With the 'proven' definition being repeated contributions, and
explicit in the previous email the view AT's are lesser, but can move
'up' to the level of an ebuild dev, back to this email...
On Tue, Sep 13, 2005 at 04:14:34AM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 23:01:20 -0400 Ale
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Mike Frysinger wrote:
> right ... once a GLEP has been hammered out and approved, there isnt really
> anything left for managers/council to do ... it's then up to whoever to get
> it done ;)
They *could* do some 'creative re-org' a.k.a. remove some
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
All-
Take a moment to say hi to our newest infra dev, Mark Mahle. Mark will
be helping out infra with web, security and nagios related things.
A little about mark, "I live in Silicon Valley, work insane hours and
have a 1 year old son. Times are cr
On Tue, 2005-09-13 at 04:14 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> | voting previleges
>
> Again, why? They have not yet demonstrated their understanding of
> complex technical issues. Voting should be restricted to people who
> know what they're doing. Arch testers have not yet proven themselves.
Grant Goodyear wrote:
> Patrick Lauer wrote: [Mon Sep 12 2005, 04:29:45PM CDT]
>
>>>I'm not quite sure what you're adding. GLEP 15 was approved quite some
>>>time ago. "All" that remains is to finish up the implementation.
>>
>>or rather move it from gentooexperimental.org to "official" gentoo
>
On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 22:51:38 -0500 Brian Harring <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| define exactly how one proves themself, and in what context.
Repeated good contributions.
| It's the arguement against (essentially) having AT's on the same
| level as ebuild devs, so it best be defined.
ATs are welcom
Top posting, since trying to make a point here in relation to
everything that follows from your email.
define exactly how one proves themself, and in what context.
It's the arguement against (essentially) having AT's on the same level
as ebuild devs, so it best be defined.
On Tue, Sep 13, 200
On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 23:01:20 -0400 Alec Warner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| I'm not confusing anything here. Arch Devs ( ala members of arch
| teams ) and Arch testers should be equal in terms of developer
| status.
Why? Arch testers *aren't* full developers. They may become them, but
they haven'
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 21:41:37 -0400 Alec Warner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> | And how is an "Arch Dev" different from say a member of devrel?
>
> Assuming by "arch dev" you mean "arch tester", then:
>
> Experience, commitme
On Monday 12 September 2005 10:13 pm, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 22:03:31 -0400 Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> | > Could we get GLEP 31 (Character Sets for Portage Tree Items) added?
> | > The only issue holding it back is that a few developers have stated
> | > outright tha
On Tue, Sep 13, 2005 at 12:50:47AM +0200, Stefaan wrote:
> Hi all!!
>
> Here's an issue Seemant and I have been struggling with, and doesn't
> seem as easy to solve as like touching one ebuild.
You're making the problem seem much larger than it is.
Pauldv and myself have been managing berkdb pret
On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 22:03:31 -0400 Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| > Could we get GLEP 31 (Character Sets for Portage Tree Items) added?
| > The only issue holding it back is that a few developers have stated
| > outright that they refuse to comply with it, and I don't see it as
| > fai
On Monday 12 September 2005 03:25 pm, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 21:04:10 +0200 Thierry Carrez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> | The deadline for agenda item submission is set to tomorrow, Tuesday,
> | September 13th, 1900 UTC. To submit an item, you can reply here or
> | send an email to [
On Monday 12 September 2005 06:00 pm, Grant Goodyear wrote:
> Patrick Lauer wrote: [Mon Sep 12 2005, 04:29:45PM CDT]
> > > I'm not quite sure what you're adding. GLEP 15 was approved quite some
> > > time ago. "All" that remains is to finish up the implementation.
> >
> > or rather move it from g
On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 21:41:37 -0400 Alec Warner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| And how is an "Arch Dev" different from say a member of devrel?
Assuming by "arch dev" you mean "arch tester", then:
Experience, commitment and (at least in theory) recruitment standards.
Stop confusing arch devs (who ha
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Stephen P. Becker wrote:
>> You're somehow implying that being an AT is not as good as being a dev.
>
>
> Wrong.
>
>> My understanding is that this GLEP is supposed to make AT as good as
>> being a dev, but with a different role, one that doesn't ne
maillog: 13/09/2005-00:50:47(+0200): Stefaan types
> So I'm wondering, what would be a clean solution for this problem?
The same way that gtk-1 / gtk-2 goes -- add a bunch of useflags and
force the package to use a particular version. :)
So for heimdal it becomes:
db1? ( sys-libs/db-1* )
!db1?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Stephen P. Becker wrote:
>> My understanding is that this GLEP is supposed to make AT as good as
>> being a dev, but with a different role, one that doesn't need commit
>> access.
>
>
> My point exactly! Why have another category?
Because their rol
You're somehow implying that being an AT is not as good as being a dev.
Wrong.
My understanding is that this GLEP is supposed to make AT as good as
being a dev, but with a different role, one that doesn't need commit
access.
My point exactly! Why have another category?
If the people invol
On Tue, 2005-09-13 at 15:55 +0900, Chris White wrote:
> So basically, Simon wants arch testers to become official devs (with
> limited
> restrictions). They've taken the staff quiz already, and he wants
> them to be
> officially @gentoo.org-ified and _read only_ access to the portage
> tree. If
On Tue, 2005-09-13 at 00:05 +0100, Daniel Drake wrote:
> I'm curious how much change this would involve for the people
> involved.
>
> Perhaps you could explain how the current system works (I presume from
> reading
> the GLEP that they _don't_ currently have commit access and havent
> taken any
On Tue, 2005-09-13 at 00:05 +0100, Daniel Drake wrote:
> Simon Stelling wrote:
> > This has been in the todo-list for quite a while, but finally it's done.
> > I'm curious what you think of it.
>
> I'm curious how much change this would involve for the people involved.
>
> Perhaps you could expl
This is a summary of maintainer-wanted packages which are tagged as
REVIEWED. Please take a few moments to glance over this list and see
if there are any packages which your herd would like.
The REVIEWED tag is used for ebuilds which have been checked for basic
syntax and style issues. It does NO
On Mon, 2005-09-12 at 19:53 -0400, Stephen P. Becker wrote:
> >>Let me clarify here. I'm not concerned about ATs having more privileges
> >>at all. I just want to know why if we're making them full developers
> >>for all intents and purposes, we don't go the extra step and get them
> >>commit acc
On Mon, 2005-09-12 at 19:34 -0400, Alec Warner wrote:
> For once agreeing with Ciaran, the less people who aren't seasoned
> developers with commit access the better? Some don't want commit
> access, most of them really don't need it. Those that want it can ask
> for it and take any requisite qui
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> And as for taking it as a PISSOFF... We've had exactly one person do
> that so far. All the rest of the feedback we receive -- which is a heck
> of a lot -- is of the "thanks for the pointers, please could someone
> check this
On Mon, 2005-09-12 at 18:47 -0400, Stephen P. Becker wrote:
>
> Let me clarify here. I'm not concerned about ATs having more
> privileges
> at all. I just want to know why if we're making them full developers
> for all intents and purposes, we don't go the extra step and get them
> commit acc
Let me clarify here. I'm not concerned about ATs having more privileges
at all. I just want to know why if we're making them full developers
for all intents and purposes, we don't go the extra step and get them
commit access after a probationary period? It seems like this is
supposed to be the
On Tuesday 13 September 2005 04:04, Thierry Carrez wrote:
> glep37: Virtuals Deprecation
Need to defer this one until next time. There's a couple of small changes
that need to be made, but enough that it'll need to go through the wringer
again.
--
Jason Stubbs
pgpwgSAKrvcHU.pgp
Description:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Stephen P. Becker wrote:
> Chris White wrote:
>
>> Alright, so here's what I think on the whole thing now that I made a
>> nice tidy [Summary] thread.
>>
>> There seems to be some concern about AT testers having more privileges
>> than some other devs
On Mon, 2005-09-12 at 18:47 -0400, Stephen P. Becker wrote:
> Chris White wrote:
> > Alright, so here's what I think on the whole thing now that I made a nice
> > tidy
> > [Summary] thread.
> >
> > There seems to be some concern about AT testers having more privileges than
> > some other devs.
Simon Stelling wrote:
This has been in the todo-list for quite a while, but finally it's done.
I'm curious what you think of it.
I'm curious how much change this would involve for the people involved.
Perhaps you could explain how the current system works (I presume from reading
the GLEP that
Hi all!!
Here's an issue Seemant and I have been struggling with, and doesn't
seem as easy to solve as like touching one ebuild.
Berkeley DB comes in many flavors. Judging by the slots in the
ebuilds (1, 3, 4, 4.1, 4.2, 4.3) there's many different interface
versions. This comes with the added f
Chris White wrote:
Alright, so here's what I think on the whole thing now that I made a nice tidy
[Summary] thread.
There seems to be some concern about AT testers having more privileges than
some other devs. First off, I hope everyone saw the readonly access, and
even so, the whole point of
Alright, so here's what I think on the whole thing now that I made a nice tidy
[Summary] thread.
There seems to be some concern about AT testers having more privileges than
some other devs. First off, I hope everyone saw the readonly access, and
even so, the whole point of this thing is to mak
Leave to gleps to make long threads ;).
So anyways, here's what the deal is so far:
Simon Stelling(blubb) starts out by producing the glep. For those of you that
have no idea, arch testers were something mainly promoted by the amd64 team.
Basically, arch testers are non gentoo devs that do ar
On Mon, 2005-09-12 at 17:46 -0400, Joseph Jezak wrote:
> We have 3 that have passed the quiz so far. Of those, 1 has become a
> dev.
W00t! Time to do some more recruiting, eh? ;)
--
Homer Parker
Gentoo/AMD64 Arch Tester Strategic Lead
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing
Patrick Lauer wrote: [Mon Sep 12 2005, 04:29:45PM CDT]
> > I'm not quite sure what you're adding. GLEP 15 was approved quite some
> > time ago. "All" that remains is to finish up the implementation.
> or rather move it from gentooexperimental.org to "official" gentoo
> infrastructure (?)
Ah, I s
Homer Parker wrote:
On Mon, 2005-09-12 at 23:02 +0200, Simon Stelling wrote:
As of now, amd64 has 20 ATs, 6 of them became devs, 1 is inactive. The
rest
stayed AT. The "oldest" of the remaining has been AT since February,
the
youngest since Aug 23, so I think it definitively is.
An
On Mon, 2005-09-12 at 15:53 -0500, Grant Goodyear wrote:
> Patrick Lauer wrote: [Mon Sep 12 2005, 03:08:53PM CDT]
> > I'd like to see the following items added:
> > glep 15: script repository (working prototype has existed for some time)
> I'm not quite sure what you're adding. GLEP 15 was approve
On Mon, 2005-09-12 at 23:02 +0200, Simon Stelling wrote:
>
> As of now, amd64 has 20 ATs, 6 of them became devs, 1 is inactive. The
> rest
> stayed AT. The "oldest" of the remaining has been AT since February,
> the
> youngest since Aug 23, so I think it definitively is.
And ppc has 3-4
On Mon, 2005-09-12 at 16:57 -0400, Stephen P. Becker wrote:
>
> If they don't want to become devs, then why give them more privileges
> than some devs get even?
What would that be?
--
Homer Parker
Gentoo/AMD64 Arch Tester Strategic Lead
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mail
On Mon, 2005-09-12 at 20:50 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> Could we get some numbers? How many arch testers have gone to become
> official developers? How many have disappeared without trace? How many
> stuck around but didn't do much?
This page has a list of all of the amd64 ATs, and cur
On Mon, 2005-12-09 at 20:50 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 21:39:48 +0200 Simon Stelling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> | This has been in the todo-list for quite a while, but finally it's
> | done. I'm curious what you think of it.
>
> Could we get some numbers? How many arch
On Mon, 2005-09-12 at 20:50 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 21:39:48 +0200 Simon Stelling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> | This has been in the todo-list for quite a while, but finally it's
> | done. I'm curious what you think of it.
>
> Could we get some numbers? How many arch
On Monday 12 September 2005 22:45, Homer Parker wrote:
> That's the way we've been handling it with the amd64 team for a
> while now, and it seems to work well. We have ATs that have no ambition of
> moving to dev. But, if a dev sees an AT with the skills, he approaches him
> about becoming
On Mon, Sep 12, 2005 at 09:39:48PM +0200, Simon Stelling wrote:
> Arch Testers should be treated as official Gentoo staff.
Reminds me of the forums glep - and as there, people working for
Gentoo should become part of the team.
cheers,
Wernfried
--
Wernfried Haas (amne) - amne at gentoo d
Stephen P. Becker wrote:
business and make them an arch dev. I guess what I'm *really* asking is
whether this GLEP is necessary?
As of now, amd64 has 20 ATs, 6 of them became devs, 1 is inactive. The rest
stayed AT. The "oldest" of the remaining has been AT since February, the
youngest since
Homer Parker wrote:
On Mon, 2005-09-12 at 16:30 -0400, Stephen P. Becker wrote:
I guess what I'm *really* asking is
whether this GLEP is necessary?
There are those that want to help, and so become an AT. The project has
worked well for amd64 and ppc, so we are proposing the GLEP to g
On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 21:39:48 +0200 Simon Stelling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| This has been in the todo-list for quite a while, but finally it's
| done. I'm curious what you think of it.
Could we get some numbers? How many arch testers have gone to become
official developers? How many have disapp
Patrick Lauer wrote: [Mon Sep 12 2005, 03:08:53PM CDT]
> I'd like to see the following items added:
> glep 15: script repository (working prototype has existed for some time)
I'm not quite sure what you're adding. GLEP 15 was approved quite some
time ago. "All" that remains is to finish up the i
Grant Goodyear wrote: [Mon Sep 12 2005, 03:28:58PM EDT]
> Yikes, that's short notice.
Sorry about that, the council is moving quickly on my account. I'll
be out of email contact for the second two weeks of September, leaving
this Saturday, so we're trying to squeeze the meeting in before then
On Mon, 2005-09-12 at 16:30 -0400, Stephen P. Becker wrote:
> I guess what I'm *really* asking is
> whether this GLEP is necessary?
There are those that want to help, and so become an AT. The project has
worked well for amd64 and ppc, so we are proposing the GLEP to get the
ATs recognized
On Mon, 2005-09-12 at 13:13 -0700, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
>
> Do you mean only users who wish to become arch devs need to be AT's?
> It
> reads as "all users who want to become devs must be ATs."
That's the way we've been handling it with the amd64 team for a while
now, and it seems to w
Donnie Berkholz wrote:
Additionally, the mentoring period should be shortened to two weeks if
an AT
wants to take the end quiz to become a developer, assuming he has been
AT for
at least two weeks. Users which want to become developers should also run
through the process of an AT. The amd64 por
Grant Goodyear wrote:
> Yikes, that's short notice. Of course, almost by definition the first
> meeting had to have a fairly limited amount of lead time. *Shrug* Any
> chance of getting a schedule for the next couple of meetings or so?
> (Actually, I'd be quite happy if the date of the next meet
Donnie Berkholz wrote:
Simon Stelling wrote:
Additionally, the mentoring period should be shortened to two weeks if
an AT
wants to take the end quiz to become a developer, assuming he has been
AT for
at least two weeks. Users which want to become developers should also run
through the process
Stephen P. Becker wrote:
developer recruits. The good ATs typically go on to be developers
anyway, no? This is sort of like how many companies like to hire you
for an internship the summer before you graduate, then full time when
you graduate if you were/are good enough.
That's what the amd
Simon Stelling wrote:
Additionally, the mentoring period should be shortened to two weeks if an AT
wants to take the end quiz to become a developer, assuming he has been AT for
at least two weeks. Users which want to become developers should also run
through the process of an AT. The amd64 portin
On Mon, 2005-09-12 at 21:04 +0200, Thierry Carrez wrote:
> Added by Grant Goodyear :
> glep40: Standardizing "arch" keywording across all archs
>
> Added by Brian Harring :
> glep33: Eclass Restructure/Redesign
> glep37: Virtuals Deprecation
>
I'd like to see the following items added:
glep 15: s
On Mon, 2005-09-12 at 21:39 +0200, Simon Stelling wrote:
> ATs should basically be treated as staff. This includes the following changes
> to the current situation:
>
> - Get a @gentoo.org email address
Personally think this might only be fair.
> - Get read-only access to the gentoo-x86 reposit
"Josh M. Anders" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
subscribe
This is not the proper way to subscribe to a gentoo mailing list. Please
see this page for the correct way to subscribe.
http://www.gentoo.org/main/en/lists.xml
Thank You
curtis119
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Not that I'm against this proposal necessarily, but it seems like this
is everything short of giving them commit access to the tree. Perhaps
the "arch tester" job could simply be made as a probationary period for
developer recruits. The good ATs typically go on to be developers
anyway, no? T
On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 21:04:10 +0200 Thierry Carrez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| The deadline for agenda item submission is set to tomorrow, Tuesday,
| September 13th, 1900 UTC. To submit an item, you can reply here or
| send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Could we get GLEP 31 (Character Sets for Por
Hi all,
This has been in the todo-list for quite a while, but finally it's done. I'm
curious what you think of it.
Have a nice day,
--
Simon Stelling
Gentoo/AMD64 Operational Co-Lead
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
GLEP: 41
Title: Making Arch Testers official Gentoo Staff
Version: $Revision: 1.1 $
Last-Mod
Marcin 'aye' Kryczek wrote:
> here's a patch for mplayer:
> http://darcs.frugalware.org/repos/frugalware-current/source/xapps/mplayer/mplayer-1.0pre7-lzo2.patch.bz2
> i was able to compile and run all mplayer's version from portage with it
> (with USE=lzo and lzo-2 installed ofcourse).
>
> i'll ke
Thierry Carrez wrote: [Mon Sep 12 2005, 02:04:10PM CDT]
> The first Gentoo Council meeting will be held Thursday, September 15th,
> at 1900 UTC.
>
> The deadline for agenda item submission is set to tomorrow, Tuesday,
> September 13th, 1900 UTC. To submit an item, you can reply here or send
> an e
The problem is, trying to fix ebuilds in tree is a lot more
complicated.. You have to fight with multiple herds, and multiple
developers, and explain to them why it should occur, in order to get
anything to happen.. In addition, even a global gigantic one liner to
add quotes to $D and $S would caus
On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 20:53:26 +0200 Carsten Lohrke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| On Monday 12 September 2005 19:56, Jakub Moc wrote:
| 1. The biggest share of maintenance isn't getting an ebuild right,
| but the ongoing effort keeping it up to date, applying patches,
| interact with upstream develope
Thierry Carrez wrote:
The first Gentoo Council meeting will be held Thursday, September 15th,
at 1900 UTC.
And the place?
Thanks,
Donnie
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Hello everyone,
You haven't heard much from the council members, we were busy trying to
find the best date for the first meeting...
The first Gentoo Council meeting will be held Thursday, September 15th,
at 1900 UTC.
The deadline for agenda item submission is set to tomorrow, Tuesday,
September
On Monday 12 September 2005 19:56, Jakub Moc wrote:
> Since you said above, that you really don't care if those user-submitted
> ebuilds will ever get into portage or will stay in maintainer-wanted queue
> forever and that's the stuff in portage that actually matters QA-wise, I'm
> missing why are
12.9.2005, 19:32:32, Carsten Lohrke wrote:
> To have even more unmaintained packages in the tree. The tree it is that
> needs QA. If "maintainer-wanted" bugs stay open forever - who cares.
[left for later reference]
> Thanks for the pointer. :p So from the user point of view it's better to fil
On Mon, 2005-09-12 at 13:00 -0400, Peter Hyman wrote:
> What I WOULD like to know is:
>
> 1) what IS the status of svyatogor and lanius?
svyatogor * gentoo/xml/htdocs/doc/ru/handbook/ (5 files):
handbook indices for x86, AMD64, and SPARC archs. Bug #101063.
Commit is done
This is from today.
On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 19:32:32 +0200 Carsten Lohrke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| On Monday 12 September 2005 19:03, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
| > The easiest way to improve those ebuilds' chances
| > of getting into the tree is by getting them up to a good enough
| > standard that whoever picks them up
On Monday 12 September 2005 19:03, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> The easiest way to improve those ebuilds' chances
> of getting into the tree is by getting them up to a good enough
> standard that whoever picks them up is very unlikely to have to do
> major extra work on them.
To have even more unmaint
I think you need to rethink that. Notifying a maintainer that there is
an update or new add on to an existing project is not really getting
involved. It's HELPING. I realize that maintainers cannot stay on top of
all 120,000 packages. That's where the everyday users come in. They,
selfishly, monit
On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 18:04:52 +0100
Ed W <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At the simplest this could be used to allow a non core developer to
> bump an ebuild to a new version in response to some release. It goes
> into the "highly unstable" section which shouldn't be seen by any
> normal person, yet
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> No. GuideXML URLs utterly suck. They're impossible to memorise and the
> second I changed anything every link would become invalid.
Please see our XML guide [1] - you can use "id" attribute and make links
like "file.xml#reboot".
[1] http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/xml-guide.
Peter Hyman wrote:
> 1) what IS the status of svyatogor and lanius?
I don't know if they are active or not, but you can always try to
*unofficially* check when did they last committed something to CVS -
[1], [2].
[1] http://cia.navi.cx/stats/author/svyatogor
[2] http://cia.navi.cx/stats/author/la
| Is there any possibility that easier low quality contribution makes
| the high quality contributions easier?
Only to the extent that they get me to write better documentation :)
| Look at wikipedia - it's amazing that such high quality work (in
| general) can come from lightly peer review m
On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 13:55:55 +0200 Carsten Lohrke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| On Monday 12 September 2005 02:25, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
| > If you're not up for having your code reviewed, don't contribute to
| > an open source project. No-one expects you to produce perfect code
| > straight off (a
On Mon, 2005-09-12 at 18:12 +0200, Martin Schlemmer wrote:
> On Mon, 2005-09-12 at 11:41 -0400, Peter Hyman wrote:
> > On Mon, 2005-09-12 at 16:28 +0200, Maurice van der Pot wrote:
> > > On Mon, Sep 12, 2005 at 10:03:17AM -0400, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> > > > Many users seem to think
> > > > that
On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 09:03:17 +0200 Martin Schlemmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| Looks good .. any chance you can stitch it up in a guide, and we can
| get it added somewhere ?
No. GuideXML URLs utterly suck. They're impossible to memorise and the
second I changed anything every link would become
On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 14:44:04 +0300 Ivan Yosifov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| licence.txt 11-Sep-2005 22:27 745
| license.txt 11-Sep-2005 22:27 745
|
| I guess one should go away.
It's a symlink. That way it works even if I accidentally forget to
misspell the URL when I
On Mon, 2005-09-12 at 11:41 -0400, Peter Hyman wrote:
> On Mon, 2005-09-12 at 16:28 +0200, Maurice van der Pot wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 12, 2005 at 10:03:17AM -0400, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> > > Many users seem to think
> > > that a WONTFIX is non-negotiable. I tend to agree with them, for the
> >
On Mon, 2005-09-12 at 10:38 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Monday 12 September 2005 08:58 am, Stephen P. Becker wrote:
> > > Hi, as I mentioned, I built LFS without this (and I have coreutils on
> > > it ;)
> > >
> > > Not at all - if we need to modify or create configure files during build
> >
On Mon, 2005-09-12 at 16:28 +0200, Maurice van der Pot wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 12, 2005 at 10:03:17AM -0400, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> > Many users seem to think
> > that a WONTFIX is non-negotiable. I tend to agree with them, for the
> > most part. Rather than WONTFIX them, simply tell them that th
On Monday 12 September 2005 08:58 am, Stephen P. Becker wrote:
> > Hi, as I mentioned, I built LFS without this (and I have coreutils on
> > it ;)
> >
> > Not at all - if we need to modify or create configure files during build
> > as Paul and Martin said ... we need autoconf/automake
>
> And furth
On Mon, Sep 12, 2005 at 10:03:17AM -0400, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> Many users seem to think
> that a WONTFIX is non-negotiable. I tend to agree with them, for the
> most part. Rather than WONTFIX them, simply tell them that they won't
> be included as-is. WONTFIX gives the user the impression t
12.9.2005, 16:03:17, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> Many users seem to think that a WONTFIX is non-negotiable. I tend to agree
> with them, for the most part. Rather than WONTFIX them, simply tell them that
> they won't be included as-is. WONTFIX gives the user the impression that we
> are not intere
On Mon, 2005-09-12 at 13:55 +0200, Carsten Lohrke wrote:
> On Monday 12 September 2005 02:25, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > If you're not up for having your code reviewed, don't contribute to an
> > open source project. No-one expects you to produce perfect code
> > straight off (at least, we don't un
On Mon, 2005-09-12 at 08:01 -0500, Brian Harring wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 12, 2005 at 02:13:43PM +0200, Frank Schafer wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I fought with a stage1 install during this weekend. Today in the morning
> > I succeeded.
> > I had to move a lot in /var/log/portage.
> >
> > For the content o
On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 08:01:29 -0500
Brian Harring <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You're seeing two logs due to the fact you have
> FEATURES="buildpkg" on;
No need to use buildpkg for that, the counter is always incremented
before pkg_postinst, creating a 2nd log for that phase (and then
pkg_*rm crea
On Mon, Sep 12, 2005 at 02:13:43PM +0200, Frank Schafer wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I fought with a stage1 install during this weekend. Today in the morning
> I succeeded.
> I had to move a lot in /var/log/portage.
>
> For the content of this directory I'd suggest the following:
>
> Remove the 4 digit numb
Hi, as I mentioned, I built LFS without this (and I have coreutils on
it ;)
Not at all - if we need to modify or create configure files during build
as Paul and Martin said ... we need autoconf/automake
And furthermore, many programs (or upstream authors if you prefer) are
braindead and don't
On Monday 12 September 2005 08:49 am, Frank Schafer wrote:
> On Mon, 2005-09-12 at 14:47 +0200, Henrik Brix Andersen wrote:
> > On Mon, 2005-09-12 at 14:41 +0200, Frank Schafer wrote:
> > > During ``emerge system'' python-fchksum failed with a not existing
> > > i386-pc-linux-gnu-gcc on a i686 syst
On Monday 12 September 2005 08:48 am, Frank Schafer wrote:
> On Mon, 2005-09-12 at 08:41 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On Monday 12 September 2005 08:26 am, Frank Schafer wrote:
> > > we meet often the (faulty) notion that autoconf/automake (even a couple
> > > of versions on gentoo) is a depend
On Mon, 2005-09-12 at 14:47 +0200, Henrik Brix Andersen wrote:
> On Mon, 2005-09-12 at 14:41 +0200, Frank Schafer wrote:
> > During ``emerge system'' python-fchksum failed with a not existing
> > i386-pc-linux-gnu-gcc on a i686 system. I don't know if python hard
> > codes the native compiler to th
On Mon, 2005-09-12 at 08:41 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Monday 12 September 2005 08:26 am, Frank Schafer wrote:
> > we meet often the (faulty) notion that autoconf/automake (even a couple
> > of versions on gentoo) is a dependency for packages.
>
> not quite sure what you mean by 'faulty', a
1 - 100 of 118 matches
Mail list logo
