On Tuesday, 13. December 2005 03:42, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> After that, I'll probably question replacing a single author with a
> committee. We don't want to end up designing things like Ada, after
> all...
Hm, why not? It works, and wors well..
George
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
On Mon, 2005-12-12 at 18:45 -0500, Jeffrey Forman wrote:
> I apologize for my mishap. Goes to show that testing on live hardware is
> not the way to go ;)
What is this "testing" thing you speak of? Should I buy one? Will santa
give me one if i sit on his lap?
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing lis
Ciaran McCreesh posted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, excerpted
below, on Tue, 13 Dec 2005 03:20:43 +:
> Ok, new draft. Changes are as follows:
[]
> * Changed /var/lib/portage to /var/lib/gentoo
OK, I must have missed the reason for that, and it isn't listed in one of
your "a previous version" notes,
On Tuesday 13 December 2005 11:45, Andrew Muraco wrote:
> Jason Stubbs wrote:
> >On Tuesday 13 December 2005 11:22, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> >>On Tue, 13 Dec 2005 11:17:30 +0900 Jason Stubbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >>
> >>wrote:
> >>| So what are you going to do? I asked already but you didn't answer
On Tuesday 13 December 2005 11:48, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Dec 2005 11:39:14 +0900 Jason Stubbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> wrote:
> | And how can that be adapted to work with overlays, completely
> | ignoring the possibility of distinct repositories. Overlays is
> | something that exists a
On Tuesday 13 December 2005 11:58, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Dec 2005 11:39:49 +0900 Jason Stubbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> wrote:
> | > So... If, hypothetically speaking, someone were to write a GLEP
> | > saying "move developer documentation into the QA group, restructure
> | > said docum
On Tue, 13 Dec 2005 05:19:27 -0700 Duncan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| Ciaran McCreesh posted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
| excerpted below, on Tue, 13 Dec 2005 03:20:43 +:
|
| > Ok, new draft. Changes are as follows:
| []
| > * Changed /var/lib/portage to /var/lib/gentoo
|
| OK, I must have misse
On Tue, Dec 13, 2005 at 03:20:43AM +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> ``Posted:``
> Date of posting, in ``dd-mmm-`` format (e.g. 14-Aug-2001) for
> compatibility with GLEP 1 [#glep-1]_. UTC time in ``hh-mm-ss +``
> format
> may also be included. Mandatory.
Proposed change:
``Po
On Tue, 13 Dec 2005 20:55:23 +0100 Henrik Brix Andersen
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| On Tue, Dec 13, 2005 at 03:20:43AM +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
| > ``Posted:``
| > Date of posting, in ``dd-mmm-`` format (e.g. 14-Aug-2001)
| > for compatibility with GLEP 1 [#glep-1]_. UTC time in ``hh-
On Tue, Dec 13, 2005 at 08:03:29PM +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> I'll accept that change if you get Grant to accept a mini-GLEP
> switching the GLEPs over to use that format too.
Fair enough. What do you mean by a mini-GLEP?
Grant, what are your thoughts on this? Would you be willing to accept
On Tue, 13 Dec 2005 21:13:29 +0100 Henrik Brix Andersen
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| On Tue, Dec 13, 2005 at 08:03:29PM +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
| > I'll accept that change if you get Grant to accept a mini-GLEP
| > switching the GLEPs over to use that format too.
|
| Fair enough. What do you
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Ciaran McCreesh schrieb:
| | Proposed change:
| |
| | ``Posted:``
| | Date of posting, in ``-mm-dd`` format (e.g. 2001-08-14) for
| | compatibility with ISO-8601. UTC time in ``T19:53:46+``
| | format may also be included (`date --i
Well, it would be changing Glep 1... which probably needs an ammendatory GLEP
On 12/13/05, Danny van Dyk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Ciaran McCreesh schrieb:
> | | Proposed change:
> | |
> | | ``Posted:``
> | | Date of posting, in ``-m
On Tue, 13 Dec 2005 21:35:44 +0100 Danny van Dyk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| I don't think that we need a GLEP for it, no matter how 'mini' it
| would be.. Just asked Grant if I can convert dates in current GLEPs,
| and he's ok with, though he wanted to have input from -dev first, so:
|
| Anyone
On Tue, Dec 13, 2005 at 03:36:33PM -0500, Dan Meltzer wrote:
> Well, it would be changing Glep 1... which probably needs an ammendatory GLEP
or we avoid all the redtape bs and just do it, let anarchy rule
the docs team already require dates to be in -MM-DD format and it
makes sense to me
-mik
Danny van Dyk wrote: [Tue Dec 13 2005, 02:35:44PM CST]
> | I'll accept that change if you get Grant to accept a mini-GLEP
> | switching the GLEPs over to use that format too.
>
> I don't think that we need a GLEP for it, no matter how 'mini' it
> would be.. Just asked Grant if I can convert dates
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi Dan,
Dan Meltzer schrieb:
| Well, it would be changing Glep 1... which probably needs an
ammendatory GLEP
I would apply these changes to glep-0001.txt:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] glep $ cvs diff glep-0001.txt
Index: glep-0001.txt
=
Whoops, sending to the list is a good idea
-- Forwarded message --
From: Dan Meltzer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 15:51:16 -0500
Subject: Re: Changes to date format of current GLEPs
To: Danny van Dyk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Nope, but the changes further on.
> Created:
On Tue, 13 Dec 2005 20:44:42 + Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| On Tue, Dec 13, 2005 at 03:36:33PM -0500, Dan Meltzer wrote:
| > Well, it would be changing Glep 1... which probably needs an
| > ammendatory GLEP
|
| or we avoid all the redtape bs and just do it, let anarchy rule
It'
On Tue, 2005-13-12 at 20:43 +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Dec 2005 21:35:44 +0100 Danny van Dyk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> | I don't think that we need a GLEP for it, no matter how 'mini' it
> | would be.. Just asked Grant if I can convert dates in current GLEPs,
> | and he's ok wi
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi Ciaran,
Ciaran McCreesh schrieb:
| | Anyone objecting to change those dates from "dd-mon-" format to
| | "-mm-dd"?
|
| I object. You're changing the GLEP process, and the way that that's
| done is through another GLEP. Otherwise we'll end
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: [Tue Dec 13 2005, 02:43:42PM CST]
> I object. You're changing the GLEP process, and the way that that's
> done is through another GLEP. Otherwise we'll end up with people
> writing GLEPs following GLEP 1, and not realising that GLEP 1 is no
> longer how things work.
>
> Doin
Basically what I'm looking for here is an easy to understand explanation of
what textrels are, why they are bad, and why they should hold back marking a
package stable. The only information I've been able to find states that they
could cause a performance hit, but this doesn't seem to warrant bann
On Tue, 13 Dec 2005 15:53:45 -0500 Olivier Crete <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| Why not just modify GlEP 1 ?
Going back and retroactively modifying standards is icky, and it
*still* doesn't address the issue of documenting why the change was
made.
You know, a GLEP could have been written and posted
On Tue, Dec 13, 2005 at 03:59:03PM -0500, Mark Loeser wrote:
> Basically what I'm looking for here is an easy to understand explanation of
> what textrels are, why they are bad, and why they should hold back marking a
> package stable. The only information I've been able to find states that they
>
Jason Stubbs wrote: [Mon Dec 12 2005, 08:06:54PM CST]
> The purpose of GLEPs is to coordinate several teams into providing an
> overall enhancement to Gentoo. However, the GLEP itself is written by
> a single person rather than a cooperative effort between the teams.
You know, there's no reason th
GLEP: XX
Title: GLEP date and time format
Version: $Revision: $
Author: Henrik Brix Andersen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Last-Modified: $Date: $
Status: Draft
Type: Standards Track
Content-Type: text/x-rst
Created: 13-Dec-2005
Post-History: 13-Dec-2005
Abstract
This GLEP proposes using an ISO-86
13.12.2005, 22:00:12, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Dec 2005 21:54:48 +0100 Danny van Dyk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> | Do you _really_ think this make a GLEP necessary?
> Yes. Otherwise, the next person who comes along and writes a GLEP that
> does something to do with dates will have
On Tue, Dec 13, 2005 at 10:17:07PM +0100, Henrik Brix Andersen wrote:
> This GLEP proposes switching to using an ISO-8601 compliant date
> format ``-dd-mm`` (e.g. 2001-08-14). This format is international
^^
That should of course read ``-mm-dd``, sorry.
> and easily ma
On Tue, 13 Dec 2005 21:54:48 +0100 Danny van Dyk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| Do you _really_ think this make a GLEP necessary?
Yes. Otherwise, the next person who comes along and writes a GLEP that
does something to do with dates will have to rationalise the whole date
format decision all over ag
On Tue, 13 Dec 2005 22:18:36 +0100 Jakub Moc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| Pardon my ignorance, but how's a GLEP amending a GLEP (amending a
| GLEP ...) less confusing than just changing the text of the original
| GLEP... Huh, goes beyond me...
History. Look at RFCs for a good example. There's noth
On Tue, Dec 13, 2005 at 10:17:07PM +0100, Henrik Brix Andersen wrote:
> GLEP: XX
> Title: GLEP date and time format
After discussing this proposal on IRC with ciaranm and g2boojum, a few
changes have been made:
* Restrict the GLEP to deal with dates (not time)
* Use proper GLEP format
Since
On Tue, 2005-12-13 at 21:38 +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Dec 2005 22:18:36 +0100 Jakub Moc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> | Pardon my ignorance, but how's a GLEP amending a GLEP (amending a
> | GLEP ...) less confusing than just changing the text of the original
> | GLEP... Huh, goes be
Jason Stubbs wrote: [Mon Dec 12 2005, 07:51:51PM CST]
> > | There doesn't need to be a debate. This whole proposal doesn't care
> > | about portage compatibility whatsoever and it's exactly this style of
> > | thinking that slows down portage development (which everybody loves
> > | to complain abo
On Tue, 13 Dec 2005, Mark Loeser wrote:
> Basically what I'm looking for here is an easy to understand explanation of
> what textrels are, why they are bad, and why they should hold back marking a
> package stable. The only information I've been able to find states that they
> could cause a perfo
Henrik Brix Andersen wrote: [Tue Dec 13 2005, 03:41:55PM CST]
> Since I have no idea on how to use docutils, I'd be grateful if
> someone familiar with the process (Grant?) could commit this to CVS.
Committed to CVS.
-g2boojum-
--
Grant Goodyear
Gentoo Developer
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.ge
On Tue, Dec 13, 2005 at 04:43:48PM -0600, Grant Goodyear wrote:
> Committed to CVS.
Thank you.
Regards,
Brix
--
Henrik Brix Andersen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Gentoo Metadistribution | Mobile computing herd
pgp8rVH1WNvTP.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Tue, 2005-13-12 at 21:09 +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Dec 2005 15:53:45 -0500 Olivier Crete <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> | Why not just modify GlEP 1 ?
>
> Going back and retroactively modifying standards is icky, and it
> *still* doesn't address the issue of documenting why the
Ciaran McCreesh posted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, excerpted
below, on Tue, 13 Dec 2005 19:20:00 +:
> Duncan wrote:
>
> | Ciaran McCreesh posted ...
> |
> | > * Changed /var/lib/portage to /var/lib/gentoo
> |
> | OK, I must have missed the reason for that
>
> It's getting ready for the glorious f
On Tue, Dec 13, 2005 at 06:05:03PM -0500, Olivier Crete wrote:
> And why not just adding a changelog to the glep explaining the changes?
> I really don't like to idea of having to read 8 gleps to find out how to
> write a glep ... and calling it glep 1.a is a good idea.. or 1.1
GLEP 45, "GLEP date
http://viewcvstest.gentoo.org/viewcvs.py/gentoo/xml/htdocs/proj/en/glep/glep-0001.html?rev=1.8&view=log
meh, when it comes down to it... isn't this good enough of a change log?
On 12/13/05, Olivier Crete <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 2005-13-12 at 21:09 +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > On
14.12.2005, 0:05:03, Olivier Crete wrote:
> And why not just adding a changelog to the glep explaining the changes?
> I really don't like to idea of having to read 8 gleps to find out how to
> write a glep ... and calling it glep 1.a is a good idea.. or 1.1
+1
--
jakub
pgpLbeynqVjnu.pgp
Des
On Wednesday 14 December 2005 07:12, Grant Goodyear wrote:
> Jason Stubbs wrote: [Mon Dec 12 2005, 07:51:51PM CST]
> > > | As I said already, there will immediately be a bug asking for overlay
> > > | support. Portage already supports multiple in a form whether anybody
> > > | likes it or not. How
On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 08:44:39 +0900 Jason Stubbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| Modifications are required to portage anyway. Why postpone it until
| after several readers are written and force all of them become broken?
Because there isn't a specification saying what the future changes to
Portage wi
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Mark Loeser wrote:
> Basically what I'm looking for here is an easy to understand explanation of
> what textrels are, why they are bad, and why they should hold back marking a
> package stable. The only information I've been able to find states that t
Olivier Crete wrote:
> On Tue, 2005-13-12 at 21:09 +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>> On Tue, 13 Dec 2005 15:53:45 -0500 Olivier Crete <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote:
>> | Why not just modify GlEP 1 ?
>>
>> Going back and retroactively modifying standards is icky, and it
>> *still* doesn't address the
Jason Stubbs wrote: [Tue Dec 13 2005, 05:44:39PM CST]
> > Wouldn't it suffice for the GLEP to simply have a statement that it will
> > query portage for a list of repositories, once there's a way to do that,
> > but until then the default repo will be assumed?
>
> Modifications are required to por
On Wednesday 14 December 2005 08:54, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 08:44:39 +0900 Jason Stubbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> wrote:
> | Modifications are required to portage anyway. Why postpone it until
> | after several readers are written and force all of them become broken?
>
> Because
On Tue, Dec 13, 2005 at 10:30:59PM +, Saleem A. wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Dec 2005, Mark Loeser wrote:
>
> > Basically what I'm looking for here is an easy to understand explanation of
> > what textrels are, why they are bad, and why they should hold back marking a
> > package stable. The only info
On Tue, Dec 13, 2005 at 05:59:17PM -0600, Jory A. Pratt wrote:
> Mark Loeser wrote:
> > Basically what I'm looking for here is an easy to understand explanation of
> > what textrels are, why they are bad, and why they should hold back marking a
> > package stable. The only information I've been ab
On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 09:11:51 +0900 Jason Stubbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| newsdir="$(portageq envvar PORTDIR)/metadata/news"
| newsdir="$(portageq newsdir gentoo)"
|
| Both have one level of indirection. The first has two hard coded
| elements. The first has one. Where is the massive over-indir
Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> this is correct, a very good reason to fix TEXTRELs. another good
> reason is that since the segment cannot be mapped readonly, the memory
> cannot be shared across multiple processes ... each will need to have
> its own copy, thus wasting what could be s
On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 00:22:36 + Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| > The big issue with
| > this is that the text segment is usually suppose to be read only for
| > security reasons. But because the text segment needs a relocation,
| > it needs to be read-write since the relocation hap
On Tue, 13 Dec 2005 20:02:27 -0500 Mark Loeser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| You are working on a policy, or just docs to explain the issues?
| From what was listed above, I'm not sure why we should require that
| people fix these issues just to have a package deemed stable.
Some people want no TEX
On Tue, Dec 13, 2005 at 08:02:27PM -0500, Mark Loeser wrote:
> Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> > working on it as i said ... i wish this e-mail could have been posted
> > once i had more easier things to read :p
>
> You are working on a policy, or just docs to explain the issues?
docum
On Wed, Dec 14, 2005 at 01:07:53AM +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 00:22:36 + Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> | another good reason is that since the segment cannot be mapped
> | readonly, the memory cannot be shared across multiple processes ...
> | each will need to
Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> > We don't avoid marking stable code
> > that, say, mallocs lots of space, then fills it with some calculated
> > numbers (for example, the first million prime numbers), even though a
> > better program would allow for that data to be shared.
>
> no one s
On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 01:20:29 + Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| the policy i consider a no-brainer, fix TEXTRELs
So... Say libfoo is a library that decodes files in the foo format. Say
also that libfoo-2.1 is currently marked stable, and does not contain
any TEXTRELs, but only suppo
Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Tue, Dec 13, 2005 at 08:02:27PM -0500, Mark Loeser wrote:
> > You are working on a policy, or just docs to explain the issues?
>
> documentation on PIC/TEXTRELs/etc...
>
> the policy i consider a no-brainer, fix TEXTRELs
By policy, I mean things to a
On Wed, Dec 14, 2005 at 01:37:57AM +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 01:20:29 + Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> | the policy i consider a no-brainer, fix TEXTRELs
>
> So... Say libfoo is
>
blah blah blah i didnt read this e-mail, i imagine it's your normal
st
For reference, I'm quoting this snippet from earlier in the thread:
Jason Stubbs wrote:
On Sunday 11 December 2005 10:35, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
.. Note:: Future changes to Portage involving support for multiple
repositories may require one news list per repository. Assuming
repositories have s
On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 00:25:57 +
Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> no idea what you mean by "override", but here's a crazy idea ... ask
> upstream to fix the issues. for example, we just reported executable
> stacks with the ut2004 game and Ryan of epicgames was so kind as to
> fix it
Jason Wever <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Not to redirect the thread, but can someone point me to stuff on
> executable stacks (what they are and the background info on the
> warnings in portage)?
Not really redirecting the thread since this was another thing I wanted to
find out about :) Basically
On Tue, Dec 13, 2005 at 07:59:02PM -0700, Jason Wever wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 00:25:57 +
> Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > no idea what you mean by "override", but here's a crazy idea ... ask
> > upstream to fix the issues. for example, we just reported executable
> > sta
On Sunday 11 December 2005 09:32 pm, R Hill wrote:
> Diego 'Flameeyes' Petten wrote:
> > Oh well, media-video/dvdrip has many issues reported in bugzilla (some
> > have patches, most haven't), and depends on a version of transcode with
> > many issues, too (and force us to leave transcode 1 masked)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Donnie Berkholz wrote:
| I'm planning on porting every installed app on my system to modular X,
| starting in the next couple of days. This means I will be committing to
| many of your applications, libraries, etc.
I am pleased to announce I've just
On Wed, Dec 14, 2005 at 03:50:16AM +, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> my gnu stack docs are actually complete:
> http://hardened.gentoo.org/gnu-stack.xml
A question about that: you discourage fixing this with --noexecstack
because it's better to be able to submit a patch upstream. What's your
take on
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, 13 Dec 2005 15:59:03 -0500
Mark Loeser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Basically what I'm looking for here is an easy to understand
> explanation of what textrels are, why they are bad, and why they
> should hold back marking a package stable. T
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 07:59:23 +0100
Harald van Dijk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 14, 2005 at 03:50:16AM +, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > my gnu stack docs are actually complete:
> > http://hardened.gentoo.org/gnu-stack.xml
>
> A question a
69 matches
Mail list logo
