I already removed myself from Gentoo - no need. Will be unsubscribing
from -dev at the end of the day.
On 3/4/07, bret curtis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Daniel Robbins wrote:
> Ciaran,
>
> What I do know is that you should not be allowed to insult random
> developers like J
Be careful, I'm now a Gentoo user, and you're on userrel. Userrel
shouldn't launch gratuitious insults at Gentoo users. Thank you for
not caring.
-Daniel
On 3/4/07, Alexander Færøy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Sun, Mar 04, 2007 at 09:51:34PM +, Stuart Herbert wrote:
> What do you plan on d
e.
I'm open to ideas.
-Daniel
On 3/4/07, Stuart Herbert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi Daniel,
On 3/4/07, Daniel Robbins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Just as a note, I've resigned as a Gentoo dev so I'm going to at some
> point today unsubscribe from -dev and
niel
On 3/4/07, Ilya A. Volynets-Evenbakh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Daniel Robbins wrote:
> Yep, I agree. Thanks everyone for being tolerant of my confusion and
> disruption while I look for a way to remove Ciaran from gentoo-dev.
Daniel,
Are you saying that all of your comments regardi
On 3/4/07, Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
you've managed to launch groundless attacks against
me, a whole bunch of other Gentoo developers, the Council, the
Foundation and devrel.
Well, I think it's a good thing to question whether the Council, the
Foundation and devrel are really d
C'mon, I am not calling you a liar. I just don't always take
everything you say at face value. Call it a trust issue.
-Daniel
On 3/4/07, Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Sun, 4 Mar 2007 13:14:14 -0700 "Daniel Robbins"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
That's actually a very good idea. I definitely don't want to be
associated with this project.
-Daniel
On 3/4/07, Fernando J. Pereda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Sun, Mar 04, 2007 at 01:17:03PM -0700, Daniel Robbins wrote:
> Yep, I agree. Thanks everyone for being tolerant
Yep, I agree. Thanks everyone for being tolerant of my confusion and
disruption while I look for a way to remove Ciaran from gentoo-dev.
-Daniel
On 3/4/07, Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Sun, 04 Mar 2007 14:15:36 -0500 "William L. Thomson Jr."
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So I we
I agree, the post was well intentioned but as I said before I can't
agree with what was suggested.
On 3/4/07, Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Sunday 04 March 2007, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote:
> Would that project even exist if it weren't for Daniel's past efforts
> and contributio
I never said I was informed :)
It was helpful to have some things confirmed by people other than Ciaran.
-Daniel
On 3/4/07, William L. Thomson Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Sun, 2007-03-04 at 19:23 +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>
> What kind of response do you think anyone else would have
Will,
I appreciate the spirit of what you posted, but I want to be clear
that I do not expect or request any special treatment, so I don't
agree with you.
We should *always* have some level of respect of gentoo-dev,
regardless of who we're talking to.
-Daniel
On 3/4/07, William L. Thomson Jr.
TED]> wrote:
On Sun, 4 Mar 2007 10:03:54 -0700 "Daniel Robbins"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In defense of my confusion, certainly appears from the perspective of
> the gentoo-dev ml that you are leading at the very least the
> day-to-day management of the project.
No, as
m to support it.
-Daniel
On 3/4/07, Petteri Räty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Daniel Robbins wrote:
>
> Rationale: You (Ciaran) have already been explicitly banned from
> Gentoo development yet are acting as the project's official spokesman
> on this list which is clearly a
-Daniel
On 3/4/07, Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Sat, 3 Mar 2007 20:46:35 -0700 "Daniel Robbins"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 3/3/07, Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Why is it a developer-only privilege? You just made that
On 3/3/07, Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Why is it a developer-only privilege? You just made that up.
To co-lead a Gentoo project? You need to be a dev to do that. I
couldn't join any projects even as a member until I became a dev, and
I created the distro. You are effectively co-l
On 3/3/07, Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Which would be worth what, for me? As far as I can see, there's
absolutely nothing for me to gain by being labelled an "official Gentoo
developer", and an awful lot to lose.
I think you're missing the point - I am not trying to convince you
iel
On 3/3/07, Simon Stelling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Daniel Robbins wrote:
> And it should be one (web) page.
http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/handbook/handbook-x86.xml?full=1
--
Kind Regards,
Simon Stelling
Gentoo/AMD64
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
On 3/3/07, Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Why does it matter whether it's written by Gentoo developers? What
matters is that it's written by people who know what they're talking
about and who can write reasonably decent technical material, and as the
primary author of the devmanual, a
On 3/3/07, Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I asked for this approach back when the handbook was first created. It
was rejected by the docs team for being "too complicated to maintain".
Following Sven's (I think...) suggestion, I instead ported the quick
install guide (which is one page
On 3/3/07, Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Also, you are at least a developer of PMS, if not the lead. If PMS is
> an official Gentoo project, then since when can official Gentoo
> projects have "non-dev" devs?
How many non-developers contribute to the tree? How many non-developers
On 3/3/07, Denis Dupeyron <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
What do you think of a simplified handbook ? One that presents a lot
fewer choices to the user, in order to be less confusing.
YES, it's needed. The handbook didn't turn out quite as I expected it
to. It should document a typical installation
On 3/3/07, Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But you appear to act as the project lead for PMS.
No, I'm just the one who isn't yet sufficiently jaded by the whole
"people who don't know what PMS is jumping in and trying to derail it"
thing to have given up discussing it in public yet.
On 3/3/07, Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
No-one is claiming that Paludis is an official Gentoo project. This
discussion, however, is about PMS, not Paludis, and the only reason I
can see to keep confusing them is political, so please stop doing that.
Sorry, the reason is not politi
On 3/2/07, Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
It's not hosted on Gentoo infrastructure purely because Gentoo
infrastructure can't fulfil the requirements. It's not exactly unique
in that respect...
Nor are most Gentoo projects controlled by Gentoo. Try asking for a new
feature in Portage
On 3/2/07, Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
PMS isn't Paludis. Paludis is an independent implementation (and the
only completely independent implementation) of PMS, and it's necessary
to have such an independent implementation to ensure that PMS is a
specification rather than a descript
AIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Daniel Robbins wrote:
> I don't understand half of what you said.
>
> You are saying that PMS is a sub-project of QA? Is the PMS spec hosted
> on Gentoo infrastructure?
>
> From all I have read, PMS is meant to define the functionality of
> Palud
considered a Gentoo project.
-Daniel
On 3/2/07, Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Saturday 03 March 2007, Daniel Robbins wrote:
> On 3/2/07, Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > So, er, to whom does this deadline apply then, if not the people
> > wri
In the interests of not being accusatory/one-sided, please replace this phrase:
"- partly your fault"
with the phrase
"due to ambiguity on the part of Gentoo and Paludis"
That is what I meant anyway. I shouldn't have expressed it in such a
negative way. Sorry.
-
On 3/2/07, Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
So, er, to whom does this deadline apply then, if not the people
writing PMS?
I have no clue.
PMS is not a Gentoo project, so they can't impose a deadline on you.
I don't think PMS is deserving of the council's time, as it is not an
specif
Welcome Matt :)
On 3/1/07, Petteri Räty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Please give the usual warm welcome to Matt "aetius" Drew. Matt pings us
from Durham, North Carolina, USA. He says he lacks the skills that make
someone a software engineer as opposed to a programmer. Well I hope he
has never look
On 3/1/07, Cory Visi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
With Gentoo, once you are up and running, releases become very
unimportant. What do you think?
That's true, but ever wonder why so many people expend so much effort
to have easy-to-use installers? It turns out that if installation is a
pain, many
On 2/28/07, Christian Birchinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Those are theme-engines and not just a few pixmaps and with an rc
file. The main part of those engines are compiled libraries.
Don't treat them like a few files the user just has to copy in
his homedir.
Noted. Thanks for the reminder t
Hey Chris,
I pretty much agree with you in regards to themes. Without strict
rules, we can suddenly have floods of ~300 theme ebuilds and they'll
all get added to the tree. I'd suggest another exception:
#3 It's ok to add themes to Portage if they are part of an official
theme collection for a p
Hey all, and thanks for the welcome back. It was a bit strange to find
old stuff from 2005 in my dev.gentoo.org homedir. Sort of like a time
capsule :)
-Daniel
On 2/27/07, Petteri Räty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
It's my please to introduce to you Daniel "drobbins" Robbins. Daniel is
going to wo
On 2/22/07, Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
And if you want a perfect example of reverting to ad hominem rather
than technical discussion, I suggest you reread your own email.
I did. I don't see any ad hominem attacks. I was very careful not to
say anything nasty.
Even assuming I am
On 2/21/07, Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'm perfectly polite when I'm not replying to the dozenth deliberate
attempt to derail something into which I have put a lot of effort...
Look, I don't want to waste everyone's time by dismantling in painful
detail the foolishness of what y
On 2/21/07, Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Are you insane? What on earth could Jakub possibly contribute? If you
want a rough indication of Jakub's level of ebuild understanding, take
a look at bug 160328.
Is there any process in place to ban people from the gentoo-dev
mailing list
Ciaran,
It looks like a fairly trivial thing to fix in ebuilds.
I think the problem you may be having is that people don't have any
incentive to make short-term changes to their ebuilds just so you can
get Paludis to work with them. It needs to be part of a larger
interoperability plan that incl
Ciaran,
Is there any way that the public can view the PMS spec that you have
created so far?
I am not totally familiar with how you are going about developing PMS,
but based on some of your comments in this thread I'm a little bit
concerned.
-Daniel
On 2/20/07, Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTE
, Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 12:19:12 -0700 "Daniel Robbins"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| I think that standardization is a good thing and interoperability
| between paludis, portage, pkgcore and others is something we should
| strive for. If at
Ciaran,
Admittedly, I'm new to this PMS thing so in many cases I'm speaking
from a position of ignorance, but I guess I need to jump in
somewhere
I think that standardization is a good thing and interoperability
between paludis, portage, pkgcore and others is something we should
strive for.
l over email, and it's
easily interpreted in a way that you might not intend. So from the
perspective of many, right or wrong, it is you who is starting the
fight.
-Daniel
On 2/20/07, Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 10:12:26 -0700 "Daniel Robbin
Hi Ciaran,
Can you please refrain from making inflammatory accusations in your
posts? This is not a forum for airing personal grievances, and they do
not serve any purpose besides encouraging others to do the same to you
- as you have discovered.
-Daniel
On 2/20/07, Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROT
I agree that we should do it. Looking a the list for 2006, I think we
should steer clear of projects that might require significant
knowledge of Gentoo Linux internals or that may have a lot of
difficult interdependencies and/or coordination. For example, moving
to a different revision control sys
Mike,
I think you have a good plan. Retiring the 2.4 headers sounds like the
right thing to do. Building glibc against 2.6 and enabling backwards
compatibility with older kernels should not be problematic. It all
sounds good from a maintainability and stability perspective.
Nothing should break
ng so fast that we never really got to do this.
-Daniel
On 2/16/07, Daniel Robbins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I don't see any reason why not to add it. It would certainly make it
easier to play around with.
On 2/16/07, William Hubbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP S
I don't see any reason why not to add it. It would certainly make it
easier to play around with.
On 2/16/07, William Hubbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
All,
I saw that we have a request for an ebuild for upstart.
I am looking it over and looking at
OK, I did not understand how it was supposed to work. Is there
documentation anywhere that explains how it works and why?
-Daniel
On 2/16/07, Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Friday 16 February 2007, Daniel Robbins wrote:
> Well, sure, but the timezone-data ebuild could be
h the /etc/timezone/MST7MDT idea since the
corresponding file can be located and compared.
-Daniel
On 2/16/07, Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Fri, 16 Feb 2007 16:36:53 -0700 "Daniel Robbins"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| Um, alternatively you could just copy /
On 2/16/07, Paul de Vrieze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Friday 09 February 2007, Roy Marples wrote:
> On Thu, 8 Feb 2007 14:49:57 -0700
>
> "Daniel Robbins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > In other words:
> >
> > busybox + single rcS file = fastes
Um, alternatively you could just copy /usr/share/zoneinfo/foo to
/etc/localtime rather than having a symlink. Since the zoneinfo file
has the name of the timezone in it already, it is probably not
necessary to preserve the filename of the timezone file.
-Daniel
On 2/16/07, Daniel Robbins
I think the easiest approach then would be to have an /etc/timezone
directory that should have a single file in it with the current
timezone. This file could be copied from /usr and keep the original
name. example:
/etc/timezone/MST7MDT
Pretty easy to understand and deal with. What do you think?
On 2/9/07, Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
forking the package is retarded. maintain backward compability and there's no
reason to fork it. baselayout isnt Roy's package, it isnt my package, it
isnt anyone's. it belongs to Gentoo as a whole which means changes to it
affect everyone i
On 2/8/07, Ned Ludd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
As somebody that's had to hand write many of those kinds of scripts. A
single rcS is not very ideal. Our init scripts are in fact mostly usable
by busybox. Granted there are a few special special cases, but then Roy
is offering to update those for fr
I sort of missed this conversation, so apologies in advance if this
has already been covered, but wanted to say that gentoo's initscripts
are generally not suited for embedded systems.
So making baselayout busybox-compatible doesn't seem to be worth the
disruption and headaches it would cause. It
55 matches
Mail list logo
