Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Google Apps Standard Edition @ gentoo.org

On 04/01/10 02:44, Mike Frysinger wrote: > the rest of your gentoo-dev vs gentoo-core logic has been addressed by > Brian/Jorge -- this is the internet, you have no privacy, get over it. privacy is not black and white. i'm aware there's no leak-free zone. i have put my point clear before, if tha

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Google Apps Standard Edition @ gentoo.org

On Wednesday 31 March 2010 19:49:15 Sebastian Pipping wrote: > On 04/01/10 01:09, Mike Frysinger wrote: > > no one is forcing you to, nor is anyone talking about having teams use > > it. if Gentoo developers themselves choose to, it's going to happen > > irregardless of what Alec is proposing. >

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Google Apps Standard Edition @ gentoo.org

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 31-03-2010 23:49, Sebastian Pipping wrote: > On 04/01/10 01:09, Mike Frysinger wrote: >> your logic does not lead to the statement that gentoo-core is the >> appropriate >> place. > > point takes, it's not the non-technical nature - i should put

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Google Apps Standard Edition @ gentoo.org

On Thu, Apr 01, 2010 at 01:49:15AM +0200, Sebastian Pipping wrote: > point takes, it's not the non-technical nature - i should put it > clearer: it's the fact that everyone on the net will be able to read > what anyone said on google in this thread. any one of us may change his > mind on that but

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Google Apps Standard Edition @ gentoo.org

On 04/01/10 01:09, Mike Frysinger wrote: > no one is forcing you to, nor is anyone talking about having teams use it. > if > Gentoo developers themselves choose to, it's going to happen irregardless of > what Alec is proposing. we are talking about public, shared work on gentoo - not about stu

Re: [gentoo-dev] List of User projects

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Am 29.03.2010 01:47, schrieb Joshua Saddler: > 'Specially since they so often go defunct after a very short time -- I'm > thinking of all the Portage frontends in particular. Don't know what you are talking about :) ... Portato is now in its fourth y

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Google Apps Standard Edition @ gentoo.org

On Wednesday 31 March 2010 17:33:17 Sebastian Pipping wrote: > On 03/31/10 23:20, Mike Frysinger wrote: > > On Wednesday 31 March 2010 16:28:15 Sebastian Pipping wrote: > >> To be very clear: Please take my vote against increasing dependencies on > >> Google. > > > > so dont use it > > > >> On a

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Google Apps Standard Edition @ gentoo.org

On 03/31/10 23:20, Mike Frysinger wrote: > On Wednesday 31 March 2010 16:28:15 Sebastian Pipping wrote: >> To be very clear: Please take my vote against increasing dependencies on >> Google. > > so dont use it > >> On a side note: This is not a technical discussion only. >> As such please use gen

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Google Apps Standard Edition @ gentoo.org

On 03/31/2010 02:28 PM, Sebastian Pipping wrote: > I am worried that if people start using say Google Docs for > collaborating on Gentoo content, everyone else is forced to use Google > Docs to participate. Gentoo could set policies that such shared resources should not be done via google calender

Re: [gentoo-dev] Unnecessary logs: has_version to the rescue?

On 03/31/2010 02:16 PM, Sebastian Pipping wrote: > On 03/31/10 23:05, Zac Medico wrote: >> Yeah, but the "same slot" thing is a little ambiguous since the >> given atom could possibly match multiple slots that include the one >> whose postinst is currently running. So, I'd make has_version >> gener

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Google Apps Standard Edition @ gentoo.org

On 03/31/2010 01:40 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote: >> Those, like me, who have several google apps accounts (I have a personal >> business one, a personal one, and a work one) can keep accounts separate >> this way. Also, since it's the "gentoo.org" google apps account, the >> email address looks the s

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Google Apps Standard Edition @ gentoo.org

On Wednesday 31 March 2010 16:28:15 Sebastian Pipping wrote: > To be very clear: Please take my vote against increasing dependencies on > Google. so dont use it > On a side note: This is not a technical discussion only. > As such please use gentoo-core for this next time. Thanks. incorrect ...

Re: [gentoo-dev] Unnecessary logs: has_version to the rescue?

On 03/31/10 23:05, Zac Medico wrote: > Yeah, but the "same slot" thing is a little ambiguous since the > given atom could possibly match multiple slots that include the one > whose postinst is currently running. So, I'd make has_version > generate a QA warning if has_version is called there and the

Re: [gentoo-dev] Unnecessary logs: has_version to the rescue?

On 03/31/2010 01:52 PM, Sebastian Pipping wrote: > On 03/31/10 22:42, Zac Medico wrote: >> Well, it works fine when not called for the same $CATEGORY/$PN, and >> even for the same $CATEGORY/$PN it works fine for other slots it >> they happen to be installed. > > Good point. So the check would be:

Re: [gentoo-dev] Unnecessary logs: has_version to the rescue?

On 03/31/10 22:42, Zac Medico wrote: > Well, it works fine when not called for the same $CATEGORY/$PN, and > even for the same $CATEGORY/$PN it works fine for other slots it > they happen to be installed. Good point. So the check would be: Deny calling has_version if all of: - in postinst stage

Re: [gentoo-dev] Unnecessary logs: has_version to the rescue?

On 03/31/2010 01:37 PM, Sebastian Pipping wrote: > On 03/31/10 22:31, Zac Medico wrote: >> For those who may not know, has_version can be called in pkg_preinst >> to find the previous version, and the result can be stored in a >> variable for us in pkg_postinst. > > So has_version takes the versio

Re: [gentoo-dev] Unnecessary logs: has_version to the rescue?

On 03/31/10 22:31, Zac Medico wrote: > For those who may not know, has_version can be called in pkg_preinst > to find the previous version, and the result can be stored in a > variable for us in pkg_postinst. So has_version takes the version just installed into account when called from pkg_postins

Re: [gentoo-dev] Unnecessary logs: has_version to the rescue?

On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 22:29:50 +0200 Sebastian Pipping wrote: > On 03/31/10 22:19, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > >> Is there some kind of evilness in this usage of has_version that I > >> am not aware of? > > > > Unfortunately, yes. > > > > Historically, has_version in pkg_postinst would return results

Re: [gentoo-dev] Unnecessary logs: has_version to the rescue?

On 03/31/10 22:19, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: >> Is there some kind of evilness in this usage of has_version that I am >> not aware of? > > Unfortunately, yes. > > Historically, has_version in pkg_postinst would return results based > upon the version that *was* installed. What's status quo? What d

Re: [gentoo-dev] Unnecessary logs: has_version to the rescue?

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 03/31/2010 01:19 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 22:08:40 +0200 > Sebastian Pipping wrote: >> Is there some kind of evilness in this usage of has_version that I am >> not aware of? > > Unfortunately, yes. > > Historically, has_ve

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Google Apps Standard Edition @ gentoo.org

Hello, On 03/31/10 07:28, Alec Warner wrote: > Currently a number of developers have engaged Google Apps Team Edition > for gentoo.org. However Team Edition does not come with gmail and a > subset of Team Edition users would like to host their gentoo.org mail > on gmail. > Activating Standard Ed

Re: [gentoo-dev] Unnecessary logs: has_version to the rescue?

On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 22:08:40 +0200 Sebastian Pipping wrote: > Is there some kind of evilness in this usage of has_version that I am > not aware of? Unfortunately, yes. Historically, has_version in pkg_postinst would return results based upon the version that *was* installed. This feature was wid

[gentoo-dev] Unnecessary logs: has_version to the rescue?

Hello! When browsing through emerge logs (using elogv) I often come across stuff that doesn't affect me. Two examples: x11-base/xorg-server-1.7.6 warns: You must rebuild all drivers if upgrading from xorg-server 1.6 or earlier, because the ABI changed. dev-db/mysql-5.1.45-r1 logs:

Re: [gentoo-dev] pkg_pretend USE validation and VALID_USE alternative

On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 12:46:26 -0700 Brian Harring wrote: > Actual name I don't hugely care about, I'm more interested in > ensuring we don't rule out doing use cycle breaking via a bad design > decision. Cycle breaking requires explicit instructions from the ebuilds in question (many of which are

Re: [gentoo-dev] pkg_pretend USE validation and VALID_USE alternative

On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 08:49:26PM +0300, Alex Alexander wrote: > VALID_USE does look a bit strange. > > how about > IUSE_RULES > or > IUSE_RESTRICTIOMS > or > RUSE > ? It's not really IUSE; the constraints it specifies applies to USE only. USE_STATES, VALID_USES, VALID_USE_STA

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Google Apps Standard Edition @ gentoo.org

On Wednesday 31 March 2010 12:11:30 Joe Peterson wrote: > It's a "Google Apps" account, not just a Gmail account. You cannot have > more than one gmail account open in your browser at one time - the > cookies are not separate. Whereas you *can* have your gmail and all of > your google apps accoun

Re: [gentoo-dev] pkg_pretend USE validation and VALID_USE alternative

On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 02:20:35AM -0700, Brian Harring wrote: > Hola all- > > For those who aren't familiar, pkg_pretend is in EAPI4- the main usage > of it is will be use dep checking- this email is specifically > regarding an alternative to it that *should* be superior for that use > case, b

[gentoo-dev] Lastrite: 2 unmaintained xfce-extra plugins

# Samuli Suominen (31 Mar 2010) # Unported to new xfce-base/exo-0.5 API and no activity # on upstream git. Also using HAL which is deprecated. # Masked for removal in 30 days. xfce-extra/xfce4-volstatus-icon # Samuli Suominen (31 Mar 2010) # Doesn't compile with libindicator-0.3.6, and no activi

[gentoo-dev] GSoC

Google summer of code test message. Sorry for interuption. -- .. С уважением, Сергей Александрович.

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Google Apps Standard Edition @ gentoo.org

On 03/31/2010 02:18 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote: > i'm already using ~/.forward which means mail still goes to mail.g.o and that > server takes care of forwarding it to my private gmail.com account. then my > mail client fetches it from gmail.com via the normal pop/imap methods. there > is no nee

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: pkg_pretend USE validation and VALID_USE alternative

On 3/31/10 1:04 PM, Ulrich Mueller wrote: > We already have enough issues with circular dependencies, and I'm > sceptical about adding additional failures on USE flag conflicts. > Display a warning, but don't error out. How about only allowing local USE flags to conflict? This also seems to be the

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Google Apps Standard Edition @ gentoo.org

On 31 March 2010 07:28, Alec Warner wrote: > This thread is primarily engaged in gauging interest in such a setup. > Please reply if you are interested (or go vote on the bug.) I am definitely interested. Cheers, -- Ben de Groot Gentoo Linux Qt project lead developer

[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-council] pkg_pretend USE validation and VALID_USE alternative

>> | Occasionally, ebuilds will have conflicting USE flags for >> | functionality. Checking for them and returning an error is not a >> | viable solution. Instead, you must pick one of the USE flags in >> | conflict to favour. >> >> [1] > >

[gentoo-dev] Re: pkg_pretend USE validation and VALID_USE alternative

On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 01:04:39PM +0200, Ulrich Mueller wrote: > We already have enough issues with circular dependencies, and I'm > sceptical about adding additional failures on USE flag conflicts. > Display a warning, but don't error out. Solve the cyclical dependency via breaking the use cycle

[gentoo-dev] Re: pkg_pretend USE validation and VALID_USE alternative

> On Wed, 31 Mar 2010, Brian Harring wrote: > Not just my proposal- council contradicted it via even letting > pkg_pretend into EAPI3 (now EAPI4): > http://www.mail-archive.com/gentoo-coun...@lists.gentoo.org/msg00493.html It says "displaying conflicting USE flags" which doesn't necessarily

[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-council] pkg_pretend USE validation and VALID_USE alternative

Note I inadvertantly cross posted, I was intending on cc'ing coun...@gentoo.org. As such one final cc to that ml to end this subthread while pulling this back to -dev. On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 11:16:22PM +1300, Alistair Bush wrote: > > Hola all- > > > > Comments desired; assuming no significa

[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-council] pkg_pretend USE validation and VALID_USE alternative

Note that while I inadvertantly cross posted (I was intending on cc'ing coun...@gentoo.org, not the ml), doubt they need to be cc'd further- my original attention was to effectively ensure they were paying aware of the details of this so that when I took it to them folk were informed. CC'ing g

[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-council] pkg_pretend USE validation and VALID_USE alternative

> On Wed, 31 Mar 2010, Brian Harring wrote: > Roughly, VALID_USE is a list of constraints stating what the allowed > use flag combinations are for this pkg. If you think of normal > depdencies (I must have openssl and python merged prior), it's the > same machinery. Maybe we should first disc

[gentoo-dev] pkg_pretend USE validation and VALID_USE alternative

Hola all- For those who aren't familiar, pkg_pretend is in EAPI4- the main usage of it is will be use dep checking- this email is specifically regarding an alternative to it that *should* be superior for that use case, but I'm looking for feedback. Basically, we use the original VALID_USE prop

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Google Apps Standard Edition @ gentoo.org

On Wednesday 31 March 2010 02:24:24 Alec Warner wrote: > On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 11:11 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote: > > On Wednesday 31 March 2010 01:28:56 Alec Warner wrote: > >> Currently a number of developers have engaged Google Apps Team Edition > >> for gentoo.org. However Team Edition does not

[gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: Google Apps Standard Edition @ gentoo.org

Alec Warner posted on Tue, 30 Mar 2010 22:28:56 -0700 as excerpted: > All content that is what I would term 'of value' to the community should > be available anonymously; that is you should not need to sign up for a > Google Account to be able to access documents in a read-only fashion. > Writing