ot;That sounds like a good idea in principle, but,
gosh, it sounds awfully hard!" Perhaps this discussion might actually
go somewhere useful if people could be pointed to how one makes this
sort of thing work in practice? I'm more than happy to read the fine
manual, once I know which on
but that for cases such as valgrind pre-3.0, which didn't work
at all on amd64, then those package are profile-masked, and there's
separate amd64 and x86 profiles (as there are now) to handle those
distinctions?
-g2boojum-
--
Grant Goodyear
Gentoo Developer
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.
ow shortly.
-g2boojum-
--
Grant Goodyear
Gentoo Developer
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.gentoo.org/~g2boojum
GPG Fingerprint: D706 9802 1663 DEF5 81B0 9573 A6DC 7152 E0F6 5B76
- confirmation 294d -
Stuart
bonsaikitten
kugelfang
mcummings Koon seemant lcars tigger Weeve KingTaco azara
hopes for this new Council, but of course it's up to you
folks to make of it what you will. Personally, I expect great things.
Best,
g2boojum
--
Grant Goodyear
Gentoo Developer
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.gentoo.org/~g2boojum
GPG Fingerprint: D706 9802 1663 DEF5 81B0 9573 A6DC 7152 E0F6 5B76
pgppmuf99dRXQ.pgp
Description: PGP signature
rejecting GLEPs, perhaps someone should be writing a GLEP about
combining x86 and amd64?
-g2boojum-
--
Grant Goodyear
Gentoo Developer
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.gentoo.org/~g2boojum
GPG Fingerprint: D706 9802 1663 DEF5 81B0 9573 A6DC 7152 E0F6 5B76
pgpOrAAoHhL3q.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Grant Goodyear wrote: [Thu Sep 01 2005, 11:50:56AM CDT]
> We needed to have the new metastructure plan someplace easy to find, so
> I created glep 39 for it.
It's in CVS, but it may be a bit before it shows up on www.g.o.
-g2boojum-
--
Grant Goodyear
Gentoo Developer
[EMAI
all of our devs, by the
way). I'll happily leave writing such a GLEP to the people who
actually are experts in this area, trusting them to properly educate the
rest of us about exactly how it could work, and _then_ people can really
make an informed decision.
-g2boojum-
--
Grant Goodyear
such a GLEP, I'm certainly willing to drop it.
-g2boojum-
--
Grant Goodyear
Gentoo Developer
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.gentoo.org/~g2boojum
GPG Fingerprint: D706 9802 1663 DEF5 81B0 9573 A6DC 7152 E0F6 5B76
pgpT7K0wVex6k.pgp
Description: PGP signature
e to ask people what I do for a
living, and whether they suspect that I know the difference between a
64-bit pointer and a 32-bit int.
Best,
g2boojum
--
Grant Goodyear
Gentoo Developer
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.gentoo.org/~g2boojum
GPG Fingerprint: D706 9802 1663 DEF5 81B0 9573 A6DC 715
them my way so that
I may incorporate them.
Best,
g2boojum
--
Grant Goodyear
Gentoo Developer
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.gentoo.org/~g2boojum
GPG Fingerprint: D706 9802 1663 DEF5 81B0 9573 A6DC 7152 E0F6 5B76
GLEP: 40
Title: Standardizing "arch" keywording across all archs.
Version: $R
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: [Sun Sep 04 2005, 01:41:41PM CDT]
> On Sun, 4 Sep 2005 09:37:11 -0500 Grant Goodyear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> | There will be a considerable one-time cost involved in establishing a
> | robust x86 arch team.
>
> Justify this please. If there i
ree,
who (in my opinion) should have the final "okay" on a package going
stable, since they're the ones with experience of the entire stable
tree. Does that make a bit more sense?
-g2boojum-
--
Grant Goodyear
Gentoo Developer
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.gentoo.org/~g2boojum
GPG Fin
importance of package maintainers, but simply to separate
package maintainance from tree maintainance.
-g2boojum-
--
Grant Goodyear
Gentoo Developer
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.gentoo.org/~g2boojum
GPG Fingerprint: D706 9802 1663 DEF5 81B0 9573 A6DC 7152 E0F6 5B76
pgpG5yTpUWIv1.pgp
Description: PGP signature
t I can fix
the GLEP.
I'd like to go ahead and push this GLEP to the council for a vote at the
next meeting (which I assume will be sometime in the next twenty-two
days).
-g2boojum-
--
Grant Goodyear
Gentoo Developer
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.gentoo.org/~g2boojum
GPG Fingerprint: D706
the date of the next meeting could be
posted by the previous meeting, since that would generally correspond to
about a month lead.)
> Added by Grant Goodyear :
> glep40: Standardizing "arch" keywording across all archs
Please feel free to argue this GLEP in my absence. I'm fu
g broken encodings?
He just has to break the legs of the offending devs
-g2boojum-
--
Grant Goodyear
Gentoo Developer
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.gentoo.org/~g2boojum
GPG Fingerprint: D706 9802 1663 DEF5 81B0 9573 A6DC 7152 E0F6 5B76
pgpzVz0Jk7qi5.pgp
Description: PGP signature
roperly defined so that noone can
> weasel out by invoking "it's always been like this"
Oh, of course. I just don't agree that all GLEPs that involve QA should be
put on hold until we improve QA, however.
-g2boojum-
--
Grant Goodyear
Gentoo Developer
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
ht
.
Of course, I could be entirely mistaken, but I know that I'm not the
only person who has this impression.
-g2boojum-
--
Grant Goodyear
Gentoo Developer
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.gentoo.org/~g2boojum
GPG Fingerprint: D706 9802 1663 DEF5 81B0 9573 A6DC 7152 E0F6 5B76
pgpjgJI8L4tcI.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Grant Goodyear wrote: [Tue Sep 13 2005, 11:40:43AM CDT]
> I'm not sure that's entirely correct. I seem to remember at least one
> devrel dev stating that when it comes to devs who violate technical
> policies (not using repoman, repeatedly breaking sections of the tre
volving the council?
My suggestion: leave it up to base-system to choose a default,
and if it differs from what's in the docs then it would be nice if
they'd let the docs folks know.
-g2boojum-
--
Grant Goodyear
Gentoo Developer
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.gentoo.org/~g2boojum
GPG Finger
GLEP 40 for an example.
-g2boojum-
--
Grant Goodyear
Gentoo Developer
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.gentoo.org/~g2boojum
GPG Fingerprint: D706 9802 1663 DEF5 81B0 9573 A6DC 7152 E0F6 5B76
pgpEJU0V4CDEQ.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Grant Goodyear wrote: [Mon Oct 10 2005, 05:22:07PM CDT]
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote: [Mon Oct 10 2005, 04:43:19PM CDT]
> > Isn't the idea that someone writes out a draft GLEP and gets it
> > discussed on -dev (and repeats said process until everyone is happy
> > with the GLE
e huge amounts of unhappiness...
Yep, I'll certainly agree w/ that (except that it's GLEP 41, not 40, I
believe).
-g2boojum-
--
Grant Goodyear
Gentoo Developer
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.gentoo.org/~g2boojum
GPG Fingerprint: D706 9802 1663 DEF5 81B0 9573 A6DC 7152 E0F6 5B76
pgpAPFt
eal.
If the council chooses to address this issue I'm hardly going to
complain, but I don't really think that it's worth their time.
-g2boojum-
--
Grant Goodyear
Gentoo Developer
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.gentoo.org/~g2boojum
GPG Fingerprint: D706 9802 1663 DEF5 81B0 9573 A6DC 7152 E0F6 5B76
pgpuQtKOU5ZVs.pgp
Description: PGP signature
replacement would work.
> Also because right now we're not following that scheme anyway right now...
Which is fine, of course, since nothing is in the tree yet, but there
will be real complaints if this stuff makes it into the tree w/o
following that GLEP (or a new GLEP if it's approv
raries, and setting up Ubuntu or Debian for one of our
project developers was a pain as I struggled to ensure that I had all of
the necessary development packages installed.
At the same time, I'm suppose that including header files by default is
not such a good thing for the embedded folks.
-g2boojum-
y job. I don't run into this problem solely because I don't install
binary packages.
My apologies if I'm missing the point here.
-g2boojum-
--
Grant Goodyear
Gentoo Developer
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.gentoo.org/~g2boojum
GPG Fingerprint: D706 9802 1663 DEF5 81B0 9573 A6DC 7152 E0F6 5B76
pgp7Y17lJ74cw.pgp
Description: PGP signature
e something to
click on who use packages.g.o.
-g2boojum-
--
Grant Goodyear
Gentoo Developer
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.gentoo.org/~g2boojum
GPG Fingerprint: D706 9802 1663 DEF5 81B0 9573 A6DC 7152 E0F6 5B76
pgpAyVt1md52l.pgp
Description: PGP signature
rsions from
bugzilla.
Best,
g2boojum
--
Grant Goodyear
Gentoo Developer
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.gentoo.org/~g2boojum
GPG Fingerprint: D706 9802 1663 DEF5 81B0 9573 A6DC 7152 E0F6 5B76
pgp8J2OwJtfAY.pgp
Description: PGP signature
this issue was never
ignored, but it often wasn't at the top of the list for what our limited
portage devs should be working on: see
http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=11359#c83 .)
-g2boojum-
--
Grant Goodyear
Gentoo Developer
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.gentoo.org/~g2boojum
GPG Finge
necessary, then I see no
reason we shouldn't have those packages.)
-g2boojum-
--
Grant Goodyear
Gentoo Developer
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.gentoo.org/~g2boojum
GPG Fingerprint: D706 9802 1663 DEF5 81B0 9573 A6DC 7152 E0F6 5B76
pgpci6MNIfVNI.pgp
Description: PGP signature
201 - 231 of 231 matches
Mail list logo
