Jeremy Huddleston wrote:
I finally had a few free cycles, so I fixed up the eselect-compiler
ebuild to better handle the transition from gcc-config and updated
toolchain.eclass to better work with multilib. I've had a bunch of help
from the amd64 devs/testers/users this past week testing it ou
Starting a new thread here for a new angle...
As Stuart mentioned, bugs for any ebuild on o.g.o would go through
Gentoo bugzilla. It seems like genstef and jokey have completely
ignored support from arch teams for this overlay. What are you
proposing with respect to arch keywords and package.mas
Stuart Herbert wrote:
On 6/8/06, Henrik Brix Andersen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Will you also review the code each and every ebuild pull down over the
internet?
The policy for overlays.gentoo.org hosting [1] is hopefully clear: as
the project leads, they're ultimately responsible (and therefo
Peter wrote:
On Thu, 08 Jun 2006 15:51:25 -0400, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
First, let me say that I'm approaching this from a user's perspective. I
have no insight or knowledge as to the history of the overlay project or
any of the people involved. I _do_ know that since late 2004 when I first
swi
Chris Bainbridge wrote:
On 08/06/06, Jon Portnoy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I do very much object to using any gentoo.org infrastructure or
subdomains to do so. If someone is going to tackle that, it should be
done outside of Gentoo proper. We don't need to be stuck maintaining and
supporting
Chris Bainbridge wrote:
On 08/06/06, foser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I don't think the problem with maintainer-wanted ebuilds is that they
are crappy, but that there is no dev willing to maintain them and ensure
their quality over time. 'sunrise' (who came up with that name ? cheap
asian poetry
Peter wrote:
On Thu, 08 Jun 2006 02:42:03 +0200, Stefan Schweizer wrote:
Hi,
I have founded a new Gentoo Project for the Gentoo User Overlay.
The intention is to give contributors a single place to put their ebuilds -
a place where they can be downloaded, updated and be moved to portage mo
On Fri, 09 Jun 2006 02:49:14 +0200 Markus Ullmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| > No. It clearly says that you would be doing the basic QA checks and
| > repoman checking on initial commit. You even said it right above
| > where I commented!
|
| You're doing some witch hunting here... I said we k
On Fri, Jun 09, 2006 at 02:54:08AM +0200, Ioannis Aslanidis wrote:
> On 6/9/06, Grant Goodyear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >So, what would people think of moving herds.xml from gentoo/misc into
> >the portage tree, with the rationale being that local tools could use
> >that information for various
Matteo Azzali <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> * (I'm not sending mails through gentoo.org account cause
> http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/infrastructure/dev-email.xml asks me to
> not use it to send mails "unless absolutely necessary." , and I have
> others mean of sending emails.
Stefan Schweizer wrote:
> ..commit their changes to the overlay instead of updating the bugzilla
> every time.
it is actually encouraged to update bugzilla when changes are made in the
overlay.
Here are some more things I found in the current thread:
chris
> It also doesn't answer the questions of
On 6/9/06, Grant Goodyear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
So, what would people think of moving herds.xml from gentoo/misc into
the portage tree, with the rationale being that local tools could use
that information for various useful purposes (compiling statistics,
doing something that I can't think o
Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> On Fri, 2006-06-09 at 00:30 +0200, Markus Ullmann wrote:
>>> I know that when I spoke of security, I was not only talking about the
>>> security of letting non-developers commit to an overlay that is, by
>>> design, for end users, but also of the implications of ensuring t
On Fri, 2006-06-09 at 00:30 +0200, Markus Ullmann wrote:
> > I know that when I spoke of security, I was not only talking about the
> > security of letting non-developers commit to an overlay that is, by
> > design, for end users, but also of the implications of ensuring that any
> > packages in th
On Thu, 2006-06-08 at 15:22 -0700, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> > No, but the ebuilds are also checked by the team in question, that
> > actually knows the packages, versus a couple of developers that will be
> > overworked, dealing with packages that they are completely unfam
So, what would people think of moving herds.xml from gentoo/misc into
the portage tree, with the rationale being that local tools could use
that information for various useful purposes (compiling statistics,
doing something that I can't think of right now, whatever)?
-g2boojum-
--
Grant Goodyear
Hi Ryan,
On 6/8/06, Ryan Phillips <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Howdy All,
I've decided that its time for me to move on from Gentoo. I have no
ill feelings and still enjoy using the distribution. With work and
everything else going on in life I don't have much time to devote to
the distribution
On Thu, 08 Jun 2006 18:09:04 -0400, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> On Thu, 2006-06-08 at 16:23 -0400, Peter wrote:
>> I did not read anything that implied o.g.o would bypass anything other
>> than a lengthy wait in bugzilla land. Other distros have their
>> experimental/testing branches, why can't gent
First let me state this one really important thing:
The sunrise project is a project on its own. We're about to convert it
to a TLP to make clear that it shares nothing with the overlay project
except the hardware ressources and the overlay feature of portage.
Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> On Thu, 20
Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> No, but the ebuilds are also checked by the team in question, that
> actually knows the packages, versus a couple of developers that will be
> overworked, dealing with packages that they are completely unfamiliar
> with and have no experience with. I just don't see the tw
On Thu, 2006-06-08 at 21:35 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Thu, 08 Jun 2006 23:52:50 +0400 "Peter Volkov (pva)"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> | > Will you also review the code each and every ebuild pull down over
> | > the internet?
> |
> | And that is really exciting moment. :) The main diff
On Thu, 2006-06-08 at 16:23 -0400, Peter wrote:
> I did not read anything that implied o.g.o would bypass anything other
> than a lengthy wait in bugzilla land. Other distros have their
> experimental/testing branches, why can't gentoo?
*cough* ~arch *cough*
What everybody seems to miss is that h
On Thu, 2006-06-08 at 22:20 +0200, Luca Barbato wrote:
> Grant Goodyear wrote:
> > Stefan Schweizer wrote: [Wed Jun 07 2006, 07:42:03PM CDT]
> > My reasoning is that bugzilla provides a
> > place for community development of an ebuild (including commentary!),
> > which would not be true of just the
On Thu, 2006-06-08 at 21:57 +0200, Markus Ullmann wrote:
> Well at least briefly. We decided to maintain it in an official way and
> thus keep an eye on the quality of the checkins. As said, at least a
> briefly view at it and also a repoman scan.
A repoman scan won't catch subtle bugs caused in o
Hi Henrik,
On 6/8/06, Henrik Brix Andersen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
While reading the policy above, I stumbled across this line:
"Bug Tracking: bugs.g.o is the OneTrueBugTrackingSystem(tm), even for
overlays."
Could you please elaborate on this?
Sure ... in the discussion we had on -dev ea
On Thu, 2006-06-08 at 20:58 +0200, Markus Ullmann wrote:
> To clarify things a bit (hopefully):
>
> 1) security
>
> This is not the main tree, just a normal overlay. Okay, some non-devs
> contribute here but doesn't change the fact that it is just an overlay
> as any other out there in the world.
On Thu, Jun 08, 2006 at 10:05:38PM +0100, Stuart Herbert wrote:
> On 6/8/06, Henrik Brix Andersen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Will you also review the code each and every ebuild pull down over the
> >internet?
>
> The policy for overlays.gentoo.org hosting [1] is hopefully clear: as
> the projec
On 6/8/06, Henrik Brix Andersen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Will you also review the code each and every ebuild pull down over the
internet?
The policy for overlays.gentoo.org hosting [1] is hopefully clear: as
the project leads, they're ultimately responsible (and therefore
accountable) for wha
On Thu, Jun 08, 2006 at 09:35:07PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Thu, 08 Jun 2006 23:52:50 +0400 "Peter Volkov (pva)"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> | > Will you also review the code each and every ebuild pull down over
> | > the internet?
> |
> | And that is really exciting moment. :) The ma
Why? Because having two year old bugs is simply inexcusable. Especially
when many have not had any activity for a long time. Having
maintainer-wanted bugs for months on end is silly. Giving a user who files
a ebuild request or submits an ebuild deserves the chance to take
ownership of it. It's a g
On Thu, 08 Jun 2006 23:52:50 +0400 "Peter Volkov (pva)"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| > Will you also review the code each and every ebuild pull down over
| > the internet?
|
| And that is really exciting moment. :) The main difference between
| such overlay and wiki is that reading text never does
On Thu, 08 Jun 2006 15:51:25 -0400, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
First, let me say that I'm approaching this from a user's perspective. I
have no insight or knowledge as to the history of the overlay project or
any of the people involved. I _do_ know that since late 2004 when I first
switched to Gentoo
Grant Goodyear wrote:
> Stefan Schweizer wrote: [Wed Jun 07 2006, 07:42:03PM CDT]
> My reasoning is that bugzilla provides a
> place for community development of an ebuild (including commentary!),
> which would not be true of just the overlay. If one were instead to add
> a magical bugs whiteboard
My intention was to solve some parts with him directly and then send out
some solutions but he wants to do everything on list, so I'm sending it
out for you to know.
-- LOGPOST --
[22:09:15] so after reading your posts I get the impression you
fear that this project will end up in some BMG overla
On Thu, 2006-06-08 at 17:48 +0100, Chris Bainbridge wrote:
> The time it takes to actually apply fixes etc. is another point.
This is where I'd respectfully disagree.
> Bugzilla is a poor system for sharing and managing the flow of
> ebuilds and patches. It would be nice if there were a way for
Hi,
Both the current discussion as well as the overlay docs don't seem to
cover the support topic as far i could see. This is an issue for us
forums people though - our daily work involves classifying misplaced
threads into officially supported (read: in the tree) and unsupported
(someone installed
Henrik Brix Andersen wrote:
> > It's not a "normal" overlay as I see it. You've promoted it to be an
> > official overlay. The difference is huge in my opinion.
Well partly you're right. As it is promoted that way it is a bit more
official but anyway still an overlay.
> > Will you also review the
On Thu, 2006-06-08 at 12:26 -0400, Peter wrote:
> I think this answers an important shortcoming of the bugzilla approach:
> vis, some bugs will never make it to the tree -- for any number of
> reasons. Take, for example, http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=103354,
> which has an enhancement requ
On Чтв, 2006-06-08 at 21:20 +0200, Henrik Brix Andersen wrote:
> It's not a "normal" overlay as I see it. You've promoted it to be an
> official overlay. The difference is huge in my opinion.
IMO such overlay should be official! Why not to keep all (partially)
broken ebuilds in one place? This is
On Чтв, 2006-06-08 at 21:20 +0200, Henrik Brix Andersen wrote:
> It's not a "normal" overlay as I see it. You've promoted it to be an
> official overlay. The difference is huge in my opinion.
IMO such overlay should be official! Why not to keep all (partially)
broken ebuilds in one place? This is
On Thursday 08 June 2006 20:58, Markus Ullmann wrote:
> 3) replacement for bugs.g.o
I would prefer if people would still comment on the bugs when they do some
changes on the overlay so that at least we know that.
> Some ebuilds found their way into the overlay, we talked about that
> internally a
On Thu, Jun 08, 2006 at 08:58:48PM +0200, Markus Ullmann wrote:
> This is not the main tree, just a normal overlay. Okay, some non-devs
> contribute here but doesn't change the fact that it is just an overlay
> as any other out there in the world. Well, it is a bit different. Here
> are some devs k
Markus Ullmann wrote:
> 6) problems on infra hardware
>
> Well Lance arised that, so if infra has that big concerns about this
> project (I personally see no hard reason for it, but let the infra guys
> handle it how they want), then feel free to drop me a note and we host
> it elsewhere. I reall
To clarify things a bit (hopefully):
1) security
This is not the main tree, just a normal overlay. Okay, some non-devs
contribute here but doesn't change the fact that it is just an overlay
as any other out there in the world. Well, it is a bit different. Here
are some devs keeping an eye on the
On Thu, Jun 08, 2006 at 12:26:50PM -0400, Peter wrote:
> And, I'm fine with that. That's their job -- to protect the quality of
> their project, and to keep things relatively safe and manageable.
>
> Nonetheless, the bug is active, with a good number of people subscribing
> to it and contributing
On Thu, Jun 08, 2006 at 12:27:47PM -0400, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> Does anyone else see this as a problem?
I think it is clear from the comments in this thread that your view is
shared by many other Gentoo developers.
Regards,
Brix
--
Henrik Brix Andersen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Gentoo Metadistribu
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Howdy All,
I've decided that its time for me to move on from Gentoo. I have no
ill feelings and still enjoy using the distribution. With work and
everything else going on in life I don't have much time to devote to
the distribution anymore. I am su
Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> This aliases g77 to gfortran and gfortran to g77. They are entirely
> different compilers and do not accept all the same options. This is
> incredibly broken behavior, it masks issues in a number of packages and
> creates new issues in many others. Please fix it.
It also d
Jeremy Huddleston wrote:
> I finally had a few free cycles, so I fixed up the eselect-compiler
> ebuild to better handle the transition from gcc-config and updated
> toolchain.eclass to better work with multilib. I've had a bunch of help
> from the amd64 devs/testers/users this past week testing i
Grant Goodyear wrote:
Stefan Schweizer wrote: [Wed Jun 07 2006, 07:42:03PM CDT]
Initially jokey and myself will be working on this. The current focus is to
migrate ebuilds from bugzilla into the overlay and to get contributors to
commit their changes to the overlay instead of updating the bugzi
Chris Bainbridge wrote:
> On 08/06/06, Jon Portnoy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I do very much object to using any gentoo.org infrastructure or
>> subdomains to do so. If someone is going to tackle that, it should be
>> done outside of Gentoo proper. We don't need to be stuck maintaining and
>> su
On Thursday 08 June 2006 18:59, Chris Bainbridge wrote:
> Besides the stuff
> actually hosted by gentoo (random example
> http://dev.gentoo.org/~flameeyes/bzr/overlay/)
That is now actually moved on my own box :) This is going away soon as I have
time to replace it with a fake overlay telling to u
On 08/06/06, Jon Portnoy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I do very much object to using any gentoo.org infrastructure or
subdomains to do so. If someone is going to tackle that, it should be
done outside of Gentoo proper. We don't need to be stuck maintaining and
supporting a semiofficial overlay.
Stefan Schweizer wrote: [Wed Jun 07 2006, 07:42:03PM CDT]
> Initially jokey and myself will be working on this. The current focus is to
> migrate ebuilds from bugzilla into the overlay and to get contributors to
> commit their changes to the overlay instead of updating the bugzilla every
> time.
I
Ned Ludd wrote:
> On Thu, 2006-06-08 at 07:49 -0700, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
>> Ned Ludd wrote:
>>> -for conf in ${PN}-${PV}-${PR} ${PN}-${PV} ${PN}; do
>>> +for conf in default ${PN}-${PV}-${PR} ${PN}-${PV} ${PN}; do
>>>
>>> Call it 'default' ?
>> Switch the order around so it's 'default PN PN-PV P
Henrik Brix Andersen wrote:
> Personally, I dislike the idea of having officially supported (read:
> hosted on *.gentoo.org infrastructure) overlays for unmaintained
> ebuilds for which nobody did any real quality assurance. I fear this
> will drag Gentoo back into the old-ages of having a reputat
On 08/06/06, foser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I don't think the problem with maintainer-wanted ebuilds is that they
are crappy, but that there is no dev willing to maintain them and ensure
their quality over time. 'sunrise' (who came up with that name ? cheap
asian poetry attempt) doesn't change
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Carsten Lohrke wrote:
> On Thursday 08 June 2006 02:42, Stefan Schweizer wrote:
>> Initially jokey and myself will be working on this. The current focus is to
>> migrate ebuilds from bugzilla into the overlay and to get contributors to
>> commit their
Peter wrote:
Nonetheless, the bug is active, with a good number of people subscribing
to it and contributing to it. The sunshine overlay would be an ideal place
to store a kernel source tree or any project which would never find a home
in portage.
Pardon me if I'm totally confused, but isn't th
On Thu, 2006-06-08 at 18:04 +0200, Stefan Schweizer wrote:
> Please do not comment on this if you have no real improvements to make and
> just fell like commenting, "flaming" it.
No. A flame is being insulting to someone. Pointing out problems with
an idea is not flaming. Please quit trying to
On Thu, 2006-06-08 at 17:45 +0200, foser wrote:
> Instead of tackling the real problem -the lack of maintainers to deal
> with all requests- 'sunrise' is trying to create a backdoor for
> unreliable maintained stuff to enter the tree.
Don't forget the free reign it gives to the sunrise development
On Thu, 2006-06-08 at 17:29 +0200, Stefan Schweizer wrote:
> Jon Portnoy wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Jun 08, 2006 at 09:32:13AM -0400, Thomas Cort wrote:
> >> On Thu, 08 Jun 2006 09:20:18 -0400
> >> Chris Gianelloni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> > Please keep the games bugs in bugzilla. Making this ch
On Thu, Jun 08, 2006 at 10:13:45AM -0400, Stephen P. Becker wrote:
> That and it would become an an official Gentoo BMG-style repo. Please,
> let us not officially encourage the ricers. Some of us work very hard
> to discourage this type of user behavior.
I wholeheartedly agree with Stephen on t
On Thu, 08 Jun 2006 02:42:03 +0200, Stefan Schweizer wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have founded a new Gentoo Project for the Gentoo User Overlay.
>
> The intention is to give contributors a single place to put their ebuilds -
> a place where they can be downloaded, updated and be moved to portage more
> ea
Stefan Schweizer wrote:
> Please do not comment on this if you have no real improvements to make and
> just fell like commenting, "flaming" it.
Please stop ending every reply by ignoring the real issues and claiming
its just people 'flaming'. If you honestly think that every person that
replies a
foser wrote:
> I don't think the problem with maintainer-wanted ebuilds is that they
> are crappy, but that there is no dev willing to maintain them and ensure
> their quality over time. 'sunrise' (who came up with that name ? cheap
> asian poetry attempt) doesn't change that by adding it to an 'of
On Thu, 2006-06-08 at 11:12 -0400, Alec Warner wrote:
> It is my understanding the the Sunrise overlay is not open to "anyone to
> commit", so it is not a contrib/ The sunrise project is the owner of
> the overlay and they are responsible for it's contents. The people
> commiting are responsib
On Thu, 2006-06-08 at 07:49 -0700, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> Ned Ludd wrote:
> > -for conf in ${PN}-${PV}-${PR} ${PN}-${PV} ${PN}; do
> > +for conf in default ${PN}-${PV}-${PR} ${PN}-${PV} ${PN}; do
> >
> > Call it 'default' ?
>
> Switch the order around so it's 'default PN PN-PV PN-PV-PR' -- that
On Thu, 2006-06-08 at 11:12 -0400, Alec Warner wrote:
> It is my understanding the the Sunrise overlay is not open to "anyone to
> commit", so it is not a contrib/ The sunrise project is the owner of
> the overlay and they are responsible for it's contents. The people
> commiting are responsib
Jon Portnoy wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 08, 2006 at 09:32:13AM -0400, Thomas Cort wrote:
>> On Thu, 08 Jun 2006 09:20:18 -0400
>> Chris Gianelloni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > Please keep the games bugs in bugzilla. Making this change is a direct
>> > change in games team policy without any prior not
Jon Portnoy wrote:
On Thu, Jun 08, 2006 at 09:32:13AM -0400, Thomas Cort wrote:
On Thu, 08 Jun 2006 09:20:18 -0400
Chris Gianelloni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Please keep the games bugs in bugzilla. Making this change is a direct
change in games team policy without any prior notice to the ga
On Thursday 08 June 2006 02:42, Stefan Schweizer wrote:
> Initially jokey and myself will be working on this. The current focus is to
> migrate ebuilds from bugzilla into the overlay and to get contributors to
> commit their changes to the overlay instead of updating the bugzilla every
> time.
Can
Ned Ludd wrote:
> -for conf in ${PN}-${PV}-${PR} ${PN}-${PV} ${PN}; do
> +for conf in default ${PN}-${PV}-${PR} ${PN}-${PV} ${PN}; do
>
> Call it 'default' ?
Switch the order around so it's 'default PN PN-PV PN-PV-PR' -- that way
you can have a package-specific setting, and override it for specif
On Thu, Jun 08, 2006 at 09:32:13AM -0400, Thomas Cort wrote:
> On Thu, 08 Jun 2006 09:20:18 -0400
> Chris Gianelloni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Please keep the games bugs in bugzilla. Making this change is a direct
> > change in games team policy without any prior notice to the games team
> >
> Having to troll through some overlay only increases our work load.
>
That and it would become an an official Gentoo BMG-style repo. Please,
let us not officially encourage the ricers. Some of us work very hard
to discourage this type of user behavior.
-Steve
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> * (I'm not sending mails through gentoo.org account cause
> http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/infrastructure/dev-email.xml
> asks me to not use it to send mails "unless absolutely necessary." , and
> I have others mean of sending emails)
You should always use it on officia
On Thu, 2006-06-08 at 09:41 -0400, Alec Warner wrote:
> Ned Ludd wrote:
> > On Thu, 2006-06-08 at 06:49 -0400, Alec Warner wrote:
> >
> >>Mike Frysinger wrote:
> >>
> >>>On Wednesday 07 June 2006 19:12, Alec Warner wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> I would be more concerned with convincing the rest of the
On Thursday 08 June 2006 15:46, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> Having to troll through some overlay only increases our work load.
+1 for chris
--
Diego "Flameeyes" Pettenò - http://farragut.flameeyes.is-a-geek.org/
Gentoo/Alt lead, Gentoo/FreeBSD, Video, AMD64, Sound, PAM, KDE
pgpciKqnLh3FT.pgp
Desc
Ehrm, I'm already becomed developer (some days) *,
I'm already the author of lots of patches/comment in those reports,
and as you pointed out I must follow rules and can't "jump" maintainers
(who surely have better understanding of the issue involved than me).
That's the cause of the question,my (
On Thu, 2006-06-08 at 09:32 -0400, Thomas Cort wrote:
> On Thu, 08 Jun 2006 09:20:18 -0400
> Chris Gianelloni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Please keep the games bugs in bugzilla. Making this change is a direct
> > change in games team policy without any prior notice to the games team
> > and wit
Ned Ludd wrote:
On Thu, 2006-06-08 at 06:49 -0400, Alec Warner wrote:
Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Wednesday 07 June 2006 19:12, Alec Warner wrote:
I would be more concerned with convincing the rest of the developers.
adding crap in base profile.bashrc will affect 99% of users, so it
better be
On Thu, 2006-06-08 at 13:42 +0100, Chris Bainbridge wrote:
> On 08/06/06, Matteo Azzali <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Hum, maybe my little english is not good to explain my thoughts.
> >
> > I already have a /usr/local/portage overlay bigger than 500Kb.
>
> I can beat that, try 23MB :-/
>
>
On Thu, 08 Jun 2006 09:20:18 -0400
Chris Gianelloni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Please keep the games bugs in bugzilla. Making this change is a direct
> change in games team policy without any prior notice to the games team
> and without our permission.
No one needs permission to put ebuilds fro
On Thu, 2006-06-08 at 06:49 -0400, Alec Warner wrote:
> Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On Wednesday 07 June 2006 19:12, Alec Warner wrote:
> >
> >>I would be more concerned with convincing the rest of the developers.
> >>adding crap in base profile.bashrc will affect 99% of users, so it
> >>better be f
On Thu, 2006-06-08 at 02:42 +0200, Stefan Schweizer wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have founded a new Gentoo Project for the Gentoo User Overlay.
>
> The intention is to give contributors a single place to put their ebuilds -
> a place where they can be downloaded, updated and be moved to portage more
> easi
On Thu, 08 Jun 2006 06:49:39 -0400
Alec Warner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On Wednesday 07 June 2006 19:12, Alec Warner wrote:
> >
> >>I would be more concerned with convincing the rest of the
> >>developers. adding crap in base profile.bashrc will affect 99% of
> >>use
On 08/06/06, Matteo Azzali <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hum, maybe my little english is not good to explain my thoughts.
I already have a /usr/local/portage overlay bigger than 500Kb.
I can beat that, try 23MB :-/
Anyway, back to your point - yes, there are lots of bugs with patches
attach
On Thursday 08 June 2006 11:00, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Thursday 08 June 2006 02:58, Roy Marples wrote:
> > On Wednesday 07 June 2006 12:03, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > > you guys have had plenty of time to do this ... so last call before i
> > > scrub xml2 from use.desc and repoman starts complai
Hum, maybe my little english is not good to explain my thoughts.
I already have a /usr/local/portage overlay bigger than 500Kb.
What I was asking is if it's a normal behaviour that emerge "stops" for
unstable branch users.
I asked myself this after looking some ebuilds that have more than 4
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Wednesday 07 June 2006 16:10, Zac Medico wrote:
>> Grant Goodyear wrote:
>>> Zac Medico wrote: [Wed Jun 07 2006, 01:30:38PM CDT]
Mike Frysinger wrote:
> this is a *huge* con ... developers are lazy, *i'm* lazy ... i
On Thursday 08 June 2006 06:08, Harald van Dijk wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 08, 2006 at 01:58:07AM -0700, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
> > In the present devmanual, for src_install, it notes that
> > make install DESTDIR="${D}"
> > is the preferred way to fire off the install, and to not use emake, for
> >
Matteo Azzali wrote:
This is just a mine question, but it seems that since gcc-4.1 got it's
way into portage (~branch) things are getting slower.
Lots of the bugs blocking bug #117482 -
http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=117482 - have a patch in the report
or an ebuild for revision bump, te
Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Wednesday 07 June 2006 19:12, Alec Warner wrote:
I would be more concerned with convincing the rest of the developers.
adding crap in base profile.bashrc will affect 99% of users, so it
better be friggin correct and useful, otherwise you will piss a ton of
people off.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Roy Marples wrote:
> On Wednesday 07 June 2006 12:03, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>> you guys have had plenty of time to do this ... so last call before i scrub
>> xml2 from use.desc and repoman starts complaining :P
>> -mike
>
> Stable samba-3.0.22 has bot
This is just a mine question, but it seems that since gcc-4.1 got it's
way into portage (~branch) things are getting slower.
Lots of the bugs blocking bug #117482 -
http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=117482 - have a patch in the report
or an ebuild for revision bump, tested working.
They just
On Thu, 2006-06-08 at 01:30 -0700, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 05, 2006 at 08:58:46PM +0100, Luis Medinas wrote:
> > Xmms will be removed soon... Lot's of users still use xmms mostly
> > because it has many plugins that others don't. Xmms is still stable but
> > the upstream is dead so it
On Monday 05 June 2006 15:58, Luis Medinas wrote:
> On Mon, 2006-06-05 at 21:22 +0200, Wernfried Haas wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 05, 2006 at 07:03:57PM +0200, Stefan Schweizer wrote:
> > > today I would like to propose a few default keywords for removal. They
> > > are outdated and no longer needed on
On Wednesday 07 June 2006 16:10, Zac Medico wrote:
> Grant Goodyear wrote:
> > Zac Medico wrote: [Wed Jun 07 2006, 01:30:38PM CDT]
> >> Mike Frysinger wrote:
> >>> this is a *huge* con ... developers are lazy, *i'm* lazy ... i
> >>> certainly do not want to go through every single package i maintai
On Thu, Jun 08, 2006 at 01:58:07AM -0700, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
> In the present devmanual, for src_install, it notes that
> make install DESTDIR="${D}"
> is the preferred way to fire off the install, and to not use emake, for
> fear of parallel issues.
Actually, it uses `make DESTDIR="${
On Wednesday 07 June 2006 19:12, Alec Warner wrote:
> I would be more concerned with convincing the rest of the developers.
> adding crap in base profile.bashrc will affect 99% of users, so it
> better be friggin correct and useful, otherwise you will piss a ton of
> people off.
versus the people
1 - 100 of 105 matches
Mail list logo
