Re: [gentoo-dev] linux-2.6.12

Mike Frysinger wrote: >On Saturday 18 June 2005 02:21 am, Andrew Muraco wrote: > > >>Mike Frysinger wrote: >> >> >>>On Saturday 18 June 2005 01:53 am, Andrew Muraco wrote: >>> >>> reiser4, pie/ssp hardened, etc >>>what would the mainline kernel care about ssp ?

Re: [gentoo-dev] linux-2.6.12

On Saturday 18 June 2005 02:21 am, Andrew Muraco wrote: > Mike Frysinger wrote: > >On Saturday 18 June 2005 01:53 am, Andrew Muraco wrote: > >>reiser4, pie/ssp hardened, etc > > > >what would the mainline kernel care about ssp ? > >-mike > > actually i dont know if they were talking about ssp/pie b

Re: [gentoo-dev] linux-2.6.12

Andrew Muraco wrote: keep your wity comments to yourself -lol i dont think ext3 is going anywhere for a long time.. I usually think this is why alot of people still rely on it. It's solid, and doesn't change very often, so people working in environments that require solid stability on Linu

Re: [gentoo-dev] linux-2.6.12

Mike Frysinger wrote: >On Saturday 18 June 2005 01:53 am, Andrew Muraco wrote: > > >>reiser4, pie/ssp hardened, etc >> >> > >what would the mainline kernel care about ssp ? >-mike > > actually i dont know if they were talking about ssp/pie but the correct term is SELinux (known to gentoo

Re: [gentoo-dev] linux-2.6.12

Kumba wrote: > Jason Wever wrote: > >> >> The ChangeLog[1] is your friend. Live it, love it, use it! >> >> [1] - http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v2.6/ChangeLog-2.6.12 > > > Thankfully, I see no mention of reiserfs4 in it. So we may yet be > spared another release before the post-processed

Re: [gentoo-dev] linux-2.6.12

On Saturday 18 June 2005 01:53 am, Andrew Muraco wrote: > reiser4, pie/ssp hardened, etc what would the mainline kernel care about ssp ? -mike -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] linux-2.6.12

Jason Wever wrote: The ChangeLog[1] is your friend. Live it, love it, use it! [1] - http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v2.6/ChangeLog-2.6.12 Thankfully, I see no mention of reiserfs4 in it. So we may yet be spared another release before the post-processed organic material hits the prov

Re: [gentoo-dev] linux-2.6.12

Jason Stubbs wrote: >On Saturday 18 June 2005 13:52, Andrew Muraco wrote: > > >>Mike Frysinger wrote: >> >> >>>On Saturday 18 June 2005 12:22 am, Andrew Muraco wrote: >>> >>> Linux-2.6.12 is officially out according to kernel.org Just an FYI for you all, and the vanilla-sourc

Re: [gentoo-dev] linux-2.6.12

On Sat, 18 Jun 2005 00:52:55 -0400 Andrew Muraco <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Im not expecting it to be added to the tree that quickly it hasnt even > been officially announced, i just wanted to get an idea of what it has > to offer once the articles start poping up :-P The ChangeLog[1] is your f

Re: [gentoo-dev] linux-2.6.12

On Saturday 18 June 2005 13:52, Andrew Muraco wrote: > Mike Frysinger wrote: > >On Saturday 18 June 2005 12:22 am, Andrew Muraco wrote: > >>Linux-2.6.12 is officially out according to kernel.org > >>Just an FYI for you all, and the vanilla-sources maintainers :) > > > >/me looks around ... nope, th

Re: [gentoo-dev] linux-2.6.12

Mike Frysinger wrote: >On Saturday 18 June 2005 12:22 am, Andrew Muraco wrote: > > >>Linux-2.6.12 is officially out according to kernel.org >>Just an FYI for you all, and the vanilla-sources maintainers :) >> >> > >/me looks around ... nope, this doesnt look like bugs.gentoo.org to me ... >-

Re: [gentoo-dev] linux-2.6.12

On Saturday 18 June 2005 12:22 am, Andrew Muraco wrote: > Linux-2.6.12 is officially out according to kernel.org > Just an FYI for you all, and the vanilla-sources maintainers :) /me looks around ... nope, this doesnt look like bugs.gentoo.org to me ... -mike -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

[gentoo-dev] linux-2.6.12

Linux-2.6.12 is officially out according to kernel.org I have not tried this, I'm waiting on an official announcement on slashdot or some other similar news site with a list of the major changes between 2.6.11 and 2.6.12 -- i heard that it might have reiser4 stock, but i can not confirm that. Just

Re: [gentoo-dev] Discussion: alternative compatible utilities

Aron Griffis wrote: [Thu Jun 16 2005, 09:32:26PM CDT] > I don't think that switching to g-prefixed commands for GNU utilities > is a good answer. We aren't going to be able to push that upstream, > which means maintaining a lot of patches ourselves. Within our own > developer body, we're going to

Re: [gentoo-dev] New GLEP draft: Status of forum moderators in the Gentoo project

On Fri, 2005-06-17 at 20:44 +0200, Christian Hartmann wrote: > Hi all, > > as some of you might already know we are working on a GLEP that is about > the status of forums moderators and admins in the gentoo project. The > main goal of the GLEP is to create a kind of quality assurance and to > ensu

Re: [gentoo-dev] Panda 3D licensing issues

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Sat, 18 Jun 2005, Chris White wrote: I was given a user submitted ebuild request for the package panda3d. However, upon reading the licesnse is it seems that it's one of those "sacrifice your newborn child and kill kittens" type licenses. Some

Re: [gentoo-dev] Panda 3D licensing issues

On 6/18/05, Chris White <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I was given a user submitted ebuild request for the package panda3d. > However, upon reading the licesnse is it seems that it's one of those > "sacrifice your newborn child and kill kittens" type licenses. Someone mind > going over it and ve

[gentoo-dev] Gentoo Forums Moderator Policies and Guidelines

In conjunction with the recent GLEP concerning Gentoo Forums becoming an official Gentoo Project the Forum team has released a new document entitled "Gentoo Forums Moderator Policies and Guidelines". A preview of this document is currently being hosted at http://curtis119.no-ip.org/forum-guide.xml

[gentoo-dev] Panda 3D licensing issues

I was given a user submitted ebuild request for the package panda3d. However, upon reading the licesnse is it seems that it's one of those "sacrifice your newborn child and kill kittens" type licenses. Someone mind going over it and verifying I'm not totally lost there: http://panda3d.org/man

Re: [gentoo-dev] New GLEP draft: Status of forum moderators in the Gentoo project

Haas Wernfried wrote: Theoretically the trustees can decide to do whatever they want with the forums. They probably won't, but if anyone else who may be affected by their decisions is allowed to vote, why shouldn't we? The metastructure poll is affecting the forums in terms of us not even knowin

Re: [gentoo-dev] New GLEP draft: Status of forum moderators in the Gentoo project

On Fri, Jun 17, 2005 at 01:29:32PM -0700, Rob Cakebread wrote: > I think the first sentence should say "staff" rather than "developer": There also was a little discussion on irc about this topic a few minutes ago. Please refer to this part of the glep: "In this document the term developer is used f

Re: [gentoo-dev] New GLEP draft: Status of forum moderators in the Gentoo project

On Fri, Jun 17, 2005 at 04:27:37PM -0400, Jonathan Smith wrote: > Jan Kundrát wrote: > > IMHO if you don't require moderators of Local Forums to accept and > > follow same guidelines as the global moderators, you're actually against > > the point of "Moderator as Gentoo authority". The main proble

Re: [gentoo-dev] New GLEP draft: Status of forum moderators in the Gentoo project

Christian Hartmann wrote: Feedback is highly appreciated. Feedback: I think the first sentence should say "staff" rather than "developer": "Global moderators and site admins should also go through the mentoring process and become official Gentoo developers." Overall it sounds like a good i

Re: [gentoo-dev] New GLEP draft: Status of forum moderators in the Gentoo project

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Jan Kundrát wrote: > Christian Hartmann wrote: > >>Feedback is highly appreciated. > > > IMHO if you don't require moderators of Local Forums to accept and > follow same guidelines as the global moderators, you're actually against > the point of "Mo

Re: [gentoo-dev] New GLEP draft: Status of forum moderators in the Gentoo project

Christian Hartmann wrote: > Feedback is highly appreciated. IMHO if you don't require moderators of Local Forums to accept and follow same guidelines as the global moderators, you're actually against the point of "Moderator as Gentoo authority". Same applies for current moderators. I think that i

[gentoo-dev] New GLEP draft: Status of forum moderators in the Gentoo project

Hi all, as some of you might already know we are working on a GLEP that is about the status of forums moderators and admins in the gentoo project. The main goal of the GLEP is to create a kind of quality assurance and to ensure that upcoming moderators know about the forums guidelines. Furthermore

Re: [gentoo-dev] splitting one source package into many binaries

Thomas de Grenier de Latour wrote: On Thu, 16 Jun 2005 13:50:47 -0300 Rafael Espíndola <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Has someone worked on changing ebuild so that it could create many binary packages from one source? And that's it. Sorry for the long email, writing it made me think of a

Re: [gentoo-dev] Discussion: alternative compatible utilities

On Friday 17 June 2005 04:32, Aron Griffis wrote: > Before working on a solution to the problem, could we get a more > complete list of the tools in question? This has come up before but > the list seems to always end with "etc etc" ;-) Because I don't really know how many applications are availab

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: splitting one source package into many binaries

On Fri, 2005-06-17 at 01:21 -0700, Duncan wrote: > The client/server thing is a concern for me here, as well, for security > reasons. If I don't have an SSH server merged, it can't inadvertently > be turned on somehow. SSH is apparently a dependency for something I have > merged, and currently, i

Re: [gentoo-dev] Discussion: alternative compatible utilities

Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:[Thu Jun 16 2005, 01:57:14AM EDT] > Let me explain: on Gentoo/Linux systems, all the base utilities > (make, tar, sed, etc etc) are GNUish Before working on a solution to the problem, could we get a more complete list of the tools in question? This has come up befo

Re: [gentoo-dev] List of aging ebuilds?

On Fri, 2005-06-17 at 12:32 +0200, Markus Nigbur wrote: > On Thursday 16 June 2005 18:14, Rob Cakebread wrote: > > Anyone have the source for the package aging list? > > > > http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/23231 > > > > Maybe we can find a new server to run it on? > > I've asked

Re: [gentoo-dev] splitting one source package into many binaries

On Thu, 16 Jun 2005 13:50:47 -0300 Rafael Espíndola <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Has someone worked on changing ebuild so that it could create > many binary packages from one source? A less intrusive solution (well, i think, although it would still be an important change) would be to have some k

Re: [gentoo-dev] List of aging ebuilds?

On Thursday 16 June 2005 18:14, Rob Cakebread wrote: > Anyone have the source for the package aging list? > > http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/23231 > > Maybe we can find a new server to run it on? I've asked that myself every now and then. aliz seems lost.. Guess we/I should reco

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Questions about licenses

On 16/06/05, Marius Mauch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, 17 Jun 2005 00:12:30 +0200 > Torsten Veller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Ok, here is a license: > > I couldn't decide if this one is present already. > > All i have checked are slightl

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: splitting one source package into many binaries

On Fri, Jun 17, 2005 at 01:21:22AM -0700, Duncan wrote: > reasons. If I don't have an SSH server merged, it can't inadvertently > be turned on somehow. SSH is apparently a dependency for something I have I'm all in favor of server vs. client flexibility but this example is kinda bogus. Assuming

[gentoo-dev] Re: splitting one source package into many binaries

Yuri Vasilevski posted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, excerpted below, on Thu, 16 Jun 2005 13:20:44 -0500: >> So I think it may be good for some packages to be split in several >> packages (but right now I can't think of any), but I think it'll be much >> better introduce more granularity into many ebuils

[gentoo-dev] Re: splitting one source package into many binaries

Yuri Vasilevski posted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, excerpted below, on Thu, 16 Jun 2005 13:20:44 -0500: > So I think it may be good for some packages to be split in several > packages (but right now I can't think of any), but I think it'll be much > better introduce more granularity into many ebuils wit

[gentoo-dev] Re: splitting one source package into many binaries

Rafael Ávila de Espíndola posted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, excerpted below, on Thu, 16 Jun 2005 19:51:54 -0300: > X might also be a candidate, but > I think that in this case it is better to help xorg to do the split. FWIW, xorg is already headed in that direction. Their next release is intended to