On 6/19/07, Steve Long <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Kent Fredric wrote:
> If you can, try integrate a name based syntax into the requirement.
> using decorative characters alone may have their uses, but there are
> only so many you can use, and so many combinations you can create
> before all your
Ryan Hill wrote:
> Andrew Gaffney wrote:
>> Chris Gianelloni wrote:
>>> If the Gentoo developers as a whole decided to dedicate this list to
>>> pink ponies, we can.
>> Are pretty purple ponies acceptable as well?
>
> As *everybody* knows, purple ponies aren't pretty.
>
>
>
>
> Well, maybe a l
On Tuesday 19 Jun 2007 4:19:49 am Steve Long wrote:
>
> Er what? Some of us don't wish to be "at the mercy of" anyone, especially
> not some corporation nicking VOIP. That's why we use GNU software.
>
I don't understand this attitude. Do you really have to bash everything that
you do not use? Do y
Andrew Gaffney wrote:
> Chris Gianelloni wrote:
>> If the Gentoo developers as a whole decided to dedicate this list to
>> pink ponies, we can.
>
> Are pretty purple ponies acceptable as well?
As *everybody* knows, purple ponies aren't pretty.
Well, maybe a little bit.
--
dirtyepic
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Mart Raudsepp wrote:
> Hey,
>
> On E, 2007-06-18 at 11:34 -0700, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
>> Also, remember that stabilization is *supposed* to be about the
>> stabilization of the *ebuild* and not the *package* itself.
>
> This sentence made me pers
Hey,
On E, 2007-06-18 at 11:34 -0700, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> Also, remember that stabilization is *supposed* to be about the
> stabilization of the *ebuild* and not the *package* itself.
This sentence made me personally start looking at the policy in a
different way as far as stabilization an
Chris Gianelloni wrote:
If the Gentoo developers as a whole decided to dedicate this list to
pink ponies, we can.
Are pretty purple ponies acceptable as well?
--
Andrew Gaffney http://dev.gentoo.org/~agaffney/
Gentoo Linux Developer Catalyst/Installe
On Mon, 2007-06-18 at 23:49 +0100, Steve Long wrote:
> Oh I see, when it's
> stuff *you* care about, it's development. Cool.
That's sort of the point, isn't it? Developers are here mostly to
scratch their own respective itches -- so, by necessity, we talk about
stuff we care about.
signature.a
On Mon, 2007-06-18 at 23:49 +0100, Steve Long wrote:
> >> Could you clarify whether this is indeed a Gentoo QA issue, or in fact a
> >> licensing issue? If the latter case, this discussion should prob'y go to
> >> the new -project ml if and when, or indeed the user forums.
> >
> > The "problem" wi
Kent Fredric wrote:
> If you can, try integrate a name based syntax into the requirement.
> using decorative characters alone may have their uses, but there are
> only so many you can use, and so many combinations you can create
> before all your code starts looking like perl's acme eyedrops. I say
Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> On Mon, 2007-06-18 at 06:01 +0100, Steve Long wrote:
>> Stephen Bennett wrote:
>> > Not everyone sees that as a reason not to use a potentially useful
>> > piece of software. We're not debian.
>>
>> Could you clarify whether this is indeed a Gentoo QA issue, or in fact a
Steev Klimaszewski wrote:
>> It is neither a QA nor license issue, its an issue of the download being
>> unavailable. Please read the full thread.
> And to reply to myself - its a licensing issue since we cannot mirror
> the distfile.
Er thanks for that ;)
> However, I hardly find that "facist" -
Chris Gianelloni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted
[EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Mon, 18
Jun 2007 11:50:51 -0700:
> On Mon, 2007-06-18 at 08:58 +, Duncan wrote:
>> So at this point it's pretty much up to the maintainer. Why are the
>> rest of us still discussing it?
>
> Because, like ever
On Mon, 2007-06-18 at 21:11 +0200, Wernfried Haas wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 18, 2007 at 11:39:26AM -0700, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> > Internet Explorer doesn't even *run* on Gentoo. If it did, it
> > would likely be in the tree since quite a few people would likely use
> > it, even if just for testing.
On Mon, Jun 18, 2007 at 11:39:26AM -0700, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> Internet Explorer doesn't even *run* on Gentoo. If it did, it
> would likely be in the tree since quite a few people would likely use
> it, even if just for testing. I know that if I were able to test things
> on IE from Linux wi
On Mon, 2007-06-18 at 08:58 +, Duncan wrote:
> So at this point it's pretty much up to the maintainer. Why are the rest
> of us still discussing it?
Because, like everything else, too many people on this list have to get
in the last word.
Also, there's nothing in our policy that really keep
On Mon, 2007-06-18 at 06:01 +0100, Steve Long wrote:
> Stephen Bennett wrote:
> > Not everyone sees that as a reason not to use a potentially useful
> > piece of software. We're not debian.
>
> Could you clarify whether this is indeed a Gentoo QA issue, or in fact a
> licensing issue? If the latte
On Sun, 2007-06-17 at 20:05 +0100, Steve Long wrote:
> keep. Or is it that Skype are a big company so we have to kowtow? /me is
> well-confused.
It has nothing to do with money or the company, and everything to do
with the number of people using it. While ion3 is uncommonly used,
skype is much mo
On Sun, 2007-06-17 at 12:18 -0500, Martin Jackson wrote:
> Christian Heim wrote:
> > On Sunday 17 June 2007 14:43:59 Konstantin V. Arkhipov wrote:
> >>i'm too busy with real life atm, is there anyone willing to help with
> >> bind's maintaining?
> >
> > What happened to mjolnir (as in Martin J
Steev Klimaszewski wrote:
Steve Long wrote:
Stephen Bennett wrote:
Not everyone sees that as a reason not to use a potentially useful
piece of software. We're not debian.
Could you clarify whether this is indeed a Gentoo QA issue, or in fact a
licensing issue? If the latter case, this discuss
Steve Long wrote:
Stephen Bennett wrote:
Not everyone sees that as a reason not to use a potentially useful
piece of software. We're not debian.
Could you clarify whether this is indeed a Gentoo QA issue, or in fact a
licensing issue? If the latter case, this discussion should prob'y go to
the
Steve Long <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted
[EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Sun, 17 Jun 2007 20:08:13
+0100:
> Josh Saddler wrote:
>> As we've established earlier, being closed-source is not sufficient
>> reason for removing any program from Portage; you should have read the
>> rest of the threa
22 matches
Mail list logo
