Jon Portnoy wrote:
> Sounds to me more like people who aren't familiar with the internal
> structure of Gentoo don't need to be the peanut gallery when it comes to
> internal structural issues, but that's just me 8)
It sounds to me like those 'more familiar with the internal structure
Gentoo' ha
Mike Frysinger wrote:
his comment wasnt directed at you in any way, it was to try and get support
for the new proposal floating on the devrel list atm
-mike
Oh good, I wasn't sure what he meant. Thanks for clearing that up spanky.
+1 for the new proposal floating on the devrel list atm. :-)
-
On Wednesday 14 September 2005 07:45 pm, Curtis Napier wrote:
> Jon Portnoy wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 14, 2005 at 12:06:13AM -0400, Curtis Napier wrote:
> >>I'm not an ebuild dev so I may not know enough about this situation to
> >>competantly comment on it but it seems to me that QA should have some
Hi all.
We have two new developers from Poland.
Krzysiek Pawlik (nelchael) is going to help with the influx of
desktop-misc bugs. I'll let Krzysiek introduce himself:
"I want to help maintain my distribution of choice. I've been helping
for some time, reporting bugs, posting patches and ebuilds.
Jon Portnoy wrote:
On Wed, Sep 14, 2005 at 12:06:13AM -0400, Curtis Napier wrote:
I'm not an ebuild dev so I may not know enough about this situation to
competantly comment on it but it seems to me that QA should have some
sort of limited ability to "temporarily" take away write access to the
On Mon, Sep 12, 2005 at 05:55:42PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> No. GuideXML URLs utterly suck. They're impossible to memorise and the
> second I changed anything every link would become invalid.
But at least the layout is consistent, the location is official, concurrent
development is possible
On Wed, Sep 14, 2005 at 04:38:04PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 09:42:43 +0200 Thierry Carrez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> | Before debating if the QA team should have more power to enforce,
> | let's just have a proper QA project. Apparently not much devs want to
> | do QA
On Wednesday 14 September 2005 17:01, Paul de Vrieze wrote:
> I'll look at fixing it. Is it only db.h or is there a problem
> with /usr/lib/libdb.so too?
Just db.h, there's no libdb.so in FreeBSD's base system.
--
Diego "Flameeyes" Pettenò
Gentoo Developer - http://dev.gentoo.org/~flameeyes/
(Gen
On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 09:42:43 +0200 Thierry Carrez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| Before debating if the QA team should have more power to enforce,
| let's just have a proper QA project. Apparently not much devs want to
| do QA, not sure telling them they will do QA+police will help in
| motivating th
On Wednesday 14 September 2005 09:09 am, Lance Albertson wrote:
> Thierry Carrez wrote:
> > Tentative Agenda for Thursday's meeting :
> >
> > If I forgot anything (that was put on the agenda by 1900 UTC yesterday)
> > please let me know.
>
> Where are we meeting again? :) Same place as before?
#g
On Wednesday 14 September 2005 16:47, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
> On Wednesday 14 September 2005 16:28, Paul de Vrieze wrote:
> > The db.eclass maintains shared info by all db3 and db4 versions such
> > that /usr/include/db.h and /usr/lib/db.so allways point to the most
> > recent version of
On Wednesday 14 September 2005 16:28, Paul de Vrieze wrote:
> The db.eclass maintains shared info by all db3 and db4 versions such that
> /usr/include/db.h and /usr/lib/db.so allways point to the most recent
> version of db installed.
Thus breaking Gentoo/FreeBSD as db.h there is something else, eh
On Tuesday 13 September 2005 15:52, Daniel Drake wrote:
> Frank Schafer wrote:
> > Does someone know if it's worth a try with the vanilla and if vanilla
> > here means a really vanilla from kernel.org or if it's sufficient to
> > get the (too patched and thus not so vanilla) vanilla-sources.
>
> va
On Tuesday 13 September 2005 04:23, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 13, 2005 at 12:50:47AM +0200, Stefaan wrote:
> > Hi all!!
> >
> > Here's an issue Seemant and I have been struggling with, and doesn't
> > seem as easy to solve as like touching one ebuild.
>
> You're making the problem seem
Thierry Carrez wrote:
> Tentative Agenda for Thursday's meeting :
> If I forgot anything (that was put on the agenda by 1900 UTC yesterday)
> please let me know.
Where are we meeting again? :) Same place as before?
--
Lance Albertson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Gentoo Infrastructure | Operations Manage
Tentative Agenda for Thursday's meeting :
1. Official confirmation that the council is inline with
the already-defined roles of devrel and QA and its commitment
to make already-approved GLEPs (including GLEP 31) respected
(Clarification of position asked by many people including
Ciaran
On Wed, 2005-09-14 at 03:29 +, John N. Laliberte wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> The GNOME herd is now ready for 2.12.0 to be tested.
>
> The gnome-2.12.0.ebuild should hit the mirrors shortly. ( just committed)
>
> Please see this document for information on how to test:
> http://dev.gentoo.org/~al
Mike Frysinger wrote:
>>As far as devrel goes, call me a traditionalist but I think while infra
>>should be able to do emergency deactivations (and afaik nobody's ever
>>said they shouldn't) devrel should continue to be responsible for
>>disciplinary issues including repeated QA violations reporte
18 matches
Mail list logo
