On Sat, 5 Nov 2005 00:58:14 +
Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Feedback from people who have something useful to say would be very
> much welcomed, assuming of course that they've read the GLEP.
I think you might be missing a 'not' from the first Requirements
section. Unless you'r
On Wed, 23 Nov 2005 06:05:09 -0700
Duncan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If it's so useless, after
> all, would someone have spent the time to post it?
Apparently someone did.
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
On Fri, 02 Dec 2005 03:35:23 +0100
Matthias Langer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> revealed that there are in fact hundrets of premade device nodes in
> the /dev directory. And this is not only true for the box where i
> discovered this, which was brought up from a 2004.x cd, but also true
> for the
On Fri, 2 Dec 2005 12:45:00 +0900
Georgi Georgiev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I don't need a fully populated /dev to get a working shell with
> init=/bin/bash on the kernel cmdline. And at that point it is easy to
> run /dev/MAKEDEV and get whatever devices are needed for
> troubleshooting.
Stil
On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 01:15:22 +0100
Carsten Lohrke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think I'm too late for this month, but want to put it on the table
> before I forget about it. I'd appreciate a three months moratorium,
> disallowing everyone to add new packages to the tree (despite new
> dependencie
On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 00:14:13 +0100
"Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Comments about this? (Please don't tell me to do a GLEP about this)
We've discussed this several times in the past, and every time the
answer has been that in the ebuild environment `sed` is gnu sed-4. It'
On Fri, 27 Jan 2006 16:08:40 -0700
Duncan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Neither here nor there, but for some reason, I prefer "emerge -NuD
> world". =8^)
Especially since you just said yourself it was irrelevant, I'm at a loss
to see quite why you felt the need to tell us this.
--
gentoo-dev@gent
On Fri, 10 Feb 2006 01:30:40 -0700
Duncan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> OK, despite the given reasoning, I found this distracting. Perhaps
> this is one of Ciaran's English readability suggestions, but is there
> a reason not to s/segment/tuple/g ? That seems to me more accurate,
> "segment" is m
On Fri, 17 Feb 2006 01:14:39 +0100
Jakub Moc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9e/DoNotFeedTroll.jpg
Err, what?
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
On Fri, 24 Feb 2006 03:02:32 +
"George Prowse" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> No, BPMx and Audacious are two different things
Err, I think that might have been his point.
>
> http://audacious-media-player.org/FAQ#1.4
>
> On 22/02/06, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
>
On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 10:47:58 -0600
Lance Albertson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> We all know that
> something that stupid needs to be delt with quickly.
So you're agreeing that someone needs to be able to act should a
package maintainer screw up sufficiently badly, and the obvious
candidate for th
On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 18:54:13 +0100
Jakub Moc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> yet as a member of maintainer herd haven't dealt with that
> properly for quite an extensive period of time
Sounds like someone still needs to read herds.xml.
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 21:12:22 +
Stuart Herbert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 2006-02-27 at 20:54 +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > My point is that that's a nasty QA bug that's relying upon input
> > from Stuart to be fixed.
>
> I'm afraid you've been mis-informed. The PHP herd has pr
On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 16:08:05 +0100
Jakub Moc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> When and where has been the following change discussed and who
> approved that?
>
> http://www.gentoo.org/cgi-bin/viewcvs.cgi/xml/htdocs/proj/en/devrel/handbook/hb-guide-ebuild.xml?r1=1.25&r2=1.26&root=gentoo
According to
On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 16:42:30 +0100
Jakub Moc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Punting every single piece of broken sh*t from the tree requires
> notifying everyone on -dev ml and allowing a period of time before
> it's actually done, so silently changing/stating policies is a very
> broken practice.
On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 17:38:10 +
Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> if [ "${IS_UPGRADE}" = "1" ] ; then
> einfo "Removing old version ${REMOVE_PKG}"
>
> emerge -C "${REMOVE_PKG}"
> fi
Uh, what the fuck is that doing in an eclass ?
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mai
On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 18:59:49 +0100
Patrick Lauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> (and this is valid for all emails to technical lists,)
> please save us some time and many emails by stating what is wrong when
> you show a QA violation.
This is a technical discussion list, and as such it is fair to a
On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 20:27:01 +0100
Jakub Moc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Once again, don't invent problems, please.
Just because you don't see a problem doesn't mean it's not there.
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
On Fri, 3 Mar 2006 21:47:22 +0100
Jakub Moc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Please, until something is clarified/some consent reached, avoid
> changing the docs w/ funny stuff like "just flip a coin"...
>
> http://www.gentoo.org/cgi-bin/viewcvs.cgi/xml/htdocs/proj/en/devrel/handbook/hb-guide-ebuild.
On Fri, 3 Mar 2006 22:27:45 +0100
Jakub Moc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What kind of point does it get across, exactly?
That you must choose one flag, or set of flags, to take precedence in
such situations, but that how you choose is quite immaterial. If there
is an obvious choice then use it,
On Fri, 3 Mar 2006 23:31:49 +0100
Jakub Moc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yeah, that's a wonderful message. Let users choose, they are not
> idiots and such policy does more harm than good. Period.
You're completely missing the point here. The user has a choice, but if
his set of choices doesn't m
On Thu, 09 Mar 2006 10:20:33 -0500
Alec Warner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Basically portage expands $ARCH into use ( so
> x86-fbsd has ARCH x86, and would get "x86" in use, which IMHO, isn't
> that horrible ). However, you also don't get x86-fbsd shoved into
> USE, so you have to inject it elsew
On Thu, 9 Mar 2006 15:29:23 +0100
"Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> To bring ~x86-fbsd keywording in main tree, we mainly need to move a
> true profile in the tree, not a dummy one, mark it as indev and start
> the keywording. (I've already cleaned up the default-bsd/fbsd pr
On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 21:13:29 -0600
"Jory A. Pratt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If
> noone has any complaints I will p.mask Wed. March 21 and remove 30
> days later.
Do you mean Wednesday, or March 21st? Or were you planning on masking
it next year?
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
We have a fair number of packages in the tree (57 someone said, but a
non-trivial number) which depend upon sys-apps/acl for ACL support.
Since the packages needed for this differ between platforms
(sys-apps/acl is for linux only), if noone has any reasonable
objections I will be adding a (new-styl
On Sun, 02 Apr 2006 13:41:25 -0400
Ned Ludd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In your own words what benefit does this have over
> kernel_linux? ( acl? ( sys-apps/acl ))
It moves all of the platform-conditional voodoo into one place, which
helps maintainability and will greatly reduce the work involv
On Mon, 03 Apr 2006 21:40:54 -0400
Ned Ludd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Umm ok. I've decided that root is root no matter how you look at it
> and it's not worth getting into a vertical pissing contest over.
So this is effectively an admission that infra intends to use its
position of trust to un
On Mon, 03 Apr 2006 22:23:49 -0400
Ned Ludd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> don't be a troll man.
If that comment appears to be a troll, I will assume that I
misinterpreted the mail to which it was a reply. Could you enlighten me
as to what I should have taken from it instead?
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.
On Fri, 28 Apr 2006 12:03:29 -0700
Chris White <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ok, but most "active contributors" are people that submit ebuilds to
> devs and know nothing about the structure/policy/whatever about
> ebuilds. If you're not a dev, you're probably not going to worry
> about revision bu
On Fri, 28 Apr 2006 15:41:48 -0400 (EDT)
"A. Khattri" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> In writing and testing a new ebuild, I ran emerge as root and got
> ACCESS DENIED errors when it tried writing two config files into /etc.
>
> Do I need to do something special for config files in an ebuild?
ht
Ok, we're now officially admitting that Paludis exists (really this
time), and is fit for an initial public release. Paludis is a library
providing ebuild-related utilities together with a simple command line
client. It is not a Portage rewrite, nor is it a Portage replacement,
although it could be
On Tue, 09 May 2006 18:27:45 -0700
Donnie Berkholz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Then again, I'm missing context because people have this weird thing
> about abstractly bringing up issues without discussing the actual
> problem.
The context is that I added profiles/repo_name to the tree ~5 days ag
If noone has any strong reasonable objections, I'd like to add a
Paludis profile to the tree. This would use Paludis as the default
provider for virtual/portage (which is a less than ideal name, but that
is another discussion entirely), and provide ebuild devs with a place
where they can try out so
Thomas Cort wrote:
I don't understand the logic behind putting it under default-linux/x86/.
> Is palidus Linux/x86 only? Could you explain why default-linux/x86/
is a good option?
It's not -- it's currently confirmed to work on x86, amd64, sparc, mips,
alpha, and hppa. I don't believe it is
Brian Harring wrote:
So... short version, introduction of the profile allows for curious
users to get bit in the ass by intentional dropping of compatibility
(profile level changes are one thing, changing the ebuild standard is
another). In light of that, why should it be demoed in the tree wh
Christian Hartmann wrote:
Oh lovely. - If noone has any strong reasonable objections, I'd like to add a
$ians-playground profile to the tree. Furthermore I will start to keywording
ebuilds with the new ~fridge keyword I just invented.
I'll take that to mean "no objection based in a technical a
Christian Hartmann wrote:
It's not about the size or the number of files. We have got enough - let's
call it $stuff - in the tree. I'd really like to see valid and reasonable
things added to the tree. - Adding things just because someone thinks it
would be funny to add it to the tree can't be t
Alec Warner wrote:
I would prefer to see the profile you are commiting then; do you have a
link?
I haven't written it yet.
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
You're just FUDing this and you know, the changes are rather minimal, and all
directly handled by me (the BSD team), not handled down to maintainers at
all.
They're rather minimal, and still an order of magnitude larger than what
I'm proposing here.
--
gent
Brian Harring wrote:
Bluntly, why should the tree be modified for a minority? Being
generous, lets pretend y'all have 300 users- why should incompatible
changes be added to the tree (say 300k users) that can bite 299,700
users in the ass for the benefit of 300 users? N parent inherited
profi
Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
A profile in the tree has to be supported by someone.
It will be supported by me, and the other devs involved with Paludis.
It's also more likely that people would try it out without knowing what they
are going to open.
So we will add a big fat README, as wi
On Tue, 16 May 2006 22:59:59 +0200
"Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Okay, then I suppose you might want first to create a project to
> handle the profile and the whole bugs load that might come out of
> that.
Does every profile need a project to maintain it now? That's nev
On Tue, 16 May 2006 23:14:53 +0200
Jeroen Roovers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This should not be a side note IMHO. If that profile is in the tree,
> who in Gentoo will support it?
I will.
> Does the Gentoo Project not support the
> entire tree all of a sudden?
There are plenty of ebuilds in t
OK, since several people have asked what is going to be in this profile
if it gets added, i had in mind something like the following (all
filenames relative to gentoo-x86/profiles/):
===
paludis/deprecated:
# DO NOT USE THIS PROFILE WITH PORTAGE.
# This profile is intended for use with the Paludi
On Wed, 17 May 2006 12:14:37 +0200
Paul de Vrieze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Using the normal profiles would also establish paludis as a possible
> replacement of portage as primary package manager. Refraining from
> doing so disqualifies paludis from becoming a replacement for
> portage. As th
On Wed, 17 May 2006 13:40:18 +0200
Paul de Vrieze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Is there a problem about both of them being there?
You can't use both on the same ROOT. The VDB format is subtly different.
> I don't see a problem in changing the profiles to include
> virtual/portage though where po
On Wed, 17 May 2006 09:42:50 -0400
Chris Gianelloni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I would say it wouldn't hurt to start a project for ensuring Paludis
> support in the Portage tree. It would give a bit more credibility to
> your cause.
The problem that I see with this is that it would tend to rei
On Wed, 17 May 2006 15:25:08 +0100
"George Prowse" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Why risk anything by changing the tree to suit the package?
We're not risking anything, except upsetting a few people. We're not
changing anything either, just adding a few files.
> It just
> seems like asking for t
On Wed, 17 May 2006 15:57:51 +0100
"George Prowse" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Any adding is increasing the risk.
No it's not. The only risk comes from the user choosing an
inappropriate profile for his system, which is already present.
> So good working practice is to introduce a variable wher
On Wed, 17 May 2006 17:13:31 +0200
Paul de Vrieze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At this point I don't see that paludis is ready for such thing. In
> any case I think that optimally a package manager does not require
> its own profile.
It doesn't require its own profile. What does require a new pro
On Wed, 17 May 2006 17:29:11 +0200
Paul de Vrieze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The problem that I see with this is that it would tend to reinforce
> > the view that Paludis is becoming an officially supported package
> > manager, which at the moment at least it isn't. If people are
> > amenable
On Wed, 17 May 2006 17:39:02 +0200
Paul de Vrieze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Wouldn't the introduction of the virtual not fix that. This
> introduction could be done independent of anything related to
> paludis. The introduction of such a virtual would also help other
> package managers like pkg
On Wed, 17 May 2006 17:37:07 +0100
"George Prowse" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What it is saying is why introduce anything or change anything just
> for your package? Why introduce the possibility of a problem on
> either the program or the tree side?
Profile changes are made all the time for th
On Wed, 17 May 2006 16:28:21 + (UTC)
"Duncan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Herein lies the crux of the problem, IMO. Regardless of all the other
> arguments made, I simply cannot believe it is reasonable to ask that
> Gentoo devs give their blessing to add to the tree something that
> hasn't
On Wed, 17 May 2006 21:17:55 +0200
Paul de Vrieze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> No, these packages are available to paludis, but not to portage.
> Basically making a case for the use of paludis. I don't think that
> the decision to replace portage should be made in that way.
To reiterate here, we'
On Wed, 17 May 2006 22:53:47 +0200
Wernfried Haas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The arguments are getting more and more "creative". It's almost
> > like asking what we will do when gcc turns into a commercial
> > product.
>
> The package manager is a central piece, if we ever want to change our
On Wed, 17 May 2006 20:56:14 +
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tim Yamin) wrote:
> Well, if you're going to have a package manager that delivers the
> same result as Portage it must therefore work with Catalyst...
Paludis can produce the same end result as Portage. The reason it won't
work with catalyst i
Given the sheer volume of impassioned response, regardless of any
technical arguments, I'm dropping the top-level profile idea for now.
Several architecture teams have expressed an interest in creating
sub-profiles under their own, however, and I'll be working with them to
get those implemented. Pe
On Thu, 18 May 2006 09:19:58 +0200
Jochen Maes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 1) If Paludis has no business in replacing portage on systems (shame,
> if it's better/faster it should) why are we having this discussion.
> I understand that you need a profile and with an overlay you need to
> copy the
On Thu, 18 May 2006 12:18:41 +0200
Paul de Vrieze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If you really really need to have a profile, it might be discussable
> to have no-portage profiles, that do not include portage or python in
> system. These however must still be portage compatible, and
> independent o
On Thu, 18 May 2006 12:49:29 +0200
Paul de Vrieze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Adding profiles is technically broken.
How?
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
On Thu, 18 May 2006 15:26:06 +0200
Paul de Vrieze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Then copy the bloody profile, or temporarilly add some magic in
> paludis that ignores portage and python deps. Not that hard to do.
> While not so beautiful it can easilly be removed at a later stage.
And if something
On Thu, 18 May 2006 15:31:29 +0200
Paul de Vrieze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I know you would do that. My problem is not with how it is done. But
> what is done. The problem is not about portage choking. The problem
> is that at this point there is no reason to make paludis specific
> changes to
On Thu, 18 May 2006 15:34:28 +0200
Paul de Vrieze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Requiring duplication of profiles for every package manager.
It requires duplicating nothing. This is exactly why we have cascading
profiles.
> Profiles determine what defaults are, and on some level what is
> install
On Thu, 18 May 2006 16:30:48 +0200
Paul de Vrieze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Paludis is not just a package, it is an alternative package manager.
> The proposed changes are also not just the setting of a default for a
> useflag.
So? It's a package in the tree, and I'd like a new profile to mak
On Thu, 18 May 2006 16:37:00 +0200
Paul de Vrieze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Cascading profiles form a tree with N nodes. Some of these nodes are
> abstract in the sense that they are not directly usable. Say that
> leaves M possible profiles. To have paludis be on par with portage,
> each of t
On Thu, 18 May 2006 16:50:59 +0200
Paul de Vrieze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This is not a reason. It is just repeating what I just said. Which
> features does paludis have for its VDB format. And (per feature) why
> can't this be done in a compatible way.
We store more information than Porta
On Thu, 18 May 2006 17:19:26 +0100
Edward Catmur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But Paludis supports multiple inheritance. Would it be feasible to
> have Paludis users create /etc/make.profile as a directory,
> with /etc/make.profile/parent inheriting from both their chosen
> gentoo-x86 profile and
On Thu, 18 May 2006 21:35:01 +0200
Carsten Lohrke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Sure baselayout is. An there're others in the tree, But that doesn't
> mean these variants are supported (special cases like embedded aside).
So they're unsupported alternatives to one of the core parts of gentoo,
whic
On Thu, 18 May 2006 16:41:09 -0400
Peter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So, while I am not endorsing pablum, at least let's cut the thread. I
> see nothing useful coming from it anymore.
While you may not see it, there are still useful points being raised.
If you don't want to read it, don't.
--
g
On Fri, 19 May 2006 12:28:04 -0400
Peter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Who signs the Manifests?
The dev who commits it.
> Why are some unsigned?
Because some devs don't sign Manifests.
> Is there a single
> Gentoo Security Key (like I know Slackware has and some other distros
> to ensure the au
I agree with the basic intent here, but remain unconvinced that this is
the best way to solve the problems at hand. See below for comments on
particular parts, and for what I believe could be a more elegant
solution. It's not a complete proposal and will be rather rough around
the edges, being more
On Mon, 22 May 2006 14:59:03 +0200
Paul de Vrieze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > "While it is desirable that the primary package manager be
> > maintained on official gentoo infrastructure, under the control of
> > gentoo developers, it is not required. During the path to becoming
> > the primary
On Mon, 22 May 2006 16:31:40 +
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tim Yamin) wrote:
> Maybe I'm reading it wrong but the above sounds like if there's less
> than "3 Gentoo developers that understand... ... ..." the package
> maintainers *don't* have the right to refuse and magically get sucked
> into Gentoo w
On Wed, 24 May 2006 18:36:07 -0400
Peter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If you have any corrections, suggestions or improvements please
> contact the editors. Large portions of the handbook were originally
> written by Ciaran McCreesh along with our contributors.
Sorry, but did you have a point her
On Thu, 25 May 2006 07:04:05 -0400
Peter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But face it, ciaranm did contribute and he was aptly credited.
"at a minimum such credit will appear where any other comparable
authorship credit appears and in a manner at least as prominent as such
other comparable authorship
On Thu, 1 Jun 2006 21:44:39 +0200
Paul de Vrieze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I would like the council to discuss GLEP 49 as has been discussed on
> the list some weeks ago. It is about the package manager requirements.
Isn't it customary for issues raised on the list to be addressed before
a GLE
On Fri, 02 Jun 2006 16:17:06 +
Ferris McCormick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What about ebuilds which for
> whatever reason are invalid (serious specification violation, for
> example, to the extent that QA would reject them), but portage accepts
> them anyway. Must the alternative accept the
On Fri, 2 Jun 2006 19:48:39 +0200
Paul de Vrieze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The problem is actually that such a document is a living thing and it
> must not only exist initially but be maintained continuously.
Must it? I'd be more inclined to say that if it needs to change, a new
specification
Many things were discussed in the last round of this thread (Paludis
and Profiles, in case anyone missed it), and many useful points raised.
One of these, which seems to have been largely missed in amongst the
other noise, forms the basis of this proposal. It is in some ways more
and in some ways l
On Mon, 12 Jun 2006 23:09:38 +0200
Luca Barbato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If you can spot those issues and fix them w/out rush on package
> mantainers, no problems at all.
I was assuming that they would be treated more or less as minor QA
issues are currently.
> PS: there is a formal spec abo
manager support can be found
in Paludis [#paludis]_, along with a reference newsreader implemented as an
eselect module [#eselect-news]_.
Credits
===
The idea behind notifying users of news updates via Portage comes from Stuart
Herbert [#stuart-blog]_.
Thanks to Lance Albertson, Stephen Benne
Continuing in the series of issues raised during the previous package
manager discussions, I'd like to continue by mentioning the tree
format. At present, it isn't defined beyond "what the current portage
supports", which is frankly a fairly silly way to do things. Following
discussion in #gentoo-p
On Mon, 12 Jun 2006 19:04:39 -0400
Luis Francisco Araujo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I like the idea. This would be some kind of portage-tree standard?
This would be, in essence, a formal definition of the layout of the
tree, and the format of and assumptions made by every file contained
within
On Mon, 12 Jun 2006 19:26:18 -0400
Alec Warner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > * Portage must provide a way for external programs to obtain a list
> > of all repository identifiers for a given system. It is assumed
> > that this will be in the form of a ``portageq`` command (e.g.
> > ``portageq get
On Tue, 13 Jun 2006 09:42:16 -0400
Chris Gianelloni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Please postpone any such changes, if approved, until at least July, as
> we will be doing a snapshot before then, and I would prefer not having
> to spend our entire release cycle just fixing possible problems from
>
On Wed, 14 Jun 2006 20:01:04 +0200
Jakub Moc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This new terminology plain sucks. If you are sticking games into
> in metadata.xml, you are just confusing me and other people
> who are assigning bugs.
It's not new. If it confuses you, perhaps you should learn the
termi
On Wed, 14 Jun 2006 20:21:42 +0200
Jakub Moc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Sure... so, perhaps you have some suggestion how I can read assign
> bugs otherwise than using the metadata.xml; perhaps I could learn to
> read minds of the developers who dump irrelevant stuff into
> metadata.xml and expec
On Wed, 14 Jun 2006 22:34:55 +0200
Jakub Moc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Please, go through the tree and see at least so many metadata.xml
> files as I have seen, before claiming something that simply doesn't
> reflect current practice. There are many ebuilds with no
> tag and only. Are you cla
On Wed, 14 Jun 2006 20:54:21 -0400
"Dan Meltzer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> According to the devmanual [1]
> "A herd is a collection of developers who maintain a collection of
> related packages"
>
> are you sure you are using the correct term?
He's right. The devmanual is not authoritative.
-
On Thu, 15 Jun 2006 12:26:01 +0200
Jakub Moc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> versionator.eclass - anyone to take over after ciaranm?
I can most likely take care of this one. Should be low enough
maintenance anyway since for the most part it Just Works.
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
On Mon, 12 Jun 2006 23:19:10 +0100
Stephen Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Since GLEP 42's original author and sponsor has left the project, I've
> taken it over, and would like to have another go at getting it
> implemented.
OK, since noone has raised any signific
> 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.
I would like to put forward the following suggestion for the Council's
consideration:
"While the current state of PMS is not perfect, it
On 01 Jul 2006 07:34:49
Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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.
GLEP 42. Noone on the list raised any objections last time it was sen
On Thu, 6 Jul 2006 20:56:31 +0100
Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Selective and partial backporting of patches that leads to the C++
> standard library code getting broken?
Obviously not an issue. Noone uses C++ anyway.
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
On Tue, 4 Jul 2006 15:04:38 -0400
Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> some other peeps:
> Kugelfang / Ramereth / Mr_Bones / spb / plasmaroo / Weeve / `Kumba /
> jaervosz / KingTaco / Flameeyes / dostrow / dsd / kito / exg
Thanks, accepted.
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
On Thu, 06 Jul 2006 14:31:56 -0700
Joshua Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Or instead of throwing a hissy fit yourself about diego not agreeing
> with you..I don't know you could go and show the way that you feel it
> should be done and show the technical merit.
He already has done.
--
gen
On Thu, 06 Jul 2006 17:09:22 -0500
"Jory A. Pratt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
Leaving aside the incoherent ad-hominem attack, could you please point
out where the bullshit is? If you were referring to my post, I suggest
you re-read Ciaran's first mail to this thread. He outlined at least
two p
On Thu, 06 Jul 2006 16:27:39 -0700
Zac Medico <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But anyway, base/make.defaults makes sense for now.
It is done.
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
On Thu, 3 Aug 2006 07:07:35 +0200
Marius Mauch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Opinions?
Current behaviour is sub-optimal in many regards, but the tree relies
upon it; amongst other examples, packages depending upon =autoconf-2.5*
expect to get 2.59. If someone wants to 'fix' all of those, and any
o
1 - 100 of 255 matches
Mail list logo
