On Tue, 03 Apr 2007 10:10:30 -0700
antarus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think there is a difference. Take the issue with the ubuntu
> installer that left the root password in a
> log in /var. Who was responsible? Ubuntu. Why? Because it's their
> installer, their project.
And who would be
Mike Kelly wrote:
Alec Warner wrote:
The fact that Gentoo can continue with the codebase is irrelevant. I
think moreso the fact that a particular Package Manager would be the
'Gentoo Package Manager' means in my mind that Gentoo is responsible for
said Package Manager. If someone were to sl
Alec Warner wrote:
> The fact that Gentoo can continue with the codebase is irrelevant. I
> think moreso the fact that a particular Package Manager would be the
> 'Gentoo Package Manager' means in my mind that Gentoo is responsible for
> said Package Manager. If someone were to slip evil code int
Seemant Kulleen wrote:
> The effects are far reaching and shared by everyone. If an official
> package manager is outside of Gentoo's control, and the maintainer(s) of
> that piece of software decide to do anything malicious (examples: inject
> some dodgy code, remove documentation, take out acces
> On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 15:24:03 -0400
> Seemant Kulleen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> To make it more clear. If the gcc developers decided to stick some
>> malicious code into gcc, it affects the entire linux community, the
>> entire BSD community and would take out a few other communities as
>>
On Saturday 31 March 2007, Andrej Kacian wrote:
> "Christopher Covington" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The first condition you list is a sort of nativism that I for one
> > would expect not to find in a successful copyleft project created on
> > the Internet. Why should the code Gentoo uses be wr
On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 15:24:03 -0400
Seemant Kulleen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> To make it more clear. If the gcc developers decided to stick some
> malicious code into gcc, it affects the entire linux community, the
> entire BSD community and would take out a few other communities as
> well. The
On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 15:24:03 -0400
Seemant Kulleen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The point being made, then, is that for an official package manager to
> exist *for Gentoo*, it needs to be under *Gentoo's* control.
Well, the source is open, and there are already enough Gentoo devs working
on it, s
On Sat, 2007-03-31 at 20:16 +0200, Andrej Kacian wrote:
> On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 20:02:28 +0200
> "Christopher Covington" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > The first condition you list is a sort of nativism that I for one
> > would expect not to find in a successful copyleft project created on
> > the
On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 20:02:28 +0200
"Christopher Covington" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The first condition you list is a sort of nativism that I for one
> would expect not to find in a successful copyleft project created on
> the Internet. Why should the code Gentoo uses be written by Gentoo
> de
On 3/30/07, Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
a good topic for the next council meeting i think would be to start up a spec
of requirements that a package manager must satisfy before it'd be an
official package manager for Gentoo ... off the top of my head:
- the main developers need to
Hi,
On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 15:28:52 -0400
Seemant Kulleen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, 2007-03-30 at 20:42 +0200, Matthias Langer wrote:
>
> >
> > i don't think that personal issues should be taken into account
> > when it comes to choosing a new official package manager for gentoo.
>
> It
On Sat, 2007-03-31 at 14:53 +1200, Christopher Sawtell wrote:
> Correct, because the only way Ciaran can prove beyond doubt that his Paludis
> is a viable option is to see hundreds, nay millions, of people using it. I'm
> quite sure that he won't achieve that goal by bleating in here as frequent
On Saturday 31 March 2007, Seemant Kulleen wrote:
> On Fri, 2007-03-30 at 23:41 +0200, Danny van Dyk wrote:
> > > In which case your Paludis fork of Gentoo will take off like a
> >
> > Please, pretty please with sugar atop: Stop this FUD about forking
> > Gentoo. Paludis is not a fork of Gentoo, it
On Fri, 2007-03-30 at 23:41 +0200, Danny van Dyk wrote:
> > In which case your Paludis fork of Gentoo will take off like a
> Please, pretty please with sugar atop: Stop this FUD about forking
> Gentoo. Paludis is not a fork of Gentoo, it's new package manager. The
> relation between Portage and
On Fri, 2007-03-30 at 22:22 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> Paludis is a package manager, not a distribution. And no, the GPL does
> not mean there's nothing to lose -- the Zynot fork did a fair bit of
> damage to Gentoo, and no-one wants a repeat of that mess...
Only in terms of morale. In fact
On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 21:23:32 +0100
Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > You seem to be under the misapprehension that Portage == Gentoo.
>
> No no, I'm saying that at present Portage is one of Gentoo's most
> severe limiting factors.
Then kindly stop interchanging Portage with Gentoo wh
On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 21:03:14 -0400
Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > But you're not addressing the issue. If the Council requests a new
> > feature in Portage, will it happen?
>
> if the Council felt the need to force something in, then yes, it
> would happen
For how many more years d
On Friday 30 March 2007, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> Instead, you have to worry about Gentoo infra people pulling commit
> access under the guise of 'security measures' and refusing devrel
> requests to restore it.
agreed, that was complete bs ... it has since been rectified
> But you're not address
On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 20:29:46 -0400
Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > - the official package manager of Gentoo would need to be
> > > completely "in-house" with respect to control, direction, etc...
> >
> > Justify that. What does being in-house have to do with having
> > control? Are
On Friday 30 March 2007, Anant Narayanan wrote:
> The logic is flawed. I don't understand why Gentoo can't switch to
> paludis so long as there are "in-house" Gentoo developers ready to
> maintain and support it.
that is your opinion. mine is that the official package manager must be led
and mai
On Friday 30 March 2007, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > - you are not wanted as an official Gentoo developer ... the past
> > clearly shows this
>
> Not really... The process by which I became an unofficial Gentoo
> developer was so flawed that it got replaced as a result...
sure, the first time ...
Anant Narayanan wrote:
> Hi Mike,
>
> On 31-Mar-07, at 2:21 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>> not really, why dont you apply some of your logic:
>> - you are not wanted as an official Gentoo developer ... the past
>> clearly
>> shows this
>> - the official package manager of Gentoo would need to be
>
Hi Mike,
On 31-Mar-07, at 2:21 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
not really, why dont you apply some of your logic:
- you are not wanted as an official Gentoo developer ... the past
clearly
shows this
- the official package manager of Gentoo would need to be
completely "in-house" with respect to co
>>> It depends upon the degree to which one specifies 'sendmail
>>> compatibility'. Does it mean "shares some of the same commandline
>>> options" or "shares exactly the same configuration file format and
>>> all bugs and produces identical output"?
>> I think Mike mentioned compatiblebinaries. Not
Am Freitag, 30. März 2007 23:13 schrieb Christopher Sawtell:
> On Saturday 31 March 2007, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 21:13:18 +0100
> >
> > Roy Marples <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 18:50:59 +0100
> > >
> > > Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 09:13:10 +1200
Christopher Sawtell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In which case your Paludis fork of Gentoo will take off like a
> scalded cat, and the world will come racing to your door begging for
> your Mk II version of Gentoo. Go for it, the GPL ensures that you
> have nothin
On Saturday 31 March 2007, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 21:13:18 +0100
>
> Roy Marples <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 18:50:59 +0100
> >
> > Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > A few years ago Gentoo had some serious advantages over the
> > > competi
On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 16:51:54 -0400
Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Friday 30 March 2007, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > Gentoo's lack of progress is an extremely relevant issue...
>
> dont push your own agendas under the guise that Gentoo is lacking
> progress
Don't push your own agend
On Friday 30 March 2007, Seemant Kulleen wrote:
> On Fri, 2007-03-30 at 20:42 +0200, Matthias Langer wrote:
> > i don't think that personal issues should be taken into account when it
> > comes to choosing a new official package manager for gentoo.
>
> It's relevant in that people have to work with
On Friday 30 March 2007, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> Gentoo's lack of progress is an extremely relevant issue...
dont push your own agendas under the guise that Gentoo is lacking progress
> > to start with, Paludis will never be an official package manager for
> > Gentoo so long as you are heavily i
On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 22:41:47 +0200
Michael Krelin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > It depends upon the degree to which one specifies 'sendmail
> > compatibility'. Does it mean "shares some of the same commandline
> > options" or "shares exactly the same configuration file format and
> > all bugs and
> It depends upon the degree to which one specifies 'sendmail
> compatibility'. Does it mean "shares some of the same commandline
> options" or "shares exactly the same configuration file format and all
> bugs and produces identical output"?
I think Mike mentioned compatiblebinaries. Not sure if h
On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 15:30:31 -0500
Larry Lines <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It seems as on topic to say it here as anywhere else. I like Portage.
> I like it better than the Synaptic Package manager, yum, apt-get and
> especially rpm. I feel like it delivers more functionality than all
> of the p
On Fri, 2007-03-30 at 19:35 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 14:04:15 -0400
> Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Tuesday 27 March 2007, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > > Do you acknowledge that Portage is a severe limiting factor when it
> > > comes to improving the Gent
On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 21:13:18 +0100
Roy Marples <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 18:50:59 +0100
> Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > A few years ago Gentoo had some serious advantages over the
> > competition. These days, Gentoo is at serious risk of being Red
> > Queened
On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 18:50:59 +0100
Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> A few years ago Gentoo had some serious advantages over the
> competition. These days, Gentoo is at serious risk of being Red
> Queened by Ubuntu and Fedora. Providing the same thing that was
> provided two years ago is
On Fri, 2007-03-30 at 20:42 +0200, Matthias Langer wrote:
>
> i don't think that personal issues should be taken into account when it
> comes to choosing a new official package manager for gentoo.
It's relevant in that people have to work with the developers of the
package manager. Unlike most
On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 13:50:39 -0500
Homer Parker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Wouldn't this be the same as all MTAs providing sendmail
> compatibility? Whereas existing tools still Just Work?
It depends upon the degree to which one specifies 'sendmail
compatibility'. Does it mean "shares some
On Fri, 2007-03-30 at 19:35 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>
> > a good topic for the next council meeting i think would be to start
> > up a spec of requirements that a package manager must satisfy before
> > it'd be an official package manager for Gentoo ... off the top of my
> > head:
> > - the
On Fri, 2007-03-30 at 14:04 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Tuesday 27 March 2007, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > Do you acknowledge that Portage is a severe limiting factor when it
> > comes to improving the Gentoo user experience as a whole?
>
> what a lame question ... rather than waste time on t
On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 14:04:15 -0400
Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tuesday 27 March 2007, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > Do you acknowledge that Portage is a severe limiting factor when it
> > comes to improving the Gentoo user experience as a whole?
>
> what a lame question ... rather
On Tuesday 27 March 2007, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> Do you acknowledge that Portage is a severe limiting factor when it
> comes to improving the Gentoo user experience as a whole?
what a lame question ... rather than waste time on this, why dont we get to
some relevant issues ...
to start with, P
On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 13:55:55 +0100
Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If Ubuntu or Fedora do the job better then Gentoo has failed in its
> goal of providing a near-ideal tool...
Semantically speaking, it hasn't failed - there's nothing about providing a
better (or "nearer-ideal") tool
On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 02:07:33 -0700
Brian Harring <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 29, 2007 at 10:04:57PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 22:47:46 +0200
> > Thomas Rösner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Other things I want from Gentoo right now depend on factors other
On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 20:14:58 -0700 (PDT)
"Alec Warner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Better than many other package managers isn't exactly a glowing
> > commendation. When you consider the disadvantages associated with a
> > source-based distribution, Gentoo has to do a lot better than that
> > in
On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 09:49:38 +0200
Thomas Rösner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > A package manager that supports a better binary package format
> > (split out local metadata would be a good start) combined with a
> > third party binary provider could deliver that with no tree changes.
>
> But then
On Thu, Mar 29, 2007 at 10:04:57PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 22:47:46 +0200
> Thomas Rösner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Other things I want from Gentoo right now depend on factors other
> > than the package manager, too; prebuilt packages
>
> A package manager that sup
Hi,
Ciaran McCreesh schrieb:
On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 22:47:46 +0200
Thomas Rösner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Other things I want from Gentoo right now depend on factors other
than the package manager, too; prebuilt packages
A package manager that supports a better binary package format
(s
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Seemant Kulleen wrote:
>> I wasn't indicating that a "popularity" contest should be held,
>> because I trust the developers will cast their vote only after
>> *technically* evaluating the options. I also don't think it's fair
>> for a small minor
See above: not every developer is technically capable of evaluating
the
underpinnings of the tools we use. For most of us, those
underpinnings
do not matter.
I find the reasoning to be quite justified.
It's probably a little early to initiate such a proposal, seeing as
the
PMS is stil
> I fail to understand why the portage developers would refuse to
> accept a patch that actually improves something (without causing
> major regressions i.e.). If they do refuse such a patch (for
> political reasons), then we have a serious problem. However, based on
> past experience with
> On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 22:46:14 +0530
> Anant Narayanan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On 29-Mar-07, at 2:26 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>> > On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 01:19:45 +0530
>> > Anant Narayanan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> I certainly don't think so. A lot of people *switch* to Gentoo
>> >> be
Hi Seemant,
On 30-Mar-07, at 6:28 AM, Seemant Kulleen wrote:
Historical reasons aren't necessarily the correct reasons. I'd almost
say that your sentence has officially heralded the age of
Debianisation.
There are practical reasons too. Like the fact that all of our users
are now using po
On Fri, 2007-03-30 at 03:07 +0530, Anant Narayanan wrote:
> Sure it's not ideal and I acknowledge that. But portage is tied very
> closely to Gentoo for historical reasons, and it is not reasonable to
> expect an alternate package manager to replace it (not in the near
> future atleast).
Hi
On Thu, 2007-03-29 at 14:03 -0700, Ilya A. Volynets-Evenbakh wrote:
> Ned Ludd wrote:
> > The correct reply should of been.
> > "I'm sorry I did not mean to offend anybody. I'll make an effort to not
> > make any cheap shots"
> >
> Man, stop playing the silly "Ooh, we are all so fragile and off
On 29-Mar-07, at 11:20 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
Have a look at [1] and all the open "Portage should..." bugs. Would
any of those improve the user experience for you? Can you think of
other features of a similar nature that would make your life easier?
That Portage works does not mean that it is
On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 22:47:46 +0200
Thomas Rösner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Other things I want from Gentoo right now depend on factors other
> than the package manager, too; prebuilt packages
A package manager that supports a better binary package format
(split out local metadata would be a goo
Ned Ludd wrote:
> The correct reply should of been.
> "I'm sorry I did not mean to offend anybody. I'll make an effort to not
> make any cheap shots"
>
Man, stop playing the silly "Ooh, we are all so fragile and offendable
game".
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 13:33:31 -0700
Ned Ludd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The correct reply should of been.
> "I'm sorry I did not mean to offend anybody. I'll make an effort to
> not make any cheap shots"
That would have been a possible response. Another reasonable response
would have been the o
Hi,
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
Have a look at [1] and all the open "Portage should..." bugs. Would
any of those improve the user experience for you? Can you think of
other features of a similar nature that would make your life easier?
Funny thing is: the only thing that I'd really care about ar
On Thu, 2007-03-29 at 21:02 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 12:25:00 -0700
> Ned Ludd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > You are being dismissive of the hard work others are doing. I find
> > that downright offensive. You want to write a kickass package manager
> > then by all means
On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 12:25:00 -0700
Ned Ludd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You are being dismissive of the hard work others are doing. I find
> that downright offensive. You want to write a kickass package manager
> then by all means do it. But trying to make yourself look good by
> making others loo
On Thu, 2007-03-29 at 20:06 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 11:57:36 -0700
> Ned Ludd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Portage or the tree? Portage is just a way of using the tree, and
> > > it's not a very good one...
> >
> > Can you please stop taking cheap pot shots every ch
On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 11:57:36 -0700
Ned Ludd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Portage or the tree? Portage is just a way of using the tree, and
> > it's not a very good one...
>
> Can you please stop taking cheap pot shots every chance you get. We
> all get it. You are not a fan of portage.
And that
On Thu, 2007-03-29 at 09:56 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 01:19:45 +0530
> Anant Narayanan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 28-Mar-07, at 1:45 AM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > > Do you acknowledge that Portage is a severe limiting factor when it
> > > comes to improving the Gen
On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 22:46:14 +0530
Anant Narayanan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 29-Mar-07, at 2:26 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 01:19:45 +0530
> > Anant Narayanan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> I certainly don't think so. A lot of people *switch* to Gentoo
> >> because of
On 29-Mar-07, at 2:26 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 01:19:45 +0530
Anant Narayanan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I certainly don't think so. A lot of people *switch* to Gentoo
because of portage. Portage is a core part of our distro, and I
don't see it being replaced for a long tim
On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 01:19:45 +0530
Anant Narayanan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 28-Mar-07, at 1:45 AM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > Do you acknowledge that Portage is a severe limiting factor when it
> > comes to improving the Gentoo user experience as a whole?
>
> I certainly don't think so. A l
Hi Ciaran,
On 28-Mar-07, at 1:45 AM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
Do you acknowledge that Portage is a severe limiting factor when it
comes to improving the Gentoo user experience as a whole?
I certainly don't think so. A lot of people *switch* to Gentoo
because of portage. Portage is a core part
On Tuesday 27 March 2007, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 15:19:29 -0400
>
> Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > one of Gentoo's priorities is to enable alternative package managers
> > to coexist sanely ... it is not one of Gentoo's priorities at this
> > time to replace Por
>>> the werent the same question nor were they the same answer
>> They weren't the same, but the second answer was definitely wrong:
So is alternative package manager support something that's considered
important and a priority by the Council?
>>> yes
>>>
Did you not say that finding
On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 15:19:29 -0400
Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> one of Gentoo's priorities is to enable alternative package managers
> to coexist sanely ... it is not one of Gentoo's priorities at this
> time to replace Portage with a different package manager
Do you acknowledge tha
On Sunday 25 March 2007, Michael Krelin wrote:
> > the werent the same question nor were they the same answer
>
> They weren't the same, but the second answer was definitely wrong:
> > > So is alternative package manager support something that's considered
> > > important and a priority by the Coun
> the werent the same question nor were they the same answer
They weren't the same, but the second answer was definitely wrong:
> > So is alternative package manager support something that's considered
> > important and a priority by the Council?
>
> yes
> > Did you not say that finding alternat
On Sunday 25 March 2007, Piotr Jaroszyński wrote:
> On Sunday 25 of March 2007 17:54:24 Andrew Gaffney wrote:
> > Support for an alternative package manager != language bindings for said
> > package manager :P
>
> heh, I just wanted a clarification of the Council standpoint in the matter
> of findi
On Sunday 25 of March 2007 17:54:24 Andrew Gaffney wrote:
> Support for an alternative package manager != language bindings for said
> package manager :P
heh, I just wanted a clarification of the Council standpoint in the matter of
finding alternatives to portage, which became quite vague after re
Piotr Jaroszyński wrote:
On Sunday 25 of March 2007 16:58:10 Mike Frysinger wrote:
Did you not say that finding alternatives to Portage is one of Gentoo's
priorities?
no i did not, nor does that apply here
not to put anything in your mouth, but I am a little confused:
http://article.gmane.org/
On Sunday 25 of March 2007 16:58:10 Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > Did you not say that finding alternatives to Portage is one of Gentoo's
> > priorities?
>
> no i did not, nor does that apply here
not to put anything in your mouth, but I am a little confused:
http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo
On Sunday 25 March 2007, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Saturday 24 March 2007, Matthias Langer wrote:
> > > In my opinion, any project that has reasonable potential to improve
> > > Gentoo as a whole
> >
> > which doesnt apply here
>
> Did you not say tha
On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 10:40:51 -0400
Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Saturday 24 March 2007, Matthias Langer wrote:
> > In my opinion, any project that has reasonable potential to improve
> > Gentoo as a whole
>
> which doesnt apply here
Did you not say that finding alternatives to P
On Saturday 24 March 2007, Matthias Langer wrote:
> In my opinion, any project that has reasonable potential to improve
> Gentoo as a whole
which doesnt apply here
-mike
pgpkZMxj5OVdW.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
[a succinct enough, yet complete examination of the problems and the
possible outcomes of my SoC idea]
Thank you for pointing all the issue and give a good review of the 3
package managers. Now I think it's up to the students and front-end
developers telling their wishes.
l
On 3/24/07, Daniel Drake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
3. We should ask Google for their opinion on this. They are, after all,
running the scheme, PAYING US MONEY, and are the people who decide
whether we get to participate in future years. I have asked Alec to
inquire about this.
This is by far t
On Sat, 24 Mar 2007 20:25:45 +0100
Luca Barbato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > Assuming you mean piotr, who is not pioto... The difference is,
> > piotr's proposal is possible and doable within the timeframe,
> > whereas lu_zero's sounds nice if you don't know anything abou
Danny van Dyk wrote:
>
> * Paludis supports multiple repositories, don't know about pkgcore, but
> i guess they support it as well. Portage doesn't. (actually it has 3
> repositories, but that's not really related to multiple repository
> support)
and mixing overlays and repository doesn't
Am Samstag, 24. März 2007 20:53 schrieb Luca Barbato:
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > Which is all very nice in theory, but completely impractical and
> > useless in practice. There's far too much difference and far too
> > much complexity implementation-wise to make this practical for any
> > non-tri
Grant Goodyear wrote:
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote: [Sat Mar 24 2007, 11:38:45AM CDT]
>> On Sat, 24 Mar 2007 09:30:55 -0700
>> Mike Doty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> Grant Goodyear wrote:
>>> [snip]
PS. So, anybody have any actual technical comments about this
proposal?
>>> Yes. pioto's pro
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>
> Which is all very nice in theory, but completely impractical and
> useless in practice. There's far too much difference and far too much
> complexity implementation-wise to make this practical for any
> non-trivial functionality.
>
I'd like to have more details, please
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>>
>> Assuming you mean piotr, who is not pioto... The difference is, piotr's
>> proposal is possible and doable within the timeframe, whereas lu_zero's
>> sounds nice if you don't know anything about any of the package
>> managers in question and can't be delivered within
Josh Saddler wrote:
We should not have third-party projects be part of SOC
I see 3 important points missing from the discussion so far:
(not directed at any response in particular)
1. We mentored projects like Piotr's last year, it seemed to work OK and
as far as I'm aware there weren't any o
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>
> Assuming you mean piotr, who is not pioto... The difference is, piotr's
> proposal is possible and doable within the timeframe, whereas lu_zero's
> sounds nice if you don't know anything about any of the package
> managers in question and can't be delivered within three
> I'm very strongly against using Gentoo SoC time and resources for things
> that are not officially part of Gentoo (yes, this statement could be
> spun however you wish) or are not official Gentoo projects. And no, just
> because a project has Gentoo developers in it doesn't mean that it's a
> Ge
Mike Kelly wrote:
On Sat, 24 Mar 2007 09:30:55 -0700
Mike Doty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Yes. pioto's proposal is weak.
You mean Piotr, right? He's a different person from me.
I do.
--
===
Mike Doty kingtaco -at- ge
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: [Sat Mar 24 2007, 11:38:45AM CDT]
> On Sat, 24 Mar 2007 09:30:55 -0700
> Mike Doty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Grant Goodyear wrote:
> > [snip]
> > > PS. So, anybody have any actual technical comments about this
> > > proposal?
> >
> > Yes. pioto's proposal is weak. lu_ze
On Sat, 24 Mar 2007 09:30:55 -0700
Mike Doty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yes. pioto's proposal is weak.
You mean Piotr, right? He's a different person from me.
--
Mike Kelly
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
On Saturday 24 of March 2007 17:30:55 Mike Doty wrote:
> Yes. pioto's proposal is weak. lu_zero's counterproposal for developing
> a method of having a package manager agnostic "API" is much more useful
> than developing one language binding for one package manager.
1. pioto is a mentor this year.
On Sat, 24 Mar 2007 09:30:55 -0700
Mike Doty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Grant Goodyear wrote:
> [snip]
> > PS. So, anybody have any actual technical comments about this
> > proposal?
>
> Yes. pioto's proposal is weak. lu_zero's counterproposal for
> developing a method of having a package manage
Ah, a couple additional things.
Diego wrote me and commented that he's not a big fan of accepting
proposals from existing devs, since the goal of the program is to get
_new_ blood into open-source projects. I think that's a good point, and
my personal preference is to accept strong proposals from
On Sat, 24 Mar 2007 08:09:09 +0100
Luca Barbato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Check my counterproposal. I know it is more broad but it also fits
> better Gentoo as whole.
>
> For the ones that aren't following gentoo-soc:
>
> - C/C++/Ruby/python bindings/API for package managers.
>
> The idea is
1 - 100 of 112 matches
Mail list logo
