On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 20:44, Alec Warner wrote:
>> Long term, we may want to consider porting pybugz to use Bugzilla's
>> XML-RPC api to avoid such breakage.
>
> XML-RPC is shit.
https://wiki.mozilla.org/Bugzilla:REST_API
On 27 March 2012 08:33, Dirkjan Ochtman wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 20:44, Alec Warner wrote:
>>> Long term, we may want to consider porting pybugz to use Bugzilla's
>>> XML-RPC api to avoid such breakage.
>>
>> XML-RPC is shit.
>
> https://wiki.mozilla.org/Bugzilla:REST_API
>
Shame that it
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 27/03/12 04:04 AM, Ian Whyman wrote:
> On 27 March 2012 08:33, Dirkjan Ochtman wrote:
>> On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 20:44, Alec Warner
>> wrote:
Long term, we may want to consider porting pybugz to use
Bugzilla's XML-RPC api to avoid such
On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 4:04 AM, Ian Whyman wrote:
> On 27 March 2012 08:33, Dirkjan Ochtman wrote:
>> On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 20:44, Alec Warner wrote:
Long term, we may want to consider porting pybugz to use Bugzilla's
XML-RPC api to avoid such breakage.
>>>
>>> XML-RPC is shit.
>>
>
On 3/26/12 7:20 PM, Mike Gilbert wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 1:08 PM, "Paweł Hajdan, Jr."
> wrote:
>> I posted this issue here because it's not obvious what to do with it.
>> That version of pybugz worked for me before (20 February 2012).
>>
>> Any ideas?
>>
> I'm guessing it was broken by th
On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 11:39 PM, Gregory M. Turner wrote:
> - Original Message -
>> On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 4:12 PM, Gregory M. Turner
>> wrote:
>> > https://github.com/gmt/gmt-cygwin-overlay/blob/master/sys-apps/portage/files/portage-2.2.01.20271-cygdll_protect.patch
>
>> Consistency in
Hello
I am a bit surprised handbook still doesn't suggest people to create a
separate partition for /usr/portage tree. I remember my first Gentoo
systems had it inside / and that lead to a lot of fragmentation, much
slower "emerge -pvuDN world" (I benchmarked it when I changed my
partitioning sche
On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 07:49:00PM +0200, Pacho Ramos wrote:
> I am a bit surprised handbook still doesn't suggest people to create a
> separate partition for /usr/portage tree. I remember my first Gentoo
> systems had it inside / and that lead to a lot of fragmentation, much
> slower "emerge -pvuD
On Tue, 27 Mar 2012 19:49:00 +0200
Pacho Ramos wrote:
> I am a bit surprised handbook still doesn't suggest people to create a
> separate partition for /usr/portage tree.
I don't know whether you've heard, but PackageKit (a hard dependency of
udev as of 185, to allow automatic installation of the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 03/27/2012 02:01 PM, Sven Vermeulen wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 07:49:00PM +0200, Pacho Ramos wrote:
>> I am a bit surprised handbook still doesn't suggest people to
>> create a separate partition for /usr/portage tree. I remember my
>> first
On Tue, 2012-03-27 at 20:01 +0200, Sven Vermeulen wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 07:49:00PM +0200, Pacho Ramos wrote:
> > I am a bit surprised handbook still doesn't suggest people to create a
> > separate partition for /usr/portage tree. I remember my first Gentoo
> > systems had it inside / and
On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 2:34 PM, Alexandre Rostovtsev
> The partitioning scheme is something that the user needs to decide on
> *before* getting Gentoo up and running. After the user had finished
> installing the operating system, it's too late to inform him about the
> advantages of a separate /u
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 27/03/12 02:47 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 2:34 PM, Alexandre Rostovtsev
>
>> The partitioning scheme is something that the user needs to
>> decide on *before* getting Gentoo up and running. After the user
>> had finished in
Il 27/03/2012 20:53, Ian Stakenvicius ha scritto:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 27/03/12 02:47 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 2:34 PM, Alexandre Rostovtsev
The partitioning scheme is something that the user needs to
decide on *before* getting Gentoo up an
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 03/27/2012 02:53 PM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
> On 27/03/12 02:47 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
>> On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 2:34 PM, Alexandre Rostovtsev
>>
>>> The partitioning scheme is something that the user needs to
>>> decide on *before* getting
All,
I know this has come up before, but I don't really recall what the
specific objections were.
IMO the portage directory doesn't belong under /usr at all.
I was chatting with another developer who uses
/var/cache/portage/{tree,distfiles}, and I'm thinking about switching my
default setup to do
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 03/27/2012 03:05 PM, William Hubbs wrote:
> All,
>
> I know this has come up before, but I don't really recall what the
> specific objections were.
>
> IMO the portage directory doesn't belong under /usr at all. I was
> chatting with another de
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 27/03/12 03:04 PM, Aaron W. Swenson wrote:
>
>> You know, we have "Code Listing 2.1: Filesystem Example" in
>> Section 4, we could always adjust that to have a /usr/portage
>> partition in it (take a bit of space away from /home, or
>> something)
On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 02:47:15PM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 2:34 PM, Alexandre Rostovtsev
> > 1. ext4, not ext3, needs to be recommended as the default filesystem. We
> > have kernel 3.2 marked stable, there is no need to keep talking about
> > ext4 as if it's something
On 28 March 2012 07:53, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
> You know, we have "Code Listing 2.1: Filesystem Example" in Section 4,
> we could always adjust that to have a /usr/portage partition in it
> (take a bit of space away from /home, or something)
>
> It doesn't recommend/require anything, but when us
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 27/03/12 03:05 PM, William Hubbs wrote:
> All,
>
> I know this has come up before, but I don't really recall what the
> specific objections were.
>
> IMO the portage directory doesn't belong under /usr at all. I was
> chatting with another deve
On 28 March 2012 08:15, Sven Vermeulen wrote:
>> Then again, Gentoo is about choice. It just seems like we're
>> presenting users with more choices than makes sense for a newbie. If
>> there is a choice between something that 99.99% of users will want,
>> and some ancient piece of cruft that sti
On 28 March 2012 08:05, William Hubbs wrote:
> All,
>
> I know this has come up before, but I don't really recall what the
> specific objections were.
>
> IMO the portage directory doesn't belong under /usr at all.
> I was chatting with another developer who uses
> /var/cache/portage/{tree,distfil
On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 08:20:45AM +1300, Kent Fredric wrote:
> On 28 March 2012 08:15, Sven Vermeulen wrote:
> >> Then again, Gentoo is about choice. It just seems like we're
> >> presenting users with more choices than makes sense for a newbie. If
> >> there is a choice between something that
>
> /var/cache/repositories/gentoo/*
> /var/cache/repositories/perl-experimental/*
> /var/cache/distfiles/*
> /var/cache/packages/*
>
Actually, now I think of it, repositories /might/ be suitable for
being under /db/
the repository does sort of function like a database, the tools we use
to access
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 03/27/2012 03:13 PM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
> On 27/03/12 03:04 PM, Aaron W. Swenson wrote:
>
>>> You know, we have "Code Listing 2.1: Filesystem Example" in
>>> Section 4, we could always adjust that to have a /usr/portage
>>> partition in it
On 27/03/12 21:17, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
> On 27/03/12 03:05 PM, William Hubbs wrote:
>> All,
>
>> I know this has come up before, but I don't really recall what the
>> specific objections were.
>
>> IMO the portage directory doesn't belong under /usr at all. I was
>> chatting with another dev
On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 08:25:58AM +1300, Kent Fredric wrote:
> On 28 March 2012 08:05, William Hubbs wrote:
> /var/cache/repositories/gentoo/*
> /var/cache/repositories/perl-experimental/*
> /var/cache/distfiles/*
> /var/cache/packages/*
These sub directories are all portage related, so it is b
On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 02:29:34PM -0500, William Hubbs wrote:
> Why not just the separate "quick install" guide like we have that lists
> steps and the handbook if yu want more details?
We came from that. It means we need to start managing "just the commands"
for each architecture. After a while,
On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 08:29:50AM +1300, Kent Fredric wrote:
> >
> > /var/cache/repositories/gentoo/*
> > /var/cache/repositories/perl-experimental/*
> > /var/cache/distfiles/*
> > /var/cache/packages/*
> >
>
>
> Actually, now I think of it, repositories /might/ be suitable for
> being under /db
On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 12:40 PM, William Hubbs wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 08:25:58AM +1300, Kent Fredric wrote:
>> On 28 March 2012 08:05, William Hubbs wrote:
>> /var/cache/repositories/gentoo/*
>> /var/cache/repositories/perl-experimental/*
>> /var/cache/distfiles/*
>> /var/cache/package
On 03/27/12 14:34, Alexandre Rostovtsev wrote:
> The partitioning scheme is something that the user needs to decide on
> *before* getting Gentoo up and running. After the user had finished
> installing the operating system, it's too late to inform him about the
> advantages of a separate /usr/porta
On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 12:47:10PM -0700, Alec Warner wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 12:40 PM, William Hubbs wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 08:25:58AM +1300, Kent Fredric wrote:
> >> On 28 March 2012 08:05, William Hubbs wrote:
> >> /var/cache/repositories/gentoo/*
> >> /var/cache/repositor
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 03/27/2012 03:47 PM, Alec Warner wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 12:40 PM, William Hubbs
> wrote:
>> On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 08:25:58AM +1300, Kent Fredric wrote:
>>> On 28 March 2012 08:05, William Hubbs
>>> wrote: /var/cache/repositories/gent
On 03/27/12 15:13, Aaron W. Swenson wrote:
> On 03/27/2012 03:05 PM, William Hubbs wrote:
>> All,
>
>> I know this has come up before, but I don't really recall what the
>> specific objections were.
>
>> IMO the portage directory doesn't belong under /usr at all. I was
>> chatting with another d
On 28 March 2012 08:47, Alec Warner wrote:
> The gentoo-x86 ebuild tree is not necessarily portage related.
> However I think we should paint the bike shed '/srv/tree'
I for one never developed any love for /srv , its always seemed like
an unwanted bit of poo left behind by an unloved gremlin.
On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 05:19:10PM +0200, "Paweł Hajdan, Jr." wrote:
> On 3/26/12 7:20 PM, Mike Gilbert wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 1:08 PM, "Paweł Hajdan, Jr."
> > wrote:
> >> I posted this issue here because it's not obvious what to do with it.
> >> That version of pybugz worked for me be
On Tuesday 27 March 2012 14:34:03, Alexandre Rostovtsev wrote:
> On Tue, 2012-03-27 at 20:01 +0200, Sven Vermeulen wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 07:49:00PM +0200, Pacho Ramos wrote:
> > > I am a bit surprised handbook still doesn't suggest people to create a
> > > separate partition for /usr/p
On 28 March 2012 08:59, William Hubbs wrote:
> What I was wanting to discuss mainly was that /usr/portage isn't right;
> I think we need to move that out of the /usr directory.
>
> I'm not sure what the new default should be, nor how the default should
> be decided. Maybe we just let Zac pick one?
On 28 March 2012 08:57, Richard Yao wrote:
>
> Could we amend this to also include the benefits of ZFS and why you
> would want to use XFS or reiserfs instead of ext{2,3,4} as your
> filesystem in situations where ZFS is not yet appropriate (e.g. using it
> on Gentoo stable)? We could also include
- Original Message -
> > 'if not os.environ["PORTAGE_PYTONPATH"]:'
> If PORTAGE_PYTHONPATH is not in os.environ then it will raise a
> KeyError, that is why we are doing a contains to begin with.
I somehow got the idea that the python gods had sprinkled magical syntax-sugar
on bool(x[y])
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 27/03/12 04:08 PM, Kent Fredric wrote:
> On 28 March 2012 08:59, William Hubbs wrote:
>> What I was wanting to discuss mainly was that /usr/portage isn't
>> right; I think we need to move that out of the /usr directory.
>>
>> I'm not sure what t
On Sat, 24 Mar 2012 10:44:03 -0300
Alexis Ballier wrote:
> eclass version 2.0, i hope i haven't forgotten any comment
>
> I improved some comments/description after a second read also.
since there were no more comments: eclass committed, thanks all
43 matches
Mail list logo
