Hi Grant, Rémi and Yuri,
On 25-04-2007 20:30:45 -0500, Yuri Vasilevski wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 23:39:47 +0200
> Rémi Cardona <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Grant Goodyear a écrit :
> > > Fabian Groffen wrote: [Sat Apr 14 2007, 03:33:03AM CDT]
> > >> For people that like reading it in html
On Wed, 2007-04-25 at 20:12 -0400, Michael Cummings wrote:
> G-cpan-0.15 was put out last night; 99% bug fixes, a few easter eggs, and some
> tweaks. Any other cool updates in the last few weeks? (it's been 20 days since
> the last time I started this thread - at this rate, we might make enough inp
On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 23:39:47 +0200
Rémi Cardona <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Grant Goodyear a écrit :
> > Fabian Groffen wrote: [Sat Apr 14 2007, 03:33:03AM CDT]
> >> For people that like reading it in html or via the web:
> >> http://dev.gentoo.org/~grobian/gleps/glep-keywords.html
> >> http://de
Worth a shot, it seemed to work last time (and I just noticed that a neglected
-dev mail folder is a bad thing).
G-cpan-0.15 was put out last night; 99% bug fixes, a few easter eggs, and some
tweaks. Any other cool updates in the last few weeks? (it's been 20 days since
the last time I started thi
On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 09:56:02 -0700
Brian Harring <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Best I can figure, the offered reason is "it needs to be blocked
> before it becomes widespread thus cannot be blocked any further"-
> which isn't much of a reason since the support is long term there
> already, and d
Grant Goodyear a écrit :
Fabian Groffen wrote: [Sat Apr 14 2007, 03:33:03AM CDT]
For people that like reading it in html or via the web:
http://dev.gentoo.org/~grobian/gleps/glep-keywords.html
http://dev.gentoo.org/~grobian/gleps/glep-keywords.txt
So what would a version of Gentoo for amd64 ba
+# Petteri Räty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (25 Apr 2007)
+# TLS support is included in the JDK since 1.4. If you want
+# spare this package mail to the gentoo-java mailing list.
+# Otherwise going to the junkyard after 30 days.
+dev-java/puretls
+
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Fabian Groffen wrote: [Sat Apr 14 2007, 03:33:03AM CDT]
> For people that like reading it in html or via the web:
> http://dev.gentoo.org/~grobian/gleps/glep-keywords.html
> http://dev.gentoo.org/~grobian/gleps/glep-keywords.txt
So what would a version of Gentoo for amd64 based on FreeBSD but
usin
>>
>>
> Ciaran,
>
> You missed the bandwagon on trying to use the "conspiracy theories"
> phrase already. That happened a full 24 hrs ago. I'm sorry you were
> off-line. Next time try to come to the party on time, otherwise keep quiet.
>
Already been handled as its offtopic, please just
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 15:16:38 -0400
> Doug Goldstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> This wouldn't have to be because you have a vested interest in paludis
>> and paludis does not support this syntax and there happens to be no
>> reasonable way to support that?
>>
>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi.
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 10:06:55 -0700
> Joshua Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> This is enough. PMS is a work in progress its not going to cover
>> everything that users and developers are going to be in some cases
>> b
On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 10:06:55 -0700
Joshua Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This is enough. PMS is a work in progress its not going to cover
> everything that users and developers are going to be in some cases
> boneheaded enough to actually pull off (always have edge conditions).
No no, you m
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 09:57:39 +0200
> Danny van Dyk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>> Funnily enough... If we're going by PMS drafts, that's illegal
>>> whereas multiple suffixes are legal. PMS permits multiple suffixes,
>>> but limits any individual version component to e
@council; cross posting to provide the reasoning, if discussion continues on
council ml, kindly cc me (unsubscribed long ago). Technical
discussion (which should be the basis of "why it was banned" should be
on dev ml imo).
On Tue, Apr 24, 2007 at 09:11:44PM +0200, Danny van Dyk wrote:
> Hi al
On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 18:40:17 +0200
"Jakub Moc" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Sigh... It for sure did sound like 'oh noes, the end of the world is
> near if we don't stop this immediately!!!111!'. Sorry, but I really
> fail to see the need to use such procedures when the only 2 remaining
> packages (
On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 12:12:49 -0400
Chris Gianelloni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I don't understand how nobody can see that the *TEMPORARY* injunction
> against packages using this versioning scheme was put into place
> *BECAUSE* nobody could agree on the solution.
On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 12:22
Cia
On 4/25/07, Chris Gianelloni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I don't understand how nobody can see that the *TEMPORARY* injunction
against packages using this versioning scheme was put into place
*BECAUSE* nobody could agree on the solution.
Actually, nevermind. I digress. You're right. The Counci
On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 12:12:49 -0400
Chris Gianelloni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I don't understand how nobody can see that the *TEMPORARY* injunction
> against packages using this versioning scheme was put into place
> *BECAUSE* nobody could agree on the solution.
Mmm, no, what's weird is that yo
On Wed, 2007-04-25 at 07:08 -0400, Richard Freeman wrote:
> Perhaps they wanted to make sure it remained a 3-package issue, and
> thought that it might grow before it could be addressed?
Exactly.
I agree with the rest of what you've said, also. Being on the Council
is a thankless job where we tr
On Wed, 2007-04-25 at 09:35 +0200, Fabian Groffen wrote:
> Hereby I would like to request the counsel to discuss this mini-GLEP in
> the first meeting for which this request is in time.
You got this in just in time for the next Council meeting.
--
Chris Gianelloni
Release Engineering Strategic L
On Wed, 2007-04-25 at 08:55 +0200, Jakub Moc wrote:
> On a general note - if you are unable to agree upon an acceptable
> solution, then better refrain from taking 'emergency' measures on
> issues where there's no emergency whatsoever. There's been a bug open
> for over two months and noone ever su
On Tue, 2007-04-24 at 21:25 -0400, Seemant Kulleen wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-04-25 at 00:30 +0200, Danny van Dyk wrote:
>
> > In my eyes it was a policy issue. Tree-wide policies have to pass the
> > council in one form or the other. So why shouldn't Council care here?
>
> My argument is not that Co
As usual if you have issues with the council's decision, this is the
wrong list to complain on. Try [EMAIL PROTECTED], I here
they have popcorn.
This is the right list to discuss versioning schemes though.
-Alec
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Seemant Kulleen wrote:
>
> If I were to guess I'd say people are a little confused that this
> required action/decision this quickly and outside of a regular council
> meeting -- for a real emergency situation, you'd probably see a lot less
> of a hub
On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 22:30:06 -0700
Alec Warner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Doug Goldstein wrote:
> > I agree -r# is for ebuild changes not code changes. I remember a while
> > back Portage would constantly use -r# instead of a 4th number and we
> > worked at that to change that behavior since it
On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 09:57:39 +0200
Danny van Dyk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Funnily enough... If we're going by PMS drafts, that's illegal
> > whereas multiple suffixes are legal. PMS permits multiple suffixes,
> > but limits any individual version component to eight digits to avoid
> > problem
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 12:31:48 -0700
> "Robin H. Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> printf "_rc%d%04d%02d%02d",$RC,$YEAR,$MONTH,$DAY
>
> Funnily enough... If we're going by PMS drafts, that's illegal whereas
> multiple suffixes are legal. PMS permits multiple suffixes, b
Am Mittwoch, 25. April 2007 schrieb Ciaran McCreesh:
> On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 12:31:48 -0700
>
> "Robin H. Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > printf "_rc%d%04d%02d%02d",$RC,$YEAR,$MONTH,$DAY
>
> Funnily enough... If we're going by PMS drafts, that's illegal
> whereas multiple suffixes are legal.
Am Mittwoch, 25. April 2007 schrieb Ciaran McCreesh:
> On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 12:31:48 -0700
>
> "Robin H. Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > printf "_rc%d%04d%02d%02d",$RC,$YEAR,$MONTH,$DAY
>
> Funnily enough... If we're going by PMS drafts, that's illegal
> whereas multiple suffixes are legal.
On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 15:16:38 -0400
Doug Goldstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This wouldn't have to be because you have a vested interest in paludis
> and paludis does not support this syntax and there happens to be no
> reasonable way to support that?
Cut the conspiracy theories. Paludis will su
On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 12:31:48 -0700
"Robin H. Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> printf "_rc%d%04d%02d%02d",$RC,$YEAR,$MONTH,$DAY
Funnily enough... If we're going by PMS drafts, that's illegal whereas
multiple suffixes are legal. PMS permits multiple suffixes, but limits
any individual version c
Quoting Jakub Moc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
noone ever suggested that I'd be a case for
urgent council decision.
That's because your "revisions" only change once a year. ;-)
(Sorry, couldn't resist.)
Best regards, Wulf
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Hereby I would like to request the counsel to discuss this mini-GLEP in
the first meeting for which this request is in time.
On 14-04-2007 10:33:03 +0200, Fabian Groffen wrote:
> On 14-04-2007 01:19:41 -0700, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
> > On Sat, Apr 14, 2007 at 07:32:12AM +0100, Steve Long wrote:
33 matches
Mail list logo
