I would like to ask that the Council discuss the current state and
future of the GWN at their next meeting.
1. Reliability. The GWN claims to be a weekly publication, yet it
frequently fails to publish without prior warning. There was no edition
this week, and Patrick Lauer says that it is "unknow
On Sat, 2006-06-10 at 02:01 +0100, Roy Marples wrote:
> On Saturday 10 June 2006 01:33, Alec Warner wrote:
> > > So we have two use flags - client and server. Here are the possabilities
> > >
> > > -client -server
> > > +client -server
> > > +client +server
> > > -client +server
> > >
> > > Do we r
Apologies if this has been addressed previously, but my searches of the
Gentoo website, devmanual, forums, and mailing list archives didn't turn
up anything definitive.
Is there any sort of policy covering how an ebuild should deal with
/var/cache during unmerge?
The devmanual pages for pkg_
On Saturday 10 June 2006 01:33, Alec Warner wrote:
> > So we have two use flags - client and server. Here are the possabilities
> >
> > -client -server
> > +client -server
> > +client +server
> > -client +server
> >
> > Do we read -client -server and +client +server to mean the same thing?
> > If s
How does portage stop us from doing that now?
I don't think it does ... but you'll have to go back and clean it up
when USE-based DEPs support eventually arrives. But we can worry
about that nearer the time.
Best regards,
Stu
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Roy Marples wrote:
On Friday 09 June 2006 23:34, Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Friday 09 June 2006 16:35, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
This is the "official" (hehe) request for comments on making a policy of
how to handle ebuilds than can be used for either client or server and
how to allow for buildin
On Friday 09 June 2006 23:34, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Friday 09 June 2006 16:35, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> > This is the "official" (hehe) request for comments on making a policy of
> > how to handle ebuilds than can be used for either client or server and
> > how to allow for building client-on
Anders Hellgren wrote:
> What the faq entry didn't say, and what amne asked for in his previous
> e-mail was that questions related to ebuilds not distributed as part of
> the official tree should be posted to the Unsupported Software forum [1].
Yes
> We have neither reason nor desire to treat su
Mike Frysinger wrote:
> rather than moving to some sort of policy that satisfies no one completely
> and
> we'll have to back out of later, why dont we wait until portage can give us
> proper support for USE=client/server
> -mike
+1
--
Luca Barbato
Gentoo/linux Gentoo/PPC
http://dev.gentoo
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sat, 10 Jun 2006, Stefan Schweizer wrote:
I actually was trying to adress your issues with that FAQ entry, sorry if
you feel like I have decided something. Please give me a reasonable
rewording if you think my assumption is not correct that this
So, as someone might have read in my blog[1] I've been thinking for a couple
of days about creating an i18n project.
What would an i18n project be needed for? Mainly, to try to provide to our
non-English native users a more friendly environment. We discussed many times
in the past about making
Hi Chris,
On 6/9/06, Chris Gianelloni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > This means if the client and the
> > server for a particular package is in a single package, we should build
> > both by default.
>
> No thanks. That doesn't match the standard operating procedure
> mentioned above. By defaul
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
To me, "official" means it's found anywhere within the gentoo.org/ webspace.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFEif8drsJQqN81j74RApMAAJ9/e3txjQTIz1RHmpRAkbVc5DV4ggCfRhn1
T1D2O5hZMuUIouwc1iHYQhw=
=A7/n
-END PGP
On Fri, Jun 09, 2006 at 06:19:53PM -0400, Ned Ludd wrote:
> Seems logical.
>
> But for what you are proposing I'd suggest not making USE of minimal at
> all for this. I'd rather see that flag reserved for mostly
> embedded alike use.
Me too. A server/client set of USE flags seems more appropriat
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Alec Warner wrote:
> Portage-2.1 final is released,
Thanks for the hard work, Portage team. 2.1 is fabulous. Really, really good
job!
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFEif5ArsJQqN81j74RAjq9AJ9mle+qd7Gb9Gc8dV2uL
Wernfried Haas wrote:
> - Ebuild development questions should for example be discussed in
> #gentoo-dev-help and I have seen threads about it on
> forums.gentoo.org and even helped there. There is no reason why
> questions about ebuild writing for the Sunrise overlay should not be
> treated equal
On Fri, Jun 09, 2006 at 08:10:26PM +0200, Stefan Schweizer wrote:
> Markus Ullmann wrote:
> > Maybe that way we avoid any misunderstandings, nearly doubled posts and
> > repeating ourselves over and over again.
>
> The problem is that some questions and answers easily get lost in a mailing
> list.
On Friday 09 June 2006 16:35, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> This is the "official" (hehe) request for comments on making a policy of
> how to handle ebuilds than can be used for either client or server and
> how to allow for building client-only.
rather than moving to some sort of policy that satisfie
On Fri, 2006-06-09 at 16:35 -0400, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> This is the "official" (hehe) request for comments on making a policy of
> how to handle ebuilds than can be used for either client or server and
> how to allow for building client-only.
>
> The idea is quite simple.
>
> Gentoo's standa
On Fri, 2006-06-09 at 16:14 -0400, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> Since when was overlays.gentoo.org supposed to even be a service to our
> users? As I understand it, the goal was to ease development, not to
> provide an easy method for half-working ebuilds to make it to our user's
> machines.
What's
On Fri, Jun 09, 2006 at 05:22:18PM -0400, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> On Fri, 2006-06-09 at 22:51 +0200, Patrick Lauer wrote:
> > On Fri, 2006-06-09 at 16:14 -0400, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> > [snip]
> > > > If someone wanted to exploit boxen he'd use a much simpler attack
> > > > vector ... our rsyn
On Fri, Jun 09, 2006 at 10:42:55AM -0500, Andrew Gaffney wrote:
> Alec Warner wrote:
> >Portage-2.1 final is released,
>
> Is that the 4th horseman I see off in the distance?
No! It's a flying pig! :)
Seriously, a big thank you to all the people who invested their spare
time contributing and get
On Fri, Jun 09, 2006 at 02:46:39PM -0500, James Potts wrote:
> I have a counter-question to this: What modifications to the sunrise
> (not sunrice, btw) project would have to be made to get you to stop
> actively trying to shut it down? I really don't care if you think the
> team will be willing
On Fri, 9 Jun 2006 11:24:34 +0100 "Stuart Herbert"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| On 6/9/06, Edward Catmur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| > With an overlay: search sunrice.gentoo.org for the package
|
| If you want people to debate seriously with you, stop calling this
| project 'sunrice'.
Why? It's
Patrick Lauer wrote:
> On Fri, 2006-06-09 at 16:14 -0400, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> [snip]
>>> If someone wanted to exploit boxen he'd use a much simpler attack
>>> vector ... our rsync mirrors are wide open. No need to secure the little
>>> window over there when the front door is open ...
>> Real
On Fri, 2006-06-09 at 20:12 +0200, Jakub Moc wrote:
> Peper wrote:
> >>> well. A couple of examples:
> >>>
> >>> http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=122500
> >> And again, you use my project of an example. Perhaps you should try
> >> looking at something that actually supports your argument?
>
On Fri, 2006-06-09 at 22:05 +0100, Stuart Herbert wrote:
> On 6/9/06, Chris Gianelloni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Gentoo's standard operating procedure is to build packages as they were
> > intended and packaged from upstream.
>
> +1
>
> > This means if the client and the
> > server for a par
On Fri, 2006-06-09 at 22:51 +0200, Patrick Lauer wrote:
> On Fri, 2006-06-09 at 16:14 -0400, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> [snip]
> > > If someone wanted to exploit boxen he'd use a much simpler attack
> > > vector ... our rsync mirrors are wide open. No need to secure the little
> > > window over ther
On Fri, Jun 09, 2006 at 09:22:08PM +0200, Kevin F. Quinn wrote:
> On Fri, 09 Jun 2006 07:50:27 -0400
> Ned Ludd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Keeping it simple...
> >
> > If it's hosted on gentoo infrastructure it's official.
> > If it's hosted on gentooexp.org/SF/Non infra then it's not offic
On Fri, 2006-06-09 at 20:32 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Fri, 09 Jun 2006 20:06:04 +0100 Christel Dahlskjaer
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> | I'd say that it's entirely possibly for some non-dev to sneak
> | malicious code into the tree as is now, just as it will be possible
> | to do in an o
On Fri, 2006-06-09 at 16:22 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Friday 09 June 2006 15:04, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> > On Fri, 2006-06-09 at 17:43 +0100, Roy Marples wrote:
> > > On Friday 09 June 2006 14:10, Roy Marples wrote:
> > > > Some packages provide both a client and a server. As such, users
On Fri, 2006-06-09 at 16:18 -0400, Daniel Ostrow wrote:
> On Fri, 2006-06-09 at 14:46 -0500, James Potts wrote:
> > On 6/9/06, Chris Gianelloni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > On Fri, 2006-06-09 at 19:10 +0200, Stefan Schweizer wrote:
> > > > Markus Ullmann wrote:
> > > > > Maybe that way we avoid
On Fri, 2006-06-09 at 16:19 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Thursday 08 June 2006 21:08, Brian Harring wrote:
> > One additional to this- the location for the file in the tree *should*
> > be metadata/ - shoving it into profiles is the wrong location (it's
> > not profile data, it's repo metadata
On 6/9/06, Chris Gianelloni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Gentoo's standard operating procedure is to build packages as they were
intended and packaged from upstream.
+1
This means if the client and the
server for a particular package is in a single package, we should build
both by default.
No
On Fri, 2006-06-09 at 14:46 -0500, James Potts wrote:
> On 6/9/06, Chris Gianelloni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Fri, 2006-06-09 at 19:10 +0200, Stefan Schweizer wrote:
> > > Markus Ullmann wrote:
> > > > Maybe that way we avoid any misunderstandings, nearly doubled posts and
> > > > repeating
On Fri, 2006-06-09 at 20:32 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> Huge difference between committing a few things for a person you know,
> where you have time to review code, and bulk committing random stuff
> where you don't have time to check anything. That's the deal here -- if
> a large number of dev
On Fri, 2006-06-09 at 16:14 -0400, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
[snip]
> > If someone wanted to exploit boxen he'd use a much simpler attack
> > vector ... our rsync mirrors are wide open. No need to secure the little
> > window over there when the front door is open ...
>
> Really? I'd like you to gi
p://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=115839
> >> [4]http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=136198
> >
> > So like... should we put up a news item about this? I think so.
> > After all, it is good PR when something as major as this happens.
> >
> indeed we should do
This is the "official" (hehe) request for comments on making a policy of
how to handle ebuilds than can be used for either client or server and
how to allow for building client-only.
The idea is quite simple.
Gentoo's standard operating procedure is to build packages as they were
intended and pac
Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> Since when was overlays.gentoo.org supposed to even be a service to our
> users? As I understand it, the goal was to ease development, not to
> provide an easy method for half-working ebuilds to make it to our user's
> machines.
Our users are our biggest base of testers,
On Thursday 08 June 2006 08:35, Roy Marples wrote:
> On Thursday 08 June 2006 11:00, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On Thursday 08 June 2006 02:58, Roy Marples wrote:
> > > On Wednesday 07 June 2006 12:03, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > > > you guys have had plenty of time to do this ... so last call before
On Friday 09 June 2006 15:04, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> On Fri, 2006-06-09 at 17:43 +0100, Roy Marples wrote:
> > On Friday 09 June 2006 14:10, Roy Marples wrote:
> > > Some packages provide both a client and a server. As such, users
> > > usually only want one or the other - and rarely both.
> >
>
On Fri, Jun 09, 2006 at 01:55:44PM -0400, Alec Warner wrote:
> Wernfried Haas wrote:
> >* config files as directories enabling more flexible settings
> >management.
>
> /etc/portage/package.mask/* fex, assuming I am remembering correctly.
>
> Then you can maintain:
>
> /etc/portage/package.unmas
On Fri, 2006-06-09 at 14:46 -0500, James Potts wrote:
> On 6/9/06, Chris Gianelloni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Fri, 2006-06-09 at 19:10 +0200, Stefan Schweizer wrote:
> > > Markus Ullmann wrote:
> > > > Maybe that way we avoid any misunderstandings, nearly doubled posts and
> > > > repeating
On Fri, 2006-06-09 at 19:41 +0200, Patrick Lauer wrote:
> > This *will* affect *every* ebuild developer.
> Maybe you don't realize that taking ebuilds for packages that are _not in
> portage_ and providing them in a nice bundle does not affect every developer?
I'm sorry for the language, but I ca
On Thursday 08 June 2006 21:08, Brian Harring wrote:
> One additional to this- the location for the file in the tree *should*
> be metadata/ - shoving it into profiles is the wrong location (it's
> not profile data, it's repo metadata).
that is the correct location for it but we have no metadata t
James Potts wrote:
> I do have a question: If you're allowing just anybody who asks to
> have commit access to the repo, what guarantees can you give me that
> they won't commit something deliberately malicious or which will break
> the entire overlay to the overlay?
I have added this to the FAQ:
On 6/9/06, Stefan Schweizer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Markus Ullmann wrote:
> Maybe that way we avoid any misunderstandings, nearly doubled posts and
> repeating ourselves over and over again.
The problem is that some questions and answers easily get lost in a mailing
list. To solve this shortc
On 6/9/06, Chris Gianelloni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Fri, 2006-06-09 at 19:10 +0200, Stefan Schweizer wrote:
> Markus Ullmann wrote:
> > Maybe that way we avoid any misunderstandings, nearly doubled posts and
> > repeating ourselves over and over again.
>
> The problem is that some questions
Luis Francisco Araujo wrote:
> Fine. I highly agree on that, now my question is,
> why this needs to be officially supported?
See
"Why does this have to be on official gentoo hardware?"
http://overlays.gentoo.org/proj/sunrise/wiki/SunriseFaq
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
On Fri, 09 Jun 2006 20:06:04 +0100 Christel Dahlskjaer
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| I'd say that it's entirely possibly for some non-dev to sneak
| malicious code into the tree as is now, just as it will be possible
| to do in an overlay.
|
| It's not like it's particulary difficult to have som
Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> Initially, yes. What happens once the user gets complete access to the
> repository, though? Are we going to be keeping people from adding
> packages without bugs?
Absolutely. This is for maintainer-wanted stuff, so it should be
documented in Bugzilla and assigned to ma
On Friday 09 June 2006 20:04, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> On Fri, 2006-06-09 at 17:43 +0100, Roy Marples wrote:
> > On Friday 09 June 2006 14:10, Roy Marples wrote:
> > > Some packages provide both a client and a server. As such, users
> > > usually only want one or the other - and rarely both.
> >
>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> On Fri, 2006-06-09 at 11:12 -0400, Alec Warner wrote:
>> Portage-2.1 final is released,
>>
>> RELEASE-NOTES[1] NEWS[2] BUGS-FIXED[3] STABLIZING BUG[4]
>>
>>
[1]http://sources.gentoo.org/viewcvs.py/portage/main/trunk/RELEASE-NO
Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> Not policy (I don't think) but current accepted practice.
>
> Should this become a policy?
I'd say so, since this discussion regularly comes up again, and how we
do it is really an expression of the Gentoo philosophy and our
differences from a typical binary distribution
On Fri, 2006-06-09 at 19:10 +0200, Stefan Schweizer wrote:
> Markus Ullmann wrote:
> > Maybe that way we avoid any misunderstandings, nearly doubled posts and
> > repeating ourselves over and over again.
>
> The problem is that some questions and answers easily get lost in a mailing
> list. To sol
On Fri, 2006-06-09 at 10:05 -0700, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> >> With an overlay: search sunrice.gentoo.org for the package (no, I don't
> >> know category/name), sync that directory (no, I'm not syncing the whole
> >> sunrice tree), check it over, note some mistakes, compi
On Fri, 09 Jun 2006 07:50:27 -0400
Ned Ludd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Keeping it simple...
>
> If it's hosted on gentoo infrastructure it's official.
> If it's hosted on gentooexp.org/SF/Non infra then it's not official.
I think this is the best way to define it. Anything on Gentoo
infrastru
On Fri, 2006-06-09 at 17:43 +0100, Roy Marples wrote:
> On Friday 09 June 2006 14:10, Roy Marples wrote:
> > Some packages provide both a client and a server. As such, users usually
> > only want one or the other - and rarely both.
> >
>
> Thanks to wolf31o2 for pointing out that current policy di
On Fri, 2006-06-09 at 11:12 -0400, Alec Warner wrote:
> Portage-2.1 final is released,
>
> RELEASE-NOTES[1]
> NEWS[2]
> BUGS-FIXED[3]
> STABLIZING BUG[4]
>
> [1]http://sources.gentoo.org/viewcvs.py/portage/main/trunk/RELEASE-NOTES?view=markup
> [2]http://sources.gentoo.org/viewcvs.py/portage/main
Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> Everyone that you happen to include as allowed to actually commit, you
> mean. As opposed to "everyone that can sign themselves up for
> bugzilla"?
>
>> It is designed to be more open and more easily fixable.
>
> Sure. More open then a self-registering system. Gotcha.
Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> The truth is that we don't ever want to become like the binary
> distributions. We don't want to have to have separate
> client/server/common/devel as it removes many of the advantages that
> Gentoo has. The default should *always* be to install the package as it
> was i
On Fri, 2006-06-09 at 15:35 +0200, Stefan Schweizer wrote:
> > It seems like genstef and jokey have completely
> > ignored support from arch teams for this overlay. What are you
> > proposing with respect to arch keywords and package.mask?
> users are supported to do everything themselves in the
On Fri, 2006-06-09 at 14:10 +0100, Roy Marples wrote:
> Some packages provide both a client and a server. As such, users usually only
> want one or the other - and rarely both.
>
> A good candidate is net-misc/dhcp as it installs a DHCP client and server.
> Which makes no sense really, so I'd li
On Fri, 09 Jun 2006 14:15:01 -0400, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
Chris, I am not familiar enough about gentoo's hierarchy, politics, or
team responsibilities to question your sincerity or authority to say
something like: Sorry, but if it isn't supported, it doesn't belong on
Gentoo infrastructure.
I d
On Fri, 9 Jun 2006 14:10:51 +0100
Roy Marples <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Some packages provide both a client and a server. As such, users
> usually only want one or the other - and rarely both.
>
> A good candidate is net-misc/dhcp as it installs a DHCP client and
> server. Which makes no sense
On Fri, 2006-06-09 at 05:42 -0700, Brian Harring wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 09, 2006 at 08:16:32AM -0400, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> > On Fri, 2006-06-09 at 02:49 +0200, Markus Ullmann wrote:
> > > > This is a bug for an ebuild that the user does not think is related to
> > > > the pam_skey. Go back and
Chris Bainbridge wrote:
On 09/06/06, Luis Francisco Araujo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Yes, i agree, writting and maintaining ebuilds is a hard and
*time-consuming* task.
So if an user can't even take the time to fix a digest, why we should
support him
officially?.
The point is that there are l
Chris Bainbridge wrote:
On 09/06/06, Luis Francisco Araujo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Chris Bainbridge wrote:
> There are already loads of semi-official overlays. Besides the stuff
> actually hosted by gentoo (random example
> http://dev.gentoo.org/~flameeyes/bzr/overlay/) there are official
> g
On Fri, 2006-06-09 at 14:04 +0200, Stefan Schweizer wrote:
> Carsten Lohrke wrote:
> > You should at least make it visible in bold letters on the overlay.g.o
> > front page, what the conditions of each overlay are and which [EMAIL
> > PROTECTED]
> > address bugs have to be assigned to.
>
>
> Pl
On Fri, 2006-06-09 at 20:12 +0200, Jakub Moc wrote:
> Peper wrote:
> >>> well. A couple of examples:
> >>>
> >>> http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=122500
> >> And again, you use my project of an example. Perhaps you should try
> >> looking at something that actually supports your argument?
>
On Fri, 2006-06-09 at 07:44 -0400, Peter wrote:
> Firstly, I think it is very clear that anything in sunrise is experimental
> or not supported in the main gentoo tree. That's fine! I don't think any
> user who goes through the trouble to set up an overlay would miss that
> point. You can't go to o
Peper wrote:
>>> well. A couple of examples:
>>>
>>> http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=122500
>> And again, you use my project of an example. Perhaps you should try
>> looking at something that actually supports your argument?
>
> I think it's an example of how user-friendly is bugzilla...
Everything maintained by the Gentoo project, instead than for the Gentoo
project.
Stuart Herbert wrote:
Hi,
One of the issues that the o.g.o project has brought to a head is the
definition of what is "official" and what is not "official" when it
comes to Gentoo. The term is already being thro
On Fri, 2006-06-09 at 02:08 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Fri, 09 Jun 2006 02:49:14 +0200 Markus Ullmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> | > No. It clearly says that you would be doing the basic QA checks and
> | > repoman checking on initial commit. You even said it right above
> | > where I
> > well. A couple of examples:
> >
> > http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=122500
>
> And again, you use my project of an example. Perhaps you should try
> looking at something that actually supports your argument?
I think it's an example of how user-friendly is bugzilla...
--
Best Regards,
On Fri, 2006-06-09 at 12:20 -0400, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> > bugzilla sucks. Ever had to download 10 attachments for one ebuild?
> > It is a good tool for discussion, but I would prefer a simple tool (like
> > layman) that can automatically update things. You obviously don't like
> > overlays, bu
Am Freitag, 9. Juni 2006 14:04 schrieb Stefan Schweizer:
> And also there are only applications from maintainer-wanted or
> maintainer-needed allowed in the overlay. Because packages are not
> supposed to overwrite files from other ebuilds it is unlikely that
> they can cause any damage to applicat
On Fri, 2006-06-09 at 13:28 +0200, Carsten Lohrke wrote:
> > we do support it security wise, we will be reacting upon security issues.
> > We do have package.mask support in the overlay and we are going to use it.
> > The ebuilds have a quality, repoman is required to be run. Also
> > contributors
Am Freitag, 9. Juni 2006 14:04 schrieb Stefan Schweizer:
> And also there are only applications from maintainer-wanted or
> maintainer-needed allowed in the overlay. Because packages are not
> supposed to overwrite files from other ebuilds it is unlikely that
> they can cause any damage to applicat
Am Freitag, 9. Juni 2006 14:04 schrieb Stefan Schweizer:
> And also there are only applications from maintainer-wanted or
> maintainer-needed allowed in the overlay. Because packages are not
> supposed to overwrite files from other ebuilds it is unlikely that
> they can cause any damage to applicat
Markus Ullmann wrote:
> Maybe that way we avoid any misunderstandings, nearly doubled posts and
> repeating ourselves over and over again.
The problem is that some questions and answers easily get lost in a mailing
list. To solve this shortcoming, I am starting to make a FAQ page in the
trac wiki:
Chris Gianelloni wrote:
>> With an overlay: search sunrice.gentoo.org for the package (no, I don't
>> know category/name), sync that directory (no, I'm not syncing the whole
>> sunrice tree), check it over, note some mistakes, compile it if I feel
>> OK with it, it fails, I fix it - and what then?
On Fri, 2006-06-09 at 12:33 +0200, Jakub Moc wrote:
> well. A couple of examples:
>
> http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=122500
And again, you use my project of an example. Perhaps you should try
looking at something that actually supports your argument?
A subversion repository was built fo
Wernfried Haas wrote:
On Fri, Jun 09, 2006 at 12:12:31PM -0400, Alec Warner wrote:
Portage-2.1 final is released,
Congrats to the portage team!
While i'm at it, may i ask which files are affected by these changes /
which docs i missed to read?
* config files as directories enabling more fle
On Fri, 2006-06-09 at 11:01 +0100, Edward Catmur wrote:
> > Hmmm. I think an overlay does have some advantages there ...
>
> Advantages? With bugzilla I: search for the bug, cc myself on it,
> download the relevant files, look over them, note a style error, try to
> merge it, fix a compilation bug
On Friday 09 June 2006 14:10, Roy Marples wrote:
> Some packages provide both a client and a server. As such, users usually
> only want one or the other - and rarely both.
>
Thanks to wolf31o2 for pointing out that current policy dictates that we
install both by default and the minimal USE flag s
Chris Gianelloni wrote:
Well, I am going to do everything within my power to stop it. I will
not back down until this project is dead. It really is that simple.
*golf-clap*
--
Andrew Gaffneyhttp://dev.gentoo.org/~agaffney/
Gentoo Linux Developer
Patrick McLean wrote:
>>
> finger, telnet and ssh are probably other candidates. (though not too
> many people set up boxes without a ssh server these days).
>
> ++ to this, I have always found it a little absurd having dhcpd
> installed on my laptop just for dhclient.
dhcpcd could be a better te
On Fri, 2006-06-09 at 11:06 +0200, Jakub Moc wrote:
> The thing has been sitting in bugzilla for ages, I've asked Flameeyes to
> commit it and he said he's not going to put any mode pam stuff into the
> tree unless he's using the modules himself. Nothing wrong w/ that. So, I
> can either keep on ma
On Fri, 2006-06-09 at 10:28 +0200, Patrick Lauer wrote:
> On Thu, 2006-06-08 at 20:06 -0400, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> > > You don't need a subversion client, you perhaps notice the http in front
> > > of the url.. just open it up in your browser and you get the source
> > > immediately.
> >
> > U
On Fri, Jun 09, 2006 at 12:12:31PM -0400, Alec Warner wrote:
> Portage-2.1 final is released,
Congrats to the portage team!
While i'm at it, may i ask which files are affected by these changes /
which docs i missed to read?
* config files as directories enabling more flexible settings
management.
On Friday 09 June 2006 14:04, Stefan Schweizer wrote:
> Please, do not assume our users being stupid. They know that they are using
> an ebuild from the sunrise overlay with zero support. They deliberately
> typed
You have said stupid, not me. Some won't care enough, I'm quite sure about
that. We
Alec Warner wrote:
Portage-2.1 final is released,
Is that the 4th horseman I see off in the distance?
--
Andrew Gaffneyhttp://dev.gentoo.org/~agaffney/
Gentoo Linux Developer Installer Project
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
On Friday 09 June 2006 13:44, Peter wrote:
> Secondly, my bias against a third party repository is perhaps unwarranted.
> I am sure the bmg site is excellent and the people running it are
> well-intentioned and experienced. However, that said, as a user, I have a
> higher comfort level staying in t
Portage-2.1 final is released,
RELEASE-NOTES[1]
NEWS[2]
BUGS-FIXED[3]
STABLIZING BUG[4]
[1]http://sources.gentoo.org/viewcvs.py/portage/main/trunk/RELEASE-NOTES?view=markup
[2]http://sources.gentoo.org/viewcvs.py/portage/main/trunk/NEWS?view=markup
[3]http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=11583
On 6/9/06, Stephen P. Becker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Apparently, this is not the case. Policy for overlays.gentoo.org> stipulates
that all bugs in overlays must use our bugzilla.
The intention of the policy is to prevent the use of third-party bug
trackers for tracking problems w/ ebuilds
Roy Marples wrote:
> USE client server
> client - just build the client - duh
> server - just build the server - duh
> client and server OR neither then build both.
>
> Other packages to possably beneift
> udhcp
> mldonkey
> samhain
> bacula
> boxbackup
>
finger, telnet and ssh are probably other
Hi,
so as I was told that I avoid the questions regarding this project
several times now, please repost all open issues you have with this
project clearly, each in one or max two short sentences here.
I'll answer them all the same way to keep out all non-belonging stuff.
Maybe that way we avoid a
Roy Marples wrote:
Some packages provide both a client and a server. As such, users usually only
want one or the other - and rarely both.
A good candidate is net-misc/dhcp as it installs a DHCP client and server.
Which makes no sense really, so I'd like to put some USE flags here to show
what
1 - 100 of 138 matches
Mail list logo
