> With respect to the "hey support omg!" comments i say stick a big fat
> README about being an experimental profile or something like that and
> that's it. Usually bug reports require "emerge --info" so it'll be easy
> to flag invalid ones anyway.
Well. Marking a bug invalid doesn't make the real
Am Dienstag 13 Juni 2006 19:30 schrieb Stephen Bennett:
> Christian Hartmann wrote:
> > Oh lovely. - If noone has any strong reasonable objections, I'd like to
> > add a $ians-playground profile to the tree. Furthermore I will start to
> > keywording ebuilds with the new ~fridge keyword I just inve
> Please try to come up with something sliiightly more plausible than that
> when you're trying to attack something based upon your personal
> prejudices. Or is that really the best criticism you can find?
Uh yeah. It's all just based on my personal prejudices. - Why did I give
paludis a try (on
On 5/17/06, Pablo Antonio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 20:37 Tue 16 May , Roy Bamford wrote:
> On 2006.05.16 18:33, Sven Vermeulen wrote:
> >Hi all,
> >
> [snip]
> >
> >I have started a project site for this at
> >http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/kbase.
> [snip]
> >
> >--
> > Gentoo Foundation
On Tuesday 16 May 2006 20:42, Stephen Bennett wrote:
> OK, since several people have asked what is going to be in this profile
> if it gets added, i had in mind something like the following
considering this initial profile is a stab in the dark of sorts, i think the
best way to move forward is to
OK, since several people have asked what is going to be in this profile
if it gets added, i had in mind something like the following (all
filenames relative to gentoo-x86/profiles/):
===
paludis/deprecated:
# DO NOT USE THIS PROFILE WITH PORTAGE.
# This profile is intended for use with the Paludi
On Tue, May 16, 2006 at 03:56:38PM -0700, Brian Harring wrote:
> If your parent parsing implementation handled N parents on a single
> line (rather then parent per line as you do now), portage would
> explode rather then silently use the left most. Your implementation
> isn't doing that however
On Wednesday 17 May 2006 00:22, Stephen Bennett wrote:
> > Does the Gentoo Project not support the
> > entire tree all of a sudden?
>
> There are plenty of ebuilds in the tree marked as unsupported by
> gentoo. Probably some profiles too, though I can't name them for
> certain off the top of my hea
On 20:37 Tue 16 May , Roy Bamford wrote:
> On 2006.05.16 18:33, Sven Vermeulen wrote:
> >Hi all,
> >
> [snip]
> >
> >I have started a project site for this at
> >http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/kbase.
> [snip]
> >
> >--
> > Gentoo Foundation Trustee | http://foundation.gentoo.org
> >
On Tue, 16 May 2006 23:14:53 +0200
Jeroen Roovers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This should not be a side note IMHO. If that profile is in the tree,
> who in Gentoo will support it?
I will.
> Does the Gentoo Project not support the
> entire tree all of a sudden?
There are plenty of ebuilds in t
On Tue, 16 May 2006 16:15:49 +0100
Stephen Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If noone has any strong reasonable objections, I'd like to add a
> Paludis profile to the tree. This would use Paludis as the default
> provider for virtual/portage (which is a less than ideal name, but
> that is anoth
On Tue, 16 May 2006 22:59:59 +0200
"Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Okay, then I suppose you might want first to create a project to
> handle the profile and the whole bugs load that might come out of
> that.
Does every profile need a project to maintain it now? That's nev
On Tue, 16 May 2006 23:03:35 +0200 "Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| On Tuesday 16 May 2006 22:52, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
| > Perhaps you should've read Halcy0n's post:
| Perhaps you should think before writing, before acting, before doing
| anything... perhaps you should _t
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
A large part of why Paludis exists is because I and several others were
sick of waiting for three years for Portage to provide certain basic
features.
Which is really what this whole thread is all about... Sorry for being an ass,
but could we *maybe* stop the constant po
On Tuesday 16 May 2006 22:52, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> Perhaps you should've read Halcy0n's post:
Perhaps you should think before writing, before acting, before doing
anything... perhaps you should _think_, period.
[For userrel happyness: I'm being _volunteering_ harassing him at this point,
and
On Tue, 2006-05-16 at 22:13 +0200, Jan Kundrát wrote:
> Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
> > On Tuesday 16 May 2006 21:35, Luis Francisco Araujo wrote:
> >
> >>Sorry if i am confusing things here, but isn't this just _yet_ another
> >>profile that
> >>the user can choose to use?
> >
> > A profile
Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
> On Tuesday 16 May 2006 22:13, Jan Kundrát wrote:
>
>> See /usr/portage/profiles/default-linux/x86/dev/README :)
>>
> You think the phrase "RTFM" would have ever been forged if people actually
> read that stuff?
>
>
This is pretty much true for trying
On Tuesday 13 June 2006 22:30, Stephen Bennett wrote:
> It will be supported by me, and the other devs involved with Paludis.
Okay, then I suppose you might want first to create a project to handle the
profile and the whole bugs load that might come out of that. And make sure
that bug-wranglers a
On Tue, 16 May 2006 21:56:10 +0100 Daniel Drake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
| > Adding a new profile doesn't affect Portage unless Portage is told
| > to use that profile. And anyone telling Portage to use *any* invalid
| > profile is going to be in for a shock.
|
| I was m
On Tue, 16 May 2006 22:09:10 +0200 "Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| On Tuesday 16 May 2006 19:06, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
| > ++ for Halcy0n, and adding from an ebuild maintainer some more,
| > many parts of the current tree are at a minimum understaffed, if
| > we'
On Tue, 2006-05-16 at 21:05 +0200, Danny van Dyk wrote:
> Am Dienstag, 16. Mai 2006 20:35 schrieb Gustavo Zacarias:
> > Stephen Bennett wrote:
> > > That's my proposal. The benefits I like to think are obvious. The
> > > drawbacks are, as far as I can see, in tree size, which should be
> > > minima
On Tue, 16 May 2006 12:55:11 -0700 Brian Harring <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| > That's not really true. Relying upon "anything that Portage
| > handles", including relying upon Portage bugs and internals, leads
| > to broken ebuilds when said things change.
|
| ...which is why the ebuild env for p
Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
A profile in the tree has to be supported by someone.
It will be supported by me, and the other devs involved with Paludis.
It's also more likely that people would try it out without knowing what they
are going to open.
So we will add a big fat README, as wi
On Tuesday 16 May 2006 22:13, Jan Kundrát wrote:
> See /usr/portage/profiles/default-linux/x86/dev/README :)
You think the phrase "RTFM" would have ever been forged if people actually
read that stuff?
--
Diego "Flameeyes" Pettenò - http://farragut.flameeyes.is-a-geek.org/
Gentoo/Alt lead, Gentoo
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
Adding a new profile doesn't affect Portage unless Portage is told to
use that profile. And anyone telling Portage to use *any* invalid
profile is going to be in for a shock.
I was more thinking along the lines of that there might be a lot of
confusion if Paludis and Po
Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
> On Tuesday 16 May 2006 21:35, Luis Francisco Araujo wrote:
>
>>Sorry if i am confusing things here, but isn't this just _yet_ another
>>profile that
>>the user can choose to use?
>
> A profile in the tree has to be supported by someone.
> It's also more likely t
On Tuesday 16 May 2006 21:51, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> Somehow I don't think
> we're the ones spreading the FUD here.
Should I call you an hypocrite or you'll apologise after calling me a FUD
spreader?
> (Not that I'm opposed to BSD, as you know. I just find it rather
> strange that you're using
On Tue, 16 May 2006 20:10:16 +0100 Daniel Drake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| Stephen Bennett wrote:
| > If noone has any strong reasonable objections, I'd like to add a
| > Paludis profile to the tree.
|
| I think that this should be the decision of the Portage developers.
| If there is any burde
Roy Bamford wrote:
I have started a project site for this at
http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/kbase.
[snip]
Sven,
Your link gives me a 404 error
It works for me. Also, please don't reply twice to the list (you had the list
address in To and CC).
--
Andrew Gaffneyht
On Tue, May 16, 2006 at 07:07:05PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Tue, 16 May 2006 10:33:56 -0700 Brian Harring <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> | > What eapi=0 standard? We emulate Portage internals where it's found
> | > to be necessary, and don't otherwise.
> |
> | eapi=0 is what 2.1/2.05x su
On Tue, 16 May 2006 13:23:18 -0500 Grant Goodyear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| Just to clarify my own poor understanding, if somebody builds a box
| using paludis and then decides that she'd really prefer to use portage
| instead, isn't that going to require a reinstall (at least until
| there's a
On Tue, 16 May 2006 19:35:32 +0200 "Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| On Tuesday 16 May 2006 19:20, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
| > That's rather funny, when one considers the whole BSD profile
| > structure and the zillions of ebuild changes that've been made for
| > BSD.
|
| You'
On Tuesday 16 May 2006 21:35, Luis Francisco Araujo wrote:
> Sorry if i am confusing things here, but isn't this just _yet_ another
> profile that
> the user can choose to use?
A profile in the tree has to be supported by someone.
It's also more likely that people would try it out without knowing w
On 2006.05.16 18:33, Sven Vermeulen wrote:
Hi all,
[snip]
I have started a project site for this at
http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/kbase.
[snip]
--
Gentoo Foundation Trustee | http://foundation.gentoo.org
Gentoo Council Member
The Gentoo Project <<< http://www.gentoo.org
Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
> On Tuesday 13 June 2006 20:27, Stephen Bennett wrote:
>
>> They're rather minimal, and still an order of magnitude larger than what
>> I'm proposing here.
>>
> Right, the point is not the change in itself but the way people are going to
> experimenting wi
On Tue, 2006-05-16 at 13:14 -0500, Mike Doty wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> All-
>
> Take a moment to welcome our newest staffer, beandog. Steve will be
> helping dsd with planet/universe administration.
>
> In his own words, "Hi there, I'm Steve from Utah. Lots o
On Tue, May 16, 2006 at 02:14:57PM -0500, Mike Doty wrote:
> I'm pretty excited to help out with Gentoo maintenance. I've been
> writing wiki articles for a while now, and trolling in the forums longer
> than that. Let me know if I can be of any help!"
Damnit, we must have missed to ban you then
This is not only about adding a profile, but if paludis is officially
supported by being in the tree and profiles, fixes for paludis get
into the tree etc, this sounds like paludis is a Gentoo project and users
will expect it to work and be supported. They will be allowed to ask
questions about som
On Tue, May 16, 2006 at 04:15:49PM +0100, Stephen Bennett wrote:
> Comments?
I have no objections to the concept - I would however like very through
testing before it's actually committed.
Could you please submit the profile as a patch to the mailing list,
thus allowing detractors to test cases t
Am Dienstag, 16. Mai 2006 20:35 schrieb Gustavo Zacarias:
> Stephen Bennett wrote:
> > That's my proposal. The benefits I like to think are obvious. The
> > drawbacks are, as far as I can see, in tree size, which should be
> > minimal. Those concerned about local tree size can exclude it, and
> > f
On Tuesday 13 June 2006 20:27, Stephen Bennett wrote:
> They're rather minimal, and still an order of magnitude larger than what
> I'm proposing here.
Right, the point is not the change in itself but the way people are going to
experimenting with it.
--
Diego "Flameeyes" Pettenò - http://farragu
Stephen Bennett wrote:
If noone has any strong reasonable objections, I'd like to add a
Paludis profile to the tree.
I think that this should be the decision of the Portage developers. If
there is any burden other than the points you mentioned, it directly or
indirectly falls on them.
Dani
Stephen Bennett wrote:
That's my proposal. The benefits I like to think are obvious. The
drawbacks are, as far as I can see, in tree size, which should be
minimal. Those concerned about local tree size can exclude it, and for
size on the mirrors it's trivial compared to the rest of the tree.
Co
Brian Harring wrote:
Bluntly, why should the tree be modified for a minority? Being
generous, lets pretend y'all have 300 users- why should incompatible
changes be added to the tree (say 300k users) that can bite 299,700
users in the ass for the benefit of 300 users? N parent inherited
profi
2006/5/16, Mike Doty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
All-
Take a moment to welcome our newest staffer, beandog. Steve will be
helping dsd with planet/universe administration.
In his own words, "Hi there, I'm Steve from Utah. Lots of Linux users
out here, an
Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
You're just FUDing this and you know, the changes are rather minimal, and all
directly handled by me (the BSD team), not handled down to maintainers at
all.
They're rather minimal, and still an order of magnitude larger than what
I'm proposing here.
--
gent
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: [Tue May 16 2006, 01:07:05PM CDT]
> | Bluntly, you break compatibility with vdb/tree, paludis has no real
> | future with gentoo beyond forking- requiring 100,000 users to
> | reinstall because you don't want to do backwards compatibility is
> | daft.
>
> A reinstall isn'
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
All-
Take a moment to welcome our newest staffer, beandog. Steve will be
helping dsd with planet/universe administration.
In his own words, "Hi there, I'm Steve from Utah. Lots of Linux users
out here, and I'm just one of them. I started using Lin
Sven Vermeulen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> A Knowledge Base provides answers to specific questions and problems that
> users (or developers) might encounter. It is easily searchable and
> maintained by developers who are knowledgeable in the topic. The knowledge
> base entries ("topics" as I like t
On Tue, 16 May 2006 10:33:56 -0700 Brian Harring <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| > What eapi=0 standard? We emulate Portage internals where it's found
| > to be necessary, and don't otherwise.
|
| eapi=0 is what 2.1/2.05x supports.
That's not really true. Relying upon "anything that Portage handles"
Christian Hartmann wrote: [Tue May 16 2006, 12:10:18PM CDT]
> Oh lovely. - If noone has any strong reasonable objections, I'd like
> to add a $ians-playground profile to the tree. Furthermore I will
> start to keywording ebuilds with the new ~fridge keyword I just
> invented.
Hyperbole?
> How is
On Tue, May 16, 2006 at 04:15:49PM +0100, Stephen Bennett wrote:
> Comments?
I'd like to see a paludis profile under default-linux/alpha. I belive it
is much better to have a top-level hierarchy for paludis profiles
anyway but people seem to blindly disagree with that.
Oh, and BTW, keep up the go
On Tue, Jun 13, 2006 at 06:28:41PM +0100, Stephen Bennett wrote:
> Brian Harring wrote:
> >The gain of the profile is that you can do a few new tricks for folks
> >doing boostrapping experiments- why not just introduce an ebuild that
> >sets up the new profile in a temp overlay?
>
> No, the gain
On Tuesday 16 May 2006 13:10, Christian Hartmann wrote:
> > If noone has any strong reasonable objections, I'd like to add a
> > Paludis profile to the tree.
>
> Oh lovely. - If noone has any strong reasonable objections, I'd like to add
> a $ians-playground profile to the tree. Furthermore I will
On Tue, 16 May 2006 19:10:18 +0200 Christian Hartmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| Oh lovely. - If noone has any strong reasonable objections, I'd like
| to add a $ians-playground profile to the tree. Furthermore I will
| start to keywording ebuilds with the new ~fridge keyword I just
| invented.
On Tuesday 16 May 2006 19:20, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> That's rather funny, when one considers the whole BSD profile structure
> and the zillions of ebuild changes that've been made for BSD.
You're just FUDing this and you know, the changes are rather minimal, and all
directly handled by me (the B
Alec Warner wrote:
I would prefer to see the profile you are commiting then; do you have a
link?
I haven't written it yet.
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
On Tue, May 16, 2006 at 05:47:42PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Tue, 16 May 2006 09:16:18 -0700 Brian Harring <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> | 1) changes to the eapi=0 ebuild standard; renaming of vars
> | (PORTAGE_* -> PALUDIS_* namely)
>
> What eapi=0 standard? We emulate Portage internal
Hi all,
For some time now, the idea of a Gentoo Knowledge Base, like RedHat [1]
and Microsoft [2] do, has been brewing in Andrés Pereira and my minds. Not
only that, but a feature request was also filed some time ago [3] and just
recently a forum thread was started for it [4].
So, what is this ab
Christian Hartmann wrote:
It's not about the size or the number of files. We have got enough - let's
call it $stuff - in the tree. I'd really like to see valid and reasonable
things added to the tree. - Adding things just because someone thinks it
would be funny to add it to the tree can't be t
Christian Hartmann wrote:
Oh lovely. - If noone has any strong reasonable objections, I'd like to add a
$ians-playground profile to the tree. Furthermore I will start to keywording
ebuilds with the new ~fridge keyword I just invented.
I'll take that to mean "no objection based in a technical a
Brian Harring wrote:
So... short version, introduction of the profile allows for curious
users to get bit in the ass by intentional dropping of compatibility
(profile level changes are one thing, changing the ebuild standard is
another). In light of that, why should it be demoed in the tree wh
On Tue, 16 May 2006 19:06:24 +0200 "Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| ++ for Halcy0n, and adding from an ebuild maintainer some more, many
| parts of the current tree are at a minimum understaffed, if we're
| going to have to start dealing with bugs coming from users
| experim
Thomas Cort wrote:
I don't understand the logic behind putting it under default-linux/x86/.
> Is palidus Linux/x86 only? Could you explain why default-linux/x86/
is a good option?
It's not -- it's currently confirmed to work on x86, amd64, sparc, mips,
alpha, and hppa. I don't believe it is
> If noone has any strong reasonable objections, I'd like to add a
> Paludis profile to the tree.
Oh lovely. - If noone has any strong reasonable objections, I'd like to add a
$ians-playground profile to the tree. Furthermore I will start to keywording
ebuilds with the new ~fridge keyword I just
On Tue, 16 May 2006 12:55:11 -0400 Mark Loeser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| I completely agree. There are going to be lots of things that Paludis
| supports that Portage doesn't, and maybe pkgcore doesn't either, so it
| seems to make the most sense to keep it separate. I don't think we
| should
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Tue, 16 May 2006 09:16:18 -0700 Brian Harring <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| vdb changes )- wrong place to be deploying incompatibilites that paludis
| introduces is into the production tree without appropriate
| containment/protection.
Uh, VDB isn't part of the tree.
On Tuesday 16 May 2006 18:55, Mark Loeser wrote:
> No offense to either project. If one of them one day replaces Portage,
> it will have my complete support, but until then, we should focus on
> keeping changes in the tree to a minimum for other package managers.
++ for Halcy0n, and adding from an
Brian Harring <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> So... short version, introduction of the profile allows for curious
> users to get bit in the ass by intentional dropping of compatibility
> (profile level changes are one thing, changing the ebuild standard is
> another). In light of that, why should i
On Tue, 16 May 2006 09:16:18 -0700 Brian Harring <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| 1) changes to the eapi=0 ebuild standard; renaming of vars
| (PORTAGE_* -> PALUDIS_* namely)
What eapi=0 standard? We emulate Portage internals where it's found to
be necessary, and don't otherwise.
| dropping of all l
On Tue, 16 May 2006 16:15:49 +0100
Stephen Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The next question is where to put it. The options as I see them are
> under default-linux/x86/ or in a top-level paludis/ a la hardened,
> selinux, embedded, and the like. The latter is easier to exclude for
> those wor
On Tue, May 16, 2006 at 04:15:49PM +0100, Stephen Bennett wrote:
> If noone has any strong reasonable objections, I'd like to add a
> Paludis profile to the tree. This would use Paludis as the default
> provider for virtual/portage (which is a less than ideal name, but that
> is another discussion
If noone has any strong reasonable objections, I'd like to add a
Paludis profile to the tree. This would use Paludis as the default
provider for virtual/portage (which is a less than ideal name, but that
is another discussion entirely), and provide ebuild devs with a place
where they can try out so
On Tue, May 16, 2006 at 02:39:18PM +0100, Mike Williams wrote:
> Hey,
>
> Just wondering, does anyone know what's up with bugs.g.o and forums.g.o?
> Seem to be up and down, left, right, and centre.
>
> Not often I get to post anything useful to bugs.g.o, and now that I do, I
> can't :)
>
> Ta
>
Hey,
Just wondering, does anyone know what's up with bugs.g.o and forums.g.o?
Seem to be up and down, left, right, and centre.
Not often I get to post anything useful to bugs.g.o, and now that I do, I
can't :)
Ta
forums is running now...
--
Mike Williams
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing lis
75 matches
Mail list logo
