On 6/13/07, Jayson Vaughn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Ok,
Gentoo is over.
Gentoo can't be over! I still have $10 riding on Gentoo having a
larger market share than Windows Vista in 5 years! I still think I
will win :)
-Codeman
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
On Thursday 14 Jun 2007 1:54:51 am Vlastimil Babka wrote:
>
> But maybe Skype is not so pressing to upgrade, just doesn't provide
> distfiles anymore. Then maybe we don't have to obey, but still it's
> really questionable if it should be marked stable at all.
>
Then don't mark it stable but droppin
On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 22:53:40 +0100
Peter Weller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[..snip..]
> Oh, also, some of us can bitch and develop at once. Y'know. We have
> like 8 arms. And we control like 4 computers at once *nod*. Kinda like
> this dude here:
> http://www.watauga.k12.nc.us/hp/images/octopus_w
This is your one-day friendly reminder ! The monthly Gentoo Council
meeting is tomorrow in #gentoo-council on irc.freenode.net. See the
channel topic for the exact time (but it's probably 2000 UTC).
If you're supposed to show up, please show up. If you're not supposed
to show up, then show up a
On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 16:17:37 -0500
"Jayson Vaughn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ok,
> Gentoo is over. As an outsider who has been following gentoo-dev and
> other gentoo lists for a while, this is just completely nuts.
> Is there any order or clear idea anymore for this distro? No other
> distro
Some numbers to back Vlastimil up
> Yep there's still development going on, devs commit ebuilds and stuff.
http://cia.vc/stats/project/gentoo
> Also, as said many times, number of devs participating in flamewars here
> is pretty low compared to number of all devs...
considering
http://www.gen
I don't agree. Gentoo is not over.
But, is hard to believe that gentoo are going to survive.
Fights, public discussions, complains about proctors, CoC draft, so
many good developers retiring and bad publicity (or fights in this
list are good thing?? )
Nowadays, this list looks more like a figh
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Jayson Vaughn wrote:
> Ok,
> Gentoo is over.
Hardly :)
> As an outsider who has been following gentoo-dev and
> other gentoo lists for a while, this is just completely nuts.
Seen worse :)
> Is there any order or clear idea anymore for this distro?
On 6/13/07, Jayson Vaughn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Ok,
Gentoo is over. As an outsider who has been following gentoo-dev and other
gentoo lists for a while, this is just completely nuts.
Is there any order or clear idea anymore for this distro? No other distro
seems to be as lost or confused a
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
> Are you for real? Normally its the dev's who scream and rant on the way
> out, not the users...
Touché :D
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFGcGJQuQ
Jayson Vaughn wrote:
> Ok,
> Gentoo is over. As an outsider who has been following gentoo-dev and
> other gentoo lists for a while, this is just completely nuts.
> Is there any order or clear idea anymore for this distro? No other
> distro seems to be as lost or confused as Gentoo is. And WTF i
Ok,
Gentoo is over. As an outsider who has been following gentoo-dev and other
gentoo lists for a while, this is just completely nuts.
Is there any order or clear idea anymore for this distro? No other distro
seems to be as lost or confused as Gentoo is. And WTF is this list going to
discuss de
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Kent Fredric wrote:
> On 6/14/07, Vlastimil Babka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Also, ion3 was IIRC removed recently also for upstream trying to force
>> new versions against our stable policy. And that was opensource.
>
> [U] x11-wm/ion3
> Availa
On 6/14/07, Vlastimil Babka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Also, ion3 was IIRC removed recently also for upstream trying to force
new versions against our stable policy. And that was opensource.
[U] x11-wm/ion3
Available versions: (~)20060326 (~)20061223 (~)20070318-r2 (~)20070506-r1
{doc ion3
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Abhay Kedia wrote:
> On Wednesday 13 Jun 2007 10:11:24 pm Vlastimil Babka wrote:
>> Drop it from stable completely, possibly package.mask or move to
>> overlay. Why should this closed-source rootkit be in stable?
>>
> If closed source is the criteria o
Abhay Kedia wrote:
> On Wednesday 13 Jun 2007 10:11:24 pm Vlastimil Babka wrote:
>> Drop it from stable completely, possibly package.mask or move to
>> overlay. Why should this closed-source rootkit be in stable?
>>
> If closed source is the criteria of getting dropped from stable status or
> tree
On Wednesday 13 Jun 2007 10:11:24 pm Vlastimil Babka wrote:
>
> Drop it from stable completely, possibly package.mask or move to
> overlay. Why should this closed-source rootkit be in stable?
>
If closed source is the criteria of getting dropped from stable status or
tree, than are we dropping net
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> Gustavo Felisberto wrote:
>> Any alternatives?
>
> Drop it from stable completely, possibly package.mask or move to
> overlay. Why should this closed-source rootkit be in stable?
++
Marijn
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Versi
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
George Shapovalov wrote:
> Wednesday, 13. June 2007, Daniel Gryniewicz Ви написали:
>>> The first option will trigger portage errors and prompt users to open
>>> bugs until we have a stable 1.4, the second gives us a chance to explain
>>> the issue.
>>
Steev Klimaszewski kirjoitti:
> Vlastimil Babka wrote:
>> Gustavo Felisberto wrote:
>>> Any alternatives?
>> Drop it from stable completely, possibly package.mask or move to
>> overlay. Why should this closed-source rootkit be in stable?
>>
> Said the java dev
>
>
We all use OpenJDK nowadays
Wednesday, 13. June 2007, Daniel Gryniewicz Ви написали:
> > The first option will trigger portage errors and prompt users to open
> > bugs until we have a stable 1.4, the second gives us a chance to explain
> > the issue.
> >
> > Any alternatives?
>
> 3. Mask < 1.4 on the 19th with a descriptive m
Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> Gustavo Felisberto wrote:
>> Any alternatives?
>
> Drop it from stable completely, possibly package.mask or move to
> overlay. Why should this closed-source rootkit be in stable?
>
Said the java dev
Personally, I'd say if upstream doesn't provide downloads, nothing
On Wed, 2007-06-13 at 17:36 +0100, Gustavo Felisberto wrote:
> A little background info: Right now there are three versions of
> net-im/skype in the tree:
>
> 1 - the 1.2 series (with a stable version)
> 2- the 1.3 series also with a stable version
> 3- the 1.4 series with a ~/hardmask version
>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Gustavo Felisberto wrote:
> Any alternatives?
Drop it from stable completely, possibly package.mask or move to
overlay. Why should this closed-source rootkit be in stable?
- --
Vlastimil Babka (Caster)
Gentoo/Java
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Versio
A little background info: Right now there are three versions of
net-im/skype in the tree:
1 - the 1.2 series (with a stable version)
2- the 1.3 series also with a stable version
3- the 1.4 series with a ~/hardmask version
Also the skype license states that we cannot mirror it's files (this
will b
On Wed, Jun 13, 2007 at 04:35:31PM +0200, Robert Buchholz wrote:
> The problem is rather that the patches are gone from the distfiles
> mirror after two weeks. The sources often stay upstream, but could
> also be gone.
>
> Is there an archive for these files I missed?
That archive ('purgatory' be
Hi,
my opinion is to make the sync machanism more intelligent in this way.
I don't want to have a tree with 2 stable versions or old versions of
ebuilds.
My idea is to let the actual(old) installed ebuild version untouched so you
are able to downgrade after an update, and you are although able to
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Am 12.06.2007 um 13:29 schrieb Christoph Mende:
On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 12:59:42 +0200
cilly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Jun 12, 2007, at 12:53 PM, cilly wrote:
Additional:
Sometimes the chance for the users to place the ebuild comfortably
into ov
Last rites for dev-java/sablevm
Last upstream release was 1.13 in December, 2005. Although we have even
older versions in tree., 1.1.10, and 1.1.11.
The package will be masked, and will be moved to Java junkyard overlay
after 30 days pass. Unless someone cares about this package, needs it,
uses i
cilly wrote:
> On Jun 12, 2007, at 1:56 PM, Christoph Mende wrote:
>
>> It seems a bit that you didn't fully understand that case. That
>> package
>> fails to install for 10% but works flawlessly for the other 90%. Those
>> 10% will get the fix even without a version bump, the other 90% don't,
>>
On 6/13/07, Thilo Bangert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I want a gentoo-kindergarten list, where useless discussions like this
(sub)thread can be directed to.
kids, grow up!
*cries in his corner*
Yes mummy
:]
--
Kent
ruby -e '[1, 2, 4, 7, 0, 9, 5, 8, 3, 10, 11, 6, 12, 13].each{|x|
print "enNO
On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 10:16:43 +0100
Steve Long <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Stephen P. Becker wrote:
> >> So (without a Portage tree) it replaces the oldgrown single-liner
> >> wget foo; tar -xzf foo; cd foo; ./configure; make; make install
> >
> > Are you implying that there would be much more in
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Thilo Bangert wrote:
> I want a gentoo-kindergarten list, where useless discussions like this
> (sub)thread can be directed to.
>
> kids, grow up!
right
s/gentoo-//
- --
Vlastimil Babka (Caster)
Gentoo/Java
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: Gn
I want a gentoo-kindergarten list, where useless discussions like this
(sub)thread can be directed to.
kids, grow up!
pgpJFDJFTgIVf.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Stephen P. Becker wrote:
>> So (without a Portage tree) it replaces the oldgrown single-liner
>> wget foo; tar -xzf foo; cd foo; ./configure; make; make install
>
> Are you implying that there would be much more involved with anything
> currently in the gentoo tree in the absence of portage?
>
>
35 matches
Mail list logo
