kde. How is it different to the mips
team to emerge kdebase compared to
Anyway, if anybody actually has something useful to say, perhaps from
users or developers that have a clue, we'd like to hear from you.
Otherwise, I declare this thread over. We're dropping kde on mips if
the monolithic ebuilds are dropped, end of story.
Steve
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing
Roman Gaufman wrote:
Heh, you obviously have failed to grasp that repoman still has to scan
hundreds of ebuilds, which takes a very long time, during which somebody
else might commit one of these ebuilds before repoman gets to it, thus
fouling everything up if you aren't at the computer to catch it
Roman Gaufman wrote:
I was under the impression repoman can commit changes to tree, not per
ebuild. In any case, feel free to edit the script to run repoman for
you. I'm sure it will finish over night without your presence at the
PC. - so no trouble at all.
repoman can do commits on a per-ebuild ba
>Heh, you obviously have failed to grasp that repoman still has to scan
>hundreds of ebuilds, which takes a very long time, during which somebody
>else might commit one of these ebuilds before repoman gets to it, thus
>fouling everything up if you aren't at the computer to catch it. And
>that is a
Roman Gaufman wrote:
On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 21:17:52 -0500, Kumba <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I've always grasped the concept of keywording multiple packages in rapid
fashion.
What you fail to grasp is proper QA. As a developer, one does not just go
keyword happy and commit to CVS - One has to test *
On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 21:17:52 -0500, Kumba <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I've always grasped the concept of keywording multiple packages in rapid
> fashion.
>
> What you fail to grasp is proper QA. As a developer, one does not just go
> keyword happy and commit to CVS - One has to test *each* and
On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 21:11:17 -0500, Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sunday 16 January 2005 08:38 pm, Roman Gaufman wrote:
> > Considered, and I still dont see how that applies to kde vs kde-meta.
> > ./configure will be cached by the time the monolithic packages are
> > removed, but
I was under the impression repoman can commit changes to tree, not per
ebuild. In any case, feel free to edit the script to run repoman for
you. I'm sure it will finish over night without your presence at the
PC. - so no trouble at all.
Heh, you obviously have failed to grasp that repoman still has
Roman Gaufman wrote:
Bah!
for i in $(cat kdebase-meta-3.4.0_beta1.ebuild | grep -o "kde-base.*)"
| sed 's/)//'); do sed -i 's/~mips/mips/'
/usr/portage/$i/$i-3.4.0_beta1.ebuild ; done
There, a simple 1 liner I wrote in 10 seconds to properly keyword all
packages owned by kdebase. Where is the pro
On Sunday 16 January 2005 08:38 pm, Roman Gaufman wrote:
> Considered, and I still dont see how that applies to kde vs kde-meta.
> ./configure will be cached by the time the monolithic packages are
> removed, but other than that temporary problem, those points are
> redundant and apply to kde as mu
On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 20:58:19 -0500, Stephen P. Becker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Roman Gaufman wrote:
> > Here is the same script, more human readable and configurable:
> >
> > P=kdebase-meta
> > V=3.4.0_beta1
> >
> > for i in $(cat /usr/portage/kde-base/$P/$P-$V.ebuild | grep -o
> > "kde-base.*)
Roman Gaufman wrote:
Here is the same script, more human readable and configurable:
P=kdebase-meta
V=3.4.0_beta1
for i in $(cat /usr/portage/kde-base/$P/$P-$V.ebuild | grep -o
"kde-base.*)" | sed 's/)//')
do
sed -i 's/~mips/mips/' /usr/portage/$i/`basename $i`-$V.ebuild
done
Enjoy,
Roman
Key
Here is the same script, more human readable and configurable:
P=kdebase-meta
V=3.4.0_beta1
for i in $(cat /usr/portage/kde-base/$P/$P-$V.ebuild | grep -o
"kde-base.*)" | sed 's/)//')
do
sed -i 's/~mips/mips/' /usr/portage/$i/`basename $i`-$V.ebuild
done
Enjoy,
Roman
On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 01
On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 20:09:34 -0500, Kumba <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Roman Gaufman wrote:
> >
> > How is it different to emerge kde and report bugs? If the mics team
> > doesnt do that they they dont support the monolithic ebuilds either.
>
> 1) The mips team comprises about ~4-5 active devs, wi
Roman Gaufman wrote:
How is it different to emerge kde and report bugs? If the mics team
doesnt do that they they dont support the monolithic ebuilds either.
1) The mips team comprises about ~4-5 active devs, with ~3-4 more devs on the
side that contribute when they have the time to spare.
2) Of
Hi,
On Sat, 2005-01-15 at 14:59 +, John Mylchreest wrote:
> Who actually owns multisync?
According to metadata it is owned by Troy Dack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, but
according to the CIA [1], tad's last commit was on March 30, 2004.
> if no one owns up then does anyone object to me looking after
On Sunday 16 January 2005 07:39 pm, Roman Gaufman wrote:
> How is it different to emerge kde and report bugs? If the mics team
> doesnt do that they they dont support the monolithic ebuilds either.
we dont want to have to edit 400+ ebuilds and add 'mips' to each one
> I dont mean to be rude, but
On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 19:26:02 -0500, Stephen P. Becker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Well, you can expect the arch teams to run an emerge kde-meta for the
> > masked ebuilds and atleast report bugs, no?
>
> Don't know about the other arches, but not the mips team.
How is it different to emerge
Well, you can expect the arch teams to run an emerge kde-meta for the
masked ebuilds and atleast report bugs, no?
Don't know about the other arches, but not the mips team.
Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but you apply the patches when you
extract the source. If exactly the same source package is ex
At 03:19 PM 1/16/2005, you wrote:
On Saturday 15 January 2005 13:48, Michiel de Bruijne wrote:
I have compared vmware-linux-tools.tar.gz from gsx-3.1.0-build9089 and
ws-4.5.2-build8848.
It seems like VMware haven't maintained the vmware-linux-tools for some time,
because the precompiled modules ar
Hi,
On Sun, 2005-01-16 at 22:23 +0100, Thomas de Grenier de Latour wrote:
> I would like to have some opinions about ebuilds that install both
> some kernel modules and some userspace binaries. Some examples i
> know because i use them are:
A similar issue is ebuilds installing both kernel module
On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 17:55:40 -0500, Stephen P. Becker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Well, after discussion among the other mips folks, we are of the opinion
> that if the monolithic kde ebuilds are removed, then we just won't
> maintain kde on our arch anymore. You just can't expect some of these
>
On Saturday 15 January 2005 13:48, Michiel de Bruijne wrote:
> On Saturday 15 January 2005 04:39, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> > If you could test compatibility, that would be awesome and would help
> > out quite a bit. I also need to see what MattM is going to be doing, as
> > he just joined onto th
On Sun, 2005-01-16 at 21:42 +, John Mylchreest wrote:
> > So what do you think? Could "Do not mix kernelspace and userspace"
> > become a new ebuild guideline, or not? And would you be interested
> > if i start working on some splitted ebuilds for the above cited
> > packages?
>
> One thing I
Dan Armak wrote:
Hi all,
As of yesterday, the 'split' KDE ebuilds for 3.4.0_beta1 are in portage. Split
ebuilds means instead of 15 ebuilds the size of kdebase, you get some 350
small ebuilds for konqueror and so forth. There's more info at
http://dev.gentoo.org/~danarmak/kde-split-ebuilds.html
Hi,
Just a quick email to say that it's now possible to register online for the
Gentoo UK 2005 Conference, which will be held on Sat 12th March at the
University of Salford.
http://dev.gentoo.org/~stuart/2005/
There are still two 1-hour slots open if anyone else wishes to speak at the
event.
> The simplest, but ugliest, solution i can think of would be to add
> a "nomodule" USE flag to this ebuilds. A better approach would be
> to split them in two different ebuilds. For instance, slmodem
> could be split into "slmodem-module" and "slmodemd", with a
> "!alsa? ( ~net-dialup/slmodem-modu
I wont go into this too much right now, since I am a little strapped for
time, but.
Both of these situations are being accounted for, and will be addressed
soon.
If you would like more of a chat about it, please drop by IRC and msg
me :)
On Sun, 2005-01-16 at 16:34 -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> O
On Sunday 16 January 2005 04:23 pm, Thomas de Grenier de Latour wrote:
> I would like to have some opinions about ebuilds that install both
> some kernel modules and some userspace binaries.
hasnt this come up before ?
-mike
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Hi,
I would like to have some opinions about ebuilds that install both
some kernel modules and some userspace binaries. Some examples i
know because i use them are:
- app-misc/lirc
- net-dialup/slmodem
- sys-fs/fuse
- net-fs/shfs
(but i guess there are probably others)
I have to admit that i'
M. Edward Borasky wrote:
On Sun, 2005-01-16 at 14:33 +, Stuart Herbert wrote:
There *is* a lot to understand about the impact of switching on a particular
USE flag. It means that the user has to make a choice. The user has to
decide whether to just switch it on and say "what the hell", o
On Sun, 2005-01-16 at 14:33 +, Stuart Herbert wrote:
> There *is* a lot to understand about the impact of switching on a particular
> USE flag. It means that the user has to make a choice. The user has to
> decide whether to just switch it on and say "what the hell", or they have to
> look
On Sun, 2005-01-16 at 18:17 +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> | As I also suggested in a previous post, if you can think of a more
> | intuitive way for the user to be able to do this, without the use of a
> | USE flag which is persistent and doesn't involved an external file,
> | please. Let me know
On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 17:30:41 + John Mylchreest <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| > I'll also be petitioning for USE flags to control whether or not
| > each individual icon graphic gets installed with sylpheed-claws. I
| > don't use some of those icons, so including them is bloat.
|
| I think there
On Saturday 15 January 2005 07:03 am, Jason Stubbs wrote:
> I don't know if gcc's (mis-)use of dynamic SLOTs falls
> into this category but, some packages simply require this functionality so
> it's not always frowned upon. Having said that, if there is a way to stay
> within the curren
On Sun, 2005-01-16 at 09:25 -0500, Dan Meltzer wrote:
> I Tend to feel that the use flags are necessary, and heres a bit of an
> example.
>
> The English Language has millions of words in it, yet people never
> complain that there are too many. Why? Because they only use the ones
> they need, th
On Sun, 2005-01-16 at 16:53 +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>
> What next? A USE flag for every single features setting in vim? That'd
> be over a hundred and thirty new USE flags (ooh, and since both vim and
> gvim use them, they'd be globals of course), and since USE flags are
> great this would b
On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 14:33:36 + Stuart Herbert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| > In my opinion it shouldn't be added in the first place, if it's a
| > sensible feature it should be default. If it's not, well let the
| > vocal minority yell at you for a while, that's gonna happen at one
| > point or
On Sat, 2005-01-15 at 13:59 -0800, M. Edward Borasky wrote:
> Maybe if I tell you what I'm trying to build, this will make more sense.
> I'm trying to build a LiveCD that comes up with Gentoo Linux the same
> way Knoppix and Knoppix derivatives come up with Debian, mostly testing
> but some unstabl
On Saturday 15 January 2005 15:38, Nicholas Jones wrote:
> > Umm... the list ends in the same behavior that -r12 gives. Adding
> > app-editors/nano to the Installed list will show the change in behavior
> > that -r13 brings.
>
> There are differences in variations. Specifically U+I v
On Sunday 16 January 2005 13:33, foser wrote:
> What you call tight I call well defined. It is no help to shift meanings
> based on interpretations or situations, it only adds to the confusion.
Who exactly is confused, and what are they confused about?
> What you forget is that you are a develope
I Tend to feel that the use flags are necessary, and heres a bit of an example.
The English Language has millions of words in it, yet people never
complain that there are too many. Why? Because they only use the ones
they need, the same should be true with use flags.
The only improvement I could
Georgi Georgiev ha scritto:
[snip]
Works fine on amd64. I even added:
@@ -753,6 +758,17 @@
# Compile the VIA driver
# echo "#define XF86ExtraCardDrivers via" >> ${HOSTCONF}
+ elif use amd64; then
+ use_build amd64 Has
On Sat, 2005-01-15 at 17:44 +, Stuart Herbert wrote:
> Why does "package" have to equal "source"? Why can't package equal "Gentoo
> package"?
>
> And why do you feel the need to make your definition so ... tight?
> Restrictive? Unimaginiative? Beaurocratic? What benefit do our users get
Sven Vermeulen ha scritto:
On Sat, Jan 15, 2005 at 10:09:36PM +, Roman Gaufman wrote:
Depclean cannot unmerge important packages unless:
1) emerge path-to-ebuild was used (no longer possible)
2) user deleted/broken world file (user deserves what he gets ;] )
3) acl use flag removed after re-
Here are the proposed objectives for the Security Project in 2005 :
- Recruit new team members
It's very important to increase the size of our team, to ensure
that Gentoo will keep offering the same high level of security watch at
all times, to better spread the load and to allow team members to t
maillog: 14/01/2005-00:07:58(-0800): Donnie Berkholz types
> The subject says it all. It's just keyworded ~x86 for now, because I
> like giving the arch folks a chance to test it out before it gets thrown
> into their ~arch and breaks X.
>
> Give it a try and see how things go. If you have configu
On Sat, Jan 15, 2005 at 10:09:36PM +, Roman Gaufman wrote:
> Depclean cannot unmerge important packages unless:
> 1) emerge path-to-ebuild was used (no longer possible)
> 2) user deleted/broken world file (user deserves what he gets ;] )
> 3) acl use flag removed after re-compiling system
>
>
62 matches
Mail list logo
