This email is a discussion on why we need to care about more than the simple
key parameters, and why - this includes things like changing the validity of an
existing key. We also need to consider: location of key (primary key vs.
subkey), expiry policies (expiries are only one element of key validi
Duncan Coutts wrote:
> In case anyone needs distracting from a current hot topic...
>
> Just like we have eclasses for cvs, tla etc, kosmikus has written one
> that does the same thing but for darcs.
s/kosmikus has/I have/, s/darcs/git/
> Darcs (dev-util/darcs) is one of the new breed of distrib
On 18/05/06, Chris White <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-Hash: SHA1On Thu, 18 May 2006 17:08:17 -0400Peter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:> On Thu, 18 May 2006 22:01:42 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>> > Then learn how to use your mail client.> >> > And hey, look, by startin
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Thu, 18 May 2006 17:08:17 -0400
Peter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 18 May 2006 22:01:42 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>
> > Then learn how to use your mail client.
> >
> > And hey, look, by starting yet another thread you're just making
>
On Fri, 19 May 2006 01:53:29 +0200 "Kevin F. Quinn"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| obviously header.txt and skel.* aren't important. scripts isn't too
| important either, although a manifest-style file in there wouldn't be
| difficult. licenses and metadata don't have any security impact so
| there
On Thu, 18 May 2006 23:45:17 +0200
Patrick Lauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Note: a possible defense against rogue devs would be multi-signing,
I don't think it's worth trying to defend against rogue devs. We have
to have some level of trust amongst devs; anyone abusing that trust
will be ejec
Perhaps,
The problem here is that the paludis team appear to have a conflict of
interests due to their previous and/or current association with Gentoo.
I know they've mentioned personal grudges, so despite not knowing who
these people are, I'm going to assume they have a history with Gento
In case anyone needs distracting from a current hot topic...
Just like we have eclasses for cvs, tla etc, kosmikus has written one
that does the same thing but for darcs.
Darcs (dev-util/darcs) is one of the new breed of distributed source
control systems. Many projects are now maintaining their
Hello all,
I flood you again with a long email. Apologies to all that don't
want to read so much, but it is a problem of rather high importance that
has not really been fixed, and the first discussions happened in 2003 as
far as I can tell. Time to FIX IT!!!
The problem, in short, is how to h
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: [Thu May 18 2006, 04:01:42PM CDT]
> On Thu, 18 May 2006 16:41:09 -0400 Peter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> | However, continuing the thread serves no useful purpose except, IMHO,
> | to completely obfuscate the original point of the thread
>
> Nonsense. There is still product
I've read every mail thus far (even the mails sent from next month ).
There is no technical reason that the profile shouldn't go in. Past
precedent is set, most of the kinks regarding the profile have been
worked out, yet members of the community are dead set against the idea.
I think I was
On Thu, May 18, 2006 at 09:58:02PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Thu, 18 May 2006 22:39:20 +0200 Paul de Vrieze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> | > | What he is driving it at is that either paludis is an alternative
> | > | (yet on disk compatible) primary, or it's a secondary- you keep
> | > | debating
On Thu, 18 May 2006 22:01:42 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> Then learn how to use your mail client.
>
> And hey, look, by starting yet another thread you're just making noise
> in an attempt to justify a personal grudge, thus making things harder
> for the people who do real work around here. If
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 Thu, 18 May 2006 16:41:09 -0400 Peter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| However, continuing the thread serves no useful purpose except, IMHO,
| to completely obfuscate the original point of the thread
Nonsense. There is still productive discussion going on in that thread.
The only reason it is so no
Ciaran McCreesh:
> And that's your argument? If you're just going to sink to accusing
> anyone who disagrees with you of trolling then please retire gracefully
> before you make an even bigger fool of yourself.
That's indeed funny.
/me wrote:
> That actually was a serious question. But you and yo
On Thu, 18 May 2006 22:39:20 +0200 Paul de Vrieze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| > Except that by that definition, Paludis *is* a primary package
| > manager.
|
| It is capable of being a primary package manager. On gentoo it is not
| the primary package manager as that requires a council decision.
Peter wrote:
Imagine a new user or visitor trolling this ML. They want to learn more
about Gentoo. Then they come across the Paludis thread. How TF can they
possibly follow what is going on? Then, as the thread wears on it
degenerates into more personal attacks. So it's Bennett/McCreesh against
t
On Thu, 18 May 2006 22:27:59 +0200 Paul de Vrieze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| > Circular argument.
|
| Let me repeat it in primary school language.
|
| A supported statement is one which has the form:
|
| ... ...
|
| In short a supported statement has reasons that aim to argue why the
| s
On Thu, 2006-05-18 at 14:54 -0500, Mike Doty wrote:
> Developer relations has started a discussion about how to handle
> etiquette problems on public communication channels. The discussion is
> currently taking place on the gentoo-devrel mailing list. This list is
> public and we appreciate anyo
Imagine a new user or visitor trolling this ML. They want to learn more
about Gentoo. Then they come across the Paludis thread. How TF can they
possibly follow what is going on? Then, as the thread wears on it
degenerates into more personal attacks. So it's Bennett/McCreesh against
the world. OK. H
On Thursday 18 May 2006 22:24, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> |
> | +1 troll
>
> And that's your argument? If you're just going to sink to accusing
> anyone who disagrees with you of trolling then please retire gracefully
> before you make an even bigger fool of yourself. I was hoping you could
> continu
On Thursday 18 May 2006 22:19, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Thu, 18 May 2006 12:41:47 -0700 Brian Harring <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> wrote:
> | Please talk to the OSX folk- they would disagree, since
> | collision-protect was added to keep gentoo-osx from stomping on the
> | primary installation (iow,
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 Thursday 18 May 2006 20:42, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Thu, 18 May 2006 20:33:05 +0200 Paul de Vrieze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> wrote:
> | > There is no such thing as a primary package manager and using such a
> | > term only serves to distract from what could otherwise be productive
> | > discus
On Thu, 18 May 2006 22:19:16 +0200 Paul de Vrieze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| On Thursday 18 May 2006 20:33, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
| > *You* are the one making baseless claims. There is no such thing as
| > a "primary package manager" that is in any way more meaningful than
| > "a package manager
On Thu, 18 May 2006 12:34:14 -0700 Josh Saddler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
| > The desired end result is installing a system. Paludis can do that
| > already, if you really want, and it will be able to do it much more
| > elegantly in the future.
|
| Aren't we looking (or
On Thu, 18 May 2006 12:41:47 -0700 Brian Harring <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| Please talk to the OSX folk- they would disagree, since
| collision-protect was added to keep gentoo-osx from stomping on the
| primary installation (iow, to keep the secondary from acting like it
| was primary). Sinc
On Thu, 18 May 2006 21:35:01 +0200 Carsten Lohrke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| On Thursday 18 May 2006 20:43, Roy Marples wrote:
| > Yes, part of it. baselayout is another part - and yet it's possible
| > to run Gentoo on other variants like initng, daemontools and no
| > doubt others.
|
| Sure ba
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
All-
Developer relations has started a discussion about how to handle
etiquette problems on public communication channels. The discussion is
currently taking place on the gentoo-devrel mailing list. This list is
public and we appreciate anyone who h
On Thu, May 18, 2006 at 07:33:27PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Thu, 18 May 2006 20:18:24 +0200 Paul de Vrieze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> | > * An alternative to Portage.
> | >
> | > Paludis itself is distribution agnostic. It can be used on a Gentoo
> | > system or on a non-Gentoo system
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> The desired end result is installing a system. Paludis can do that
> already, if you really want, and it will be able to do it much more
> elegantly in the future.
Aren't we looking (or trying to look) a *little beyond* just a
On Thursday 18 May 2006 20:43, Roy Marples wrote:
> Yes, part of it. baselayout is another part - and yet it's possible to run
> Gentoo on other variants like initng, daemontools and no doubt others.
Sure baselayout is. An there're others in the tree, But that doesn't mean
these variants are supp
On Thu, May 18, 2006 at 08:04:36PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Thu, 18 May 2006 11:51:16 -0700 Brian Harring <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> | On Thu, May 18, 2006 at 07:34:16PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> | > On Thu, 18 May 2006 20:20:29 +0200 Carsten Lohrke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> | > wro
On Thu, 18 May 2006 11:51:16 -0700 Brian Harring <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| On Thu, May 18, 2006 at 07:34:16PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
| > On Thu, 18 May 2006 20:20:29 +0200 Carsten Lohrke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
| > wrote:
| > | On Thursday 18 May 2006 20:02, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
| > | >It's
Carsten Lohrke wrote:
> Stop making such odd and wrong comparisons. The package manager is part of
> what defines a distribution, choosing a shell is the users choice. If you
> want to make the package manager matter of choice, start your own
> distribution.
Just because it has historically bee
On Thu, May 18, 2006 at 07:34:16PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Thu, 18 May 2006 20:20:29 +0200 Carsten Lohrke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> | On Thursday 18 May 2006 20:02, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> | >It's kinda like this:
> |
> | Stop making such odd and wrong comparisons. The package man
On Thursday 18 May 2006 19:20, Carsten Lohrke wrote:
> On Thursday 18 May 2006 20:02, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> >It's kinda like this:
>
> Stop making such odd and wrong comparisons. The package manager is part of
> what defines a distribution, choosing a shell is the users choice. If you
> want to
On Thu, 18 May 2006 20:33:05 +0200 Paul de Vrieze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| > There is no such thing as a primary package manager and using such a
| > term only serves to distract from what could otherwise be productive
| > discussion.
|
| Why so. Portage is the one and only (thus primary) pack
On Thu, 18 May 2006 20:20:29 +0200 Carsten Lohrke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| On Thursday 18 May 2006 20:02, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
| >It's kinda like this:
|
| Stop making such odd and wrong comparisons. The package manager is
| part of what defines a distribution, choosing a shell is the users
Grant Goodyear wrote:
> Incidentally, in reading this thread it seems to me that a tendency to
> offer opinions (or predictions) as though they were facts has been a
> common theme. Please try to separate the two, whenever possible.
Just to clarify, I was not limiting that comment to pauldv.
-g2
On Thu, 18 May 2006 20:18:24 +0200 Paul de Vrieze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| > * An alternative to Portage.
| >
| > Paludis itself is distribution agnostic. It can be used on a Gentoo
| > system or on a non-Gentoo system as the user prefers.
|
| This would make it a third party packaging solutio
On Thursday 18 May 2006 20:03, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Thu, 18 May 2006 19:47:55 +0200 Paul de Vrieze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> wrote:
> | On Thursday 18 May 2006 18:19, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> | > By that argument, future Portage versions aren't compatible with
> | > current Portage, and so are
On Thursday 18 May 2006 20:02, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Thu, 18 May 2006 19:14:16 +0200 Wernfried Haas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> Bash is Gentoo's primary shell. ZSH cannot be included in the tree as
> the primary shell unless it can work with every bash shell script
> (including ebuilds) without a
On Thursday 18 May 2006 20:02, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>It's kinda like this:
Stop making such odd and wrong comparisons. The package manager is part of
what defines a distribution, choosing a shell is the users choice. If you
want to make the package manager matter of choice, start your own
dis
On Thu, 18 May 2006 11:44:40 -0500
Grant Goodyear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > | 4) Will Paludis ever become a Gentoo Project?
> >
> > Pretty unlikely, past events considered. Personally I kind of like
> > having commit access to my own code...
>
> I thought we (Gentoo
On Thursday 18 May 2006 18:11, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Thu, 18 May 2006 16:54:58 +0200 Paul de Vrieze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> wrote:
> | What is then the purpose of paludis. Is its purpose to create a
> | package manager for a new distro, and the paludis team would like to
> | use gentoo as a t
Paul de Vrieze wrote:
>> At present I ask not for support, but for a minor addition for
>> convenience purposes.
>
> One that has more disadvantages than advantages as already pointed out.
Many of your comments have been quite valuable, but I've noticed that
your recent posts fail to distinguish
On Thu, 18 May 2006 19:55:34 +0200 Paul de Vrieze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| Is there any reason that this extra information can not be added in
| such a way that portage will just silently ignore it.
Portage's handling of unrecognised data is not sufficiently clever to
allow this to be done in
On Thu, 18 May 2006 19:47:55 +0200 Paul de Vrieze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| On Thursday 18 May 2006 18:19, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
| > By that argument, future Portage versions aren't compatible with
| > current Portage, and so are not a candidate for Portage replacement.
| >
| The primary packag
On Thu, 18 May 2006 19:14:16 +0200 Wernfried Haas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| On Thu, May 18, 2006 at 06:11:35PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
| > Again, nonsense based upon some random arbitrary segregation you're
| > attempting to make that has no real world relevance.
|
| > Yes, carry on looki
On Thursday 18 May 2006 18:26, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> 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 beauti
On Thursday 18 May 2006 17:44, Stephen Bennett wrote:
> 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
On Thursday 18 May 2006 18:19, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>
> By that argument, future Portage versions aren't compatible with
> current Portage, and so are not a candidate for Portage replacement.
>
The primary package manager has different standards to adhere to as any other.
Paul
--
Paul de Vriez
On Thu, May 18, 2006 at 06:11:35PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> Again, nonsense based upon some random arbitrary segregation you're
> attempting to make that has no real world relevance.
> Yes, carry on looking at the small picture. It's really really
> interesting!
Please refrain from making
On Thu, 18 May 2006 11:44:40 -0500 Grant Goodyear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
| > | 4) Will Paludis ever become a Gentoo Project?
| >
| > Pretty unlikely, past events considered. Personally I kind of like
| > having commit access to my own code...
|
| I thought we (Gentoo)
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> | 4) Will Paludis ever become a Gentoo Project?
>
> Pretty unlikely, past events considered. Personally I kind of like
> having commit access to my own code...
I thought we (Gentoo) already had SVN repositories with non-Gentoo-dev
committers? I'm pretty sure that was one
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 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.
That removes vali
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.
It's a goal towards which we're working. Just as we expect that, for
example, gcc
This package is currently without a maintainer and has open QA issues;
bug #123708. It was marked as testing on every arch without being
tested and could really use someone to clean it up. It will be booted
in 30 days if no one wants to keep it around.
Thanks,
--
Mark Loeser - Gentoo Devel
On Thu, 2006-05-18 at 16:37 +0200, Paul de Vrieze wrote:
> On Thursday 18 May 2006 16:03, Stephen Bennett wrote:
> > 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 duplicatin
On Thu, 18 May 2006 12:15:07 +0200 Paul de Vrieze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| - It says paludis is usable in gentoo. Which it isn't.
Why don't you try it? I think you might find that it is in fact rather
usable. Much more so than some GCC releases and kernels that have their
own profiles in the t
On Thu, 18 May 2006 12:03:23 +0200 Paul de Vrieze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| There is only one case in which paludis should be supported by the
| tree. This is when paludis works towards being usable as a portage
| replacement. If the paludis authors do not aim at replacing portage,
| I suggest t
On Thu, 18 May 2006 11:52:49 +0200 Paul de Vrieze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| This is not the standard, nor what portage does.
Portage has a bug that causes it to die a horrible death if ebuilds are
not source-compatible. We do not emulate this bug, because there is no
useful reason to do so and
On Thu, 18 May 2006 16:54:58 +0200 Paul de Vrieze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| What is then the purpose of paludis. Is its purpose to create a
| package manager for a new distro, and the paludis team would like to
| use gentoo as a testing ground?
|
| Or is the purpose of the paludis team to have
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 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 16:30:48 +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 Wednesday 17 May 2006 23:34, Christian Birchinger wrote:
> I think at the moment there's no plan to replace anything.
> There was a simple request to add a profile to make it easier
> for some people to develop something. We can talk about
> replacing anything later, when there are more intrusiv
On Thursday 18 May 2006 15:58, Stephen Bennett wrote:
> 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 beauti
On Thursday 18 May 2006 16:03, Stephen Bennett wrote:
> 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.
Cascading
On Thursday 18 May 2006 16:02, Stephen Bennett wrote:
> 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 th
Christian Birchinger wrote:
>
> I honestly think people are just bringing up the wildest things
> just to find another reason to say "no". It Looks a bit like
> even good ideas and project have no chance when they come from
> "the wrong people".
>
Thank you, you just summed up what I have been th
On Thursday 18 May 2006 15:49, Simon Stelling wrote:
> Paul de Vrieze wrote:
> > Unfortunately this GLEP has not been implemented yet. This eclass
> > would indeed be an ideal elib. Also, for this eclass the API
> > requirements are not as strict as it is only intended to be used in
> > unpack and
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 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 15:26:06 +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
Paul de Vrieze wrote:
Unfortunately this GLEP has not been implemented yet. This eclass would
indeed be an ideal elib. Also, for this eclass the API requirements are
not as strict as it is only intended to be used in unpack and compile
stages.
That's not my point. I mentioned it because it br
On Thursday 18 May 2006 15:06, Simon Stelling wrote:
> Paul de Vrieze wrote:
> > It has not been. As far as I know such a requirement does not exist.
> > In
>
> It does. The reason for it is pretty good, as kloeri mentioned: The API
> of an eclass may never change. See GLEP 33 for some horror scena
On Thursday 18 May 2006 14:16, Stephen Bennett wrote:
> On Thu, 18 May 2006 12:49:29 +0200
>
> Paul de Vrieze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Adding profiles is technically broken.
>
> How?
Requiring duplication of profiles for every package manager.
Profiles determine what defaults are, and on so
On Thursday 18 May 2006 14:14, Stephen Bennett wrote:
> 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. The
On Thursday 18 May 2006 14:11, Stephen Bennett wrote:
> 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 th
On Thursday 18 May 2006 13:40, Simon Stelling wrote:
> Hey all,
>
> To continue my development in an efficient way, I need a larger screen,
> particularly one with a resolution of 1024x3972. However, I can not
> afford the costs for such an investment, so I thought maybe the
> community could help
On Thursday 18 May 2006 13:24, Dan Meltzer wrote:
> On 5/18/06, Paul de Vrieze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The package sys-apps/paludis is in the wrong category. It is a
> > package manager on par with rpm, dpkg, etc. Those live in app-arch.
> >
> > Therefore I propose to move the paludis packag
Paul de Vrieze wrote:
It has not been. As far as I know such a requirement does not exist. In
It does. The reason for it is pretty good, as kloeri mentioned: The API of an
eclass may never change. See GLEP 33 for some horror scenarios [1] ;)
[1] http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/glep/glep-0033.h
On Thursday 18 May 2006 13:25, Bryan Ãstergaard wrote:
> Was this discussed on gentoo-dev mailinglist before committing to the
> tree? Eclasses are supposed to be discussed on -dev prior to adding
> them to the tree to catch any (obvious) mistakes etc.
>
> This is particularly important for eclasse
Sorry to see you go Rob, you've done lots of good work.
Good luck with everything.
Tom
--
Tom Knight
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
GPG Public Key: http://dev.gentoo.org/~tomk/tomk.asc
pgpWykzXRVzKI.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Request for a decision acknowledged.
Fwding on mail to the rest of the council to ensure they see it.
On Wed, 2006-05-17 at 17:38 -0400, Mark Loeser wrote:
> As the latest long thread has shown, there seems to be a split (it is hard to
> tell exactly) on whether or not alternative package managers
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Simon Stelling wrote:
> Hey all,
>
> To continue my development in an efficient way, I need a larger screen,
> particularly one with a resolution of 1024x3972. However, I can not
> afford the costs for such an investment, so I thought maybe the
> comm
On Thursday 18 May 2006 12:40, Simon Stelling wrote:
> Hey all,
>
> To continue my development in an efficient way, I need a larger screen,
> particularly one with a resolution of 1024x3972. However, I can not
> afford the costs for such an investment, so I thought maybe the
> community could help
On 5/18/06, Simon Stelling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hey all,
To continue my development in an efficient way, I need a larger screen,
particularly one with a resolution of 1024x3972. However, I can not
afford the costs for such an investment, so I thought maybe the
community could help me out.
Simon Stelling wrote:
Hey all,
To continue my development in an efficient way, I need a larger screen,
particularly one with a resolution of 1024x3972. However, I can not
afford the costs for such an investment, so I thought maybe the
community could help me out.
The reason it has to be a s
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 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 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, 2006-05-18 at 13:40 +0200, Simon Stelling wrote:
> http://dev.gentoo.org/~blubb/funding.png
What a great way to start off my day..
Thanks hopefully I'll continue to laugh for the rest of the day.
--
Ned Ludd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Gentoo Linux
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Hello,
Le Jeudi 18 Mai 2006 12:54, Simon Stelling a écrit :
> I have no clue what cmake is or what you are trying to, so I just
> comment on a few other things I catched:
Thanks for your comments,
Cmake is a autotools/autoconf replacement (http://www.cmake.org), it is the
new build system for k
Hey all,
To continue my development in an efficient way, I need a larger screen,
particularly one with a resolution of 1024x3972. However, I can not
afford the costs for such an investment, so I thought maybe the
community could help me out.
The reason it has to be a screen with exactly the
On Thu, May 18, 2006 at 11:48:50AM +0200, Paul de Vrieze wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> I have just committed a new eclass to the tree. This eclass has as purpose
> to make it easier to use berkeley db. Currently the eclass has two
> interesting functions (and some helpers that may or may not be
> int
1 - 100 of 118 matches
Mail list logo
