Sven Vermeulen wrote:
[...]
You get a good 'old welcome from me, Wolf. Welcome.
From me as well. Welcome aboard, Wolf! :D
--
Peter Gordon (codergeek42)
Gentoo Forums Global Moderator
GnuPG Public Key ID: 0xFFC19479 / Fingerprint:
DD68 A414 56BD 6368 D957 9666 4268 CB7A FFC1 9479
My Blog: htt
Miroslav Šulc wrote:
> I would also appreciate more information on Java ebuilds development. I
> don't remember I've seen somewhere slotting "howto" for Java ebuilds,
> but I may miss something.
>
For Java specific information, check out the developer guide:
http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/jav
On Fri, 2006-07-28 at 11:51 -0700, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> Robert Cernansky wrote:
> > If I have some application that is not included in portage why
> > I decide to make an ebuild? Because I hope that then it will be
> > accepted and included to portage, so maintained by developers (big
> > thank
Danny van Dyk wrote:
> 5 packages, and only one has nowebdav, and you want to make it a default
> USE flag? I strongly disagree here. Make it a plain useflag and notify
> users of subversion that the behaviour changed. Much better than
> informing users of the other 4 packages that the behaviour ch
On Fri, 2006-07-28 at 22:09 +0200, Robert Cernansky wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Jul 2006 21:49:02 +0200 Alexandre Buisse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Jul 28, 2006 at 21:27:31 +0200, Robert Cernansky wrote:
> >
> > > I just understand it so, that if a user submits a new ebuild he has to
> > >
Hi Chris,
on Friday, 2006-07-28 at 09:41:09, you wrote:
> Well, we would hope that people using the package would file a bug, but
> this obviously doesn't always happen.
Even if it happens that doesn't mean anything is gonna change :)
I'd like to get involved and help out with stuff like this but
On Fri, 28 Jul 2006 21:49:02 +0200 Alexandre Buisse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 28, 2006 at 21:27:31 +0200, Robert Cernansky wrote:
>
> > I just understand it so, that if a user submits a new ebuild he has to
> > in fact maintain it. So overall maintenance time required by his
> > op
On Fri, 28 Jul 2006 15:26:37 -0400 Luis Francisco Araujo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> An ebuild offer several advantages even for tiny packages.
If it is self-maintained ebuild, it depends on complexity of
it. Currently I have one application outside the portage tree and
I found out to easier/
On Fri, Jul 28, 2006 at 21:27:31 +0200, Robert Cernansky wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Jul 2006 14:26:31 -0400 Luis Francisco Araujo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> > Robert Cernansky wrote:
> > > Oh, if I can speak for me as a user I'll not like it. One of the
> > > major advantage of Gentoo is easy mai
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Robert Cernansky wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Jul 2006 11:51:46 -0700 Donnie Berkholz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Robert Cernansky wrote:
>>> If I have some application that is not included in portage why
>>> I decide to make an ebuild? Because I hope that
On Fri, 28 Jul 2006 11:51:46 -0700 Donnie Berkholz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Robert Cernansky wrote:
> > If I have some application that is not included in portage why
> > I decide to make an ebuild? Because I hope that then it will be
> > accepted and included to portage, so maintained by deve
On Fri, 28 Jul 2006 14:26:31 -0400 Luis Francisco Araujo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Robert Cernansky wrote:
> > Oh, if I can speak for me as a user I'll not like it. One of the
> > major advantage of Gentoo is easy maintenace (not mindless, but
> > easy if you know what you are doing) thanks to
Am Freitag, 28. Juli 2006 10:18 schrieb Stefan Schweizer:
> Hi
>
> we currently have both webdav and nowebdav ueflags, this is
> confusing:
>
> # grep webdav /usr/portage/profiles/use.local.desc
> dev-util/git:webdav - Adds support for push'ing to HTTP repositories
> via DAV dev-util/subversion:now
Robert Cernansky wrote:
> If I have some application that is not included in portage why
> I decide to make an ebuild? Because I hope that then it will be
> accepted and included to portage, so maintained by developers (big
> thanks for this). If I have to take care of package + ebuild +
> dependen
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Robert Cernansky wrote:
> Oh, if I can speak for me as a user I'll not like it. One of the major
> advantage of Gentoo is easy maintenace (not mindless, but easy if you
> know what you are doing) thanks to portage system. Another is
> availability of l
On Thu, 27 Jul 2006 22:19:14 -0400 Luis Francisco Araujo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> the developers could let all these three points at the hands of the
> user wanting to get the ebuild included into the tree.
[...]
> The user has to compromise to take care of those previous commented
> three
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Enrico Weigelt wrote:
> The gentoo devs currently do much of the upstream's work.
> Fixing bugs or even adding new stuff which does not directly have to
> do w/ gentoo should be done exlusively by the upstream.
>
Not true at all.
We (as developers)
* Luis Francisco Araujo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb:
Hi,
> Well, my idea is more focused on getting closer the developer with the
> user, in the sense that they would be like a team (as i already said) ,
> where the developer is the official figure in the group. So, at some
so far okay, but we p
On Thu, 2006-07-27 at 22:55 +0200, Robert Cernansky wrote:
> Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> > But, nobody likes doing the small stuff, and I can't blame them.
>
> I understand. I do not expect that these packages will have same
> attention by developers as major ones. I would understand if
> stabilisat
On Thu, 2006-07-27 at 11:11 -0700, Richard Fish wrote:
> On 7/27/06, Chris Gianelloni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Please don't interpret my original message as a complaint. It isn't.
> It is mostly a question of the process. My understanding of
> stabilization bugs was that they should be the ex
Uhh just my two cents on this whoule proxy-dev stuff... I concede it
_is_ a good idea and can have it's benefits, but I can't see it as an
"alternative" to Sunrise... as an addition, that both exist and the user
can use both channels, ok, but not as a 1:1 sobstitute to Sunrise. I'm
not really sure
On Thu, 2006-07-27 at 09:24 -0600, Steve Dibb wrote:
> Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> >> I'd say no bugs, 30 days, passes internal tests, being run by users =>
> >> stablise, for the majority of packages (obviously, there may be some
> >> exceptions...).
> >>
> >
> > Luckily, you're not making the
Paul de Vrieze wrote:
> I'd like to explain why subversion has a nowebdav useflag. Basically one
> of the features of subversion is its ability to work over the http
> protocol. Many subversion installations use the apache module to serve
> subversion (even our own overlay project does). To disable
On Fri, 2006-07-28 at 12:02 +0200, Henrik Brix Andersen wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 28, 2006 at 11:35:24AM +0200, Martin Schlemmer wrote:
> > Mike asked you repeatedly to voice your issues or concerns in relation
> > to Project Sunrise, which you failed to reply to.
>
> How many times are we supposed to
On Fri, Jul 28, 2006 at 11:35:24AM +0200, Martin Schlemmer wrote:
> Mike asked you repeatedly to voice your issues or concerns in relation
> to Project Sunrise, which you failed to reply to.
How many times are we supposed to raise our concerns about a project
whose founders already agreed to run t
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Stefan Schweizer wrote:
> Luis Francisco Araujo wrote:
>> 3 - Users ask on this mailing list if there exist any developer
>> interested to include X, or Y ebuild into the tree. (Probably we could
>> create a template for this?)
>
> The user should sen
On Thu, 2006-07-27 at 18:21 -0400, Stephen P. Becker wrote:
> Stefan Schweizer wrote:
> > In last weeks council meeting [1] it was decided that the Sunrise project is
> > no longer suspended. I can give a short overview of the current status of
> > the overlay:
> >
> > - we currently have 154 ebui
On Friday 28 July 2006 10:18, Stefan Schweizer wrote:
> Hi
>
> we currently have both webdav and nowebdav ueflags, this is confusing:
>
> # grep webdav /usr/portage/profiles/use.local.desc
> dev-util/git:webdav - Adds support for push'ing to HTTP repositories via
> DAV dev-util/subversion:nowebdav
Luis Francisco Araujo wrote:
> 3 - Users ask on this mailing list if there exist any developer
> interested to include X, or Y ebuild into the tree. (Probably we could
> create a template for this?)
The user should send the ebuild changes together with the mail. Make it look
like on LKML including
On Fri, 2006-07-28 at 01:55 +0200, Henrik Brix Andersen wrote:
> To my former fellow Gentoo developers and users,
>
> On Thu, Jul 27, 2006 at 11:58:09PM +0200, Stefan Schweizer wrote:
> > To my fellow Gentoo developers and users,
> >
> > In last weeks council meeting [1] it was decided that the S
Hi
we currently have both webdav and nowebdav ueflags, this is confusing:
# grep webdav /usr/portage/profiles/use.local.desc
dev-util/git:webdav - Adds support for push'ing to HTTP repositories via DAV
dev-util/subversion:nowebdav - Disables WebDAV support via neon library
net-misc/sitecopy:webda
On Thu, Jul 27, 2006 at 11:31:28PM -0700, Josh Saddler wrote:
> i'll miss you greatly, brix. You made my laptop and wireless (madwifi) worlds
> much much happier places. i'm on devaway, but when I'm back, if no one else
> has
> done it, i'll xmlify your pcmciautils doc -- you were the one who took
32 matches
Mail list logo
