On Wed, Mar 22, 2006 at 08:20:01PM -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Wednesday 22 March 2006 19:59, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> > On Mar 22, 2006, at 4:13 PM, Olivier Crete wrote:
> > > If modular X is used and gnome-base/control-center is not
> > > patched..
> > > gnome-settings-daemon on some ev
On Wednesday 22 March 2006 19:59, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> On Mar 22, 2006, at 4:13 PM, Olivier Crete wrote:
> > If modular X is used and gnome-base/control-center is not
> > patched..
> > gnome-settings-daemon on some evdev combinations...
> >
> > Not sure if that's a blocker... but we should
On Mar 22, 2006, at 4:13 PM, Olivier Crete wrote:
If modular X is used and gnome-base/control-center is not
patched..
gnome-settings-daemon on some evdev combinations...
Not sure if that's a blocker... but we should rush in a new version of
control-center with the patch
Nah, not a blo
On Wed, 2006-22-03 at 15:16 -0800, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> There aren't really any remaining blockers to keep modular X out of
> ~arch, as far as I can see.
>
> If anyone's got one, please bring it up now. I'm planning to unmask
> later tonight.
If modular X is used and gnome-ba
Hi all,
There aren't really any remaining blockers to keep modular X out of
~arch, as far as I can see.
If anyone's got one, please bring it up now. I'm planning to unmask
later tonight.
Thanks,
Donnie
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
(re-sending as I sent from the wrong account)
On Wed, 2006-03-22 at 19:42 +0100, Stefan Schweizer wrote:
> On 3/22/06, Donnie Berkholz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > This definitely sounds like a fun idea. It would be even cooler if we
> > were using a distributed SCM on both ends that allowed for
> This definitely sounds like a fun idea. It would be even cooler if we
> were using a distributed SCM on both ends that allowed for easy merging.
>
> Donnie
It's probably the right time for me to flesh out what I've been
planning for overlays.g.o.
The vision I have for overlays.g.o is one offici
On 3/22/06, Donnie Berkholz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This definitely sounds like a fun idea. It would be even cooler if we
> were using a distributed SCM on both ends that allowed for easy merging.
I think it should be all in a central place possibly saved with
GPG-Keys that need to be signed
On Wed, 2006-03-22 at 09:03 -0800, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> Stuart Herbert wrote:
> > I've been very happy with using svn+trac overlays to bridge this gap.
> > They provide a sandbox for contributions to be shared and evaluated.
> > They provide a place where I've been able to give commit access
On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 09:03:38 -0800 Donnie Berkholz
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| This definitely sounds like a fun idea. It would be even cooler if we
| were using a distributed SCM on both ends that allowed for easy
| merging.
Word of warning to anyone planning to implement one of these that
inclu
On Wednesday 22 March 2006 12:03, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> Stuart Herbert wrote:
> > I've been very happy with using svn+trac overlays to bridge this gap.
> > They provide a sandbox for contributions to be shared and evaluated.
> > They provide a place where I've been able to give commit access to
Stuart Herbert wrote:
> I've been very happy with using svn+trac overlays to bridge this gap.
> They provide a sandbox for contributions to be shared and evaluated.
> They provide a place where I've been able to give commit access to
> non-devs, so that they can learn the ropes w/out threatening
This is the summary of the IRC meeting the Gentoo Linux Security Team had on
Monday, March 20, 20:00 UTC in #gentoo-security (freenode).
A raw IRC log of the meeting can be found here:
http://dev.gentoo.org/~dercorny/security/sec-meeting-20060320.log
Agenda was:
---
1/ Project status
On Wed, 2006-03-22 at 09:15 -0500, Dan Meltzer wrote:
> Asking developers to "proxy" takes almost as much time as it does to
> ask them to maintain a package by themselves. The developer is
> directly responsible for anything he commits, so he will have to still
> test the ebuild, still test any r
Hi Daniel,
On 3/20/06, Daniel Drake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> One of the bigger problems is that we have a huge user community who are
> keen on contributing, but we have such a high barrier for entry to the
> developer community. Quite rightly so - we're dealing with a live tree,
> so we can't
Asking developers to "proxy" takes almost as much time as it does to
ask them to maintain a package by themselves. The developer is
directly responsible for anything he commits, so he will have to still
test the ebuild, still test any revisions, and still follow the
package to make sure there are
> The process for getting unstable ebuilds from bugzilla to portage could
> even be automated to the extent that when an ebuild is put into
> bugzilla it gets auto committed to the tree but masked unstable.
I don't think that auto committing user submitted ebuilds is safe,
even if they are masked.
> > A developer could then take these ebuilds, make sure they
> > don't do anything malicious, or break QA, or whatever, and act as the
> > bridge between the portage tree and the users actually working on the
> > ebuild and keeping things up to date and working.
> The easiest way to handle "contr
On 3/22/06, Duncan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> A possible alternative that could be rolled out sooner would be some form
> of "contrib" eclass. Make it a simple matter to inherit contrib and get
> the standard contrib warnings and handling. One thing the eclass could
> handle would be a USE=cont
Jonathan Coome posted
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, excerpted below,
on Wed, 22 Mar 2006 10:49:29 +:
> Taking this idea a bit further, what about proxy maintainers? There seem
> to be quite a few packages that are being effectively maintained by
> users on bugzilla, but are not in portage because they
On Mon, 2006-03-20 at 15:45 -0800, Bret Towe wrote:
> perhaps having some proxys of a sort that accept patchs and such
> from trusted users that would commit fixes to portage would help.
> similiar to the kernel format that way users can 'commit'/help out quickly
> without having to go thru the lon
21 matches
Mail list logo
