Duncan wrote:
> The Gentoo-desktop list is lower volume and generally where I ask
> (developer level) questions about anything so related, KDE, GNOME, burning
> CD/DVDs, sometimes sound issues, etc. Again, that's a developer list not
> a general user list, but it's low enough volume and generally
060404 Diego 'Flameeyes' Petten? wrote:
> KDE 3.5.0 required more patches than usual to get to an usable state,
> KDE 3.5.1 was a bit better but still some patches were needed,
> KDE 3.5.2 is in portage since less than a month, and already
> had a few patches with revbumps to few memleaks and crash
On Tuesday 04 April 2006 01:34, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Tue, 4 Apr 2006 01:12:28 -0400 Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> | if devs are uncomfortable with common courtesy and need to be told by
> | the council in order for this to happen, so be it
>
> When some people define common courtesy
m h posted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
excerpted below, on Mon, 03 Apr 2006 15:25:56 -0800:
> Diego -
>
> Thanks for the response.
>
> Steve-
>
> Sorry to abuse the list. Feel free to point me to the correct place to
> post this. I noticed it in the forums a few times without any answer.
Diego got
On Monday 03 April 2006 19:35, Aron Griffis wrote:
> This part makes sense, I think... though I don't see the point of
> codifying it except to "throw the book" at the next Paludis. Frankly
> I think Ciaran did nothing wrong to restrict distribution on a project
> he didn't feel was ready for pub
On Tuesday 04 April 2006 01:23, lnxg33k wrote:
> Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > the idea is that it's common sense and to need to vote on something like
> > this seems asinine
> >
> > if devs are uncomfortable with common courtesy and need to be told by the
> > council in order for this to happen, so be
On Tue, 4 Apr 2006 01:12:28 -0400 Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| if devs are uncomfortable with common courtesy and need to be told by
| the council in order for this to happen, so be it
When some people define common courtesy to be saying "You are a dick"
and making spurious complain
On Tuesday 04 April 2006 01:03, lnxg33k wrote:
> Jon Portnoy wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 03, 2006 at 09:47:11PM -0500, lnxg33k wrote:
> >> uncomfortable or threatened is not a productive one." This is odd
> >> considering that the OP calls anyone who disagrees a terrorist. I'm
> >> pretty speechless ove
On Monday 03 April 2006 19:35, Aron Griffis wrote:
> I disagree with fast-tracking this to any official Gentoo
> documentation.
i never used the word "fast" ... where did it come from ? maybe from the
sweet behind of yours ? (you're going to be at LWE this year right ?
mm)
> > Be c
Mike Frysinger wrote:
the idea is that it's common sense and to need to vote on something like this
seems asinine
if devs are uncomfortable with common courtesy and need to be told by the
council in order for this to happen, so be it
hopefully devs will just "get it"
Again, I'm just a user
On Monday 03 April 2006 22:57, Grant Goodyear wrote:
> Vapier wrote: [Mon Apr 03 2006, 04:38:48PM CDT]
>
> > i dont see how anyone can be against this (unless you're a terrorist!),
> > so this is on track to be integrated as-is into the dev handbook
> > Etiquette section
>
> Oh, one more probably u
On Monday 03 April 2006 22:19, Grant Goodyear wrote:
> Vapier wrote: [Mon Apr 03 2006, 04:38:48PM CDT]
>
> > dont get me wrong, i hate documenting common sense as much as the next
> > sane guy, but it seems Gentoo has come to the point where this needs to
> > be done
>
> Actually, I disagree that i
Jon Portnoy wrote:
On Mon, Apr 03, 2006 at 09:47:11PM -0500, lnxg33k wrote:
uncomfortable or threatened is not a productive one." This is odd
considering that the OP calls anyone who disagrees a terrorist. I'm pretty
speechless over this one (and annoyed) so I'll leave it as is.
Humor can be
On Mon, Apr 03, 2006 at 09:27:39PM -0500, Grant Goodyear wrote:
> Jon Portnoy wrote: [Mon Apr 03 2006, 06:52:33PM CDT]
> > On Mon, Apr 03, 2006 at 07:35:52PM -0400, Aron Griffis wrote:
> > > Clearly this sentence states that Infra has usurped the suspension
> > > process. It's very disappointing s
On Monday 03 April 2006 20:29, Marius Mauch wrote:
> On Mon, 3 Apr 2006 17:38:48 -0400
> Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > dont get me wrong, i hate documenting common sense as much as the
> > next sane guy, but it seems Gentoo has come to the point where this
> > needs to be done
> >
>
On Monday 03 April 2006 19:40, Danny van Dyk wrote:
> Mike,
>
> Am Montag, 3. April 2006 23:38 schrieb Mike Frysinger:
> > dont get me wrong, i hate documenting common sense as much as the next
> > sane guy, but it seems Gentoo has come to the point where this needs to
> > be done
> >
> > many than
On Monday 03 April 2006 18:41, Stephen P. Becker wrote:
> Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > dont get me wrong, i hate documenting common sense as much as the next
> > sane guy, but it seems Gentoo has come to the point where this needs to
> > be done
> >
> > many thanks to the Ubuntu guys and to solar for
On Monday 03 April 2006 19:01, Harald van Dijk wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 03, 2006 at 05:38:48PM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > http://dev.gentoo.org/~solar/xml/conduct.html
> >
> > If you choose the latter option, please ensure members of the
> > Infrastructure project have reviewed and approved the p
On Mon, Apr 03, 2006 at 09:47:11PM -0500, lnxg33k wrote:
> uncomfortable or threatened is not a productive one." This is odd
> considering that the OP calls anyone who disagrees a terrorist. I'm pretty
> speechless over this one (and annoyed) so I'll leave it as is.
Humor can be funny sometimes
On Monday 03 April 2006 18:36, foser wrote:
> On Mon, 2006-04-03 at 17:38 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > i dont see how anyone can be against this (unless you're a terrorist!),
>
> For someone who's promoting 'ubuntu' like conduct, your choice of words
> is rather Patriot Act-ish. If this two-fac
On Monday 03 April 2006 18:28, Ioannis Aslanidis wrote:
> And calling people who disagree with this terrorists was really a bad
> comment.
sorry, you seem to have lost your sense of humor along the way. please locate
it, thanks.
-mike
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
On Monday 03 April 2006 17:52, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Mon, 3 Apr 2006 17:38:48 -0400 Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> wrote:
> | i dont see how anyone can be against this (unless you're a
> | terrorist!)
>
> I for one welcome our new infra overlords. Perhaps you should add in a
> clause
On Monday 03 April 2006 20:03, Ferris McCormick wrote:
> Now, there are some details to fill in. Devrel and infra have agreed that
> when responsibilities overlap, neither group would act unilaterally.
> Please see http://dev.gentoo.org/~fmccor/devrel/devrel-infra.txt (esp.
> section II.) So, unl
On Tue, Apr 04, 2006 at 02:10:20AM +0200, Jan Kundrát wrote:
> Jon Portnoy wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 04, 2006 at 01:40:59AM +0200, Danny van Dyk wrote:
> >
> >>This is how it has been handled so far except in the ciaranm incident. This
> >>is
> >>how I personally think this should be handled in fut
On Mon, 2006-04-03 at 22:37 -0400, Stephen P. Becker wrote:
> Ned Ludd wrote:
> > On Tue, 2006-04-04 at 03:14 +0100, Stephen Bennett wrote:
> >> On Mon, 03 Apr 2006 21:40:54 -0400
> >> Ned Ludd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Umm ok. I've decided that root is root no matter how you look at it
On Tuesday 04 April 2006 2:28 am, Stephen P. Becker wrote:
> I fail to see how pointing out a post was offtopic is mean. Rather, it
> will save that individual (and hopefully others) from making the same
> mistake in the future.
Then refer the poster to the correct place to send such inquiries. T
--- lnxg33k <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> RTFM shouldn't be an answer in and of itself.
> Pointing out which FM would help.
> Particular sections to note would be great help too
> considering many FM are
> really FLarge.
Good response. Saying RTFM doesn't require any
know-how, and it's actuall
Vapier wrote: [Mon Apr 03 2006, 04:38:48PM CDT]
> i dont see how anyone can be against this (unless you're a terrorist!), so
> this is on track to be integrated as-is into the dev handbook Etiquette
> section
Oh, one more probably useless comment: I would argue that the decision
to enforce an et
Stephen P. Becker wrote:
I fail to see how pointing out a post was offtopic is mean. Rather, it
will save that individual (and hopefully others) from making the same
mistake in the future.
Also, RTFM is absolutely the right answer more often than not.
Otherwise, what is the point of having TFM
From an outsiders point of view, this looks really, really ridiculous. I
personally feel that if something like this is even needed (which I don't
believe), then it shouldn't be phrased as a "Code of Conduct" which implies
strict compliance thereof. That's the gist of what I wanted to toss in, b
On Mon, 03 Apr 2006 22:23:49 -0400
Ned Ludd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> don't be a troll man.
If that comment appears to be a troll, I will assume that I
misinterpreted the mail to which it was a reply. Could you enlighten me
as to what I should have taken from it instead?
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.
Ned Ludd wrote:
> On Tue, 2006-04-04 at 03:14 +0100, Stephen Bennett wrote:
>> On Mon, 03 Apr 2006 21:40:54 -0400
>> Ned Ludd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>> Umm ok. I've decided that root is root no matter how you look at it
>>> and it's not worth getting into a vertical pissing contest over.
>
Kari Hazzard wrote: [Mon Apr 03 2006, 09:16:08PM CDT]
> This is Gentoo. We have a reputation of good community support to maintain
> here. You're not helping that reputation by being mean to people who ask
> legitimate questions. The issue that the question may have been sent to the
> wrong list
Danny van Dyk wrote: [Mon Apr 03 2006, 06:40:59PM CDT]
> Well, you're wrong. I'm against this conduct in its current form and I
> am no terrorist. Further, i really dislike how you tried to avoid
> public discussion by deeming everyone who disagrees as a terrorist.
You know, to the best of my know
Kari Hazzard wrote:
> This is Gentoo. We have a reputation of good community support to maintain
> here. You're not helping that reputation by being mean to people who ask
> legitimate questions. The issue that the question may have been sent to the
> wrong list is irrelevant. RTFM is never the
Jon Portnoy wrote: [Mon Apr 03 2006, 06:52:33PM CDT]
> On Mon, Apr 03, 2006 at 07:35:52PM -0400, Aron Griffis wrote:
> > Clearly this sentence states that Infra has usurped the suspension
> > process. It's very disappointing since Devrel has put so much work
> > into a process that has been demote
Aron Griffis wrote: [Mon Apr 03 2006, 06:35:52PM CDT]
> This should be shortened to say just what it means: Developers will
> have more fun, be more productive, and create a better distribution if
> we concentrate on the issues instead of resorting to personal attacks.
Although I tend to agree wit
On Tue, 2006-04-04 at 03:14 +0100, Stephen Bennett wrote:
> On Mon, 03 Apr 2006 21:40:54 -0400
> Ned Ludd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Umm ok. I've decided that root is root no matter how you look at it
> > and it's not worth getting into a vertical pissing contest over.
> So this is effecti
Vapier wrote: [Mon Apr 03 2006, 04:38:48PM CDT]
> dont get me wrong, i hate documenting common sense as much as the next sane
> guy, but it seems Gentoo has come to the point where this needs to be done
Actually, I disagree that it "needs to be done". Once upon a time I
helped plasmaroo craft pa
This is Gentoo. We have a reputation of good community support to maintain
here. You're not helping that reputation by being mean to people who ask
legitimate questions. The issue that the question may have been sent to the
wrong list is irrelevant. RTFM is never the right answer to a question.
On Mon, 03 Apr 2006 21:40:54 -0400
Ned Ludd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Umm ok. I've decided that root is root no matter how you look at it
> and it's not worth getting into a vertical pissing contest over.
So this is effectively an admission that infra intends to use its
position of trust to un
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Tue, 4 Apr 2006 00:03:08 + (UTC) Ferris McCormick
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> | I still think the intent is good and support it.
>
> The intent is to allow infra to arbitrarily suspend anyone they like,
> with no accountability.
>
Accountability resides between
On Tue, 4 Apr 2006 00:03:08 + (UTC) Ferris McCormick
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| I still think the intent is good and support it.
The intent is to allow infra to arbitrarily suspend anyone they like,
with no accountability.
--
Ciaran McCreesh : Gentoo Developer (Wearer of the shiny hat)
Mai
On Tue, 2006-04-04 at 02:11 +0200, Jan Kundrát wrote:
> Ned Ludd wrote:
> >>It's infras job to enforce the permissions as given by devrel. If devrel
> >>says,
> >>somebody is allowed to commit in the main tree, nobody but devrel should be
> >>allowed to revoke this. The only exceptions are those
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Mon, 3 Apr 2006, Stuart Herbert wrote:
On 4/3/06, Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
i dont see how anyone can be against this (unless you're a terrorist!), so
this is on track to be integrated as-is into the dev handbook Etiquette
sectio
Marius Mauch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Mon, 3 Apr 2006 17:38:48 -0400
> Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > i dont see how anyone can be against this (unless you're a
> > terrorist!), so this is on track to be integrated as-is into the dev
> > handbook Etiquette section
>
> The last
Jan Kundrát wrote:
None, of course, and I think I'me quite nice, actually :). A talk about
"who should be able to punish you" is not for -dev, IMHO.
While it's not strictly "development of Gentoo," I don't see any reason
for it to be a closed discussion, and this is the best general-purpose
l
On Mon, 03 Apr 2006 20:03:55 -0400 Ned Ludd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| > It's infras job to enforce the permissions as given by devrel. If
| > devrel says, somebody is allowed to commit in the main tree, nobody
| > but devrel should be allowed to revoke this. The only exceptions
| > are those cas
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Mon, 3 Apr 2006, Stuart Herbert wrote:
On 4/3/06, Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
i dont see how anyone can be against this (unless you're a terrorist!), so
this is on track to be integrated as-is into the dev handbook Etiquette
sectio
Ned Ludd wrote:
>>It's infras job to enforce the permissions as given by devrel. If devrel
>>says,
>>somebody is allowed to commit in the main tree, nobody but devrel should be
>>allowed to revoke this. The only exceptions are those case already stated
>>above.
>
>
> I think your understandin
Jon Portnoy wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 04, 2006 at 01:40:59AM +0200, Danny van Dyk wrote:
>
>>This is how it has been handled so far except in the ciaranm incident. This
>>is
>>how I personally think this should be handled in future.
>>
>
>
> Well, quite frankly devrel has never fallen down on the j
Alexandre Buisse wrote:
> Sorry but I am.
Opps, sorry, got confused by your name :), I thought you were someone
else... it's too late here, apparently.
> What I saw was a document saying "Be nice to each other". And in the end
> "If you aren't nice, you will be punished". Big deal.
Yup, that's r
On Tue, 2006-04-04 at 01:40 +0200, Danny van Dyk wrote:
...
> If
> >you choose the latter option, please ensure members of the Infrastructure
> >project have reviewed and approved the proxy relationship to avoid having
> >access cut off for both developers.
Refresh your browser.
> It's infr
On Tue, 2006-04-04 at 01:01 +0200, Harald van Dijk wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 03, 2006 at 05:38:48PM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > http://dev.gentoo.org/~solar/xml/conduct.html
>
> > If you choose the latter option, please ensure members of the
> > Infrastructure project have reviewed and approved th
On Mon, Apr 03, 2006 at 07:35:52PM -0400, Aron Griffis wrote:
> Clearly this sentence states that Infra has usurped the suspension
> process. It's very disappointing since Devrel has put so much work
> into a process that has been demoted to "recommendation" status.
>
You mean the broken policy.
On Tue, Apr 04, 2006 at 01:40:59AM +0200, Danny van Dyk wrote:
>
> This is how it has been handled so far except in the ciaranm incident. This
> is
> how I personally think this should be handled in future.
>
Well, quite frankly devrel has never fallen down on the job quite so
often & so hard
Stephen P. Becker wrote: [Mon Apr 03 2006, 07:11:12PM EDT]
> Whether it is meant to be flamebait or not is irrelevant. This list
> isn't for whining about (the lack of) stable keywords for any
> particular ebuild or set of ebuilds.
Making this kind of statement without pointing the poster to the
I disagree with fast-tracking this to any official Gentoo
documentation.
> Be considerate. Your work will be used by other people, and you in
> turn will depend on the work of others. Any decision you make will
> affect users and colleagues, and we expect you to take those
> consequences into acco
Mike,
Am Montag, 3. April 2006 23:38 schrieb Mike Frysinger:
> dont get me wrong, i hate documenting common sense as much as the next sane
> guy, but it seems Gentoo has come to the point where this needs to be done
>
> many thanks to the Ubuntu guys and to solar for doing the real work here:
> ht
On Tue, Apr 4, 2006 at 01:17:59 +0200, Jan Kundrát wrote:
> Alexandre Buisse wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 4, 2006 at 00:37:12 +0200, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> >
> >
> >>On Mon, 3 Apr 2006 17:38:48 -0400 Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >>wrote:
> >>| i dont see how anyone can be against this (unl
On 4/3/06, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tuesday 04 April 2006 01:05, m h wrote:
> > This isn't meant as flamebait. I'm running stable on my laptop and
> > unstable on my desktop. It seems like most KDE release get better
> > over time, so I'm just wondering what the pro
On Mon, 3 Apr 2006 17:38:48 -0400
Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> dont get me wrong, i hate documenting common sense as much as the
> next sane guy, but it seems Gentoo has come to the point where this
> needs to be done
>
> many thanks to the Ubuntu guys and to solar for doing the re
On Tuesday 04 April 2006 01:05, m h wrote:
> This isn't meant as flamebait. I'm running stable on my laptop and
> unstable on my desktop. It seems like most KDE release get better
> over time, so I'm just wondering what the process is with KDE?
KDE 3.5.0 was quite broken -and required more patche
m h wrote:
> Subject says it all.
>
> This isn't meant as flamebait. I'm running stable on my laptop and
> unstable on my desktop. It seems like most KDE release get better
> over time, so I'm just wondering what the process is with KDE?
>
Whether it is meant to be flamebait or not is irreleva
Subject says it all.
This isn't meant as flamebait. I'm running stable on my laptop and
unstable on my desktop. It seems like most KDE release get better
over time, so I'm just wondering what the process is with KDE?
thanks
-matt
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
On Mon, Apr 03, 2006 at 05:38:48PM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> http://dev.gentoo.org/~solar/xml/conduct.html
> If you choose the latter option, please ensure members of the
> Infrastructure project have reviewed and approved the proxy
> relationship to avoid having access cut off for both devel
Alexandre Buisse wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 4, 2006 at 00:37:12 +0200, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>
>
>>On Mon, 3 Apr 2006 17:38:48 -0400 Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>wrote:
>>| i dont see how anyone can be against this (unless you're a
>>| terrorist!)
>>
>>I for one welcome our new infra overlord
On Tue, Apr 4, 2006 at 00:37:12 +0200, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Mon, 3 Apr 2006 17:38:48 -0400 Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> | i dont see how anyone can be against this (unless you're a
> | terrorist!)
>
> I for one welcome our new infra overlords. Perhaps you should add in a
Mike Frysinger wrote:
> dont get me wrong, i hate documenting common sense as much as the next sane
> guy, but it seems Gentoo has come to the point where this needs to be done
>
> many thanks to the Ubuntu guys and to solar for doing the real work here:
> http://dev.gentoo.org/~solar/xml/conduct
On Mon, 2006-04-03 at 17:38 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> i dont see how anyone can be against this (unless you're a terrorist!),
For someone who's promoting 'ubuntu' like conduct, your choice of words
is rather Patriot Act-ish. If this two-facedness reflects the intentions
of people behind this
Even though things are how they are, I tend to agree on this matter with
Ciaran as well. I am sorry but I am missing the point on why of all
this. A full developer cannot be suspended from infra, if that happens,
he/she is not a developer any more.
Seriously, I think you are pushing this too far.
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
I for one welcome our new infra overlords. Perhaps you should add in a
clause saying that infra will randomly (maybe with the help of a
keyword filter) inspect emails sent to all @gentoo.org addresses for
any signs of subversive activity. You could also add a clause saying
On Mon, 3 Apr 2006 17:38:48 -0400 Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| i dont see how anyone can be against this (unless you're a
| terrorist!)
I for one welcome our new infra overlords. Perhaps you should add in a
clause saying that infra will randomly (maybe with the help of a
keyword fil
Stuart Herbert wrote:
On 4/3/06, Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
i dont see how anyone can be against this (unless you're a terrorist!), so
this is on track to be integrated as-is into the dev handbook Etiquette
section
Let's go one step further, and also link to it from the
On 4/3/06, Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> i dont see how anyone can be against this (unless you're a terrorist!), so
> this is on track to be integrated as-is into the dev handbook Etiquette
> section
Let's go one step further, and also link to it from the Social
Contract. Our social
dont get me wrong, i hate documenting common sense as much as the next sane
guy, but it seems Gentoo has come to the point where this needs to be done
many thanks to the Ubuntu guys and to solar for doing the real work here:
http://dev.gentoo.org/~solar/xml/conduct.html
i dont see how anyone can
"Michael Sterrett -Mr. Bones.-" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> You broke deps with that masking. I've commented it in package.mask so
> you can fix that up first.
Yea, I did. Sorry about that. Now x11-misc/paralogger is masked as
well and will be removed at the same time.
--
Mark Loeser - Ge
On Monday 03 April 2006 15:38, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
> Was for me I'd consider as assumed the presence of basic utilities like
> shadow, findutils and admin-processes, but if I'm not allowed to drop the
> deps or put them under conditional, this is only going to hinder me
>
> Well Mi
On Monday 03 April 2006 19:59, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> same goes for shadow
Still there are things depending on it.
And as "someone" bitched about losing maintainability if we added || ( ) or
kernel_linux? ( ) conditionals inside ebuilds, this is the final outcome...
Was for me I'd consider as as
On Monday 03 April 2006 12:25, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Mon, 3 Apr 2006 07:26:53 +0200 "Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò"
>
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> | The first would be for generic findutils, that is find and xargs
> | commands; it would be satisfied by sys-apps/findutils or one of the
> | BSD -
Daniel Drake posted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, excerpted below, on
Mon, 03 Apr 2006 15:04:19 +0100:
>> Linux 2.6.16 will be in the tree very soon. Assuming there aren't any
>> major problems, we'll hopefully be marking it stable in 2-3 weeks.
>
> We're planning to mark it stable on 10th April. Maybe
On Mon, 3 Apr 2006 07:26:53 +0200 "Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| The first would be for generic findutils, that is find and xargs
| commands; it would be satisfied by sys-apps/findutils or one of the
| BSD -ubin packages. This will solve problems of packages depending on
|
Jan Kundrát wrote:
[...]
My mail server apparently sucks, sorry.
--
cd /local/pub && more beer > /dev/mouth
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I have masked dev-lisp/plt pending removal in 30 days. This has been
unmaintained for awhile (no metadata.xml) and a newer version of the
same package is in the tree as dev-scheme/drscheme.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Lin
Carsten Lohrke wrote:
> On Sunday 02 April 2006 22:29, Simon Stelling wrote:
>
>>Come on. Is this a 'policy doesn't say I have to be sane' war? It's
>>absolutely reasonable to p.mask a package that is pending for removal. That
>>way you give the users a timeframe which they can search for alterna
Daniel Drake wrote:
Hi,
Linux 2.6.16 will be in the tree very soon. Assuming there aren't any
major problems, we'll hopefully be marking it stable in 2-3 weeks.
We're planning to mark it stable on 10th April. Maybe a few days later,
need to double check that we don't have any in-kernel 2.6.1
# emerge -uD world
Calculating world dependencies \
!!! All ebuilds that could satisfy "media-libs/mesa" have been masked.
!!! One of the following masked packages is required to complete your
request:
- media-libs/mesa-6.4.2-r2 (masked by: package.mask)
# Donnie Berkholz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (0
Carsten Lohrke wrote:
This is not the case. At least unless the user actively looks at package.mask.
Since Portage doesn't provide the information, this point is void. And even
if - four weeks are a too long, imho.
It does. Almost all users do emerge -u world when updating their system.
Thei
88 matches
Mail list logo
