Re: [gentoo-dev] 2.6.22 stable plans

On Sun, 05 Aug 2007 16:26:50 +0200 Jan Kundrát <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Stephen P. Becker wrote: > > I will say that this is still a better situation than the closed > > drivers, which instantly hard lock my computer the first time I > > exit X after the initial

Re: [gentoo-dev] 2.6.22 stable plans

On Thu, 02 Aug 2007 20:35:18 -0700 Donnie Berkholz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > William L. Thomson Jr. wrote: > > On Thu, 2007-08-02 at 16:55 -0700, Donnie Berkholz wrote: > >> On Thu, 2 Aug 2007 19:31:09 -0400 > >> Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>> if the driver blows dead goats and

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: Re: [RFC]: gentoo-politics ML

On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 10:16:43 +0100 Steve Long <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Stephen P. Becker wrote: > >> So (without a Portage tree) it replaces the oldgrown single-liner > >> wget foo; tar -xzf foo; cd foo; ./configure; make; make install > > > > Are you

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: [RFC]: gentoo-politics ML

> So (without a Portage tree) it replaces the oldgrown single-liner > wget foo; tar -xzf foo; cd foo; ./configure; make; make install Are you implying that there would be much more involved with anything currently in the gentoo tree in the absence of portage? /me cracks the bell -Steve signatu

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: [RFC]: gentoo-politics ML

On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 23:12:27 +0200 Benjamin Judas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Am Dienstag, den 12.06.2007, 21:57 +0200 schrieb Alexander Færøy: > > On Mon, Jun 11, 2007 at 10:54:31PM +0100, Steve Long wrote: > > > after all Paludis is useless without the portage tree. > > > > Untrue. > > Care

Re: [gentoo-dev] Living in a bubble [gentoo-proctor] Warning

On Tue, 05 Jun 2007 21:44:23 +0100 Roy Bamford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 2007.06.05 21:09, Benjamin Judas wrote: > > This is problably going to start a flamewar, but I am sick of such > > (insert appropriate term for animal excrements here) on mailing > > lists, > [snip] > > Ladies and Gen

Re: [gentoo-dev] Living in a bubble

*snip* > --8< > 21:36 <@spb> next step is making paludis the officially supported > package manager on alpha > 21:36 <@eroyf> yes > 21:36 <@eroyf> like it is on mips > 21:36 * eroyf giggles > 21:36 <@eroyf> all the mips devs are using it anyways > 21:37 <@spb> and of course the ultimat

Re: [half-PROCTOLOGISTS] Re: [gentoo-dev] Bye Gentoo!

On Thu, 31 May 2007 14:58:00 +0200 Wernfried Haas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, May 31, 2007 at 03:35:20AM +0200, Bryan Østergaard wrote: > > No matter how hard I try fighting for what I feel is right > > we seem to end up with petty fights, flamewars or what I consider > > even worse - peo

Re: [gentoo-dev] [news-item] Paludis 0.24

> What experience? So far there have been no news items. The issue > about elog messages being one shot things is rather outdated (at least > for portage), and post-merge information is the domain of elog (as > stated in the GLEP). As Ciaran explained below, the paludis overlay has been using them

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: Re: Resignation

On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 11:36:09 +0100 Steve Long <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > And from the comments of others, *he gets the result*. Incidentally, many tried to make that same argument about Ciaran. -Steve signature.asc Description: PGP signature

[gentoo-dev] let's clear things up (was Slacker archs)

On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 01:35:32 + Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > It is widely perceived that Gentoo has a huge problem with slacker > archs cluttering up the tree and making maintainers' work harder. > Clearly, something needs to be done about this. Wow, I almost don't know where

Re: [gentoo-dev] New network config for baselayout-ng

On Thu, 8 Feb 2007 14:28:52 + Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, 08 Feb 2007 09:20:17 -0500 Doug Goldstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > | Do *YOU* have anything useful to contribute to the discussion > because | all I've seen is your useless FUD which countless times > peop

Re: [gentoo-dev] New developer: Dean Stephens (desultory)

On Thu, 1 Feb 2007 21:37:05 +0100 "Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thursday 01 February 2007, Christian Heim wrote: > > Dean is joining us from Bangor (that's in Maine). Don't know > > anything else about him, so feel free to harass him on IRC. > > Welcome Dean... but w

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Versioning the tree

On Tue, 28 Nov 2006 14:56:47 -0600 "James Potts" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > This looks good on the surface, Chris, but what happens in the case > where somebody wants to use the Release tree, but also wants (or > needs) one or more packages from the Live tree, and doesn't want to > switch comple

Re: [gentoo-dev] ACCEPT_LICENSE revisited

> > And then create a KDE licence group, and a Gnome licence group, and > > so on? Remember that there are only a few X licences once you ignore > > copyright line differences, just as there are only a few KDE > > licences once you ignore copyright line differences. > > > The other option is to su

Re: [gentoo-dev] Only you can prevent broken portage trees

Stuart Herbert wrote: > On 10/31/06, Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Uh, security bugs are not the highest priority. > > Would it be possible to have some arch team leaders join in this > debate? Atm, it just seems to be bouncing back and forwards between > package maintainers askin

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] CFLAGS paragraph for the GWN

Charlie wrote: > On 03/10/06, Daniel Ostrow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Gentoo-wiki does not now nor will it ever get linked to from official >> Gentoo media, documentation, or anything else within the www.gentoo.org >> namespace... > > http://sources.gentoo.org/viewcvs.py/gentoo-x86/app-emulati

Re: [gentoo-dev] Monolithic X unsupported

Steev Klimaszewski wrote: Donnie Berkholz wrote: Mike Frysinger wrote: how about a local USE flag like "all-the-junk-in-the-trunk" ? Why? Just makes more work for us, for no apparent reason. I'd rather be able to pull unused stuff from the tree after a while than add a new option to install st

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: packages going into the tree with non-gentoo maintainers

Brian Harring wrote: On Wed, Sep 06, 2006 at 10:37:21PM -0400, Stephen P. Becker wrote: Carsten Lohrke wrote: On Sunday 03 September 2006 16:36, Stefan Schweizer wrote: I am not adding stuff. I am fixing existing packages. And I am taking responsibility. How wonderful this sort of

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: packages going into the tree with non-gentoo maintainers

Carsten Lohrke wrote: On Sunday 03 September 2006 16:36, Stefan Schweizer wrote: I am not adding stuff. I am fixing existing packages. And I am taking responsibility. How wonderful this sort of "maintenance" is you can read here: https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=146626 Am I the only o

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Trustees Announcement

Torsten Veller wrote: > * Michael Cummings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >> Stuart Herbert wrote: >>> On 9/5/06, Stephen P. Becker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>>> I just remembered something. Didn't Stuart say that he planned on >>>> leaving

Re: [gentoo-dev] Trustees Announcement

Stephen P. Becker wrote: > Donnie Berkholz wrote: >> Mike Doty wrote: >>> What vote? I don't remember one. >> 5 nominees, 5 positions. Did you want a popularity contest among them? > > Hmm, wasn't there some sort of question as to whether or not simply

Re: [gentoo-dev] Trustees Announcement

Donnie Berkholz wrote: > Mike Doty wrote: >> What vote? I don't remember one. > > 5 nominees, 5 positions. Did you want a popularity contest among them? Hmm, wasn't there some sort of question as to whether or not simply accepting them was valid under current policy? I seem to recall that someb

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: The Age of the Universe

I know my tools but not necessarly the normal user who wanna use gentoo and is ending frustrated. cu Edgar (gimli) Hucek Enrico? Is that you in disguise? -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Democracy: No silver bullet

Duncan wrote: Wernfried Haas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted [EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Sat, 26 Aug 2006 12:17:03 +0200: Quit assuming I mean anything, you're batting zero for two right now. What's the problem? I wasn't sure how you meant it, so i assumed you meant it that way. As for

Re: [gentoo-dev] Xmms needs to die.

Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Thu, 24 Aug 2006 15:48:41 -0400 "Stephen P. Becker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: | I have a couple indys that I'm willing to donate to anyone willing to | help with sound development What happened to the one you sent to Jeremy? Wasn't he suppose

Re: [gentoo-dev] Xmms needs to die.

>> Note that neither mplayer or xine work on mips particularly well. Xine > > Could you please help us fixing it on mips? (in particular currently > there is work in improving ffmp3 in order to ditch mad, that has issues > with mips iirc) Well, it depends on your definition of help. I'd be perf

Re: [gentoo-dev] Xmms needs to die.

Luca Barbato wrote: Luis Medinas wrote: If noone takes it will be saved on overlays.gentoo.org. Everyone needs to know that xmms is old and tired (obsolete). A few developers on redhat, mandriva and suse marked xmms as obsolete. Now it's our turn to move it to our darkness repository. If you wa

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: User support system [WAS: Sunrise contemplations]

Mike Cvet wrote: On Thu, 2006-08-17 at 21:05 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 14:42:52 -0500 "James Potts" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: | hmmmdoesn't the GNU ClassPath implement enough of Java's runtimes | to handle a command-line app like this (the app needs, basically, to |

Re: [gentoo-dev] User support system [WAS: Sunrise contemplations]

> Well, I don't see the current lack of an proper java runtime > on certain platforms an real blocker for some additional tool. Uhh...I'm not even sure what I can say in response to such an asinine statement. > Java generally is designed for a very wide range of platforms > and architectures. If

Re: [gentoo-dev] User support system [WAS: Sunrise contemplations]

Enrico Weigelt wrote: > * Jean-Fran�ois Gagnon Laporte <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb: > > > >> You know that java is not available on all arch that Gentoo >> supports right ? > > Which one ? See tcort's reply. No java available on alpha, arm, hppa, m68k, mips, sh, or sparc. Seven strikes and

Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposal for advanced useflag-syntax

That's just because Debian has to do the upstream's work. So if you are so in love with how Debian does everything, why don't you just use Debian instead of Gentoo and stop wasting our time with your silly rants on how we should do everything just like them. -Steve -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org m

Re: [gentoo-dev] Make FEATURES=test the default

Mike Frysinger wrote: On Saturday 05 August 2006 14:56, Stephen P. Becker wrote: The metadata for sandbox suggests that it is under the control of the portage team, even if they lack a herd: ... because it is tightly integrated with portage ... there is the aspects of portage which require

Re: [gentoo-dev] Make FEATURES=test the default

Mike Frysinger wrote: On Saturday 05 August 2006 09:29, Stephen P. Becker wrote: P.S. Note that we have offered various portage devs hardware and/or an account on Iluxa's ginormous Origin 2000 machine in the past with the intention of getting this fixed, and nobody has taken us up on

Re: [gentoo-dev] Make FEATURES=test the default

Marius Mauch wrote: On Sat, 5 Aug 2006 13:14:17 +0200 Sascha Geschwandtner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: So right now, I'd like to see "collision-protect sandbox strict" included in the default FEATUREs. sandbox and strict are already default for a long time. Not 100% true. Sandbox has been b

Re: [gentoo-dev] Project Sunrise resumed again (was Resignation)

Every time you post it's like fingernails on a chalkboard... http://arcanux.org/scarecrow.png Ha ha ha! Oh gosh that's funny! That's really funny! Do you photoshop your own material? Do you? Because that is so fresh. Ciaranm is like a scarecrow. You know, I've, I've never heard anyone make th

Re: [gentoo-dev] Project Sunrise resumed

Mike Frysinger wrote: On Thursday 27 July 2006 18:21, Stephen P. Becker wrote: Looking at the meeting log, the council even noted that the concerns had not been addressed no, we noted that people claimed they had concerns but when cornered and asked what exactly their concerns were, no more

Re: [gentoo-dev] Project Sunrise resumed

Stefan Schweizer wrote: In last weeks council meeting [1] it was decided that the Sunrise project is no longer suspended. I can give a short overview of the current status of the overlay: - we currently have 154 ebuilds in 58 categories in the overlay not counting the ebuilds that got into por

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Adding CPUFLAGS USE_EXPAND variable to the profiles

Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote: Further, we keep track of other hardware-related metadata in USE_EXPAND, too. See INPUT_DEVICE and VIDEO_CARDS. Quite a different thing to me, considering the wide quantity of them. But for an handful of useflag it would be a bit of overkill. Perhaps you are th

Re: Gentoo vs GNU toolchain (was Re: [gentoo-dev] Replacing cpu-feature USE flags)

Harald van Dijk wrote: On Thu, Jul 06, 2006 at 09:42:20PM +0200, Kevin F. Quinn wrote: On Thu, 6 Jul 2006 21:06:18 +0200 Harald van Dijk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: The GNU toolchain is not supported by Gentoo, and in fact gets actively broken with unsupported command-line options. Only the GNU t

Re: [gentoo-dev] Bugzilla usage by gentoo-java's doing migration work

Patrick Lauer wrote: > No, it just shows that two different standards are applied and jakub (as > well as some others) do not wish for any discrimination. > If sunrise gets blocked with the argument "it's an overlay" then, by > logic, the Java overlay should get the same treatment, even if this is

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Project Sunrice: arch team perspective

>> Where else would these bugs go except for arch >> teams, seeing as we clearly can't assign them to end users who >> originally submitted the maintainer-wanted ebuilds? > These are not expected to be filed as bugs, they should be fixed by the > users in question. Apparently, this is not the cas

[gentoo-dev] Project Sunrice: arch team perspective

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] [ANNOUNCE] Project Sunrise - Gentoo User Overlay

> 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

Re: [gentoo-dev] Shouldn't gcc-4.1-related bugs have some kind of priority as gcc-4.1 is now unmasked?

> [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

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 49 - take 2

Brian Harring wrote: > On Mon, May 22, 2006 at 11:54:25AM -0400, Stephen P. Becker wrote: >>> Am I missing something obvious? >>> >>> -g2boojum- >> Probably just the blatant Ciaran hate, and the realization that people >> will have to suck it up and

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 49 - take 2

Paul de Vrieze wrote: > On Monday 22 May 2006 17:29, Grant Goodyear wrote: >> Jon Portnoy wrote: [Mon May 22 2006, 09:38:23AM CDT] >> >>> On Mon, May 22, 2006 at 09:21:34AM -0400, Ned Ludd wrote: Please don't change your wording on that. The feel really strongly about the primary pkg mana

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 49 - take 2

> Am I missing something obvious? > > -g2boojum- Probably just the blatant Ciaran hate, and the realization that people will have to suck it up and deal with him if his package manager ever becomes official for Gentoo. Who was it that mentioned this GLEP stacked the desk against Paludis? -Steve

Re: [gentoo-dev] Ati driver

Roberto Griso wrote: Please use the gentoo-desktop mailing list for these kinds of questions. -Steve -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list this is not gentoo-desktop mailing list question, vai a cacare, tu e tre quarti della palazzina tua. So

Re: [gentoo-dev] Ati driver

Roberto Griso wrote: Hello, i try to install new ati driver on my linux system. The installation on Xorg and the modprobe action for the fglrx module works very well, but wharn i try to start an X session, it exits with the follow error message : (EE) fglrx(0): No V_BIOS found (EE) fglrx(0):

Re: [gentoo-dev] Modular X: unmasking tonight, RFC

Bertrand Jacquin wrote: On 4/19/06, Donnie Berkholz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Bertrand Jacquin wrote: Is it planned to release some xserver ebuilds ? Could you rephrase the question? I don't understand it. I can't any ebuild for xserver (http://www.jabber.no/ejabberd-1.0.0.tar.bz2) (X over

Re: [gentoo-dev] enroll users for testing packages

didn't he ask for people who know a particular application very well? If you actually read the GLEP, you will note that there is a provision to expand the idea to include herd testers. i think there is a big difference between agreeing to test one particular package since they know it very w

Re: [gentoo-dev] enroll users for testing packages

Eldad Zack wrote: Hello, Sometimes it becomes a problem whenever a new release or a tricky bugfix comes up for a certain package. To improve QA we can let our userbase help, especially people who use certain packages quite heavily - they can provide good or even superior QA than devs. I thin

Re: [gentoo-dev] New Developer: bbj

Danny van Dyk wrote: > Hi list, > > [Another late one. You know already, I'm a slacker] > > Please help me to welcome Benigno Batista Júnior aka bbj, the latest addition > to the growing population of the Gentoo/ALT Project. > > bbj is located somewhere between Sao Paulo, Rio de Janeiro and Mina

Re: [gentoo-dev] When will KDE 3.5 be marked as stable?

Kari Hazzard wrote: > > On Tue, 4 Apr 2006 11:35 am, Stephen P. Becker wrote: >> I hate to break it to you, but there really is no such place for such >> queries. We generally consider it rude when users whine about stable >> keywording. Therefore, I don't fe

Re: [gentoo-dev] When will KDE 3.5 be marked as stable?

Kari Hazzard wrote: > On Tuesday 04 April 2006 2:28 am, Stephen P. Becker wrote: >> I fail to see how pointing out a post was offtopic is mean. Rather, it >> will save that individual (and hopefully others) from making the same >> mistake in the future. > > Then refe

Re: [gentoo-dev] adding a code of conduct

Ned Ludd wrote: > On Tue, 2006-04-04 at 03:14 +0100, Stephen Bennett wrote: >> On Mon, 03 Apr 2006 21:40:54 -0400 >> Ned Ludd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >>> Umm ok. I've decided that root is root no matter how you look at it >>> and it's not worth getting into a vertical pissing contest over. >

Re: [gentoo-dev] When will KDE 3.5 be marked as stable?

Kari Hazzard wrote: > This is Gentoo. We have a reputation of good community support to maintain > here. You're not helping that reputation by being mean to people who ask > legitimate questions. The issue that the question may have been sent to the > wrong list is irrelevant. RTFM is never the

Re: [gentoo-dev] When will KDE 3.5 be marked as stable?

m h wrote: > Subject says it all. > > This isn't meant as flamebait. I'm running stable on my laptop and > unstable on my desktop. It seems like most KDE release get better > over time, so I'm just wondering what the process is with KDE? > Whether it is meant to be flamebait or not is irreleva

Re: [gentoo-dev] adding a code of conduct

Mike Frysinger wrote: > dont get me wrong, i hate documenting common sense as much as the next sane > guy, but it seems Gentoo has come to the point where this needs to be done > > many thanks to the Ubuntu guys and to solar for doing the real work here: > http://dev.gentoo.org/~solar/xml/conduct

Re: [gentoo-dev] overlay support current proposal?

Carsten Lohrke wrote: > On Saturday 25 March 2006 19:50, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote: >> This is the same line of thinking that makes people use flash or wmv >> "because it's the silly Linux users that has to adapt, Windows works fine" >> and similar. > > It's not. Darcs is not proprietary, so

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] QA Team's role

>> which part dont you understand ? the user sets a variable and then is told >> that the package probably contains a bug ... seems pretty confusing to me >> -mike > > rl03 already replied to that. I don't see any QA issues there, and if > someone from QA team does, then he probably has too much

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] QA Team's role

webapp-config should be updated to handle such situation more gracefully, so why don't you file a bug about this? Is that all you have wrt "all the ways in which webapp-config is broken"? If so, that's not really much of a justification of the broad claim ciaranm has made as a QA project member.

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] QA Team's role

You still haven't posted posted a *single example* of webapp-config brokeness. You, I'd say you should either back up claims about "all the ways in which webapp-config is broken" or apologize to the concerned developers for false claims. Still waiting. OK, here is one. It seems that webapp-co

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] QA Team's role

Grant Goodyear wrote: > Ciaran McCreesh wrote: >> My point is that that's a nasty QA bug that's relying upon input from >> Stuart to be fixed. Whilst that one's still alive, I'm not going to go >> around filing more similar "breaks non-interactively" bugs because the >> discussion will just get rep

Re: [gentoo-dev] beep-media-player removal: 04/03/2006

Donnie Berkholz wrote: > Tony Vroon wrote: >> Good afternoon, >> >> Please note that I am planning to remove beep-media-player and >> accompanying plugin packages from the portage tree on March 4, 2006, >> unless >> anyone can convince me of a good reason why they should stay. >> This software has

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: Bugzilla etiquette suggestions

> The point is... > > The point is... > > The point is... > > The point is... The point is, you need to stop polluting this list with completely off-topic sub-rants which have nothing to do with gentoo development. You do a very good job at killing useful threads with your essays on world peace

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: bootstrapping since gcc 3.4 is stable

MIkey wrote: Paul de Vrieze wrote: Using this flags on a freshly compiled stage3 (from a stage1, just running emerge system without setting useflags) I get no blockers at all, when setting the useflags at the point that system has been recompiled. Depclean does suggest removing a number of pac

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: Re: bootstrapping since gcc 3.4 is stable

Mikey wrote: On Wednesday 25 January 2006 19:49, Stephen P. Becker wrote: You aren't serious, are you? Did *you* read the fucking manual *and* comprehend it? Methinks not...upgrading from 3.3 to 3.4 in a I didn't write the manual, so save your hubris for whoever did. I just fo

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: Re: bootstrapping since gcc 3.4 is stable

Mikey wrote: On Wednesday 25 January 2006 19:13, Stephen P. Becker wrote: Ahh, so you were the idiot that ran those tests. Congratulations...you needlessly did a --emptytree world after you had already done --emptrytree system in order to bloat your results. RTFM - http://www.gentoo.org/doc

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: Re: bootstrapping since gcc 3.4 is stable

The FUD is that stage3 is a better installation process than a (corrected) stage1. The facts are right there in what I posted. Stage3's take twice as long rebuilding the same number of packages and introduce a plethora of roadblocks in the build process unless you stay on a very narrow path. A

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: Split ebuilds for GCC

Duncan wrote: Ciaran McCreesh posted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, excerpted below, on Wed, 04 Jan 2006 12:34:42 +: On Wed, 04 Jan 2006 05:26:44 -0700 Duncan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: | That begs the question... No it doesn't. http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/begs.html Forget formal logic,

Re: [gentoo-dev] Stupid USE defaults that need cleaning

OK, so because every 3rd gnome user is not able to add the proper use flag to make.conf, every non-gnome user is stuck with investigating and putting -eds into make.conf to avoid pulling in gnome crap. Wonderful. Yes, I am ranting, because this kind of use flags basically pulls in huge number or

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Unified nVidia Driver Ebuild ready for testing

Sigh...The point was to take 3, potentially 4, ebuilds and make 1. Well, nvidia-xconfig should probably be part of hte nvidia-settings ebuild, but I really don't think the drivers and kernel module should be included. Why not create a meta-ebuild which pulls all of these ebuilds in, so that

Re: [gentoo-dev] Unified nVidia Driver Ebuild ready for testing

Since nobody else has asked, I will. What is the point? What problem are you trying to solve with this ebuild? As far as I can tell, there is no point, other than trying to sound like you are doing something important. I can tell you that I would be disappointed if this replaces the current

Re: [gentoo-dev] last rites for net-im/sim

George Shapovalov wrote: Ugh, it is the only one that reliably connects to icq (yea, I am stuck using it for many people whom I contact as this is pretty much the only protocol "honored" there) *and* handles various encodings in a sane way (no, gaim, while been really nice on a protocol side, d

Re: [gentoo-dev] December Council Meeting

it's really more up to the GLEP author(s) and infra to find the middle ground as to what's feasible. if none can be found, then yes, i would whip out my virtual wang and take it to infra again with the subdomain idea (i would however offer lube; more for myself though). I'm not sure the GLEP au

Re: [gentoo-dev] December Council Meeting

Of course, all of these points would have made it into the GLEP *if* it had been posted with plenty of time for people to comment on it instead of one day. harping on this old point solves nothing. we've already established quite clearly that this will not happen again in the future. Techni

Re: [gentoo-dev] Misquoted in the GWN

| I suggest that in the future, all developers who are directly quoted | in the GWN are contacted prior to posting the quotes. I realize that | this will put a bit more work load on the GWN authors, but it should | be as simple as sending a mail with the relevant section quoted for | the developer

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Decision to remove stage1/2 from installation documentation

The last link should settle it for you? Can we now comfortably say that "Gentoo is about choice"? The other 652,998 links might reveal a few more places where we can get the choice idea from but I hope that all these links should be sufficient to give anyone this idea. Ok, fine. Gentoo is ab

Re: [gentoo-dev] Decision to remove stage1/2 from installation documentation

Stage1: Changing CHOST= and run ./bootstrap.sh (well you can do it but it's dumb) You can do the same from a stage3. Stage3: has full cxx/berkdb/ssl/pam/libwrap and all the cruft pulled in from having use flags enabled thats not easy to get rid of otherwise. Fair point, however this is the

Re: [gentoo-dev] Decision to remove stage1/2 from installation documentation

Kurt Lieber wrote: We have received *numerous* complaints from users about the decision to remove stage 1 and 2 from the installation documentation. I realize it's still available if users are willing to dig for it, but not all users do. In my years of monitoring [EMAIL PROTECTED], we've receiv

Re: [gentoo-dev] Email subdomain

Testing ebuilds when keywording/marking stable is supposed to be mandatory and such stuff does not belong into changelogs. Sorry, but that's a big no. People that add/remove keywords without making note in the Changelog deserve a massive kick in the nuts. I'm not sure if you have been paying

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP ??: Critical News Reporting

So you installed your server without reading *any* documenation? (Don't lie). And you expect that the average user installs a Gentoo server without at least referencing the documentation? Pa-leaze. Funny, I've done three fresh installs on my various mips machines in the past couple of weeks,

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP ??: Critical News Reporting

*ALL* of the official docs are GuideXML; Gentoo *expects* users to have a web browser by default. Otherwise a vast majority of users would never get Gentoo installed in the first place. The "lightweight" requirement appears to just be your way of subverting the current documentation standards (bec

Re: [gentoo-core] Re: [gentoo-dev] Possible virtual/alsa change

dont see this as a real reason to not change the default personally. mips-sources exists in the tree for a reason, and are being actively maintained. by setting the default virtual for alsa-sound to gentoo-sources surely wont effect you anyways, considering alsa-drivers doesn't work, gentoo-sourc

Re: [gentoo-core] Re: [gentoo-dev] Possible virtual/alsa change

Chris Gianelloni wrote: On Mon, 2005-10-24 at 11:03 -0400, Stephen P. Becker wrote: What would be your recommendation on how to handle this for mips, then? Make the virtual alsa-driver? This wouldn't work, as none of our alsa drivers are actually provided by alsa-driver. OK. How do

Re: [gentoo-core] Re: [gentoo-dev] Possible virtual/alsa change

What would be your recommendation on how to handle this for mips, then? Make the virtual alsa-driver? This wouldn't work, as none of our alsa drivers are actually provided by alsa-driver. -Steve -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-core] Re: [gentoo-dev] Possible virtual/alsa change

Chris Gianelloni wrote: On Mon, 2005-10-24 at 09:18 -0400, Stephen P. Becker wrote: If there are no objections before Friday, I'm going to change virtual/alsa in base to sys-kernel/gentoo-sources. Now, if there are any arch-specific sources (sparc? mips?) that don't provide ALSA,

Re: [gentoo-core] Re: [gentoo-dev] Possible virtual/alsa change

If there are no objections before Friday, I'm going to change virtual/alsa in base to sys-kernel/gentoo-sources. Now, if there are any arch-specific sources (sparc? mips?) that don't provide ALSA, please let me know before then, so I will know to add the virtual to those architectures for media-s

Re: [gentoo-dev] rm `which gcc` && emerge -e world

Mike Frysinger wrote: On Saturday 22 October 2005 10:02 am, Tomasz Mloduchowski wrote: Altough geoman raised a valid point with separate distcc server, I'm glad something is being done to fix this issue. you could also work around it by exporting CC and CXX before emerging to say 'i686-pc-l

Re: [gentoo-dev] rm `which gcc` && emerge -e world

Tomasz Mloduchowski wrote: Now, that I've got your attention. IMHO above should NOT fail - most of the software in portage is already using ${HOST}-gcc instead and gcc symlink is just a convenience. But it does. In packages I will never suspect being nasty (qt, lynx) and ones I would, but they s

Re: [gentoo-dev] Resolution - GTK Useflag Situation

This is what we call flaming, please don't waste time with this. It's annoying as hell, ends up making threads longer than they need, and does nothing to benifit the argument. Thanks. This is what we call inserting a stick up one's ass, please don't waste time with this. It's annoying as he

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 41: Making Arch Testers official Gentoo Staff

You're somehow implying that being an AT is not as good as being a dev. Wrong. My understanding is that this GLEP is supposed to make AT as good as being a dev, but with a different role, one that doesn't need commit access. My point exactly! Why have another category? If the people invol

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 41: Making Arch Testers official Gentoo Staff

Let me clarify here. I'm not concerned about ATs having more privileges at all. I just want to know why if we're making them full developers for all intents and purposes, we don't go the extra step and get them commit access after a probationary period? It seems like this is supposed to be the

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 41: Making Arch Testers official Gentoo Staff

Chris White wrote: Alright, so here's what I think on the whole thing now that I made a nice tidy [Summary] thread. There seems to be some concern about AT testers having more privileges than some other devs. First off, I hope everyone saw the readonly access, and even so, the whole point of

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 41: Making Arch Testers official Gentoo Staff

Homer Parker wrote: On Mon, 2005-09-12 at 16:30 -0400, Stephen P. Becker wrote: I guess what I'm *really* asking is whether this GLEP is necessary? There are those that want to help, and so become an AT. The project has worked well for amd64 and ppc, so we are proposing the GL

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 41: Making Arch Testers official Gentoo Staff

Donnie Berkholz wrote: Simon Stelling wrote: Additionally, the mentoring period should be shortened to two weeks if an AT wants to take the end quiz to become a developer, assuming he has been AT for at least two weeks. Users which want to become developers should also run through the process

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 41: Making Arch Testers official Gentoo Staff

Not that I'm against this proposal necessarily, but it seems like this is everything short of giving them commit access to the tree. Perhaps the "arch tester" job could simply be made as a probationary period for developer recruits. The good ATs typically go on to be developers anyway, no? T

Re: [gentoo-dev] ROX: maintainer-wanted and apps out of date

I think you need to rethink that. Notifying a maintainer that there is an update or new add on to an existing project is not really getting involved. It's HELPING. I realize that maintainers cannot stay on top of all 120,000 packages. That's where the everyday users come in. They, selfishly, monit

  1   2   >