On 2/20/07, Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
You know that real standards aren't a free for all, right? They're
usually written by a small group, and then commented on by interested
parties when they're already well into being written. Which is exactly
what we're doing...
You forgot t
On Tue, Feb 20, 2007 at 07:10:51PM -0800, Mike Doty wrote:
> I was never offered this offer.
If you read the emails by Ciaran you will see that he already offered the
council members access to read the draft.
--
Alexander Færøy
Bugday Lead
Alpha/IA64/MIPS Architecture Teams
User Relations, Quali
Stephen Bennett wrote:
> At this stage, individuals can ask for a copy, or for read access to
This stage is usually called early draft, the editor puts every input he
deems useful in the first document and then he sends it for discussion
once he is happy with it. So, no problems on this practice
Bryan Østergaard wrote:
On Tue, Feb 20, 2007 at 11:46:32AM +0100, Francesco Riosa wrote:
Ciaran McCreesh ha scritto:
It is widely perceived that Gentoo has a huge problem with slacker
archs cluttering up the tree and making maintainers' work harder.
Clearly, something needs to be done
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 18:58:48 -0800 Mike Doty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| Brian Harring wrote:
| [snip]
| > In light of that, don't really see any reason for the council to
| > *not* get a status update on it.
|
| We get "status" updates on it. it's pretty much "it's not
On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 18:58:48 -0800 Mike Doty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| Brian Harring wrote:
| [snip]
| > In light of that, don't really see any reason for the council to
| > *not* get a status update on it.
|
| We get "status" updates on it. it's pretty much "it's not done, we
| don't want to
Brian Harring wrote:
[snip]
In light of that, don't really see any reason for the council to *not*
get a status update on it.
We get "status" updates on it. it's pretty much "it's not done, we
don't want to show you" every month. It's one of the things I intend to
bring up at the march meet
On Tuesday 20 February 2007, Hanno Böck wrote:
> Today I saw that we still have the fake-ebuilds of winex/winex-cvs (just
> basically telling the user they've been removed). I think they can die?
done
-mike
pgpmJFNYVSv0H.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 17:22:07 -0700
"Daniel Robbins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Is there any way that the public can view the PMS spec that you have
> created so far?
>
> I am not totally familiar with how you are going about developing PMS,
> but based on some of your comments in this thread I'
On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 17:22:07 -0700 "Daniel Robbins"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| Is there any way that the public can view the PMS spec that you have
| created so far?
They can ask spb. If spb is convinced that they have something useful
to contribute at this stage, and that they won't do somethin
Ciaran,
Is there any way that the public can view the PMS spec that you have
created so far?
I am not totally familiar with how you are going about developing PMS,
but based on some of your comments in this thread I'm a little bit
concerned.
-Daniel
On 2/20/07, Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTE
Hi,
Today I saw that we still have the fake-ebuilds of winex/winex-cvs (just
basically telling the user they've been removed). I think they can die?
Treecleaers?
--
Hanno Böck Blog: http://www.hboeck.de/
GPG: 3DBD3B20 Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
pgpxaLxHSoUrv.pgp
Descr
On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 23:47:04 +0100 "Denis Dupeyron"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| On 2/20/07, Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| > This is standard practice for professional standards, and is the
|
| Now you talk about this, a standard is, in standard practice, the
| result of a collabora
On 2/20/07, Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
This is standard practice for professional standards, and is the
Now you talk about this, a standard is, in standard practice, the
result of a collaborative effort of representing members of the
organization(s) that is (are) supposed to adh
On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 16:57:50 -0500 Chris Gianelloni
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| On Tue, 2007-02-20 at 18:29 +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
| > | The question was specifically in regards to timelines; completion
| > | so that ongoing paludis vs pkgcore vs portage crap can be put to
| > | rest.
| >
On Tue, 2007-02-20 at 18:29 +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> | The question was specifically in regards to timelines; completion so
> | that ongoing paludis vs pkgcore vs portage crap can be put to rest.
>
> *shrug* I don't see PMS as being viable until there's a fully
> conformant independent imp
On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 14:12:12 -0700 "Daniel Robbins"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| 1) ebuilds and *especially* eclasses do way too many weird things and
| can often depend on idiosyncrasies of portage. The eclass bash scripts
| can be quite complex and probably 9 out of 10 (99 out of 100?) times
| I'
OK, my initial impression of this is:
1) ebuilds and *especially* eclasses do way too many weird things and
can often depend on idiosyncrasies of portage. The eclass bash scripts
can be quite complex and probably 9 out of 10 (99 out of 100?) times
I'd put the burden of compatibility on the eclass
On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 12:19:12 -0700 "Daniel Robbins"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| I think that standardization is a good thing and interoperability
| between paludis, portage, pkgcore and others is something we should
| strive for. If at all possible, I think that this standardization
| effort shoul
# Raúl Porcel (20 Feb 2007)
# Masked for removal 19 Mar 2007, bug 135257, security issues
# Replaced by www-client/seamonkey[-bin]
www-client/mozilla
www-client/mozilla-bin
So, amd64 finally stabilized the mono ebuild which doesn't need mozilla,
this can be punted.
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mail
Ciaran,
Admittedly, I'm new to this PMS thing so in many cases I'm speaking
from a position of ignorance, but I guess I need to jump in
somewhere
I think that standardization is a good thing and interoperability
between paludis, portage, pkgcore and others is something we should
strive for.
On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 10:22:14 -0800 Brian Harring <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| Perhaps not all of the council; distinctly recall diego pushing about
| it though. Quick look through council logs, robbat2 was asking about
| timeline also (jan. meeting specifically).
You've gotta ask *why* certain
First, by directing this email at you, I am not in any way suggesting
that others are justified in attacking you or that you are at fault in
a technical sense.
That being said, it's generally futile to bitterly demand that people
treat you with respect. It doesn't work.
So, that means that if yo
On Tue, Feb 20, 2007 at 07:08:14PM +0100, Danny van Dyk wrote:
> Am Dienstag, 20. Februar 2007 18:33 schrieb Brian Harring:
> > On Tue, Feb 20, 2007 at 05:22:59PM +, Stephen Bennett wrote:
> > > On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 07:24:54 -0800
> > >
> > > Brian Harring <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > Poss
Am Dienstag, 20. Februar 2007 18:33 schrieb Brian Harring:
> On Tue, Feb 20, 2007 at 05:22:59PM +, Stephen Bennett wrote:
> > On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 07:24:54 -0800
> >
> > Brian Harring <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Possible they've gone and shifted the name (or disabled
> > > notification); ei
On Tue, Feb 20, 2007 at 05:22:59PM +, Stephen Bennett wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 07:24:54 -0800
> Brian Harring <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Possible they've gone and shifted the name (or disabled
> > notification); either way, think it's probably worth getting a status
> > update on it
On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 10:12:26 -0700 "Daniel Robbins"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| Can you please refrain from making inflammatory accusations in your
| posts? This is not a forum for airing personal grievances, and they do
| not serve any purpose besides encouraging others to do the same to you
| -
Hi Ciaran,
Can you please refrain from making inflammatory accusations in your
posts? This is not a forum for airing personal grievances, and they do
not serve any purpose besides encouraging others to do the same to you
- as you have discovered.
-Daniel
On 2/20/07, Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROT
On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 07:24:54 -0800
Brian Harring <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Possible they've gone and shifted the name (or disabled
> notification); either way, think it's probably worth getting a status
> update on it in council this coming month.
Right now I'm placing a higher priority on get
On Tue, Feb 20, 2007 at 02:29:32PM +0100, Francesco Riosa wrote:
> Bryan Østergaard ha scritto:
> >On Tue, Feb 20, 2007 at 01:00:12PM +0100, Francesco Riosa wrote:
> >>Bryan Østergaard ha scritto:
> >>>On Tue, Feb 20, 2007 at 11:46:32AM +0100, Francesco Riosa wrote:
> >>>
> Ciaran McCreesh ha s
On Tue, 2007-02-20 at 08:11 -0500, Stephen P. Becker wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 01:35:32 +
> Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > It is widely perceived that Gentoo has a huge problem with slacker
> > archs cluttering up the tree and making maintainers' work harder.
> > Clearly,
On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 16:22:46 +
Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 08:09:27 -0800 Brian Harring <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> | Regardless, data was presented as "see, mips isn't behind";
> which... | isn't the case as your own data shows.
>
> As my own data show
On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 11:46:32 +0100 Francesco Riosa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| Better protect gentoo and it's developer, especially the more active
| ones from the gravitational waves of those few, very annoying
| satellites. Then it will be possible to actually work to the rest.
You mean the d
On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 08:13:54 -0800 Brian Harring <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| So... how far a long are they?
Better to say what we don't have:
* descriptions of all those pesky little helper programs.
* clarity and detail for certain sections.
| Further, since this *is* something gentoo needs,
On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 08:09:27 -0800 Brian Harring <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| Regardless, data was presented as "see, mips isn't behind"; which...
| isn't the case as your own data shows.
As my own data shows, mips is not behind in absolute terms.
--
Ciaran McCreesh
Mail
On Tue, Feb 20, 2007 at 03:49:56PM +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 07:24:54 -0800 Brian Harring <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> | On Tue, Feb 20, 2007 at 03:11:20PM +, Steve Long wrote:
> | > Before you go- were you working on EAPI? I've been waiting ages on
> | > that..
> |
On Tue, Feb 20, 2007 at 03:52:07PM +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Feb 2007 20:21:49 -0800 Brian Harring <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> | On Tue, Feb 20, 2007 at 01:35:32AM +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> | > It is widely perceived that Gentoo has a huge problem with slacker
> | > archs
On Mon, 19 Feb 2007 20:21:49 -0800 Brian Harring <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| On Tue, Feb 20, 2007 at 01:35:32AM +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
| > It is widely perceived that Gentoo has a huge problem with slacker
| > archs cluttering up the tree and making maintainers' work harder.
| > Clearly, so
On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 07:24:54 -0800 Brian Harring <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| On Tue, Feb 20, 2007 at 03:11:20PM +, Steve Long wrote:
| > Before you go- were you working on EAPI? I've been waiting ages on
| > that..
|
| No, that's spb's project (with apparent help from ciaranm).
| http://cia.n
On Tue, Feb 20, 2007 at 03:11:20PM +, Steve Long wrote:
> Before you go- were you working on EAPI? I've been waiting ages on that..
No, that's spb's project (with apparent help from ciaranm).
http://cia.navi.cx/stats/project/PMS
Possible they've gone and shifted the name (or disabled notifica
Stephen P. Becker wrote:
> All of that said, how about we clear up all of the misinformation about
> how arch keywording really works, how deps get wrongly dropped, and then
> explain why mips has generally fallen behind. This isn't an excuse,
> but is merely a statement of facts which describe th
Jakub Moc wrote:
> The maintainer has been MIA for quite some time and has a retirement
> bug open, so the bugs are piling up.
>
> Please, have a look at the tracker Bug 165185 if you are interested in
> taking over this.
>
> Basically, gkrellm-1* and ebuilds that depend on it need to be removed
On Mon, 19 Feb 2007 20:21:49 -0800
Brian Harring <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Please Brian, make this a monthly. :)
Kind regards,
JeR
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Bryan Østergaard ha scritto:
On Tue, Feb 20, 2007 at 01:00:12PM +0100, Francesco Riosa wrote:
Bryan Østergaard ha scritto:
On Tue, Feb 20, 2007 at 11:46:32AM +0100, Francesco Riosa wrote:
Ciaran McCreesh ha scritto:
It is widely perceived that Gentoo has a huge problem with slacker
archs clu
On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 01:35:32 +
Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It is widely perceived that Gentoo has a huge problem with slacker
> archs cluttering up the tree and making maintainers' work harder.
> Clearly, something needs to be done about this.
Wow, I almost don't know where
Hi folks,
We'll be migrating to some new hardware for cvs.gentoo.org later this week. I
am making a worst-case estimate that the migration will take two hours, but if
everything goes right, it should take much less.
CVS and SVN on the old machine (lark) will stop accepting commits at Friday
morni
On Tue, Feb 20, 2007 at 01:00:12PM +0100, Francesco Riosa wrote:
> Bryan Østergaard ha scritto:
> >On Tue, Feb 20, 2007 at 11:46:32AM +0100, Francesco Riosa wrote:
> >
> >>Ciaran McCreesh ha scritto:
> >>>It is widely perceived that Gentoo has a huge problem with slacker
> >>>archs cluttering up th
Bryan Østergaard ha scritto:
On Tue, Feb 20, 2007 at 11:46:32AM +0100, Francesco Riosa wrote:
Ciaran McCreesh ha scritto:
It is widely perceived that Gentoo has a huge problem with slacker
archs cluttering up the tree and making maintainers' work harder.
Clearly, something needs to be done abo
On Tue, Feb 20, 2007 at 11:46:32AM +0100, Francesco Riosa wrote:
>
> Ciaran McCreesh ha scritto:
> >It is widely perceived that Gentoo has a huge problem with slacker
> >archs cluttering up the tree and making maintainers' work harder.
> >Clearly, something needs to be done about this.
>
> It's
As other have pointed out these statistics are not rappresentative of
how mips is stopping developers to do work on their packages.
Also as stated in http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=163795 Stephen
Becker alias "geoman" has promised us all to retire soon, so the
situation can only become w
Stefan Schweizer wrote:
>
> comments?
>
just find a scriptable system to manage server side mass keywording...
as in
$EDITOR tokeywordfile
(same syntax as package.keywords)
repoman tokeywords tokeywordfile
(repoman first checks it is applicable locally and then push it over the
server whil
On 19-02-2007 20:21:49 -0800, Brian Harring wrote:
> Granted, ppc-macos has more, but mips has 7x the number of packages...
> plus ppc-macos is effectively a dead arch, they've gone on to prefix
> land for the most part.
I just want to apologise to everyone that somehow gets messed up because
of
52 matches
Mail list logo
