Tach Ramon, 0x2B859DE3 (PGP-PK-ID)
Thanks for that post.
Ramon van Alteren schrieb:
> 9. Most of this mail has been on policies, expected behavior and
> perceived behavior. I would like to get this discussion back to
> technical issues wrt to generating stages/see
Thomas Cort wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Sep 2006 21:11:17 -0400
> Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> why does it need to be part of releng ?
>
> releng and seeds will be doing similar tasks, releasing stage tarballs.
Might I ask why it needs to be anywhere specific until it's actually had
m
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
> Being a top level project, you are in essence saying that we want to do
> this on our own without the help of a group that has been doing a less
> focused version of what you are aiming to provide. It goes against the
> entire point of the cooperatio
On Wednesday 20 September 2006 23:15, Daniel Watkins wrote:
> And I don't use a LAMP server (and have only the vaguest grasp on what they
> are) and, I've gotta say, I'm pretty excited by it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LAMP_%28software_bundle%29
-mike
pgpC38qyNsX96.pgp
Description: PGP signatu
Chris & Seed Project Devs,
I'm only a lowly user of Gentoo (some of you may remember us, we're the
reason for ever writing a GLEP or committing an ebuild in the first place).
I just wanted to say, in a place where other devs could see, that I think
this is an excellent idea. Reading the gentoo-dev
On Wednesday 20 September 2006 22:43, Chris White wrote:
> 1) Weekly summary of the project provided about Saturday my time, as that's
> about the only guaranteed free time I can provide
for a project just getting started, seems like a lot ... but i'm not part of
said project so i cant really say
Chris White wrote:
1) Weekly summary of the project provided about Saturday my time, as that's
about the only guaranteed free time I can provide
More communication in Gentoo is always good. We're nowhere near the
tipping point of too much communication.
2) Working with both sides to produce
Ok, so we had a rather interesting debate (which quickly went out of control)
today on the whole Gentoo seed project. One of the recommendations that came
through the flames was a liaison to help communicate between the two parties,
the people running the seed project and release engineering.
Daniel Ostrow wrote:
Here is my take on the issue, it's something I saw happen when Gentoo on
Mac OSX was announced, again with Sunrise, and now with Seeds (also note
I'm not making a value judgment about any of the aforementioned
projects, I just note a similar progression of events). There are
On 9/21/06, Luca Barbato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Could you please planning something about acting as liason between
projects touched by seeds?
E.G. random guy starts contributing a media seed, I'd like to be
notified and maybe have also x11 people notified, just in case the seed
overlay is do
Hi All,
It's always interesting to be part of a project that seems to be
in-focus considering the reply's, especially if it's your first within a
OSS-group. It's a long reply, but please bear with me (is that correct
english ?)
Stuart Herbert wrote:
On 9/20/06, Andrew Gaffney <[EMAIL PROTEC
On Wednesday 20 September 2006 19:50, Stephen Bennett wrote:
> Sharing the idea and looking for consultation is one thing. Saying
> "Gentoo is now doing this, like it or not" is quite another.
funny, i dont recall him forcing anyone to help him
-mike
pgp1ZuNPbbA3B.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Oh look, we just got Slashdotted by someone doing their level best to create a
smear campaign, or at least to spread FUD:
http://linux.slashdot.org/linux/06/09/20/2246231.shtml
As I said on IRC, new project, new whiteboard. why don't we leave it up to
On Thu, 21 Sep 2006 01:29:58 +0200
Jakub Moc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Oh noes! Someone had an unexpected and unconsulted idea that he wanted
> to share with others, shoot him!!!111! OMG, so much for inovation and
> progress...
Sharing the idea and looking for consultation is one thing. Saying
In that case, why don't we just consider Stuart's initial mail on this
thing to *be* the effing announcement and be done with it? Fact is, no
matter how something is brought up, there is a dependable group of
people who will have something against it (oh fuck it, we know I'm
referring to Ciaran h
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 18:42:13 -0400 Alec Warner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> | As Donnie said; if this is the thanks one gets for trying out a new
> | idea; then why try at all.
>
> The complaints are not that Stuart tried a new idea. Stop trying to
> spin things that way
Stuart Herbert wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I've created a new project, called Gentoo Seeds [1]. The aim of the project
> is to create stage4 tarballs which can be used to 'seed' new boxes with
> ready-built Gentoo solutions.
Interestingly enough releng was planning some stage4 support for the
next release
On Wed, 2006-09-20 at 18:42 -0400, Alec Warner wrote:
> This whole thread is quite disappointing to me. Someone comes up with a
> new way to use Gentoo; to make it a viable tool for a job; to make it
> USEFUL. This is what we are about here (or were?).
>
> "Put another way, the Gentoo philosophy
On Wednesday 20 September 2006 18:53, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> The complaints are that he allegedly did it
> without consultation, and that he sprang this unexpectedly.
he started a new project and he announced, whoopity do
stop making a big deal over nothing
-mike
pgppKe9FuRp5z.pgp
Description
Stuart Herbert wrote:
On 9/20/06, Andrew Gaffney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Well, now it's gotten to the point where people are being sneaky and
underhanded
about this whole thing. Stuart (I believe) said that they had talked
to members
of releng about this, but the truth seems to be that Stuar
On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 18:42:13 -0400 Alec Warner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| As Donnie said; if this is the thanks one gets for trying out a new
| idea; then why try at all.
The complaints are not that Stuart tried a new idea. Stop trying to
spin things that way. The complaints are that he allegedl
This whole thread is quite disappointing to me. Someone comes up with a
new way to use Gentoo; to make it a viable tool for a job; to make it
USEFUL. This is what we are about here (or were?).
"Put another way, the Gentoo philosophy is to create better tools."
Am Mittwoch, 20. September 2006 23:33 schrieb Chris White:
> On Wednesday 20 September 2006 13:27, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > I was under the impression that you were supposed to GLEP anything
> > of this scope and get council approval... The "anyone can make a
> > project" rule doesn't replace the
On 9/20/06, Andrew Gaffney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Well, now it's gotten to the point where people are being sneaky and underhanded
about this whole thing. Stuart (I believe) said that they had talked to members
of releng about this, but the truth seems to be that Stuart talked with rocket
and
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 23:42:02 +0200 Jakub Moc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> | Not that bugging people w/ pointless paperwork would contribute
> | anything useful to this new project or get any work done... What
> | exactly is the
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 23:42:02 +0200 Jakub Moc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> | Not that bugging people w/ pointless paperwork would contribute
> | anything useful to this new project or get any work done... What
> | exactly is there to GLEP at this point?
>
> A GLEP is not po
On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 23:42:02 +0200 Jakub Moc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| Not that bugging people w/ pointless paperwork would contribute
| anything useful to this new project or get any work done... What
| exactly is there to GLEP at this point?
A GLEP is not pointless paperwork if done correctly
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 22:41:11 +0200 Jakub Moc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> | Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> | > I was under the impression that you were supposed to GLEP anything
> | > of this scope and get council approval... The "anyone can make a
> | > project" rule doesn't rep
On Wed, 2006-09-20 at 21:27 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 20:27:50 +0100 "Stuart Herbert"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> | I was hoping to avoid having to say this - actually I was hoping to
> | avoid this whole drama - but we _don't_ need releng's approval to do
> | this. T
On Wednesday 20 September 2006 13:27, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> I was under the impression that you were supposed to GLEP anything of
> this scope and get council approval... The "anyone can make a project"
> rule doesn't replace the requirement to GLEP large changes.
Why? It's in an overlay so it
On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 22:41:11 +0200 Jakub Moc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
| > I was under the impression that you were supposed to GLEP anything
| > of this scope and get council approval... The "anyone can make a
| > project" rule doesn't replace the requirement to GLEP larg
On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 16:45:24 -0400 Seemant Kulleen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| On Wed, 2006-09-20 at 20:33 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
| > On Tue, 19 Sep 2006 20:00:59 +0100 Stuart Herbert
| > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| > | I've created a new project, called Gentoo Seeds [1]. The aim of
| > |
On Wednesday 20 September 2006 15:33, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Sep 2006 20:00:59 +0100 Stuart Herbert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> | I've created a new project, called Gentoo Seeds [1]. The aim of the
> | project is to create stage4 tarballs which can be used to 'seed' new
> | boxes with ready
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> I was under the impression that you were supposed to GLEP anything of
> this scope and get council approval... The "anyone can make a project"
> rule doesn't replace the requirement to GLEP large changes.
>
http://dev.gentoo.org/~chriswhite/xml_source/flame.xml - Code Lis
On Wed, 2006-09-20 at 20:33 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Sep 2006 20:00:59 +0100 Stuart Herbert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> | I've created a new project, called Gentoo Seeds [1]. The aim of the
> | project is to create stage4 tarballs which can be used to 'seed' new
> | boxes with
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Sep 2006 20:00:59 +0100 Stuart Herbert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> | I've created a new project, called Gentoo Seeds [1]. The aim of the
> | project is to create stage4 tarballs which can be used to 'seed' new
>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Stuart Herbert wrote:
> On 9/20/06, Danny van Dyk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> As long as we have no package sets support in portage, I do indeed think
>> that this is the best way to go. Didn't realize that you mentioned it,
>> too.
>> @Stuart: What
On Tue, 19 Sep 2006 20:00:59 +0100 Stuart Herbert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| I've created a new project, called Gentoo Seeds [1]. The aim of the
| project is to create stage4 tarballs which can be used to 'seed' new
| boxes with ready-built Gentoo solutions.
Wouldn't this be considered a wide r
On Wednesday 20 September 2006 16:27, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 20:27:50 +0100 "Stuart Herbert"
> | I was hoping to avoid having to say this - actually I was hoping to
> | avoid this whole drama - but we _don't_ need releng's approval to do
> | this. To delay progress, Chris wi
On 9/20/06, Danny van Dyk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
As long as we have no package sets support in portage, I do indeed think
that this is the best way to go. Didn't realize that you mentioned it,
too.
@Stuart: What do you think?
Right now, I'm not too concerned about the lack of package set
su
On 9/20/06, Danny van Dyk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi Stuart,
The pages are correct.
Cool.
He didn't called you a liar.
"You haven't spoken to anyone on the genkernel or catalyst development
teams." - was in response to me saying that I had. It's difficult to
interpret that as anything
On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 20:27:50 +0100 "Stuart Herbert"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| I was hoping to avoid having to say this - actually I was hoping to
| avoid this whole drama - but we _don't_ need releng's approval to do
| this. To delay progress, Chris will need to make a formal complaint
| to th
Stuart Herbert wrote:
To delay progress, Chris will need to make a formal complaint
to the Council.
About what? Our own metastructure proposal explicitly says competing
projects are allowed. There is no complaint, there's just attempts to
convince each other that a formal hierarchy is actuall
On Wednesday 20 September 2006 16:01, Andrew Gaffney wrote:
> Well, now it's gotten to the point where people are being sneaky and
> underhanded about this whole thing.
jesus give over and stop nit picking
when they're ready to actually make a release and they dont go through releng,
feel free t
On Tuesday 12 September 2006 19:57, Zac Medico wrote:
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > On Tue, 12 Sep 2006 15:44:22 -0700 Zac Medico <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> > wrote:
> > | 3) Prevents /etc/foo from matching /etc/foobaz or /etc/foobaz/bar.
> >
> > Is this really desired behaviour?
>
> In my opinion, i
Christian 'Opfer' Faulhammer wrote:
Tach Andrew, 0x2B859DE3 (PGP-PK-ID)
Andrew Gaffney schrieb:
As somebody's already mentioned, the embedded project releases GNAP and
has a releng liaison. There's no reason the seeds project couldn't also
have a releng liaison,
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Andrew Gaffney wrote:
> That's not the issue. The issue is that there should *already* be a
> releng liason, but nobody from releng seems to know anything about this
> project.
>
I dunno . . . does releng really need to be involved, except if these s
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> Joshua Jackson wrote:
>> However, as
>> Chris stated loudly, that this is something that falls directly in
>> line with Release Engineerings goal. Its not a top level project that
>> creates something entirely new. Its a extens
On Wednesday 20 September 2006 15:26, Andrew Gaffney wrote:
> That's not the issue. The issue is that there should *already* be a releng
> liason, but nobody from releng seems to know anything about this project.
they havent even started releasing anything yet, they're just getting started
why ar
Tach Andrew, 0x2B859DE3 (PGP-PK-ID)
Andrew Gaffney schrieb:
>> As somebody's already mentioned, the embedded project releases GNAP and
>> has a releng liaison. There's no reason the seeds project couldn't also
>> have a releng liaison, which seems to resolve the ma
Stuart Herbert wrote:
Besides, I'm sure we'll delay our own progress whilst we figure out
how to make seeds work well ;-) I think folks are getting carried
away here! Let's get stuff working first, eh?
I think its also worth mentioning that the whole thing is also currently
in *planning* sta
Am Mittwoch, 20. September 2006 20:56 schrieb Donnie Berkholz:
> Danny van Dyk wrote:
> > * How do you want to implement the profiles?
> >
> > * Re: the meta-ebuilds you'd been talking about in this thread:
> > Have you yet considered to use the profiles' packages file?
>
> I've mentioned this idea
On 9/20/06, Matthew Marlowe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
3) We are where we are at today. Stuart comes up with a great idea for the
seeds project which might help address the virtualization address image and
it appears releng doesnt like it, so progress could be delayed by another 6
months to year
Donnie Berkholz wrote:
Andrew Gaffney wrote:
Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Wednesday 20 September 2006 12:38, Alec Warner wrote:
I think Chris's primary concern is one of "Tell us whats up before it
happens."
why should he care ? some Gentoo guys take catalyst and produce
stage4s directed at cert
Joshua Jackson wrote:
> However, as
> Chris stated loudly, that this is something that falls directly in
> line with Release Engineerings goal. Its not a top level project that
> creates something entirely new. Its a extension of the release of
> images that allow you to install a system.
Sure, ne
Danny van Dyk wrote:
> * How do you want to implement the profiles?
>
> * Re: the meta-ebuilds you'd been talking about in this thread: Have you
> yet considered to use the profiles' packages file?
I've mentioned this idea to Stuart. Thanks for bringing it up again. Do
you think it's the best w
Andrew Gaffney wrote:
> Mike Frysinger wrote:
>> On Wednesday 20 September 2006 12:38, Alec Warner wrote:
>>> I think Chris's primary concern is one of "Tell us whats up before it
>>> happens."
>>
>> why should he care ? some Gentoo guys take catalyst and produce
>> stage4s directed at certain app
Thanks for this cool answer . Ok, i will try my best. going join in amd64 mailing list.Yep, i am interesting on documentation. I done lot's of work on google translation and also member of
http://ekushey.org which a group that works for bengla localization.again thanks for ur suggestion.On 9/20/06
On Wed, Sep 20, 2006 at 10:49:40AM -0400, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
>
> Because it's *REALLY* stupid and shows just how unprofessional we are
> when we have multiple groups doing the *EXACT* same thing using
> different policies and procedures and all pushing it as if it were
> *OFFICIAL* for the di
oss is dead, why bother going with it in default USE anymore ? alsa forever !
-mike
pgpVBY4JRJGLM.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Simon Stelling wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> I would like you to share your comments on the attached GLEP with me.
>
> Thanks in advance!
While this has a novel approach to the problem (at least, I haven't seen
anything else that tries to solve the LICENS
On Wednesday 20 September 2006 12:43, Kevin F. Quinn wrote:
> Michael Cummings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > We already have an existing LICENSE keywording in the ebuilds,
> > why not just focus on patching portage to allow a make.conf variable
> > for allowed licenses and block based on that?
>
>
On Wednesday 20 September 2006 12:38, Alec Warner wrote:
> I think Chris's primary concern is one of "Tell us whats up before it
> happens."
why should he care ? some Gentoo guys take catalyst and produce stage4s
directed at certain applications
they arent talking about any of the tools releng
On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 10:05:00 -0400
Michael Cummings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 2006-09-20 at 13:36 +0200, Simon Stelling wrote:
>
> > Every license which a package in the portage tree depends on gets a
> > package in the ``txt-licenses/`` category. Its ebuild must install
> > the licens
Stuart Herbert wrote:
> On 9/20/06, Chris Gianelloni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Uhh... "seeds"?
>
> Yes, seeds. Seems to describe what we're working towards as well as
> any other name.
>
>> "bring the work to the main tree"?
>>
>> As in... duplicate functionality already provided by catalyst
On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 13:36:11 +0200
Simon Stelling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I would like you to share your comments on the attached GLEP with me.
It seems to me to be an attempt to move what is obviously the package
manager's job into the tree, and making it far more complex than it
needs to b
Hi,
I'm one of the people working on seeds.
It's not a new project afaic i produce seed-alike things anyway because
I need to run a large serverpark on gentoo and I can't hand-install
servers anymore. We generate custom stage4's tailored to our environment.
One of the reasons i was/am interes
On Wednesday 20 September 2006 07:36, Simon Stelling wrote:
> I would like you to share your comments on the attached GLEP with me.
why not just implement GLEP 23
-mike
pgpZSKauYbIhF.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Michael Cummings wrote:
This doesn't make sense to me. I have a copy of every license used in
the portage tree already in /usr/portage/licenses - why dup that again?
We already have an existing LICENSE keywording in the ebuilds, why not
just focus on patching portage to allow a make.conf variable
"S. M. Ibrahim (Lavlu)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted
[EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted
below, on Wed, 20 Sep 2006 18:05:52 +0600:
> hi everybody,
> i am from bangladesh. Have some knowledge on *nix (linux and unix). I
> like gentoo very much.
> And runing gentoo x86 on a EM64T (i will install amd64 ton
Simon Stelling wrote:
> GLEP: 52
I don't like it: too complex, glep 23 is fine.
lu
--
Luca Barbato
Gentoo/linux Gentoo/PPC
http://dev.gentoo.org/~lu_zero
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> I apologise to everyone for my responses to this.
Thank you.
Donnie
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
On 9/20/06, Chris Gianelloni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Catalyst doesn't provide ongoing maintenance or migration of installed
> systems ... you need more than just a spec file for one of these seeds.
Like what? It sounds like they aren't providing anything but tarballs.
Tarballs, VMware im
On Wed, 2006-09-20 at 15:07 +0100, Stuart Herbert wrote:
> > Why hasn't anybody even *tried* to contact Release Engineering on
> > something like this, considering we already have all of the tools
> > necessary to complete this, as well as the expertise?
>
> We have, and folks there have been very
On Wed, 2006-09-20 at 07:04 -0700, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> > "bring the work to the main tree"?
> >
> > As in... duplicate functionality already provided by catalyst for quite
> > some time?
>
> Catalyst doesn't provide ongoing maintenance or migration of installed
> s
On Tue, 2006-09-19 at 21:11 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> why does it need to be part of releng ? GNAP does releases with catalyst,
> but
> it's part of embedded
We also consider Koon to be a part of Release Engineering and he works
with us and we work with him for GNAP. He even has access to
Simon Stelling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted [EMAIL PROTECTED],
excerpted below, on Wed, 20 Sep 2006 13:36:11 +0200:
> Every license which a package in the portage tree depends on gets a
> package in the ``txt-licenses/`` category. Its ebuild must install the
> license text to ``/usr/shared/licenses
On 9/20/06, Chris Gianelloni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Uhh... "seeds"?
Yes, seeds. Seems to describe what we're working towards as well as
any other name.
"bring the work to the main tree"?
As in... duplicate functionality already provided by catalyst for quite
some time?
No. As in, bri
Chris Gianelloni wrote:
"bring the work to the main tree"?
As in... duplicate functionality already provided by catalyst for quite
some time?
Catalyst doesn't provide ongoing maintenance or migration of installed
systems ... you need more than just a spec file for one of these seeds.
Why h
On Wed, 2006-09-20 at 13:36 +0200, Simon Stelling wrote:
> Every license which a package in the portage tree depends on gets a package in
> the ``txt-licenses/`` category. Its ebuild must install the license text to
> ``/usr/shared/licenses/``. The initial version shall be 1 if there is no
> ver
On Tue, 2006-09-19 at 01:05 -0700, Matthew Marlowe wrote:
> I would see the workflow proceed in the following manner:
> Releng herd makes available new official gentoo releases
Uhh... we aren't a herd.
--
Chris Gianelloni
Release Engineering Strategic Lead
Alpha/AMD64/x86 Architecture Teams
On Tue, 2006-09-19 at 20:00 +0100, Stuart Herbert wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I've created a new project, called Gentoo Seeds [1]. The aim of the project
> is to create stage4 tarballs which can be used to 'seed' new boxes with
> ready-built Gentoo solutions.
Uhh... "seeds"?
> Until we've gone through a f
On Wed, Sep 20, 2006 at 03:36:07PM +0200, Krzysiek Pawlik wrote:
> Simon Stelling wrote:
> > I would like you to share your comments on the attached GLEP with me.
>
> I like the idea with one exception:
>
> > Licenses that need to be explicitly accepted before installation of a
> > package
> > (
Krzysiek Pawlik wrote:
>> # Simon Stelling <[EMAIL PROTECTED] (20 Sep 2006)
>> # This license needs to be agreed on explicitly to be considered
>> # legally binding.
>> # By unmasking and installing the package you agree with its terms.
>> txt-licenses/wierd-license
>
> Wh
Simon Stelling wrote:
> I would like you to share your comments on the attached GLEP with me.
I like the idea with one exception:
> Licenses that need to be explicitly accepted before installation of a package
> (and only these) should be package.masked by default with a header like
> the followi
Steev Klimaszewski wrote:
> I think it is over engineering of a non-issue.
Which non-issue in particular?
--
Kind Regards,
Simon Stelling
Gentoo/AMD64 developer
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Steev Klimaszewski wrote:
> Simon Stelling wrote:
>>> Hello all,
>>>
>>> I would like you to share your comments on the attached GLEP with me.
>>>
>>> Thanks in advance!
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
> I think it is over engineering of a non-issue.
And to expand, per
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Simon Stelling wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> I would like you to share your comments on the attached GLEP with me.
>
> Thanks in advance!
>
>
>
I think it is over engineering of a non-issue.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linu
hi everybody,i am from bangladesh. Have some knowledge on *nix (linux and unix). I like gentoo very much.And runing gentoo x86 on a EM64TÂ (i will install amd64 tonight).I am very much interested to join with you (gentoo developer team).
What is the procedure??By the way, i applied for em64t, that
Hello all,
I would like you to share your comments on the attached GLEP with me.
Thanks in advance!
--
Kind Regards,
Simon Stelling
Gentoo/AMD64 developer
GLEP: 52
Title: License Managment in Portage
Version: $Revision: $
Last-Modified: $Date: $
Author: Simon Stelling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Statu
On 9/20/06, Daniel Ostrow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Wed, 2006-09-20 at 00:56 +0200, Carsten Lohrke wrote:
> First step should imho be, that you work with the Portage team on having
> proper set support implemented. Current meta ebuilds do suck, really.
No need for meta ebuilds...stage4 specs
On Tue, 19 Sep 2006 21:11:17 -0400
Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> why does it need to be part of releng ?
releng and seeds will be doing similar tasks, releasing stage tarballs.
-Thomas
pgpIH4JTTufWm.pgp
Description: PGP signature
92 matches
Mail list logo
