Matti Bickel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted [EMAIL PROTECTED],
excerpted below, on Thu, 10 Aug 2006 23:59:51 +0200:
> Thomas Cort <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Why do arch testers need to post `emerge --info` if everything works?
>> Shouldn't we be able to trust that they have sane CFLAGS, proper
>>
Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Thursday 10 August 2006 15:42, Kevin F. Quinn wrote:
More generally we have varying approaches to pre-built packages;
app-office/openoffice-bin installs to /usr for example, while
mail-client/mozilla-thunderbird-bin and www-client/mozilla-firefox-bin
install to /opt.
w
Ferris McCormick wrote:
> (By the way, if the ballots from council2005 are still around, and if
> someone can make them anonymous (convert names to something like C1, C2,
> etc.), I can take them and show what results STV would give, if you'd
> like a controlled test.)
Please see the following -co
On Thursday 10 August 2006 19:32, Doug Goldstein wrote:
> Also, I can probably hit brad_mssw for you if you want. Since I work
> with him now.
hindsight is 20/20 eh ? no point in "blaming" people for decisions made when
at the time, said decisions were the "best"
-mike
pgp0p9SR79Nsv.pgp
Descri
Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Thursday 10 August 2006 12:48, Olivier Crete wrote:
>> And I think we should continue to put the binary
>> app-emulation/emul-linux-x86-* in /emul/ and that lib32 should be
>> reserved for properly installed packages using portage whenever we
>> manage to get portage to
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Thu, 10 Aug 2006, Matti Bickel wrote:
Thomas Cort <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Why do arch testers need to post `emerge --info` if everything works?
Shouldn't we be able to trust that they have sane CFLAGS, proper
FEATURES, and an up to date syste
On Thu, 2006-08-10 at 18:29 -0400, Thomas Cort wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Aug 2006 23:58:46 +0200
> "Kevin F. Quinn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > It's not about trust, it's about knowing what the CFLAGS/FEATURES
> > were. That way if someone else reports a failure, you can compare the
> > reports an
On Thu, 10 Aug 2006 23:58:46 +0200
"Kevin F. Quinn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The problem with attachments is that processing the report takes
> longer
> - you have to go to the web to read the attachment to find out what
> config worked (or failed, if that was the case). It's best to have it
On Thu, 2006-08-10 at 12:26 -0500, Mike Doty wrote:
> We're getting to the point where most emul stuff could be made obsolete.
> The amd64 team is having a meeting next week and I'll bring the point up.
Just don't screw over games in the process. ;]
--
Chris Gianelloni
Release Engineering - St
On Thursday 10 August 2006 11:57, Grant Goodyear wrote:
> Well, we don't yet have reliable software in place to _count_ votes,
> but that's no reason not to start collecting them.
once we've settled, it'd be good to upload the scripts we actually used to the
council voting section
-mike
pgpWoAg
On Thu, 10 Aug 2006 23:58:46 +0200
"Kevin F. Quinn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It's not about trust, it's about knowing what the CFLAGS/FEATURES
> were. That way if someone else reports a failure, you can compare the
> reports and see what differences might be triggering the fault.
I get that
Steev Klimaszewski wrote:
Noack, Sebastian wrote:
Hi,
I have a Palm Zire 71 device, with Palm OS on it and a 400 MHz
ARM-Processor in it. Actually I don't use this device anymore, so if
somebody wants try to get Gentoo Linux run on it, I would give it to him.
There is an SD/MMC-Slot which c
Thomas Cort <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Why do arch testers need to post `emerge --info` if everything works?
> Shouldn't we be able to trust that they have sane CFLAGS, proper
> FEATURES, and an up to date system?
Once there was the idea of putting AT testing system specs somewhere, so arch
devs
On Thu, 10 Aug 2006 14:44:13 -0400
Thomas Cort <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Aug 2006 19:50:55 +0200
> Jeroen Roovers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I propose the `emerge --info` included in arch testers' comments on
> > stabilisation bugs should rather be posted as attachments. The A
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: MD5
Grant Goodyear wrote:
> Well, we don't yet have reliable software in place to _count_ votes,
> but that's no reason not to start collecting them. The polls are now
> open, and will remain so until UTC 20060911 (one month). To vote,
> log into dev
On Thu, 2006-08-10 at 21:11 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Aug 2006 20:03:26 + Ferris McCormick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> | So the "glue" is rather easy; problem is the specific balloting
> | method. STV supports several protocols for selecting some number of
> | winners from a
On Thursday 10 August 2006 15:42, Kevin F. Quinn wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Aug 2006 12:26:10 -0500
>
> Mike Doty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> > Hash: SHA1
> >
> > Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> > > Olivier Crete wrote:
> > > It makes sense that you wouldn't want these bin
On Thu, 10 Aug 2006 20:03:26 + Ferris McCormick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| So the "glue" is rather easy; problem is the specific balloting
| method. STV supports several protocols for selecting some number of
| winners from a list of candidates, but Condorcet is not among them,
| because Cond
On Thu, 2006-08-10 at 21:49 +0200, Danny van Dyk wrote:
> Am Donnerstag, 10. August 2006 18:51 schrieb Grant Goodyear:
> > Olivier Crete wrote: [Thu Aug 10 2006, 11:42:14AM CDT]
> >
> > > On Thu, 2006-10-08 at 10:57 -0500, Grant Goodyear wrote:
> > > I volunteer (again).. What's the status on the s
On Thu, 10 Aug 2006 12:26:10 -0500
Mike Doty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> > Olivier Crete wrote:
> >> It was chosen by brad_mssw to match the way it is done on ia64.
> >> And I think we should continue to put the binary
On Thu, Aug 10, 2006 at 08:00:25PM +0200, Jeroen Roovers wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Aug 2006 10:42:47 -0700
> Greg KH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > What is the current "election" name that we should use when running
> > votify?
>
> > > To vote, log into dev.g.o and type "votify --help" for
> > > inst
Greg KH wrote: [Thu Aug 10 2006, 12:42:47PM CDT]
> On Thu, Aug 10, 2006 at 10:57:14AM -0500, Grant Goodyear wrote:
> > Well, we don't yet have reliable software in place to _count_ votes,
> > but that's no reason not to start collecting them. The polls are now
> > open, and will remain so until 00
On Thu, 10 Aug 2006 19:50:55 +0200
Jeroen Roovers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I propose the `emerge --info` included in arch testers' comments on
> stabilisation bugs should rather be posted as attachments. The AT
> comments clog up the bugs and are usually not interesting at all to devs
> other
On Thu, 10 Aug 2006 10:42:47 -0700
Greg KH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What is the current "election" name that we should use when running
> votify?
> > To vote, log into dev.g.o and type "votify --help" for
> > instructions.
Doing that explained everything. :)
Kind regards,
JeR
--
gent
Olivier Crete wrote: [Thu Aug 10 2006, 11:42:14AM CDT]
> On Thu, 2006-10-08 at 10:57 -0500, Grant Goodyear wrote:
> I volunteer (again).. What's the status on the search for voting
> software ?
Well, fmccor has suggested STV[1], so the current plan is to use
"countify" to assemble the usual master
On Thursday 10 August 2006 21:42, Greg KH wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 10, 2006 at 10:57:14AM -0500, Grant Goodyear wrote:
> > Well, we don't yet have reliable software in place to _count_ votes,
> > but that's no reason not to start collecting them. The polls are now
> > open, and will remain so until 00
Hi everybody,
I propose the `emerge --info` included in arch testers' comments on
stabilisation bugs should rather be posted as attachments. The AT
comments clog up the bugs and are usually not interesting at all to devs
other than those who are arch devs for the relevant arches. It would
ce
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Greg KH wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 10, 2006 at 10:57:14AM -0500, Grant Goodyear wrote:
>> Well, we don't yet have reliable software in place to _count_ votes,
>> but that's no reason not to start collecting them. The polls are now
>> open, and will remain s
On Thu, Aug 10, 2006 at 10:57:14AM -0500, Grant Goodyear wrote:
> Well, we don't yet have reliable software in place to _count_ votes,
> but that's no reason not to start collecting them. The polls are now
> open, and will remain so until UTC 20060911 (one month). To vote,
> log into dev.g.o
Olivier Crete wrote:
> I volunteer (again).. What's the status on the search for voting
> software ?
We follow two trails : fixing countify or find something else. I'll have
a look at countify, but more monkey eyeballs can't hurt.
We didn't find a good alternative yet, so you can also help in th
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> Olivier Crete wrote:
>> It was chosen by brad_mssw to match the way it is done on ia64. And I
>> think we should continue to put the binary
>> app-emulation/emul-linux-x86-* in /emul/ and that lib32 should be
>> reserved for p
Christel Doty wrote: [Thu Aug 10 2006, 12:34:50PM CDT]
> Sure, just let me know what you need me to do Grant :)
Thanks! Um, I'm not quite sure what's going to be needed just yet,
but I'll keep you informed.
-g2boojum-
PS. With three election officials, we probably have enough now.
--
Grant Go
Olivier Crete wrote:
> It was chosen by brad_mssw to match the way it is done on ia64. And I
> think we should continue to put the binary
> app-emulation/emul-linux-x86-* in /emul/ and that lib32 should be
> reserved for properly installed packages using portage whenever we
> manage to get portage
On Thu, 2006-10-08 at 10:57 -0500, Grant Goodyear wrote:
> Well, we don't yet have reliable software in place to _count_ votes,
> but that's no reason not to start collecting them. The polls are now
> open, and will remain so until UTC 20060911 (one month). To vote,
> log into dev.g.o and ty
On Thu, 2006-08-10 at 10:57 -0500, Grant Goodyear wrote:
> Well, we don't yet have reliable software in place to _count_ votes,
> but that's no reason not to start collecting them. The polls are now
> open, and will remain so until UTC 20060911 (one month). To vote,
> log into dev.g.o and ty
Well, we don't yet have reliable software in place to _count_ votes,
but that's no reason not to start collecting them. The polls are now
open, and will remain so until UTC 20060911 (one month). To vote,
log into dev.g.o and type "votify --help" for instructions. If you run
into any problem
On Thu, 2006-08-10 at 14:24 +0200, Paul de Vrieze wrote:
> On Tuesday 08 August 2006 22:36, Enrico Weigelt wrote:
> > > As an end user and also an administrator, I am very pleased to see
> > > this laid out so clearly. I mean, I knew it, but it seems like it
> > > needs to be yelled once in a while
On Tuesday 08 August 2006 22:36, Enrico Weigelt wrote:
> > As an end user and also an administrator, I am very pleased to see
> > this laid out so clearly. I mean, I knew it, but it seems like it
> > needs to be yelled once in a while...
>
> hmm, now that I know of these flags, I can take a look at
On 8/9/06, Brian Harring <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
General problem with use deps; *could* still implement it via
seperating out use specific restrictions and generating the second
logic statement above, but that's bit magic imo.
Is it really "magic"? Admittedly I know exactly nothing about po
On Tue, 08 Aug 2006 12:18:10 -0700,
Zac Medico <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Stuart Herbert wrote:
> > Any chance of per-package USE defaults support? That's much more
> > useful to me.
>
> Attached to bug 61732 there's a patch that implements
40 matches
Mail list logo
