[gentoo-dev] package.mask-ed ebuilds

[Nirbheek Chauhan]

Hello!

So, I can't find any documentation about this; nor can I find a
best-practices list. Can we add broken ebuilds in-tree as long as they
are package.masked? automagic deps, wrong deps, missing deps, file
collisions, etc etc? Even if it makes the ebuild completely unusable
by itself?

If yes:

So we can add completely broken and useless stuff to tree as long as
it's package.masked?

If no:

What's the minimum amount of "working-ness" that an ebuild must have
to be added to tree? Who decides this? The QA team?


-- 
~Nirbheek Chauhan

Gentoo GNOME+Mozilla Team

Re: [gentoo-dev] package.mask-ed ebuilds

[Krzysztof Pawlik]

On 04/09/10 08:10, Nirbheek Chauhan wrote:
> Hello!
> 
> So, I can't find any documentation about this; nor can I find a
> best-practices list. Can we add broken ebuilds in-tree as long as they
> are package.masked? automagic deps, wrong deps, missing deps, file
> collisions, etc etc? Even if it makes the ebuild completely unusable
> by itself?
> 
> If yes:
> 
> So we can add completely broken and useless stuff to tree as long as
> it's package.masked?
> 
> If no:
> 
> What's the minimum amount of "working-ness" that an ebuild must have
> to be added to tree? Who decides this? The QA team?

Use common sense: if it's work in progress then committing a broken ebuild which
is p.masked is IMHO acceptable (especially if you need to bump/add more ebuilds
to get this one working). At the same time if you don't plan on improving it and
just want to get it committed somewhere - use overlay.

-- 
Krzysztof Pawlikkey id: 0xF6A80E46
desktop-misc, java, apache, ppc, vim, kernel, python...



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC] Gentoo Wiki Project

[Guy Fontaine]

There are things I know about Gentoo Linux and I'm pleased to share my 
knowledge with others as well as I'm glad to learn from others. I'm not a 
Gentoo dev and I neither have plan nor wish to be.

My feeling is that Gentoo Wiki Project is just but another occasion for 
debating rules and politics. Reading some messages from some people I feel like 
I'm not welcome because I'm not a member of a group of selected people.

I have a French wiki to maintain, Gentoo-Québec's one, and I also have to help 
people by answering their questions on Gentoo-Québec forum. I think my real 
place is there.

Regards,

Guy Fontaine (aramis_qc)

On Fri, 09 Apr 2010 00:38:53 +
Sylvain Alain  wrote:

> 
> Indeed, that's why I don't want to have a wiki for devs only. The Gentoo wiki 
> must be for the community and by the community :P
> 
> There are many Gentoo experts that don't want to be officially devs.
> 
> d2_racing
> 
> 
> > To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
> > From: dirtye...@gentoo.org
> > Subject: [gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC] Gentoo Wiki Project
> > Date: Thu, 8 Apr 2010 16:55:36 -0600
> > 
> > On Thu, 8 Apr 2010 21:37:46 +
> > Sylvain Alain  wrote:
> > 
> > > 
> > > The official wiki can be use by powerusers who want to write some pretty 
> > > good doc.
> > > 
> > > A lot of powerusers can write excellent doc on the gentoo forum right 
> > > now, so they don't need to by Gentoo Dev to right excellent stuff.
> > > 
> > > I don't see your point.
> > 
> > They already write great stuff on http://en.gentoo-wiki.com/.  I think 
> > having
> > two different places to put this kind of stuff might split the contributor
> > base.  It'd be nice if we could either merge the two or make the official
> > wiki about developing with Gentoo rather than how to use Gentoo, but in any
> > case I'm just happy to have somewhere to stick things.
> > 
> > 
> > -- 
> > fonts,by design, by neglect
> > gcc-porting,  for a fact or just for effect
> > wxwidgets @ gentoo EFFD 380E 047A 4B51 D2BD C64F 8AA8 8346 F9A4 0662
> 
> _
> Live connected. Get Hotmail & Messenger on your phone.
> http://go.microsoft.com/?linkid=9724462

-- 
Guy Fontaine 

[gentoo-dev] [looking-for-man-power] Packaging RedHat/Fedora tools and libs

[Fabio Erculiani]

I'm in the process of porting (once again) a new Anaconda snapshot to
Sabayon (thus, to Gentoo-land). I spent several hours creating ebuilds
(basic, not fully integrated yet) for the following pkgs:

app-admin/authconfig
app-admin/firstboot
app-admin/system-config-date
app-admin/system-config-date
app-admin/system-config-keyboard
app-admin/system-config-users
app-cdr/isomd5sum
dev-python/pyblock
dev-python/python-cryptsetup
dev-python/python-meh
dev-python/python-nss
dev-python/python-report
dev-util/pykickstart
net-misc/dcbd
net-misc/fcoe-utils
sys-apps/hbaapi
sys-block/open-iscsi (see extra patches)
sys-libs/libuser

They are available in the "sabayon" overlay. Is there anybody
interested in helping me out for the integration and, perhaps,
merge-into-Portage part?
For the record, nowadays the Anaconda architecture is very clean and
allows non-rpm distros to build custom installation profiles and
backends quite easily. I'm really really impressed by the amazing work
RedHat guys did during last years.

Regards,
-- 
Fabio Erculiani
http://www.sabayon.org
http://www.gentoo.org

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC] Gentoo Wiki Project

[Maciej Mrozowski]

On Friday 09 of April 2010 13:26:16 Guy Fontaine wrote:
> There are things I know about Gentoo Linux and I'm pleased to share my
> knowledge with others as well as I'm glad to learn from others. I'm not a
> Gentoo dev and I neither have plan nor wish to be.
> 
> My feeling is that Gentoo Wiki Project is just but another occasion for
> debating rules and politics. Reading some messages from some people I feel
> like I'm not welcome because I'm not a member of a group of selected
> people.
> 
> I have a French wiki to maintain, Gentoo-Québec's one, and I also have to
> help people by answering their questions on Gentoo-Québec forum. I think
> my real place is there.

See? This is the problem. Every time comes an initiative to introduce official 
Gentoo infra hosted Gentoo Wiki (yes, the one that won't loose randomly all 
its contents) - there's lack of interest of cooperation from already existing 
unofficial Gentoo-related Wiki admins.

And of course it's always Gentoo devs who are to blame for "creating 
duplicated effort" instead of normalizing current situation.

Btw, you should only care for opinion of Gentoo Wiki project members, which 
are listed there - http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/wiki/

cheers

-- 
regards
MM

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC] Gentoo Wiki Project

[Ben de Groot]

On 9 April 2010 13:26, Guy Fontaine  wrote:
> There are things I know about Gentoo Linux and I'm pleased to share my 
> knowledge with others as well as I'm glad to learn from others. I'm not a 
> Gentoo dev and I neither have plan nor wish to be.
>
> My feeling is that Gentoo Wiki Project is just but another occasion for 
> debating rules and politics. Reading some messages from some people I feel 
> like I'm not welcome because I'm not a member of a group of selected people.

Don't be dismayed by negative remarks, or a few naysayers who are not
even part of the Gentoo Wiki Project. Any user (or dev) with
constructive input is welcome. And as you volunteered, you are part of
the project.

Cheers,
-- 
Ben de Groot
Gentoo Qt project lead developer
Gentoo Wiki project lead

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC] Gentoo Wiki Project

[Ben de Groot]

On 9 April 2010 14:35, Maciej Mrozowski  wrote:
> See? This is the problem. Every time comes an initiative to introduce official
> Gentoo infra hosted Gentoo Wiki (yes, the one that won't loose randomly all
> its contents) - there's lack of interest of cooperation from already existing
> unofficial Gentoo-related Wiki admins.

You are quite wrong here, as Guy was one of the first to volunteer for
the official wiki project. It is the bickering about its status that
apparently has demotivated him.

Cheers,
-- 
Ben de Groot
Gentoo Qt project lead developer
Gentoo Wiki project lead

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC] Gentoo Wiki Project

[Nirbheek Chauhan]

On Fri, Apr 9, 2010 at 6:32 PM, Ben de Groot  wrote:
> On 9 April 2010 14:35, Maciej Mrozowski  wrote:
>> See? This is the problem. Every time comes an initiative to introduce 
>> official
>> Gentoo infra hosted Gentoo Wiki (yes, the one that won't loose randomly all
>> its contents) - there's lack of interest of cooperation from already existing
>> unofficial Gentoo-related Wiki admins.
>
> You are quite wrong here, as Guy was one of the first to volunteer for
> the official wiki project. It is the bickering about its status that
> apparently has demotivated him.
>

I think at this point you've got the opinions of everyone, and pretty
much everyone's needs have been stated. Any more discussion will only
distract you and use up time and energy. I say ignore all further
discussion on this thread unless you feel it's *really* important.
Everything else not from the team is just bikeshedding I think :)

-- 
~Nirbheek Chauhan

Gentoo GNOME+Mozilla Team

Re: [gentoo-dev] Council meeting 19 April 2010

[Dror Levin]

On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 21:05, Denis Dupeyron  wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 11:14 AM, Ben de Groot  wrote:
> > So all I'm asking is to do your job and make decisions on issues that
> > affect all of Gentoo. The issues I brought up are wider than a single
> > individual project.
>
> And almost 100% of the time this needs to run through a GLEP, which is
> the case here. Then the council will do all the things you've pasted
> from GLEP 39

I thought the council was a body that should be capable of action, not
merely one that gives a stamp of approval for stuff other people do.
Was I wrong?

Reading all your manifestos from the elections shows you all had
things you wanted to do, things you wanted to change (git migration,
forming a group of experts to discuss technical issues, QA
propagation, just to name a few). Where did all that go to? If all the
council is currently able to do is get everybody involved in
bureaucracy (e.g. writing GLEPs for centralizing documentation instead
of putting a page full of links) just so it could meet once a month to
decide on bugzilla resolutions, then something is wrong.

All council members not only volunteered for that position, but also
had other people voting for them. Didn't you do that so you could have
a larger influence? So you could make Gentoo better? How do you plan
to achieve that if you just wait for other people to do it? I don't
see why there is such strong opposition by your side to actually do
something, after all, that's what you're there for.

As I've seen in the last few days, the common reaction to this is,
"Well, what do you want us to do? Force people to do stuff?". Why did
you want to be a council member if you have no idea how to accomplish
the things you wanted to do? How did you think you were going to
achieve all those things written in your manifesto? Being in the
council is a responsibility, and one which you took upon yourself
willingly. All we're now requesting is that you all stand up to that
responsibility and use your authority to make changes to how Gentoo
work, not point fingers and ask rhetorical questions.

Ben raised some very painful issues which hurt Gentoo daily but are
not being addressed for a long time. The way I see it, the council's
job is to lead Gentoo, and that includes things that individual
members may not find interesting. These are global issues which are
under the council's responsibility. Gentoo's best interest should be
in mind, not personal interests, and so the council should strive to
achieve all those things so that Gentoo may benefit from it. That's
what leadership is, and that's what your job is.

Let's take redesigning the homepage as an example. Our website has the
same design since at least 2002, and to users it looks dead. This is
seriously hurting Gentoo, and its inability to fix the situation has
become a laughing stock. Clearly, Gentoo as a whole suffers and it's
the council's responsibility to address this issue. Now, I'm not
saying that council members should sit around all day playing with
CSS, but this issue should be one of their top priorities. Maybe ask
for users to help, reward a volunteer to do it with funds from the
foundation, heck maybe even pay some company to do it, but just do
something, even though you may not think dealing with this is
interesting, but a response like "if you want it then work on it and
make it happen" is unacceptable.


Note that all that is said here is not pointed at any specific member
of the council, but at the council as a whole. I did not intend to
hurt anybody, but am genuinely concerned for Gentoo's well being.

Dror Levin

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC] Gentoo Wiki Project

[George Prowse]

On 09/04/2010 13:38, Ben de Groot wrote:

On 9 April 2010 13:26, Guy Fontaine  wrote:

There are things I know about Gentoo Linux and I'm pleased to share my 
knowledge with others as well as I'm glad to learn from others. I'm not a 
Gentoo dev and I neither have plan nor wish to be.

My feeling is that Gentoo Wiki Project is just but another occasion for 
debating rules and politics. Reading some messages from some people I feel like 
I'm not welcome because I'm not a member of a group of selected people.


Don't be dismayed by negative remarks, or a few naysayers who are not
even part of the Gentoo Wiki Project. Any user (or dev) with
constructive input is welcome. And as you volunteered, you are part of
the project.

Cheers,


I still dont understand people's problems with this. Several devs have 
said they've wanted one for years, it would be a great place to review 
documentation before going in the official documentation, it's a great 
place to discuss and collaborate on future dev handbook pages.


The official wiki could and *should* work together with the unofficial 
wiki because they complement eachother. The unofficial wiki isn't going 
to want detailed OpenRC documentation and the official wiki isn't going 
to want "how to set up FreeDOOM" on it.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC] Gentoo Wiki Project

[Zeerak Mustafa Waseem]

On Fri, Apr 09, 2010 at 06:02:40PM +0100, George Prowse wrote:
> On 09/04/2010 13:38, Ben de Groot wrote:
> > On 9 April 2010 13:26, Guy Fontaine  wrote:
> >> There are things I know about Gentoo Linux and I'm pleased to share my 
> >> knowledge with others as well as I'm glad to learn from others. I'm not a 
> >> Gentoo dev and I neither have plan nor wish to be.
> >>
> >> My feeling is that Gentoo Wiki Project is just but another occasion for 
> >> debating rules and politics. Reading some messages from some people I feel 
> >> like I'm not welcome because I'm not a member of a group of selected 
> >> people.
> >
> > Don't be dismayed by negative remarks, or a few naysayers who are not
> > even part of the Gentoo Wiki Project. Any user (or dev) with
> > constructive input is welcome. And as you volunteered, you are part of
> > the project.
> >
> > Cheers,
> 
> I still dont understand people's problems with this. Several devs have 
> said they've wanted one for years, it would be a great place to review 
> documentation before going in the official documentation, it's a great 
> place to discuss and collaborate on future dev handbook pages.
> 
> The official wiki could and *should* work together with the unofficial 
> wiki because they complement eachother. The unofficial wiki isn't going 
> to want detailed OpenRC documentation and the official wiki isn't going 
> to want "how to set up FreeDOOM" on it.
> 

Really? I understood it as the wiki being an all-purposes wiki, meaning users 
could (would and should) create articles on how to get some application running 
or how to get some setting working, and the developers will have their own 
"section", so to speak, where they can collaborate on various projects where a 
wiki would be an asset.
It seems to me from the discussion here on the list that it is to centralize 
documentation (- the official docs), so that gentoo can point to the wiki and 
say "If it's not in our docs, maybe it's in the wiki".

I may have mistaken the actual purpose of the wiki, but then by all means, 
correct me :-)

-- 
Zeerak Waseem


pgpO9ZFxTQRF1.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC] Gentoo Wiki Project

[AllenJB]

On 09/04/10 18:24, Zeerak Mustafa Waseem wrote:
> Really? I understood it as the wiki being an all-purposes wiki, meaning users 
> could (would and should) create articles on how to get some application 
> running or how to get some setting working, and the developers will have 
> their own "section", so to speak, where they can collaborate on various 
> projects where a wiki would be an asset.
> It seems to me from the discussion here on the list that it is to centralize 
> documentation (- the official docs), so that gentoo can point to the wiki and 
> say "If it's not in our docs, maybe it's in the wiki".
> 
> I may have mistaken the actual purpose of the wiki, but then by all means, 
> correct me :-)
> 
It has no purpose. The "official" wiki currently has no rules and no
mission statement. There's been no activity for 3 days.

...in which time the unofficial wiki got countless edits in many
languages. And my server downloaded backups 3 times (because we have a
public backup policy in place to ensure the content is never lost again
- something some people seem to like ignoring (or are just ignorant of)).

AllenJB

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC] Gentoo Wiki Project

[George Prowse]

On 09/04/2010 18:24, Zeerak Mustafa Waseem wrote:

On Fri, Apr 09, 2010 at 06:02:40PM +0100, George Prowse wrote:

On 09/04/2010 13:38, Ben de Groot wrote:

On 9 April 2010 13:26, Guy Fontaine   wrote:

There are things I know about Gentoo Linux and I'm pleased to share my 
knowledge with others as well as I'm glad to learn from others. I'm not a 
Gentoo dev and I neither have plan nor wish to be.

My feeling is that Gentoo Wiki Project is just but another occasion for 
debating rules and politics. Reading some messages from some people I feel like 
I'm not welcome because I'm not a member of a group of selected people.


Don't be dismayed by negative remarks, or a few naysayers who are not
even part of the Gentoo Wiki Project. Any user (or dev) with
constructive input is welcome. And as you volunteered, you are part of
the project.

Cheers,


I still dont understand people's problems with this. Several devs have
said they've wanted one for years, it would be a great place to review
documentation before going in the official documentation, it's a great
place to discuss and collaborate on future dev handbook pages.

The official wiki could and *should* work together with the unofficial
wiki because they complement eachother. The unofficial wiki isn't going
to want detailed OpenRC documentation and the official wiki isn't going
to want "how to set up FreeDOOM" on it.



Really? I understood it as the wiki being an all-purposes wiki, meaning users could 
(would and should) create articles on how to get some application running or how to get 
some setting working, and the developers will have their own "section", so to 
speak, where they can collaborate on various projects where a wiki would be an asset.
It seems to me from the discussion here on the list that it is to centralize 
documentation (- the official docs), so that gentoo can point to the wiki and say 
"If it's not in our docs, maybe it's in the wiki".

I may have mistaken the actual purpose of the wiki, but then by all means, 
correct me :-)

I see it as a collaboration piece, something to bridge the gap between 
developers and users. Users can create pages detailing certain facets of 
Gentoo and it may get to be included in the documentation on gentoo.org.


Some documentation is unfit for an official wiki but that doesn't mean 
that the information doesn't need to be there for users, that is where 
the official and unofficial wiki should work together .

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC] Gentoo Wiki Project

[Ben de Groot]

Allen, if you don't have anything constructive to add, then please
refrain from adding to this thread.

Thanks,
-- 
Ben de Groot
Gentoo Qt project lead developer
Gentoo Wiki project lead

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC] Gentoo Wiki Project

[Mike Pagano]

Here's one possible use-case.

For me, I would consider moving 
http://dev.gentoo.org/~mpagano/genpatches/index.htm to the official wiki so 
that other people in the kernel herd can update it.

If the updating could be scripted, of course.

I would not have considered it for an unofficial wiki running on nonGentoo 
infrastructure. We've been looking for a new 'home' for awhile. [1]

[1]http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=176186

---
Mike Pagano
Gentoo Developer - Kernel Project
E-Mail : mpag...@gentoo.org
GnuPG FP   : EEE2 601D 0763 B60F 848C  9E14 3C33 C650 B576 E4E3
Public Key : http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?search=0xB576E4E3&op=index

[gentoo-dev] Re: package.mask-ed ebuilds

[Ryan Hill]

On Fri, 9 Apr 2010 12:40:50 +0530
Nirbheek Chauhan  wrote:

> Hello!
> 
> So, I can't find any documentation about this; nor can I find a
> best-practices list. Can we add broken ebuilds in-tree as long as they
> are package.masked? automagic deps, wrong deps, missing deps, file
> collisions, etc etc? Even if it makes the ebuild completely unusable
> by itself?
> 
> If yes:
> 
> So we can add completely broken and useless stuff to tree as long as
> it's package.masked?
> 
> If no:
> 
> What's the minimum amount of "working-ness" that an ebuild must have
> to be added to tree? Who decides this? The QA team?

package.mask is good for when you have a bunch of stuff that needs to be
uncaged at the same time or for something potentially hazardous that needs
testing.  i wouldn't add something that is in itself broken.  i don't know if
it's allowed or not but an overlay is just more convenient for work like that.


-- 
fonts,by design, by neglect
gcc-porting,  for a fact or just for effect
wxwidgets @ gentoo EFFD 380E 047A 4B51 D2BD C64F 8AA8 8346 F9A4 0662


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] package.mask-ed ebuilds

[Mark Loeser]

Nirbheek Chauhan  said:
> So, I can't find any documentation about this; nor can I find a
> best-practices list. Can we add broken ebuilds in-tree as long as they
> are package.masked? automagic deps, wrong deps, missing deps, file
> collisions, etc etc? Even if it makes the ebuild completely unusable
> by itself?

Just use some common sense.  If its completely broken, it obviously
doesn't belong in the tree.  If its something that somewhat works and is
actively being worked on, then its probably safe to add it and
package.mask it, with the intent that you are working towards getting it
to a state that it will be unmasked.

-- 
Mark Loeser
email -   halcy0n AT gentoo DOT org
email -   mark AT halcy0n DOT com
web   -   http://www.halcy0n.com


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] package.mask-ed ebuilds

[Michał Górny]

On Fri, 9 Apr 2010 12:40:50 +0530
Nirbheek Chauhan  wrote:

> So, I can't find any documentation about this; nor can I find a
> best-practices list. Can we add broken ebuilds in-tree as long as they
> are package.masked? automagic deps, wrong deps, missing deps, file
> collisions, etc etc? Even if it makes the ebuild completely unusable
> by itself?

In my opinion, an ebuild should be added to the tree as long as it will
be useful to users. If your ebuild is WIP but you want to give some
users an option to already use it or get some feedback, you could
consider adding it.

Moreover, I wouldn't take dependency-related issues as a reason to mask
the ebuild. As long as it's not going to hurt users' system or (if it's
an version bump) replace working version with non-working one, it
doesn't need the mask.

So, it all depends on how useful the ebuild is, and how dangerous it
can become. If it just misses some polishes, it's acceptable -- as long
as you're going to maintain it and fix all the known issues ASAP.

Please notice that this is no official statement but only my personal
opinion on the topic.

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny





signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] [looking-for-man-power] Packaging RedHat/Fedora tools and libs

[Zac Medico]

On 04/09/2010 04:34 AM, Fabio Erculiani wrote:
> They are available in the "sabayon" overlay. Is there anybody
> interested in helping me out for the integration and, perhaps,
> merge-into-Portage part?

That sounds interesting. I was planning to add public apis for the
packagekit portage backend to use soon, and I guess those apis
should also be useful for an anaconda portage backend.
-- 
Thanks,
Zac

Re: [gentoo-dev] package.mask-ed ebuilds

[Ben de Groot]

On 9 April 2010 21:22, Michał Górny  wrote:
> In my opinion, an ebuild should be added to the tree as long as it will
> be useful to users. If your ebuild is WIP but you want to give some
> users an option to already use it or get some feedback, you could
> consider adding it.

That's what we have overlays for. Move it to the tree once it's ready.

-- 
Ben de Groot
Gentoo Qt project lead developer
Gentoo Wiki project lead

Re: [gentoo-dev] [looking-for-man-power] Packaging RedHat/Fedora tools and libs

[Fabio Erculiani]

On Fri, Apr 9, 2010 at 9:24 PM, Zac Medico  wrote:
> On 04/09/2010 04:34 AM, Fabio Erculiani wrote:
>> They are available in the "sabayon" overlay. Is there anybody
>> interested in helping me out for the integration and, perhaps,
>> merge-into-Portage part?
>
> That sounds interesting. I was planning to add public apis for the
> packagekit portage backend to use soon, and I guess those apis
> should also be useful for an anaconda portage backend.

[semi-OT]
Since I am (together with volkmar) one of the PK Portage backend
maintainers, let me know once you have interesting APIs implemented
for that. The backend itself would also require testing and some
profiling sessions to spot annoying speed issues.
[/semi-OT]

> --
> Thanks,
> Zac
>
>



-- 
Fabio Erculiani
http://www.sabayon.org
http://www.gentoo.org

Re: [gentoo-dev] [looking-for-man-power] Packaging RedHat/Fedora tools and libs

[Nirbheek Chauhan]

On Sat, Apr 10, 2010 at 1:11 AM, Fabio Erculiani  wrote:
> [semi-OT]
> Since I am (together with volkmar) one of the PK Portage backend
> maintainers, let me know once you have interesting APIs implemented
> for that. The backend itself would also require testing and some
> profiling sessions to spot annoying speed issues.
> [/semi-OT]
>

In the spirit of off-topic-ness :)

Is gnome-packagekit ready to go into tree with the gnome 2.30 release?
Or should we wait till 2.32 or something?

-- 
~Nirbheek Chauhan

Gentoo GNOME+Mozilla Team

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: perl eclass review - EAPI=3 + new helper eclass

[James Cloos]

> "MG" == Michał Górny  writes:

MG> I prefer perldoc over man. And I cannot imagine why anyone would prefer
MG> keeping two copies of the same docs if generating one from another
MG> takes less than a second.

It takes more than a mere second, and man(1), man.el, woman.el and the
like have better UIs than perldoc(1) has.

-JimC
-- 
James Cloos  OpenPGP: 1024D/ED7DAEA6

Re: [gentoo-dev] [looking-for-man-power] Packaging RedHat/Fedora tools and libs

[Robin H. Johnson]

On Fri, Apr 09, 2010 at 01:34:46PM +0200, Fabio Erculiani wrote:
> app-admin/authconfig
(just checking, this is the nsswitch.conf changer right?), if so, then
add to below.

> net-misc/fcoe-utils
> sys-apps/hbaapi
> sys-block/open-iscsi (see extra patches)
I'm interested in these, and can review/merge.


-- 
Robin Hugh Johnson
Gentoo Linux: Developer, Trustee & Infrastructure Lead
E-Mail : robb...@gentoo.org
GnuPG FP   : 11AC BA4F 4778 E3F6 E4ED  F38E B27B 944E 3488 4E85

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: perl eclass review - EAPI=3 + new helper eclass

[James Cloos]

> "D" == Duncan  <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> writes:

D> While you're correct in the ordinary case, keep in mind that this is perl 
D> developer docs we're talking about here -- not ordinary user documentation.

Developer docs *are* ordinary user documentation.  Section 3 is perhaps
the most used section of man, with sections 2 and, depending on platform,
one or more of sections 4, 5 or 6 following.

D> And those that know enough about perl to find the developer documentation 
D> useful should also know how to use perldoc,

You are ignoring the fact that having the docs in man is more useful;
much easier to use, usable by any man reader.  The list goes on.

There is simply no *real* benefit to eliding them, it only does harm.

People who do not want to install them should specify that preference
via a USE flag (-man, perhaps).

It would even be OK were the USE flag off by default; but making it
impossible to Do The Right Thing w/o editing eclasses every time one
syncs is just wrong.

-JimC
-- 
James Cloos  OpenPGP: 1024D/ED7DAEA6

Re: [gentoo-dev] [Gentoo Phoenix] an official Gentoo wiki

[William Hubbs]

On Mon, Apr 05, 2010 at 01:19:32AM +0200, Ben de Groot wrote:
> On 3 April 2010 20:56, George Prowse  wrote:
> > Does mediawiki have captcha ability?
> 
> Yes, there are a number of solutions for that.
 
 I realize I am very late on this thread, but please do not go here
 unless you provide an audio solution as well.  Otherwise, you will
 affectively lock blind users out of the wiki, just as they are
 currentlylocked out of the forums.
http://bugs.gentoo.org/284362

Thanks,

--
William Hubbs
gentoo accessibility team lead
willi...@gentoo.org


pgpe4lDMztMUr.pgp
Description: PGP signature