People should be using ocfs2 now. ocfs-tools no longer compiles (bug
#135473) and hasn't had an upstream release for more than 2 years. I've
masked it for removal in 30 days.
Thanks,
Donnie
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
On Tue, Oct 10, 2006 at 10:40:01AM -0400, Kari Hazzard wrote:
> Not going to happen. I'm many things, but a software developer is not one of
> them. I generally prefer to work on things like design and user psychology
> than actually being involved in the coding of it.
>
> You don't want me prod
On Tue, Oct 10, 2006 at 10:13:41AM +, Duncan wrote:
> Personally, I'd say 686 is the lowest reasonable to support at this point.
> Below that, try an appropriate binary distribution and save the days/weeks
> of compiling. Of course, Gentoo is highly customizable, and folks could
> try it on 38
malc wrote:
> media-video - Can I take this one? I've got a jahshaka-2.0 ebuild here
> ready to rock.
please submit it and let us have fun too =)
lu
--
Luca Barbato
Gentoo/linux Gentoo/PPC
http://dev.gentoo.org/~lu_zero
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
On Tue, Oct 10, 2006 at 12:28:10PM -0400, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> > Which kind of support are you speaking of? As for installation media,
> > i really don't care. I fully agree > release media is built built for i686 only i have no problem with that
> > either. If you really want to put Gentoo o
On Mon, 2006-10-09 at 23:30 -0400, Kari Hazzard wrote:
> The point is that if you build Gentoo to be developer-friendly rather than
> user-friendly, Gentoo will be replaced by something else.
...and? You seem to think that Gentoo being "developer-friendly" would
be a change in the current way we
On Mon, 2006-10-09 at 23:30 -0400, Kari Hazzard wrote:
> The point is that if you build Gentoo to be developer-friendly rather than
> user-friendly, Gentoo will be replaced by something else.
>
> User-centric design is why Gentoo is/was different from everything else. Take
> away choices that pe
On Tue, 2006-10-10 at 12:52 +0200, Wernfried Haas wrote:
> Bollocks. I run a print/samba/backup box at work which is a pentium II
> 400. Compiling glibc takes 3 hours here and while it may not be the
> Which kind of support are you speaking of? As for installation media,
> i really don't care. I
On Tue, 2006-10-10 at 10:13 +, Duncan wrote:
> Personally, I'd say 686 is the lowest reasonable to support at this point.
That's pretty much our target.
> Below that, try an appropriate binary distribution and save the days/weeks
> of compiling. Of course, Gentoo is highly customizable, and
On Mon, 2006-10-09 at 19:50 -0400, Caleb Cushing wrote:
> from the ones that are on the mirrors. so what is the hangup? I doubt
> it's storage space and bandwidth.
Uhh... it *is* storage space.
In fact, the space usage on our donated mirrors is one of the primary
motivators to have us decrease o
Alec Warner wrote:
> Steve Long wrote:
>> This sounds like an excellent idea. Do the `upgraded tools' already
>> automate this process?
>
> The 'upgraded tools' was in regards to the GPNL project; since Beandog
> was using portageq to import metadata into the database; this turned out
> to be a b
On Tuesday 10 October 2006 03:45, Kari Hazzard wrote:
After writing the last response, another thought came to mind that I figured I
should post - and should probably be set out in a "user's guide to posting on
dev mailing lists".
I had the thought that users likely feel that it's okay to repe
On Tuesday 10 October 2006 03:45, Kari Hazzard wrote:
> On Monday 09 October 2006 6:30 pm, Alec Warner wrote:
> > I concur with Donnie here; Gentoo exists not because of Users, but
> > because of (a subset of active) Developers. It isn't a statement that
> > is meant to trash users (because you ar
Not going to happen. I'm many things, but a software developer is not one of
them. I generally prefer to work on things like design and user psychology
than actually being involved in the coding of it.
You don't want me producing code for the project, trust me on that one. >>
--
Kari Hazzard
O
On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 15:09:06 +0200
Natanael Copa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What you didn't need to be a gentoo dev to be a package maintainer?
> Lets say anyone could be marked as maintainer in an ebuild. When
> there is a bug, the package maintainer fixes the bug and submits an
> updated ebuil
Kari Hazzard wrote: [Mon Oct 09 2006, 10:30:40PM CDT]
> User-centric design is why Gentoo is/was different from everything
> else. Take away choices that people want and you take the Gentoo
> philosophy out of Gentoo itself.
Heh. You might want to read drobbins' "Making the distribution"
articles
Duncan wrote:
Anybody doing Gentoo on even a Pentium original is going to be compiling
for awhile unless they do GRP only, and that's inadvised as GRP isn't
security updated until the next release, six months later! A couple years
ago when I first started with Gentoo and was on the main user lis
On 10/10/06, Seemant Kulleen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
If the design was in any way user-centric, then that was a side-effect
of the design being developer-centric. The choices are all about
enabling development and developers. The Gentoo philosophy is about
empowerment -- we provide a platform
On Mon, 2006-10-09 at 23:30 -0400, Kari Hazzard wrote:
> User-centric design is why Gentoo is/was different from everything else. Take
> away choices that people want and you take the Gentoo philosophy out of
> Gentoo itself.
If the design was in any way user-centric, then that was a side-effect
On Monday 09 October 2006 6:30 pm, Alec Warner wrote:
> I concur with Donnie here; Gentoo exists not because of Users, but
> because of (a subset of active) Developers. It isn't a statement that
> is meant to trash users (because you are quite helpful in many
> instances). But the naive thought t
The point is that if you build Gentoo to be developer-friendly rather than
user-friendly, Gentoo will be replaced by something else.
User-centric design is why Gentoo is/was different from everything else. Take
away choices that people want and you take the Gentoo philosophy out of
Gentoo itsel
Steve Long wrote:
Or you haven't talked to me or Beandog at all; since he has been
working on this a while (now with upgraded tools!).
what i'd like to see is a system, to which one would give a package name,
which then handles the removal (almost) automatically.
that way devs would have an eas
>> Or you haven't talked to me or Beandog at all; since he has been
>> working on this a while (now with upgraded tools!).
>
> what i'd like to see is a system, to which one would give a package name,
> which then handles the removal (almost) automatically.
>
> that way devs would have an easier
Natanael Copa wrote:
>
> What you didn't need to be a gentoo dev to be a package maintainer? Lets
> say anyone could be marked as maintainer in an ebuild. When there is a
> bug, the package maintainer fixes the bug and submits an updated
> ebuild/patch whatever. This person has no commit access.
>
On Tue, Oct 10, 2006 at 07:13:39AM -0500, Andrew Gaffney wrote:
> Uhh, P2 is i686, which falls squarely into the realm of "supported" and
> "reasonable" :)
Oh my goodness, i forgot to upgrade my cflags/chost/foo then when i
put the disk from the old pentium into this one then. Think of all
those
Simon Stelling wrote:
Roy Bamford wrote:
Dropping support for x86 suppose, its a question of when.
There is clearly only a few users, besides myself using systems that
old, since there were very few forums posts about the original 2006.1
x86 media not workign on P1 and AMD k6 based systems.
Wernfried Haas wrote:
On Tue, Oct 10, 2006 at 10:13:41AM +, Duncan wrote:
Personally, I'd say 686 is the lowest reasonable to support at this point.
Below that, try an appropriate binary distribution and save the days/weeks
of compiling.
Bollocks. I run a print/samba/backup box at work w
Roy Marples <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted
[EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Tue, 10 Oct
2006 11:19:46 +0100:
> There are plently of people using VIA C3 class chips which are i586 in
> their home servers because they are cheap, but more importantly very quiet
> as they don't require CPU fans.
G
On Tue, Oct 10, 2006 at 10:13:41AM +, Duncan wrote:
> Personally, I'd say 686 is the lowest reasonable to support at this point.
> Below that, try an appropriate binary distribution and save the days/weeks
> of compiling.
Bollocks. I run a print/samba/backup box at work which is a pentium II
Kari Hazzard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted
[EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Mon, 09
Oct 2006 07:40:53 -0400:
> On Thursday 05 October 2006 10:48 am, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
>> What about *our* choice to not waste time building things we don't want?
>
> So what about those of us who DO want th
Am Tue, 10 Oct 2006 10:13:41 + (UTC)
schrieb "Duncan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> Anybody doing Gentoo on even a Pentium original is going to be
> compiling for awhile unless they do GRP only, and that's inadvised as
> GRP isn't security updated until the next release, six months later!
Don't f
On Tuesday 10 October 2006 11:13, Duncan wrote:
> Personally, I'd say 686 is the lowest reasonable to support at this point.
> Below that, try an appropriate binary distribution and save the days/weeks
> of compiling. Of course, Gentoo is highly customizable, and folks could
> try it on 386 if the
Peter Weber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted
[EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Mon, 09
Oct 2006 23:57:54 +0200:
> It was only a suggestion, not a decision. Of course, there are only a
> little number of this early systems.
> i686 would be really nice, i386 would be nice, too ;-)
Anybody doing Gen
Roy Bamford wrote:
Dropping support for x86 suppose, its a question of when.
There is clearly only a few users, besides myself using systems that
old, since there were very few forums posts about the original 2006.1
x86 media not workign on P1 and AMD k6 based systems.
I'm sure I'm not the o
34 matches
Mail list logo
