-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
mod_parrot hasn't been updated upstream in a *long* time, doesn't build
against an even remotely current version of parrot, and seems for all
intents to be pretty dead upstream (a nice idea that never panned out).
Unless there are objections, I will be
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Mon, 22 May 2006 19:10:22 -0400 Jon Portnoy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> | Well, let's take the real life example of paludis vs. portage:
> | Paludis is controlled by a former developer known for being hard to
> | work with, Portage (being a Gentoo project) by necessitit
On Mon, 22 May 2006 19:10:22 -0400 Jon Portnoy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| Well, let's take the real life example of paludis vs. portage:
| Paludis is controlled by a former developer known for being hard to
| work with, Portage (being a Gentoo project) by necessitity has to be
| controlled by som
Since there were no objections the darcs.eclass is now in the main tree.
On Thu, 2006-05-18 at 22:58 +0100, Duncan Coutts wrote:
> Just like we have eclasses for cvs, tla etc, kosmikus has written one
> that does the same thing but for darcs.
>
> Darcs (dev-util/darcs) is one of the new breed of
On Mon, May 22, 2006 at 10:29:22AM -0500, Grant Goodyear wrote:
> >
> > Agreed, I'm of the opinion it would be inappropriate to let an outside
> > entity steer our primary package manager.
>
> I'm not sure I understand why. After all, mandriva, suse, ubuntu, and
> many others have survived quit
On Mon, 2006-05-22 at 22:51 +0100, Chris Bainbridge wrote:
> On 22/05/06, Ned Ludd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Mon, 2006-05-22 at 10:29 -0500, Grant Goodyear wrote:
> > > I'm not sure I understand why. After all, mandriva, suse, ubuntu, and
> > > many others have survived quite well.
> >
> >
On Mon, 22 May 2006 17:47:37 -0400 Alec Warner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| You will be tired of hearing this but backwards compat is a big issue.
| It is an issue that I think the portage team took into consideration
| far too much in the past, leading to this current situation. Most
| sane peopl
On 22/05/06, Ned Ludd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Mon, 2006-05-22 at 10:29 -0500, Grant Goodyear wrote:
> I'm not sure I understand why. After all, mandriva, suse, ubuntu, and
> many others have survived quite well.
rpm and apt have withstood the test of time and are mature pkg
managers, not
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Mon, 22 May 2006 14:59:33 -0400 Ned Ludd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> | It should be pretty clear that one of the main problems is letting
> | others decide which features we will and wont have and defining our
> | standards based on their needs and not our own.
>
> S
On Mon, 22 May 2006 15:29:27 -0400 Ned Ludd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| On Mon, 2006-05-22 at 20:10 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
| > On Mon, 22 May 2006 14:59:33 -0400 Ned Ludd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
| > wrote:
| > | It should be pretty clear that one of the main problems is
| > | letting others dec
Grant Goodyear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Perhaps something like the following would suffice:
nice - thank you! if i have a vote i put it here...
now, if only the politicians would notice it.
regards
bangert
pgpShDqsyI6iA.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Paul de Vrieze wrote:
First of all, I'm in limbo on this. Certainly not dead set against it. If
this were to be used, I'd like to add the following line: "At least 1 of
these three must be actively involved in the development of the package
manager".
Could others please provide input on this
On Mon, 2006-05-22 at 20:10 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Mon, 22 May 2006 14:59:33 -0400 Ned Ludd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> | It should be pretty clear that one of the main problems is letting
> | others decide which features we will and wont have and defining our
> | standards based on
On Mon, 22 May 2006 14:59:33 -0400 Ned Ludd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| It should be pretty clear that one of the main problems is letting
| others decide which features we will and wont have and defining our
| standards based on their needs and not our own.
So where are the use and slot deps?
On Mon, 2006-05-22 at 10:29 -0500, Grant Goodyear wrote:
> Jon Portnoy wrote: [Mon May 22 2006, 09:38:23AM CDT]
> > On Mon, May 22, 2006 at 09:21:34AM -0400, Ned Ludd wrote:
> > > Please don't change your wording on that. The feel really strongly
> > > about the primary pkg manager of Gentoo needin
Stephen P. Becker wrote:
> Brian Harring wrote:
>> Pkgcore is external, and will be making a run for official also-
>> granted, easier to just state "you're just trying to screw with
>> ciaranm" to disprove it (rather then arguing the points).
>
> Arguing the points aren't the issue. I just ha
Paul de Vrieze wrote: [Mon May 22 2006, 06:29:19AM CDT]
> I have put a new revision of the alternative package manager requirements
> GLEP on line. The html version can be found at:
> http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/glep/glep-0049.html
It seems to me that the main concerns addressed in that GLEP ar
Marc Hildebrand gentoo.org> writes:
> > What do you think? LC_ALL=C in portage or not?
> >
> > - Stefan
>
> Well this problem (localized error messages) exists since I know linux
> and the solution has always been "use per user locale settings and keep
> LC_ALL=POSIX or =C as a system default
On Mon, 22 May 2006 16:31:40 +
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tim Yamin) wrote:
> Maybe I'm reading it wrong but the above sounds like if there's less
> than "3 Gentoo developers that understand... ... ..." the package
> maintainers *don't* have the right to refuse and magically get sucked
> into Gentoo w
On Mon, May 22, 2006 at 08:47:22AM +, Thomas Cort wrote:
> So what I suggest is the following:
>
> "While it is desirable that the primary package manager be maintained
> on official gentoo infrastructure, under the control of gentoo
> developers, it is not required. During the path to becomin
On 22/05/06, Paul de Vrieze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
There are serious costs involved with forking something. For gentoo this
would include image problems by being seen as "evil" forkers.
Surely such decisions should be based on technical merit, and not
political? The technical cost of forkin
Brian Harring wrote:
> On Mon, May 22, 2006 at 11:54:25AM -0400, Stephen P. Becker wrote:
>>> Am I missing something obvious?
>>>
>>> -g2boojum-
>> Probably just the blatant Ciaran hate, and the realization that people
>> will have to suck it up and deal with him if his package manager ever
>> beco
On Mon, May 22, 2006 at 11:54:25AM -0400, Stephen P. Becker wrote:
> > Am I missing something obvious?
> >
> > -g2boojum-
>
> Probably just the blatant Ciaran hate, and the realization that people
> will have to suck it up and deal with him if his package manager ever
> becomes official for Gento
Paul de Vrieze wrote:
> On Monday 22 May 2006 17:29, Grant Goodyear wrote:
>> Jon Portnoy wrote: [Mon May 22 2006, 09:38:23AM CDT]
>>
>>> On Mon, May 22, 2006 at 09:21:34AM -0400, Ned Ludd wrote:
Please don't change your wording on that. The feel really strongly
about the primary pkg mana
> Am I missing something obvious?
>
> -g2boojum-
Probably just the blatant Ciaran hate, and the realization that people
will have to suck it up and deal with him if his package manager ever
becomes official for Gentoo. Who was it that mentioned this GLEP
stacked the desk against Paludis?
-Steve
On Monday 22 May 2006 17:29, Grant Goodyear wrote:
> Jon Portnoy wrote: [Mon May 22 2006, 09:38:23AM CDT]
>
> > On Mon, May 22, 2006 at 09:21:34AM -0400, Ned Ludd wrote:
> > > Please don't change your wording on that. The feel really strongly
> > > about the primary pkg manager of Gentoo needing re
Jon Portnoy wrote: [Mon May 22 2006, 09:38:23AM CDT]
> On Mon, May 22, 2006 at 09:21:34AM -0400, Ned Ludd wrote:
> > Please don't change your wording on that. The feel really strongly
> > about the primary pkg manager of Gentoo needing remain under the full
> > control of Gentoo Linux.
> >
>
> A
On Mon, May 22, 2006 at 09:21:34AM -0400, Ned Ludd wrote:
> >
> > First of all, I'm in limbo on this. Certainly not dead set against it. If
> > this were to be used, I'd like to add the following line: "At least 1 of
> > these three must be actively involved in the development of the package
>
On Mon, 22 May 2006 14:59:03 +0200
Paul de Vrieze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > "While it is desirable that the primary package manager be
> > maintained on official gentoo infrastructure, under the control of
> > gentoo developers, it is not required. During the path to becoming
> > the primary
On 22/05/06, Thomas Cort <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Since Gentoo will never depend upon a
piece of non-Free software[1], it is safe to assume that the package
manager is Free software (aka open source). Because of this, we will
never be locked-in, helpless, or under the control of an external
pro
On Mon, 2006-05-22 at 14:59 +0200, Paul de Vrieze wrote:
> On Monday 22 May 2006 10:47, Thomas Cort wrote:
> > I definitely agree that Gentoo needs a team of people to deal with the
> > primary package manager, it is one of the most important tools in a
> > Linux system. It is especially important
On Mon, May 22, 2006 at 02:59:03PM +0200, Paul de Vrieze wrote:
> On Monday 22 May 2006 10:47, Thomas Cort wrote:
> > I definitely agree that Gentoo needs a team of people to deal with the
> > primary package manager, it is one of the most important tools in a
> > Linux system. It is especially imp
On Monday 22 May 2006 10:47, Thomas Cort wrote:
> I definitely agree that Gentoo needs a team of people to deal with the
> primary package manager, it is one of the most important tools in a
> Linux system. It is especially important in Gentoo where the package
> manager is, at this point in time,
On Mon, 22 May 2006 13:29:19 +0200
Paul de Vrieze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The primary package manager is maintained on official Gentoo
> infrastructure, under control of Gentoo developers.
I sent this to gentoo-dev a couple of days ago, but it didn't get any
replies. I was told my mail clien
Hi all.
I have put a new revision of the alternative package manager requirements
GLEP on line. The html version can be found at:
http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/glep/glep-0049.html
The text version is attached here.
I have not yet made changes to the requirement that the primary package
manage
35 matches
Mail list logo
