On Tue, 31 Oct 2006, Chris White wrote:
Scale5X announcement just hit my inbox, so away we go. Scale 5X will be
taking place at:
http://www.starwoodhotels.com/westin/property/overview/index.html?propertyID=1005
The Westin Los Angeles Airport from Feb. 10-11 2007 (That's a
Saturday/Sunday).
Peter Gordon wrote:
> On Tue, 2006-10-31 at 16:41 -0800, David Shakaryan wrote:
>> Although I'm not completely sure yet, I am assuming that I should be
>> able to attend, as I live only ~25 miles away from LAX. Looking forward
>> to it. :)
>
> Lunch at BURGER KING. Awesome. :D
Indeed! That's the
On Tue, 2006-10-31 at 16:41 -0800, David Shakaryan wrote:
> Although I'm not completely sure yet, I am assuming that I should be
> able to attend, as I live only ~25 miles away from LAX. Looking forward
> to it. :)
Lunch at BURGER KING. Awesome. :D
--
Peter Gordon (codergeek42)
Gentoo Forums Glob
I'm in the northern part of Orange County, so this is a rather small trip
for me to get there. Assuming all is well, I may (hopefully) be able to
attend at least one of the days! Woo!
--
Peter Gordon (codergeek42)
Gentoo Forums Global Moderator
GnuPG Public Key ID: 0xFFC19479 / Fingerprint:
DD68
Christel Dahlskjaer wrote:
> Ah, sorry!
> Graham, the community coordinator for Scale already asked us to be
> present some while back and I said 'Ya.'
>
> I know myself, nightmorph, probably omp, perhaps spb atleast are
> intending to man the booth. :)
Although I'm not completely sure yet, I
Francesco Riosa ha scritto:
[...]
>
> http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=149626
> I'm going to die then, scheduled on 2006-11-05
> If keywording without archs support is only gambling I'll go that route
>
[...]
Worried that this can cause a flameware I already updated the ebuild:
- it now use
Peter Johanson wrote:
>
> LA is easy for me, living in OC. Will try my hardest to make this/help
> out.
>
> -pete
Latexer... you're still dead to me for leaving NY for "OC" as you term
it. It pains me to have to tell you this.
--
Doug Goldstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
http://dev.gentoo.org/~cardoe
On Tue, Oct 31, 2006 at 10:46:35PM +, Christel Dahlskjaer wrote:
>
> Ah, sorry!
> Graham, the community coordinator for Scale already asked us to be
> present some while back and I said 'Ya.'
>
> I know myself, nightmorph, probably omp, perhaps spb atleast are
> intending to man the booth.
On Tue, 2006-10-31 at 14:36 -0800, Chris White wrote:
> Scale5X announcement just hit my inbox, so away we go. Scale 5X will be
> taking place at:
>
> http://www.starwoodhotels.com/westin/property/overview/index.html?propertyID=1005
>
> The Westin Los Angeles Airport from Feb. 10-11 2007 (That'
Scale5X announcement just hit my inbox, so away we go. Scale 5X will be
taking place at:
http://www.starwoodhotels.com/westin/property/overview/index.html?propertyID=1005
The Westin Los Angeles Airport from Feb. 10-11 2007 (That's a
Saturday/Sunday). I had strong plans on going, but with rece
On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 21:34:13 +0100 "Fernando J. Pereda"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| On Tue, Oct 31, 2006 at 03:23:00PM -0500, Seemant Kulleen wrote:
| > Third, the best proposal I've seen here is for developers to get
| > shell accounts on alternate architectures. There's quite a few of
| > them
On Tue, Oct 31, 2006 at 03:23:00PM -0500, Seemant Kulleen wrote:
> Third, the best proposal I've seen here is for developers to get shell
> accounts on alternate architectures. There's quite a few of them
> floating around, and I'm pretty sure the arch teams will help you get a
> shell on one of t
OK kids, settle down for a second and listen to your uncle Seemant.
First, enough with the insults being hurled around! We don't need
people being called slackers and dumb and stupid and whatever other
creative labels are being developed. That is absolutely and without a
doubt: non-productive.
On Tue, Oct 31, 2006 at 08:42:54PM +0100, Jakub Moc wrote:
> Fernando J. Pereda napsal(a):
> > On Tue, Oct 31, 2006 at 07:12:58PM +0100, Jakub Moc wrote:
> >> Oh well, this apparently doesn't go anywhere, slacking is just
> >> wonderful, maintainers should just STFU and obey the almighty slacking
>
On Tue, Oct 31, 2006 at 07:51:00PM +, Stuart Herbert wrote:
> Hi Chris,
>
> On 10/31/06, Chris Gianelloni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >On Tue, 2006-10-31 at 17:02 +0100, Stuart Herbert wrote:
> >> 3) ??
> >
> >Get your hands on some of the minority arch hardware and help out?
>
> It's a good
Hi Chris,
On 10/31/06, Chris Gianelloni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Tue, 2006-10-31 at 17:02 +0100, Stuart Herbert wrote:
> 3) ??
Get your hands on some of the minority arch hardware and help out?
It's a good idea. It's not an option for me, but hopefully others
will follow your advice.
P
On Tue, Oct 31, 2006 at 06:53:20PM +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 10:45:02 -0800 Chris White <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> | Alright kids, you've been emailing back and forth since 7AM my time
> | in a frequence of about 5 minute intervals. Just take this motha to
> | IRC alr
Fernando J. Pereda napsal(a):
> On Tue, Oct 31, 2006 at 07:12:58PM +0100, Jakub Moc wrote:
>> Oh well, this apparently doesn't go anywhere, slacking is just
>> wonderful, maintainers should just STFU and obey the almighty slacking
>> arches, security is the least of a concern and no priority, not
>
On Tue, 2006-10-31 at 20:06 +0100, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
> On Tuesday 31 October 2006 19:51, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> > Remember that some of the teams in question are sometimes only one or
> > two people.
> Like x86? :P
With Opfer on the team, I think we're at 5 active.
--
Chris Gia
On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 10:45:02 -0800 Chris White <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| Alright kids, you've been emailing back and forth since 7AM my time
| in a frequence of about 5 minute intervals. Just take this motha to
| IRC already.
Please stop adding to the noise with these worthless posts. You've b
On Tuesday 31 October 2006 19:51, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> Remember that some of the teams in question are sometimes only one or
> two people.
Like x86? :P
--
Diego "Flameeyes" Pettenò - http://farragut.flameeyes.is-a-geek.org/
Gentoo/Alt lead, Gentoo/FreeBSD, Video, Sound, ALSA, PAM, KDE, CJK,
On Tue, 2006-10-31 at 17:02 +0100, Stuart Herbert wrote:
> 3) ??
Get your hands on some of the minority arch hardware and help out?
Remember that some of the teams in question are sometimes only one or
two people. In this case, a single developer does make a dramatic
difference.
--
Chris Giane
On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 19:12:58 +0100
Jakub Moc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Oh well, this apparently doesn't go anywhere, slacking is just
> wonderful, maintainers should just STFU and obey the almighty slacking
> arches, security is the least of a concern and no priority, not
> answering a on bug f
On Tue, Oct 31, 2006 at 07:12:58PM +0100, Jakub Moc wrote:
> Oh well, this apparently doesn't go anywhere, slacking is just
> wonderful, maintainers should just STFU and obey the almighty slacking
> arches, security is the least of a concern and no priority, not
> answering a on bug for half a year
On Tue, Oct 31, 2006 at 06:50:58PM +0100, Jakub Moc wrote:
> Ah. That's apparently much more important than not breaking users by
> providing them w/ non-vulnerable, decently uptodate stuff that's not
> ridden by tons of bugs. Yup. :P
Why do you keep trying to tell arch maintainers how to do their
On Tue, 2006-10-31 at 18:23 +0100, Jakub Moc wrote:
> Ciaran McCreesh napsal(a):
> > On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 11:57:37 -0500 Alec Warner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> > | I picked a random e-mail to reply to. I don't maintain that many
> > | packages (maybe 10 or so?). But if I have a bug (particu
On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 18:50:58 +0100
Jakub Moc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ah. That's apparently much more important than not breaking users by
> providing them w/ non-vulnerable, decently uptodate stuff that's not
> ridden by tons of bugs. Yup. :P
You've never worked on an arch team, have you?
--
Alec Warner wrote:
On the topic of old ebuilds; situations may arise where a particular
maintainer is trying to clean out a version of a package but finds
that $arch doesn't have anything newer stable and thus can't do any
sort of cleanup for fear of breaking $arch.
You will probably again st
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 18:50:58 +0100 Jakub Moc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| Stephen Bennett napsal(a):
| > On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 18:18:26 +0100
| > Jakub Moc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| >
| >> Sure I did... Could you tell me why should we accumulate broken and
| >> vulnerabl
Ciaran McCreesh napsal(a):
> | Accumulating broken old vulnerable and unsupported junk in tree
>
> There is no accumulation. It's already there. And if packages are that
> bad, perhaps you should ask yourself why they have a stable keyword at
> all.
Eh, sure there won't be any accumulation of bro
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 11:57:37 -0500 Alec Warner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| I picked a random e-mail to reply to. I don't maintain that many
| packages (maybe 10 or so?). But if I have a bug (particularly a sec
| bug as in this case) and you haven't stablized it after f
On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 17:57:06 +0100 Jakub Moc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| > How exactly does this affect package maintainers, apart from the
| > cosmetic problems of having an old ebuild lying around? As far as I
| > can see, it doesn't affect the maintenance burden,
|
| Of course it does... Lots
On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 17:57:06 +0100
Jakub Moc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Of course it does... Lots of people can't remove outdated broken cruft
> because $ebuild still depends on something since $arch has been
> slacking for months. Lots of people are forced to maintain outdated
> junk in this wa
Steve Dibb wrote:
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 22:33:26 +0100 Jakub Moc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| Ciaran McCreesh napsal(a):
| > | What on earth are you talking about here? And why almost 6 months
| > | is not enough for someone to respond on a bug with a simple
| > | "we'll onl
On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 18:18:26 +0100
Jakub Moc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Sure I did... Could you tell me why should we accumulate broken and
> vulnerable junk in the tree for years? (Outdated ebuild A depends on
> junky outdated ebuild B which depends on crappy, unsupported ebuilds
> C, D and E w
Stephen Bennett napsal(a):
> On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 17:57:06 +0100
> Jakub Moc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Of course it does... Lots of people can't remove outdated broken cruft
>> because $ebuild still depends on something since $arch has been
>> slacking for months. Lots of people are forced to
On Tue, Oct 31, 2006 at 05:05:21PM +, Stephen Bennett wrote:
> On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 17:57:06 +0100
> Jakub Moc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Of course it does... Lots of people can't remove outdated broken cruft
> > because $ebuild still depends on something since $arch has been
> > slacking
On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 18:23:49 +0100 Jakub Moc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| Ciaran McCreesh napsal(a):
| > On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 11:57:37 -0500 Alec Warner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
| > wrote:
| > | I picked a random e-mail to reply to. I don't maintain that many
| > | packages (maybe 10 or so?). But if I
On Tue, Oct 31, 2006 at 06:18:26PM +0100, Jakub Moc wrote:
> Sure I did... Could you tell me why should we accumulate broken and
> vulnerable junk in the tree for years? (Outdated ebuild A depends on
> junky outdated ebuild B which depends on crappy, unsupported ebuilds C,
> D and E which... )
Tha
On Tue, 2006-31-10 at 17:02 +0100, Stuart Herbert wrote:
> This leaves package maintainers in the situation that there are
> 'old'/'insecure'/ versions of
> packages that are hanging around only because arches have fallen
> behind. Package maintainers want to be able to remove these old
> versions
On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 17:16:31 +0100
"Stuart Herbert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Arch team leaders set policy on this issues, not Ciaran.
Which they did a long time ago, which he got to know at that time, and
which haven't substantively changed since then. He's as well qualified
as anyone to answ
Jim Ramsay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 31 października 2006 04:49 +0100 napisał:
> On Sat, Oct 28, 2006 at 05:23:50PM +0200, Arfrever wrote:
> > In connection with latest globalization of mplayer USE flag I would like to
> > ask for globalizing cairo, openexr and udev USE flags. These flags are used
> >
Ciaran McCreesh napsal(a):
> On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 11:57:37 -0500 Alec Warner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> | I picked a random e-mail to reply to. I don't maintain that many
> | packages (maybe 10 or so?). But if I have a bug (particularly a sec
> | bug as in this case) and you haven't stablized
On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 11:57:37 -0500 Alec Warner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| I picked a random e-mail to reply to. I don't maintain that many
| packages (maybe 10 or so?). But if I have a bug (particularly a sec
| bug as in this case) and you haven't stablized it after five months
| then I'll pro
Dnia wtorek, 31 października 2006 17:04, Stephen P. Becker napisał:
> [snip]
> Don't dismiss his responses as noise from some random "Gentoo user" who has
> no idea what they are talking about. You should know better then that
> Stuart.
>
> -Steve
This Random "Gentoo user" as you wrote says no
On 10/31/06, Stephen Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Having a system that actually works is usually reckoned to be more
important than patching minor security holes on architectures that
aren't security-supported anyway. On systems that are almost never used
in production or in externally visi
On 10/31/06, Stephen P. Becker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
You do realize that Ciaran *was* a member of several arch teams, right?
Of course. But "was" _is_ the operative word. It's not like I'm
asking for him to be banned from the Gentoo mailing lists or anything.
Chill, ffs.
Arch team leade
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, 31 Oct 2006, Stuart Herbert wrote:
On 10/31/06, Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Uh, security bugs are not the highest priority.
Would it be possible to have some arch team leaders join in this
debate? Atm, it just seems to be
On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 17:02:46 +0100 "Stuart Herbert"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| 2) Or, remove the older versions from the tree after a suitable
| waiting period (say, 3 months for arguments sake). This will keep
| package maintainers happy, and our users (less cruft in the tree to
| rsync and met
Stephen Bennett napsal(a):
> On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 18:18:26 +0100
> Jakub Moc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Sure I did... Could you tell me why should we accumulate broken and
>> vulnerable junk in the tree for years? (Outdated ebuild A depends on
>> junky outdated ebuild B which depends on crappy
On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 12:30:24 -0500 Alec Warner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| I'm just trying to make my life as an ebuild maintainer easier. This
| means some individuals may file bugs against an old crusty version of
| a package that I maintain because $arch hasn't keyworded a newer
| version yet
On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 18:50:58 +0100 Jakub Moc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| Stephen Bennett napsal(a):
| > On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 18:18:26 +0100
| > Jakub Moc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| >
| >> Sure I did... Could you tell me why should we accumulate broken and
| >> vulnerable junk in the tree for yea
On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 17:02:46 +0100
"Stuart Herbert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 1) Leave the older versions in the tree, even though they are
> insecure and possibly/probably no longer supported by package
> maintainers. This keeps minority arches happy at the expense of the
> larger group of p
On 10/31/06, Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Uh, security bugs are not the highest priority.
Would it be possible to have some arch team leaders join in this
debate? Atm, it just seems to be bouncing back and forwards between
package maintainers asking questions, and a Gentoo user f
On Tuesday 31 October 2006 14:46, Steve Dibb wrote:
> That does bring up an interesting question though -- at what point do you
> just ignore the arch and move on so that development can continue?
I just ignore the arches these days. After all, they ignore me. dhcp clients
where modified to be in
On Tuesday 31 October 2006 16:02, Stuart Herbert wrote:
> 3) ??
Profit
--
Roy Marples <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Gentoo Developer (baselayout, networking)
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Stuart Herbert wrote:
> On 10/31/06, Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Uh, security bugs are not the highest priority.
>
> Would it be possible to have some arch team leaders join in this
> debate? Atm, it just seems to be bouncing back and forwards between
> package maintainers askin
On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 16:36:13 +0100
"Stuart Herbert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Would it be possible to have some arch team leaders join in this
> debate? Atm, it just seems to be bouncing back and forwards between
> package maintainers asking questions, and a Gentoo user filling the
> void left
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 22:33:26 +0100 Jakub Moc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| Ciaran McCreesh napsal(a):
| > | What on earth are you talking about here? And why almost 6 months
| > | is not enough for someone to respond on a bug with a simple
| > | "we'll only support newer ver
On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 08:57:01 +0100 Paweł Madej <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| I'm not a dev but I suppose i got resolution for that problem. Lets
| make another subproject (don't know how to name it properly) in
| bugzilla in which there will be only bugs affected by security flaw.
| That bugs will h
Stuart Herbert wrote:
>
> http://www.flickr.com/groups/gentoo/
>
My stuff is on lu-zero.deviantart.com, I don't use flikr ^^;
lu
--
Luca Barbato
Gentoo/linux Gentoo/PPC
http://dev.gentoo.org/~lu_zero
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Reposted from http://planet.gentoo.org for the devs who live in
caves^H^H^Hdon't read planet.gentoo.org.
Best regards,
Stu
--
http://www.flickr.com/groups/gentoo/
Whilst sat here this morning waiting for the NX packages to build, it
occured to me that we don't have our own group on Flickr. Bit
On Tuesday 31 October 2006 04:41, Roy Marples wrote:
> All modules have to be built into the kernel - kldload causes kernel panics
> about memory not aligned. I'm pretty sure this is gcc-4 related
most likely ... a lot of misalignment issues were found in the linux kernel
after moving to gcc-4 (i
Dnia wtorek, 31 października 2006 10:17, Mike Frysinger napisał:
> On Tuesday 31 October 2006 04:08, Paweł Madej wrote:
> > Dnia wtorek, 31 października 2006 09:52, Mike Frysinger napisał:
> > > we already have the products available for people to sort arch bugs
> > > between "stabilize random pkg
Hi List!
The first Gentoo/FreeBSD/Sparc64 stage [1] is ready for testing!
There are a few rough edges, namely you have to compile all kernel stuff you
need into the kernel as loading modules causes a kernel panic. This is
probably a gcc related error as upstream uses gcc-3.4.x by default.
Insta
On Tuesday 31 October 2006 04:08, Paweł Madej wrote:
> Dnia wtorek, 31 października 2006 09:52, Mike Frysinger napisał:
> > we already have the products available for people to sort arch bugs
> > between "stabilize random pkg for fun" and "stabilize random pkg for
> > security" ... in fact, the bug
Dnia wtorek, 31 października 2006 09:52, Mike Frysinger napisał:
> On Tuesday 31 October 2006 03:38, Paweł Madej wrote:
> > Dnia wtorek, 31 października 2006 09:02, Mike Frysinger napisał:
> > > On Tuesday 31 October 2006 02:57, Paweł Madej wrote:
> > > > I'm not a dev but I suppose i got resolutio
On Tuesday 31 October 2006 03:38, Paweł Madej wrote:
> Dnia wtorek, 31 października 2006 09:02, Mike Frysinger napisał:
> > On Tuesday 31 October 2006 02:57, Paweł Madej wrote:
> > > I'm not a dev but I suppose i got resolution for that problem. Lets
> > > make another subproject (don't know how to
Dnia wtorek, 31 października 2006 09:06, David Shakaryan napisał:
> Paweł Madej wrote:
> > I'm not a dev but I suppose i got resolution for that problem. Lets make
> > another subproject (don't know how to name it properly) in bugzilla in
> > which there will be only bugs affected by security flaw.
Dnia wtorek, 31 października 2006 09:02, Mike Frysinger napisał:
> On Tuesday 31 October 2006 02:57, Paweł Madej wrote:
> > I'm not a dev but I suppose i got resolution for that problem. Lets make
> > another subproject (don't know how to name it properly) in bugzilla
>
> you mean like the "Gentoo
Paweł Madej wrote:
> I'm not a dev but I suppose i got resolution for that problem. Lets make
> another subproject (don't know how to name it properly) in bugzilla in which
> there will be only bugs affected by security flaw. That bugs will have
> highest priority from every other ones. And devs
On Tuesday 31 October 2006 02:57, Paweł Madej wrote:
> I'm not a dev but I suppose i got resolution for that problem. Lets make
> another subproject (don't know how to name it properly) in bugzilla
you mean like the "Gentoo Security" bugzilla product ?
-mike
pgp1nEpXBCUUN.pgp
Description: PGP si
72 matches
Mail list logo
