If no one objects, I'd like to add an mplayer global USE flag to replace all the
local ones. 5 ebuilds use it right now for all the same purpose, and I'm going
to need one on mythvideo as well.
Steve
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
On Wednesday 25 October 2006 08:17, Stuart Herbert wrote:
> I think it'd be common sense to post -r1, -r2 etc, and extend the XML
> syntax so that we could easily indicate which sentences had been
> changed.
well each GLEP itself has a version number ... we could just bump it and
expect people to
i just noticed mx2.gentoo.org isnt responding on port 25, shouldnt it be? defeats the purpose of backup MX if its not respond :)CpuID.On 10/26/06,
Grant Goodyear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: [Wed Oct 25 2006, 11:17:09AM CDT]> On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 10:48:57 -0500 Grant Goodyear <
Caleb Cushing wrote:
reporting additions of new programs aren't feasible? or are you
referring to version updates and package bumps and such
Reporting removals will be done by treecleaners once I have it implemented.
Reporting additions may require some cvs foo on lark; such as new
direct
On Wed, 2006-10-25 at 16:25 -0400, Caleb Cushing wrote:
> reporting additions of new programs aren't feasible? or are you
> referring to version updates and package bumps and such
None of it is feasible if I'm left to do it by hand. I have much better
things to do (like actually add new packa
reporting additions of new programs aren't feasible? or are you
referring to version updates and package bumps and such
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
On Wed, 2006-10-25 at 14:56 -0500, Yuri Vasilevski wrote:
> If you think this is a good idea, I'd be glad to write some scripts for
> this.
If you write all the code, I'll run it, but I'm not taking my time to
track down all of the additions. The current removals is done by hand
by some volunteer
On Wednesday 25 October 2006 21:56, Yuri Vasilevski wrote:
> After seeing "Upcoming package removals", for couple of weeks now, in
> GWN I'm beginning to think that I would like to see also a list of new
> packages added to portage next to the list of packages to be removed.
http://packages.gentoo.
Hello,
After seeing "Upcoming package removals", for couple of weeks now, in
GWN I'm beginning to think that I would like to see also a list of new
packages added to portage next to the list of packages to be removed.
This will give a better view on the actual state of portage tree, as
well as, wi
Simon Stelling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> It is my pleasure to announce the devification of Matti (mabi) Bickel to
> the Gentoo community.
Uh, that mail got lost in the mailflood somehow :|
Anyway, thanks to everybody answering stupid question, generelly helping me
big time here.
Hi guys (and girls ;) ),
And sorry for the long delay of my answer, I was very busy in the last few
days. I just cleaned up (a bit) and uploaded my script, with a set of fake
configs, in a nice .tgz file (1). Feel free to contact me if something is
not clear enough (high probability since I di
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: [Wed Oct 25 2006, 11:17:09AM CDT]
> On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 10:48:57 -0500 Grant Goodyear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> | (Incidentally, I apologize for missing the meeting. I was in
> | intensely boring radiation safety training.)
>
> Uh, isn't boring a good thing when it com
Vapier wrote: [Wed Oct 25 2006, 02:56:28AM CDT]
> On Wednesday 25 October 2006 03:27, Stuart Herbert wrote:
> > (As a second principle, if GLEP 39 is amended, wouldn't it be better
> > to publish a new GLEP to superceed it, rather than revise the existing
> > GLEP?)
>
> i think in general it depen
On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 10:48:57 -0500 Grant Goodyear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| (Incidentally, I apologize for missing the meeting. I was in
| intensely boring radiation safety training.)
Uh, isn't boring a good thing when it comes to things involving
radiation?
--
Ciaran McCreesh
Mail
Hi Chris,
On 10/25/06, Chris Gianelloni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I think the likely best way would be to do something like:
[snip]
Yeah, that works for me.
Best regards,
Stu
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
On Wed, 2006-10-25 at 13:17 +0100, Stuart Herbert wrote:
> On 10/25/06, Chris Gianelloni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Also, I'd like to know what you would propose we do if we were to follow
> > something like this. Would we post something like GLEP 39a, as an
> > amendment to GLEP 39, or would
On 10/25/06, Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The Council has already done so, with the addition of the final bullet
point in Specification list B.
Thanks for pointing that out.
Best regards,
Stu
--
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Chris Gianelloni wrote:
Realize that the new council is trying to both become the leaders of
Gentoo that so many seem to want, yet also have to balance not
overstepping the bounds some people think we need. We honestly do need
everyone's opinions on these things, so thank you for posing yours.
Hi Chris,
On 10/25/06, Chris Gianelloni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Well, let's make it simpler, then. Does it say anywhere in GLEP 39 that
the elected Council cannot change it? Does it limit the council's
powers in any way?
No, it does not. That's why I've asked for a discussion of this as
Hi Chris,
On 10/25/06, Chris Gianelloni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Also, I'd like to know what you would propose we do if we were to follow
something like this. Would we post something like GLEP 39a, as an
amendment to GLEP 39, or would we have to rewrite the whole thing, with
just the one chan
On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 08:27:13 +0100 "Stuart Herbert"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| As such, as a point of principle, should the council be able to
| change/override/replace the rules in GLEP 39 w/out putting it to a
| vote of all Gentoo developers?
The Council has already done so, with the addition
On Wed, 2006-10-25 at 08:27 +0100, Stuart Herbert wrote:
> (As a second principle, if GLEP 39 is amended, wouldn't it be better
> to publish a new GLEP to superceed it, rather than revise the existing
> GLEP?)
Also, I'd like to know what you would propose we do if we were to follow
something like
On Wed, 2006-10-25 at 08:27 +0100, Stuart Herbert wrote:
> The current metastructure (as documented in GLEP 39) is a little
> unusual; it's a proposal that was voted in by all Gentoo developers.
>
> As such, as a point of principle, should the council be able to
> change/override/replace the rules
On Sat, 21 Oct 2006 13:36:04 -0400
Jonathan Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ia64 is for itanium, which was
> intel's horrid first attempt at a 64-bit successor to x86.
I wouldn't call Itanium a successor to x86, any more than SPARC was
(recall that early Sun boxes were x86). As you mentioned
Simon Stelling ha scritto:
> Mike Frysinger wrote:
>> (how do you measure the degree of a change ?)
>
> By the number of inflammatory mails it causes within the timeframe of
> two weekdays. Quite obvious, isn't it? ;)
>
No also by who/howmany start the biggest number of inflammatory mails
... but
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Simon Stelling wrote:
> Mike Frysinger wrote:
>> (how do you measure the degree of a change ?)
>
> By the number of inflammatory mails it causes within the timeframe of
> two weekdays. Quite obvious, isn't it? ;)
>
ok, lemme just shutdown email for t
Mike Frysinger wrote:
(how do you measure the degree of a change ?)
By the number of inflammatory mails it causes within the timeframe of
two weekdays. Quite obvious, isn't it? ;)
--
Kind Regards,
Simon Stelling
Gentoo/AMD64 developer
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
On Saturday 21 October 2006 08:38, David Leverton wrote:
> (Sorry if this is a dupe. I tried sending it before, but it seems to
> have disappeared into /dev/null.)
nah, it made it through (ive got a copy) ... i bet the mailing list shit a
brick though which is why you didnt see it ...
ive taken
Hi,
(Sorry if this is a dupe. I tried sending it before, but it seems to
have disappeared into /dev/null.)
I wrote an eselect module for choosing between the browser plugins from
net-www/gnash and net-www/netscape-flash, and I was wondering if it
could be included in Gentoo (probably not in its
On Wednesday 25 October 2006 03:27, Stuart Herbert wrote:
> As such, as a point of principle, should the council be able to
> change/override/replace the rules in GLEP 39 w/out putting it to a
> vote of all Gentoo developers?
sort of like the president rewriting the rules that control his own powe
Tach Stuart, 0x2B859DE3 (PGP-PK-ID)
Stuart Herbert schrieb:
> (As a second principle, if GLEP 39 is amended, wouldn't it be better to
> publish a new GLEP to superceed it, rather than revise the existing
> GLEP?)
GLEP 39a?
V-Li
--
Fingerprint: 68C5 D381 B69A
Hi,
On 10/25/06, Donnie Berkholz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Danny van Dyk wrote:
> Design phase for new projects: New projects need to post an RFC
>containing information about their goals, the plan on how to
>implement their goals and the necessary resources to -dev prior to
>creat
David Shakaryan wrote:
> George Prowse wrote:
>
>> Mike Frysinger wrote:
>>
>>> On Wednesday 25 October 2006 01:53, Drake Wyrm wrote:
>>>
I think someone is yanking your chain, vapier.
>>> i doubt it ... other people on irc mentioned receiving said e-mail as
>>> we
33 matches
Mail list logo
