On Wed, 6 Mar 2013 20:05:51 +0400
Maxim Koltsov wrote:
> 2013/3/6 Diego Elio Pettenò :
> > On 06/03/2013 16:12, Maxim Koltsov wrote:
> >> So, what have we decided? I'm pretty sure it'll go up to 100 quite
> >> soon.
> >
> > Then go for it. I'd suggest just app-leechcraft
>
> Thanks. Do i have to
2013/3/6 Diego Elio Pettenò :
> On 06/03/2013 16:12, Maxim Koltsov wrote:
>> So, what have we decided? I'm pretty sure it'll go up to 100 quite soon.
>
> Then go for it. I'd suggest just app-leechcraft
Thanks. Do i have to do anything more that add it to
profiles/categories and mkdir?
> --
> Dieg
On 06/03/2013 16:12, Maxim Koltsov wrote:
> So, what have we decided? I'm pretty sure it'll go up to 100 quite soon.
Then go for it. I'd suggest just app-leechcraft
--
Diego Elio Pettenò — Flameeyes
flamee...@flameeyes.eu — http://blog.flameeyes.eu/
On 06/03/2013 16:19, Markos Chandras wrote:
> I have no problem with the new category. We recently created a new
> category for the Qt packages which has around 20 packages in it, so I
> am not sure why Diego wants more than 100 packages for the new
> category.
I wasn't too happy about that either
On 6 March 2013 15:12, Maxim Koltsov wrote:
> 2013/3/6 Diego Elio Pettenò :
>> On 06/03/2013 15:23, Rich Freeman wrote:
>>> Can't say I'm likely to be a leechcraft user, but the original
>>> proposal indicated they were up to 60 now, and had at least 10-20 more
>>> in the works. I don't think a c
2013/3/6 Diego Elio Pettenò :
> On 06/03/2013 15:23, Rich Freeman wrote:
>> Can't say I'm likely to be a leechcraft user, but the original
>> proposal indicated they were up to 60 now, and had at least 10-20 more
>> in the works. I don't think a category is unreasonable, and if at
>> some point in
On 06/03/2013 15:23, Rich Freeman wrote:
> Can't say I'm likely to be a leechcraft user, but the original
> proposal indicated they were up to 60 now, and had at least 10-20 more
> in the works. I don't think a category is unreasonable, and if at
> some point in time popularity wanes and it needs
On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 9:06 AM, Diego Elio Pettenò
wrote:
>
> I'm just saying that I wouldn't want to create a category for ten
> packages. If we're talking ~100 I'm fine with it.
Can't say I'm likely to be a leechcraft user, but the original
proposal indicated they were up to 60 now, and had at
On 06/03/2013 13:04, George Shapovalov wrote:
> I am afraid, there is no "fix" in the form of "lets not add any". Every
> commits summary message has at least 3x more added packages vs removed ones.
I'm just saying that I wouldn't want to create a category for ten
packages. If we're talking ~100
2013/3/6 Dirkjan Ochtman :
> On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 10:15 AM, Maxim Koltsov wrote:
> Not that you have to explain it, but that leads me to wonder if (a)
> there are other Gentoo devs who would maintain this stuff if you
> become disinterested
Yep, Pinkbyte is also co-maintaining, and in case of so
On Wednesday 06 March 2013 10:33:58 Diego Elio Pettenò wrote:
> The fact that we made mistakes in the past does not justify making more
> mistakes.
Um, what are you talking about, too many categories?
I am afraid, there is no "fix" in the form of "lets not add any". Every
commits summary message
On 6 March 2013 15:07, Maxim Koltsov wrote:
> Hi,
> Currently there are 61 leechcraft packages in tree scattered across several
> categories. We propose to move them to one new category to make maintaining
> easy as well as rsync --exclude'ing.
> So, two questions:
> 1) Do you agree with adding ne
2013/3/6 Diego Elio Pettenò :
> How many more are you expecting?
Six components are ready to be packaged in the nearest future, four
are being developed, and there are plans for, well, like a dozen more.
Also, keeping stuff in one category allows splitting several huge
ebuilds like leechcraft-azo
On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 10:15 AM, Maxim Koltsov wrote:
>> Not really... are you going to add any more packages?
>
> It's very probable, yes. Also I think 60 packages is quite big number,
> as we have many categories with 20 or even less packages.
It's not *just* the number of packages. I, for one,
On 06/03/2013 10:15, Maxim Koltsov wrote:
> It's very probable, yes. Also I think 60 packages is quite big number,
> as we have many categories with 20 or even less packages.
>
The fact that we made mistakes in the past does not justify making more
mistakes.
How many more are you expecting? (and
2013/3/6 Diego Elio Pettenò
>
> On 06/03/2013 08:07, Maxim Koltsov wrote:
> > 1) Do you agree with adding new category?
>
> Not really... are you going to add any more packages?
It's very probable, yes. Also I think 60 packages is quite big number,
as we have many categories with 20 or even less
2013/3/6 Diego Elio Pettenò :
> On 06/03/2013 08:07, Maxim Koltsov wrote:
>> 1) Do you agree with adding new category?
>
> Not really... are you going to add any more packages?
Yes, definitely.
--
Georg Rudoy
LeechCraft — http://leechcraft.org
On 06/03/2013 08:07, Maxim Koltsov wrote:
> 1) Do you agree with adding new category?
Not really... are you going to add any more packages?
--
Diego Elio Pettenò — Flameeyes
flamee...@flameeyes.eu — http://blog.flameeyes.eu/
2013/3/6 Maxim Koltsov :
> 1) Do you agree with adding new category?
Yep :)
> 2) How should we call it: app-leechcraft, leechcraft-base or anything else?
Personally I'd prefer app-leechcraft (or maybe app-lc to save some
typing). I doubt there will be anything but that single category in
the fores
Hi,
Currently there are 61 leechcraft packages in tree scattered across several
categories. We propose to move them to one new category to make maintaining
easy as well as rsync --exclude'ing.
So, two questions:
1) Do you agree with adding new category?
2) How should we call it: app-leechcraft, lee
20 matches
Mail list logo
