On Tue, 2 Jun 2009 19:39:57 +0100
David Leverton wrote:
> On Monday 01 June 2009 05:25:06 Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote:
> > Hello fellow developers and users.
> >
> > Nominations for the Gentoo Council 2009/2010 are now open for the next
> > two weeks (until 23:59 UTC, 14/06/2009).
>
> I wou
USE network is used by 9 ebuilds, and one is using USE networking which
can be converted, that'd be 10.
USE 3dnowext is basic optimization, 3 ebuilds, but it should be with mmx
and others.
USE static-libs to enable or disable static libs (archives), used by 6
ebuilds, soon more.
USE mtp is used
> On Mon, 1 Jun 2009, Doug Goldstein wrote:
> We have all collectively failed the Gentoo Project since we have not
> been doing this for the past several weeks. I propose the following
> changes be instituted before the meeting and happen through the
> meeting:
> 1) Agenda Topics are posted t
Nirbheek Chauhan wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 2, 2009 at 3:56 AM, Mounir Lamouri wrote:
>
>> This feature (ACCEPT_LICENSE) is important to remove check_license()
>> call from ebuilds which need user input while merging. Interaction in
>> ebuild should be avoided and it is a blocker for a fully function
Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote:
> Hello fellow developers and users.
>
> Nominations for the Gentoo Council 2009/2010 are now open for the next
> two weeks (until 23:59 UTC, 14/06/2009).
I would like to nominate:
darkside
scarabeus
tanderson
Mounir
Doug Goldstein wrote:
> All,
>
> The current council meetings have gotten completely out of hand for
> weeks meetings have become nothing more then a continuation of the
> senseless bicker-fest that have become the e-mail threads on GLEP54,
> GLEP55, and EAPI-3 without any real progress or sense c
On Monday 01 June 2009 05:25:06 Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote:
> Hello fellow developers and users.
>
> Nominations for the Gentoo Council 2009/2010 are now open for the next
> two weeks (until 23:59 UTC, 14/06/2009).
I would like to nominate dirtyepic, as he has repeatedly shown himself to be
On Monday 01 June 2009 16:29:35 Tomáš Chvátal wrote:
> I agree with patrick nominees expect one addition. I add patrick himself to
> prove us that he can not only do benchmarks but to force us to do them :D
Oh well then. I think I will have to accept your nomination and pour all my
ideas into a n
Am Montag, den 01.06.2009, 23:15 -0500 schrieb Doug Goldstein:
> All,
>
> The current council meetings have gotten completely out of hand for
> weeks meetings have become nothing more then a continuation of the
> senseless bicker-fest that have become the e-mail threads on GLEP54,
> GLEP55, and EA
On Tue, 2009-06-02 at 17:43 +, Sven wrote:
> (1)
> All gems should be installed from ebuilds only.
>
> (2)
> If an ebuild requires a gem, it has to be installed from the corresponding
> ebuild. For all other gems, Gentoo leaves the choice to the user and tries to
> work together as well as po
> This can also be accomplish by a shared dependency package so is there a
> particular benefit for extending EAPI to support this?
If you look at it from a Gentoo-only perspecitve, there's probably no benefit.
But it would allow Gentoo to work together nicely with RubyGems.
So (apart from feasab
Heya,
thanks for bringing this up!
Doug Goldstein wrote:
> All,
>
> The current council meetings have gotten completely out of hand for
> weeks meetings have become nothing more then a continuation of the
> senseless bicker-fest that have become the e-mail threads on GLEP54,
> GLEP55, and EAPI-3
Mounir Lamouri wrote:
I would like to get ACCEPT_LICENSE default value [1] discussed in the
next Council. If I can even get it widely discussed in gentoo-dev before
the council, a vote will be great. But it looks like it is not
interesting so much people out there.
Why not make a definitive pr
Steven J Long wrote:
Getting into a nonsensical debate about PN being metadata seems to be
the level of the argument, so forgive me for not being very impressed.
(It's externally derived and in fact the whole point of the product;
unless someone is proposing losing PN and PV from filename, can we
Am Dienstag, den 02.06.2009, 01:53 -0400 schrieb Andrew D Kirch:
> Doug Goldstein wrote:
> > All,
> >
> > The current council meetings have gotten completely out of hand for
> > weeks meetings have become nothing more then a continuation of the
> > senseless bicker-fest that have become the e-mail
Steven J Long posted
2115173.05gpc6t...@news.friendly-coders.info, excerpted below, on Tue, 02
Jun 2009 09:18:54 +0100:
> Surely it would be best simply to ask end-users which of a few variants
> they'd find easiest to work with? Or indeed for their suggestions; after
> all, they spend a lot mor
Steven J Long posted
1565621.wyyjxms...@news.friendly-coders.info, excerpted below, on Tue, 02
Jun 2009 09:20:34 +0100:
> Personally I favour restricting the EAPI='blah' line (which imo should
> simply be single-quoted to avoid escaping issues, but whatever: it's
> easy enough to lex in C, so I
Someone nominated me for new council, I accept. I will write a manifest
later.
I'm sorting my mailbox at the moment, so sorry for not finding the
correct mail.
Thanks, Samuli Suominen
Am Montag, den 01.06.2009, 22:29 +0200 schrieb Tiziano Müller:
> The people I'd like to nominate:
>
> - dertobi123 ... for his solid comments, experience, common sense,
> reliability
> - halcy0n ... even though he had to resign early I hope he finds time
> again to run for council, I really enjoy
Duncan wrote:
> Thilo Bangert posted
> 200905311126.00274.bang...@gentoo.org, excerpted below, on Sun, 31 May
> 2009 11:25:56 +0200:
>
>> the thing is though, nothing constructive is being said. people are
>> going in circles. ciaran and co are pushing glep55 for reasons which
>> they have stat
AllenJB wrote:
> lx...@sabayonlinux.org wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Mon, May 25, 2009 at 3:43 PM, Alex Legler wrote:
>>> For usability's sake, please don't do this. I can imagine users getting
>>> confused over the different meanings of the @ sign.
>>>
> Personally I think the PHP namespace syntax issue
David Leverton wrote:
> On Sunday 10 May 2009 09:58:22 Ryan Hill wrote:
>> On Sun, 10 May 2009 02:00:17 -0600
>>
>> Ryan Hill wrote:
>>> You can't test FEATURES in an ebuild. It's portage-specific.
>> Actually, am I right?
>
> Yes. (http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=239671#c10 gives a bett
22 matches
Mail list logo
