On Sunday 05 February 2006 12:17, Chris PeBenito wrote:
> I have two bugs [1][2] with installs failing due to some environmental
> variables being set, which end up overriding the settings in the
> packages' makefiles, causing sandbox violations. While this is a simple
> enough to work around with
On Sunday 05 February 2006 09:51, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
> On Thursday 02 February 2006 20:55, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > | Yeah that would help. But in the mean time what should we do?
> >
> > What you should always do. Do the right thing, even if repoman
>
On Sunday 05 February 2006 15:43, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
> On Sunday 05 February 2006 21:34, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > that's retarded, please remove all such linguas_* crap from use.desc
> > files
>
> I can, but then Mr_Bones_ will come back to me
On Sunday 05 February 2006 15:49, Christopher J. PeBenito wrote:
> But looking at 02kth-krb in its files directory we have:
>
> PATH=/usr/athena/bin
> ROOTPATH=/usr/athena/sbin
> LDPATH=/usr/athena/lib
> MANDIR=/usr/athena/man
> INFODIR=/usr/athena/info
then, as Donnie said, kth-krb is wrong
it s
On Sunday 05 February 2006 16:46, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> Just a reminder that all of the following are either illegal or
> strongly deprecated, so please don't use them even if Portage currently
> lets you get away with it:
>
> DEPEND="blah"
> You should always use the full foo-bar/blah spec insi
On Sunday 05 February 2006 17:11, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> Another not-so-uncommon issue that crops up: packages DEPENDing upon
> themselves. Sometimes this is legit -- one of the Ada compilers, for
> example, DEPENDs upon || ( itself another-compiler ). Sometimes,
> however, it's the result of ecl
On Monday 06 February 2006 20:09, Georgi Georgiev wrote:
> Make that "official-branding" option depend on a single local USE flag
> (there was a discussion about "branding" use flags, but this one has to
> be *disabled* by default), and forget about it :-D.
may i suggest USE=retarded-policies
-mik
in case anyone else comes across this (ive seen a few packages lately) ...
* symptom: build fails with -O0 but not with -O1 when nls support is enabled
* error: LC_MESSAGES/LC_CTYPE/LC_ALL/LC_ is undefined and/or
functions like setlocale()/textdomain()/etc... are implicitly defined
* short answer
any last issues people wish to cover before we start finishing this up ?
-mike
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
On Wednesday 08 February 2006 19:24, Jason Stubbs wrote:
> On Thursday 09 February 2006 08:19, Mark Loeser wrote:
> > Anyone that is maintaining a binary package in the tree, and requires
> > libstdc++-v3, please put a rdepend in your package on
> > =virtual/libstdc++-3.3. I'd like to drop the dep
On Thursday 09 February 2006 22:05, Ned Ludd wrote:
> I would like to see it drop the tab handling for indicating newlines
> and just use a real newlines when we want a newline.
>
> While having the tabs makes it easier for people to read it increases
> the byte size and adds some undesired complex
On Sunday 12 February 2006 12:22, Michael Hanselmann wrote:
> For an ebuild I'm working on, I need a function to test wether a number
> is a prime number. For that, I wrote an Eclass you find attached to this
> e-mail. Can this be commited?
i cant really see how this would be useful to anything, b
On Sunday 12 February 2006 14:16, Forrest Voight wrote:
>I believe that rc.conf contains many values that could be put into
> conf.d.
sounds like your system is outdated
> For example, DISPLAYMANAGER
Donnie already covered this
> and KEYMAP.
this was moved to /etc/conf.d/keymaps a while ag
On Monday 13 February 2006 19:01, Alec Warner wrote:
> Forrest Voight wrote:
> > What happens if two env.d files set the same variable?
>
> You write an eselect module to choose between them :)
brr wrong
-mike
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
On Monday 13 February 2006 20:07, Forrest Voight wrote:
> How is that wrong? If it isn't, eselect would be a great way to switch
> EDITOR and XSESSION.
jesus, talk about over engineering
using eselect to manage some default variables instead of simply editing your
~/.bashrc file is like using a
On Tuesday 14 February 2006 17:02, Tristan Hill wrote:
> I'm updating the rpm ebuild[1]. Without any modifications the
> executables are statically compiled and I get the QA message about
> executable stacks. However, removal of "-static" from the compilation
> flags in ./configure also stops gen
On Wednesday 15 February 2006 10:35, solar wrote:
> On Tue, 2006-02-14 at 18:09 -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On Tuesday 14 February 2006 17:02, Tristan Hill wrote:
> > > I'm updating the rpm ebuild[1]. Without any modifications the
> > > executables are stat
On Friday 17 February 2006 07:38, Simon Stelling wrote:
> Jakub Moc wrote:
> > OMG, stop this crap and don't waste our time.
>
> Taken from http://dev.gentoo.org/~chriswhite/docs/flame.html:
> | "One thing is to frequently refer to "us" or "our". Pretend like people
> | are with you on this, so the
On Tuesday 21 February 2006 17:59, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> What's the deal with no* values in RESTRICT? Is it RESTRICT="strip" or
> RESTRICT="nostrip"? fetch or nofetch?
the no* stuff is slowly being cut out
> Which values work with all Portage versions, which work with only recent
> ones and wh
On Tuesday 21 February 2006 17:56, Richard Fish wrote:
> On 2/21/06, Christian Bricart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > And hdparm iterates through /dev/ide/* if found...
>
> I assume you are talking about the init script? Because my hdparm
> binary requires one to specify a device node, there is no
ive update the xml use.desc entry to be generic and marked the xml2 entry as
deprecated ... can people start fixing their packages themselves ? i'll give
some lead time so as to cut down on the # of bugs that need to be filed to
get this finished up ...
-mike
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing l
On Wednesday 22 February 2006 23:46, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> ive update the xml use.desc entry to be generic and marked the xml2 entry
> as deprecated ... can people start fixing their packages themselves ? i'll
> give some lead time so as to cut down on the # of bugs that need to
On Sunday 26 February 2006 14:45, Stuart Herbert wrote:
> Also, I cannot find this SRC_URI rule (as being applied by the QA team)
> in any official Gentoo policy document.
that's because it's common sense ... filename collisions just dont work
-mike
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
On Monday 27 February 2006 12:08, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 09:00:15 + "Stuart Herbert"
>
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> | > Again, then we are going to get into the argument of the definition
> | > of an emergency and never be able to get anything done. We really
> | > hope
On Monday 27 February 2006 16:12, Stuart Herbert wrote:
> On Mon, 2006-02-27 at 20:54 +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > Whilst that one's still alive, I'm not going to go
> > around filing more similar "breaks non-interactively" bugs because the
> > discussion will just get repeated over and over.
On Tuesday 28 February 2006 06:47, Patrick Lauer wrote:
> On Tue, 2006-02-28 at 12:32 +0100, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
> > On Tuesday 28 February 2006 11:58, Patrick Lauer wrote:
> > > During that discussion we realized that having utf-8 not enabled by
> > > default and no utf8 fonts availab
On Tuesday 28 February 2006 04:49, Jakub Moc wrote:
> No, that's not a policy document, ebuild policy is documented here:
> http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/devrel/handbook/handbook.xml?style=printable&;
>part=3&chap=1
so what, you want us to duplicate everything in one document and place it in
the
On Monday 27 February 2006 11:47, Lance Albertson wrote:
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > On Sun, 26 Feb 2006 17:53:20 -0800 Donnie Berkholz
> >
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > | The maintainer should be the absolute authority over his/her packages,
> > | and only the council should be able to overr
On Tuesday 28 February 2006 10:08, Jakub Moc wrote:
> 28.2.2006, 15:39:40, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 10:49:13 +0100 Jakub Moc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > | No, that's not a policy document, ebuild policy is documented here:
> >
> > http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/devrel/handbo
On Tuesday 28 February 2006 11:39, Jakub Moc wrote:
> 28.2.2006, 17:24:21, Danny van Dyk wrote:
> > If you don't agree with the contents, why didn't you raise your
> > opposition earlier?
>
> I don't feel any need to raise opposition against some unofficial manual,
> what would be the point in that
On Tuesday 28 February 2006 13:00, Jakub Moc wrote:
> 28.2.2006, 18:11:57, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 17:02:11 + Renat Lumpau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > | On Tue, Feb 28, 2006 at 04:35:32PM +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> | >> Ebuilds can't override this either. Read on
On Tuesday 28 February 2006 12:51, Renat Lumpau wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 28, 2006 at 05:11:57PM +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > And it sticks out a nasty ewarn and says that the ebuild is probably
> > broken.
>
> Which it _probably_ is. See, this is a numbers game. In most cases, if you
> use the web
On Tuesday 28 February 2006 15:10, Jakub Moc wrote:
> 28.2.2006, 20:59:42, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On Tuesday 28 February 2006 12:51, Renat Lumpau wrote:
> >> On Tue, Feb 28, 2006 at 05:11:57PM +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> >> > And it sticks out a nasty ewa
On Tuesday 28 February 2006 16:02, Jakub Moc wrote:
> 28.2.2006, 21:39:43, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > whats your point ? if an ebuild author wants to control the SLOT, then
> > they should be able to without having an invalid warning issued on the
> > subject
> >
> &
On Tuesday 28 February 2006 16:58, Alec Warner wrote:
> Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On Tuesday 28 February 2006 16:02, Jakub Moc wrote:
> >>28.2.2006, 21:39:43, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> >>>whats your point ? if an ebuild author wants to control the SLOT, then
>
On Tuesday 28 February 2006 19:28, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 18:13:57 -0600 Lance Albertson
>
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> | I should note that if are a Gentoo Developer and have
> | problems/concerns/issues with Ciaran's attitude/actions, please
> | comment on bug #114944. (th
This is your monthly friendly reminder ! Same bat time (typically the
2nd Thursday once a month), same bat channel (#gentoo-council @
irc.freenode.net) !
If you have something you'd wish for us to chat about, maybe even
vote on, let us know ! Simply reply to this e-mail for the whole
Gentoo dev
On Wednesday 01 March 2006 10:35, Duncan Coutts wrote:
> gcc-3 supports both -nopie and -fno-stack-protector. So always using
> these would be ok if it were not for gcc-4 which doesn't grok
> -fno-stack-protector.
yes it does
every gcc in portage by default supports -fno-stack-protector
-mike
--
On Wednesday 01 March 2006 02:37, Jakub Moc wrote:
> 28.2.2006, 16:29:10, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > The whole devrel handbook is policy, except where otherwise noted. See
> > Mike's reply.
>
> Then any significant change there requires a sane procedure.
which does not change the fact that the dev
On Wednesday 01 March 2006 12:17, Duncan Coutts wrote:
> On Wed, 2006-03-01 at 11:39 -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On Wednesday 01 March 2006 10:35, Duncan Coutts wrote:
> > > gcc-3 supports both -nopie and -fno-stack-protector. So always using
> > > these would be
On Wednesday 01 March 2006 19:19, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> Unless there are any huge flaws found, I'd like this to be voted on by
> the council -- looks like it'll have to wait until April's meeting to
> fit in with the two weeks rule.
may push council meeting back to 3rd tuesday if people wish
-m
On Wednesday 01 March 2006 04:17, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> If you have something you'd wish for us to chat about, maybe even
> vote on, let us know ! Simply reply to this e-mail for the whole
> Gentoo dev list to see.
so, GLEP44 is up right ? any last questions ? /me looks at sola
On Wednesday 01 March 2006 10:35, Duncan Coutts wrote:
> Does anyone have any other suggestions?
i dont know exactly what you're trying to accomplish, but the way wine does it
is by faking out the ssp symbols
in their loader, they add (for gcc-4.1+):
void *__stack_chk_guard = 0;
void _stack_chk_
On Thursday 02 March 2006 16:19, Michael Cummings wrote:
> On Thu, 2006-03-02 at 20:49 +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > Now, you've heard that dropping keywords is bad. But you have a clever
> > idea, and make the dep alsa? ( !sparc? ( alsa libraries ) ). This gets
> > past repoman just fine.
>
>
On Thursday 02 March 2006 04:01, Stuart Herbert wrote:
> * There is no proposal for a process to formulate, and gain wide
> approval for new QA standards. This week, there's been an example of
> the QA team documenting a QA standard *after* a bug was raised about a
> QA violation ... and then that
On Wednesday 01 March 2006 21:53, Mark Loeser wrote:
> Here is my updated version after some feedback from people:
>
> * In case of emergency, or if package maintainers refuse to cooperate,
> the QA team may take action themselves to fix the problem.
> * The QA team may also offer to fix obvious
On Friday 03 March 2006 15:47, Jakub Moc wrote:
> Please, until something is clarified/some consent reached, avoid changing
> the docs w/ funny stuff like "just flip a coin"...
please, get a sense of humor, kthxbye
-mike
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
On Friday 03 March 2006 18:14, Stuart Herbert wrote:
> If we're going to do this, then at least we should be implementing a
> consistent standard across all ebuilds. F.ex, when SSL and TLS
> conflict, we should have a standard saying that all ebuilds will
> consistenly favour one over the other.
On Saturday 04 March 2006 13:18, MIkey wrote:
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > On Sat, 04 Mar 2006 12:04:11 -0600 MIkey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > | At my job we aim to eventually rid ourselves completely of MS
> > | products on several thousand (local and remote) desktops and replace
> > | them wi
On Sunday 05 March 2006 14:53, MIkey wrote:
> Mike Frysinger wrote:
> >> > Then you should use INSTALL_MASK, not a USE flag.
> >>
> >> Please excuse my ignorance, but where is INSTALL_MASK documented?
> >
> > nowhere of consequence
>
> Heh heh,
On Sunday 05 March 2006 17:38, MIkey wrote:
> Ferris McCormick wrote:
> > I hesitate to raise my head again, but why not use
> > FEATURES='-noman' emerge ...
> >
> > (FEATURES='-noman -noinfo -nodoc' USE='doc' emerge ...
> > for that matter.)?
> >
> > I use that sort of thing for, say,
> > FEATURES
On Monday 06 March 2006 18:05, Kito wrote:
> On Mar 6, 2006, at 1:33 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Hi all.
> >
> > Alfredo has joined the Gentoo team to help with the games herd. I'm
> > sure
> > he'll have a fun time "testing" all those games :)
> >
> > Alfredo writes about himself:
> > "I live
On Wednesday 08 March 2006 21:42, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
> One alternative is to add nostrip to the restrict of those packages, so
> that prepallstrip is skipped and extra files are not created.
> That is what I've done with emul-x86-* packages and mplayer-bin, but I'm
> not 100% sure how
On Wednesday 08 March 2006 21:59, MIkey wrote:
> Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
> > skype, blackdown-jdk, rar, opera, openoffice-bin, they are all stripped
> > by upstream, but passes through portage's prepstrip, so they get stripped
> > again and the missing debug info is tried to be copied in /
On Thursday 09 March 2006 05:28, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
> On Thursday 09 March 2006 04:12, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > this is kind of a pita in terms of maintenance and imo a hack ... why not
> > just have the splitelf code skip stripped binaries
>
> Becaus
On Thursday 09 March 2006 09:24, Mikey wrote:
> That is my point. There is nothing there to strip
file a bug
> yet during an install I
> noticed it running scanelf on the entire 248 meg source tree. Kind of a
> pointless task, not to mention extremely wasteful of resources.
yes and no
scanel
On Saturday 11 March 2006 19:14, John N. Laliberte wrote:
> We are defaulting to make DESTDIR=${D} install instead of using einstall.
> This probably should have been switched a long time ago, but better late
> than never.
nice work
-mike
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
On Thursday 16 March 2006 11:12, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Mar 2006 10:54:34 -0500 Seemant Kulleen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> wrote:
> | I've attached the council meeting logs thanks to my proxy dsd. I have
> | updated the council project page to add them there and to add a
> | summary of t
On Wednesday 22 March 2006 19:59, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> On Mar 22, 2006, at 4:13 PM, Olivier Crete wrote:
> > If modular X is used and gnome-base/control-center is not
> > patched..
> > gnome-settings-daemon on some evdev combinations...
> >
> > Not sure if that's a blocker... but we should
so we're clear, users would be able to create their own overlays and publish
their ebuilds right ?
-mike
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
On Thursday 23 March 2006 19:54, Thomas Cort wrote:
> Will there be restrictions on what can go into these overlays?
common sense
-mike
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
On Friday 24 March 2006 11:32, Andrej Kacian wrote:
> Dňa Fri, 24 Mar 2006 15:23:14 +
>
> "Stuart Herbert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> napísal:
> > On 3/24/06, Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > so we're clear, users would be able t
On Friday 24 March 2006 21:30, Duncan wrote:
> One thing to remember, however. In the US at least, linking to specific
> illegal material is considered illegal in itself.
US laws are gay
> There is a "common
> carrier" exemption, however, with the caveat of DMCA takedown notices.
> Thus, the se
On Tuesday 28 March 2006 01:00, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
> I actually like this solution, but I would think it should be extended to
> fix generically known broken behaviours of configure scripts
like broken NLS handling in autoconf-2.1x (see all the et_EE bugs)
> to broken config.* stuff
On Tuesday 28 March 2006 15:31, Lars Strojny wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Am Montag, den 27.03.2006, 15:17 -0500 schrieb Mike Frysinger:
> [...]
>
> > US laws are gay
>
> Homophobia is gay ;-)
/me sticks it in your butt
feel better ? i know i do
-mike
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
On Friday 31 March 2006 18:15, Sven Köhler wrote:
> >> I don't when the init.d-script disappeared from the ebuilds, but well: i
> >> still used it and didn't know about the baselayout-support for pppoe.
> >
> > May I suggest reading the fine handbook?
> > http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/handbook/handb
On Friday 31 March 2006 20:56, Philip Webb wrote:
> 060331 Jakub Moc wrote:
> > Sven Köhler wrote:
> >> I don't when the init.d-script disappeared from the ebuilds:
> >> i still used it and didn't know about the baselayout-support for pppoe.
> >
> > May I suggest reading the fine handbook?
> > http
This is your monthly friendly reminder ! Same bat time (typically the
2nd Thursday once a month), same bat channel (#gentoo-council @
irc.freenode.net) !
If you have something you'd wish for us to chat about, maybe even
vote on, let us know ! Simply reply to this e-mail for the whole
Gentoo dev
On Sunday 02 April 2006 12:05, Jakub Moc wrote:
> This is a (not-so happy) reminder that the agony of gtk2 use flag will
> have been lasting for half a year soon. It *really* needs to die.
too bad it doesnt address packages which still legitimately utilize gtk/gtk2
i for one wont be "fixing" thes
On Sunday 02 April 2006 14:04, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
> Thus my request to zmedico to have a per-package use.mask so that we can
> mask the flag for the packages that can use only the sys-apps/acl
> interface.
or you can be the hero and fix the packages ;)
-mike
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.or
On Sunday 02 April 2006 14:22, Olivier Crête wrote:
> On Sun, 2006-02-04 at 13:08 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On Sunday 02 April 2006 12:05, Jakub Moc wrote:
> > > This is a (not-so happy) reminder that the agony of gtk2 use flag will
> > > have been lasting for h
On Sunday 02 April 2006 15:02, Jakub Moc wrote:
> Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On Sunday 02 April 2006 14:22, Olivier Crête wrote:
> >> On Sun, 2006-02-04 at 13:08 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> >>> On Sunday 02 April 2006 12:05, Jakub Moc wrote:
> >>>&g
On Sunday 02 April 2006 15:12, Carsten Lohrke wrote:
> On Sunday 02 April 2006 20:41, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > nothing personal, but who are you to say whether it's legit ?
>
> It's really not a question what's legit (heck, you started using this term,
> so blam
On Sunday 02 April 2006 15:34, Jakub Moc wrote:
> Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > and if there are no bugs filed ? this sort of stance is like the
> > "lets remove packages from portage because upstream is dead" ... it
> > benefits no one
>
> No bugs filed? Well
On Sunday 02 April 2006 16:09, Carsten Lohrke wrote:
> On Sunday 02 April 2006 21:28, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > > it should be more the question, if there's anyone supporting
> > > Gtk1 upstream with regards to security issues etc..
> >
> > and when such a
On Monday 03 April 2006 12:25, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Mon, 3 Apr 2006 07:26:53 +0200 "Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò"
>
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> | The first would be for generic findutils, that is find and xargs
> | commands; it would be satisfied by sys-apps/findutils or one of the
> | BSD -
On Monday 03 April 2006 15:38, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
> Was for me I'd consider as assumed the presence of basic utilities like
> shadow, findutils and admin-processes, but if I'm not allowed to drop the
> deps or put them under conditional, this is only going to hinder me
>
> Well Mi
dont get me wrong, i hate documenting common sense as much as the next sane
guy, but it seems Gentoo has come to the point where this needs to be done
many thanks to the Ubuntu guys and to solar for doing the real work here:
http://dev.gentoo.org/~solar/xml/conduct.html
i dont see how anyone can
On Monday 03 April 2006 20:03, Ferris McCormick wrote:
> Now, there are some details to fill in. Devrel and infra have agreed that
> when responsibilities overlap, neither group would act unilaterally.
> Please see http://dev.gentoo.org/~fmccor/devrel/devrel-infra.txt (esp.
> section II.) So, unl
On Monday 03 April 2006 17:52, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Mon, 3 Apr 2006 17:38:48 -0400 Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> wrote:
> | i dont see how anyone can be against this (unless you're a
> | terrorist!)
>
> I for one welcome our new infra overlords. Perh
On Monday 03 April 2006 18:28, Ioannis Aslanidis wrote:
> And calling people who disagree with this terrorists was really a bad
> comment.
sorry, you seem to have lost your sense of humor along the way. please locate
it, thanks.
-mike
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
On Monday 03 April 2006 18:36, foser wrote:
> On Mon, 2006-04-03 at 17:38 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > i dont see how anyone can be against this (unless you're a terrorist!),
>
> For someone who's promoting 'ubuntu' like conduct, your choice of words
>
On Monday 03 April 2006 19:01, Harald van Dijk wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 03, 2006 at 05:38:48PM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > http://dev.gentoo.org/~solar/xml/conduct.html
> >
> > If you choose the latter option, please ensure members of the
> > Infrastructure project hav
On Monday 03 April 2006 18:41, Stephen P. Becker wrote:
> Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > dont get me wrong, i hate documenting common sense as much as the next
> > sane guy, but it seems Gentoo has come to the point where this needs to
> > be done
> >
> > many thanks to
On Monday 03 April 2006 19:40, Danny van Dyk wrote:
> Mike,
>
> Am Montag, 3. April 2006 23:38 schrieb Mike Frysinger:
> > dont get me wrong, i hate documenting common sense as much as the next
> > sane guy, but it seems Gentoo has come to the point where this needs to
>
On Monday 03 April 2006 20:29, Marius Mauch wrote:
> On Mon, 3 Apr 2006 17:38:48 -0400
> Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > dont get me wrong, i hate documenting common sense as much as the
> > next sane guy, but it seems Gentoo has come to the point where t
On Monday 03 April 2006 22:19, Grant Goodyear wrote:
> Vapier wrote: [Mon Apr 03 2006, 04:38:48PM CDT]
>
> > dont get me wrong, i hate documenting common sense as much as the next
> > sane guy, but it seems Gentoo has come to the point where this needs to
> > be done
>
> Actually, I disagree that i
On Monday 03 April 2006 22:57, Grant Goodyear wrote:
> Vapier wrote: [Mon Apr 03 2006, 04:38:48PM CDT]
>
> > i dont see how anyone can be against this (unless you're a terrorist!),
> > so this is on track to be integrated as-is into the dev handbook
> > Etiquette section
>
> Oh, one more probably u
On Monday 03 April 2006 19:35, Aron Griffis wrote:
> I disagree with fast-tracking this to any official Gentoo
> documentation.
i never used the word "fast" ... where did it come from ? maybe from the
sweet behind of yours ? (you're going to be at LWE this year right ?
mm)
> > Be c
On Tuesday 04 April 2006 01:03, lnxg33k wrote:
> Jon Portnoy wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 03, 2006 at 09:47:11PM -0500, lnxg33k wrote:
> >> uncomfortable or threatened is not a productive one." This is odd
> >> considering that the OP calls anyone who disagrees a terrorist. I'm
> >> pretty speechless ove
On Tuesday 04 April 2006 01:23, lnxg33k wrote:
> Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > the idea is that it's common sense and to need to vote on something like
> > this seems asinine
> >
> > if devs are uncomfortable with common courtesy and need to be told by the
> > c
On Monday 03 April 2006 19:35, Aron Griffis wrote:
> This part makes sense, I think... though I don't see the point of
> codifying it except to "throw the book" at the next Paludis. Frankly
> I think Ciaran did nothing wrong to restrict distribution on a project
> he didn't feel was ready for pub
On Tuesday 04 April 2006 01:34, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Tue, 4 Apr 2006 01:12:28 -0400 Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> | if devs are uncomfortable with common courtesy and need to be told by
> | the council in order for this to happen, so be it
>
> When some people d
On Tuesday 04 April 2006 04:48, foser wrote:
> On Tue, 2006-04-04 at 00:54 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > you lost your sense of humor please go find it,
> > END-OF-OFF-TOPIC-SUB-THREAD
>
> As usual your answer fails to deal with the real issues stated and zooms
>
On Tuesday 04 April 2006 05:33, Jan Kundrát wrote:
> lnxg33k wrote:
> > At the
> > end of the day though, respect is earned. It isn't doled out by policy.
>
> I can't agree with that. I for one beleive that I have to respect
> everyone. Even folks I don't like.
you can respect a dev because they e
On Thursday 06 April 2006 22:26, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> I've got some back-burner work on unified Gentoo theming for grub,
> bootsplash, gdm/kdm [1]. (IOW, I spent a day doing research 2 months ago
> and forgot about it until yesterday.) It's currently possible to have a
> really awesome bootup,
On Friday 07 April 2006 10:31, Carsten Lohrke wrote:
> Still, the basic question is: Why!? There's no benefit for the user, who
> will choose whatever theming he wants anyways. Imho it's superfluous and
> therefore wasted time.
highly suspect statements
these states are all quite common ... tryin
On Tuesday 04 April 2006 15:34, Carsten Lohrke wrote:
> On Tuesday 04 April 2006 06:52, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > sorry, those last two paragraphs are covered elsewhere between infra and
> > evrel ... so the document should be considered without those last two
> > paragraphs
On Tuesday 04 April 2006 13:54, Aron Griffis wrote:
> Vapier wrote: [Tue Apr 04 2006, 01:12:28AM EDT]
> > the idea is that it's common sense and to need to vote on something
> > like this seems asinine
>
> It might seem that way, but something that is voted on and accepted
> has credibility. Some
here's a big old brain dump of all the fun stuff that went down this year
- the dual core amd64 demo machine was running XGL and some movies like FF7
Advent Children (due later this month in the US btw!) ... this was such a
pimp demo, it caught everyone's attention ... and the best part was, ope
201 - 300 of 3334 matches
Mail list logo
