On Wed, 2005-10-12 at 18:35 +0200, Sven Vermeulen wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 11, 2005 at 05:10:28PM -0400, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> > > If the latter: hump the baselayout team.
> >
> > What does baselayout have to do with this?
>
> They're to blame for about everything.
That's ok, we have thick skin.
On Tue, Oct 11, 2005 at 05:10:28PM -0400, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> > If the latter: hump the baselayout team.
>
> What does baselayout have to do with this?
They're to blame for about everything.
Nah, my bad. Of course I meant those responsible for the profiles.
Wkr,
Sven Vermeulen
--
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Grant Goodyear wrote:
| Um, sort of? The council exists mainly to make cross-project decisions.
| I suppose that this issue counts, since it involves both the baselayout
| folks and the GDP, but the GDP doesn't really care which logger is
| installed
Chris Gianelloni wrote: [Tue Oct 11 2005, 04:10:28PM CDT]
> I think the point is that they should match. It was also quite obvious
> after the comments on the thread, that this is one of those things that
> probably won't ever be solved by consensus. Is this not the exact thing
> that the Council
On Tue, 2005-10-11 at 17:54 +0200, Sven Vermeulen wrote:
> That gave me a good laugh. Oh well, anyway. What's "default"? As in
> "recommended by the documentation"? Or "installed as dependency of
> virtual/logger"?
The documentation recommends syslog-ng, as that was requested by Release
Engineerin
On Tuesday 11 of October 2005 17:54 Sven Vermeulen wrote:
> That gave me a good laugh. Oh well, anyway. What's "default"? As in
> "recommended by the documentation"? Or "installed as dependency of
> virtual/logger"?
Both of that should be equal, but they aren't, see another -dev ML thread.
Cheers
On Mon, Oct 10, 2005 at 09:00:57AM -0400, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> I'd like to see the council fight it out over^W^W^W^Wdiscuss which
> logger should be the default.
*lol*
That gave me a good laugh. Oh well, anyway. What's "default"? As in
"recommended by the documentation"? Or "installed as dep
On Tue, 2005-10-11 at 12:32 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Oct 2005 10:47:08 +0200 Jakub Moc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> | Bleh, what's wrong w/ the idea to create gentoo-dev-annouce or
> | whatever it would be called? Many people gave up on reading -core due
> | to the constant flames
On Tue, 11 Oct 2005 10:47:08 +0200 Jakub Moc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| Bleh, what's wrong w/ the idea to create gentoo-dev-annouce or
| whatever it would be called? Many people gave up on reading -core due
| to the constant flames...
The problem is that no-one has put together a proper specific
Jakub Moc wrote:
11.10.2005, 10:52:35, Jan Kundrát wrote:
On Tuesday 11 of October 2005 10:47 Jakub Moc wrote:
Bleh, what's wrong w/ the idea to create gentoo-dev-annouce or whatever it
would be called? Many people gave up on reading -core due to the constant
flames...
Nothing, of course.
On Tuesday 11 of October 2005 10:55 Jakub Moc wrote:
> Hint: read-only ml? :=)
And who will submit the news?
Cheers,
-jkt
--
cd /local/pub && more beer > /dev/mouth
pgpiIonAFZ408.pgp
Description: PGP signature
11.10.2005, 10:52:35, Jan Kundrát wrote:
> On Tuesday 11 of October 2005 10:47 Jakub Moc wrote:
>> Bleh, what's wrong w/ the idea to create gentoo-dev-annouce or whatever it
>> would be called? Many people gave up on reading -core due to the constant
>> flames...
> Nothing, of course. But how wo
On Tuesday 11 of October 2005 10:47 Jakub Moc wrote:
> Bleh, what's wrong w/ the idea to create gentoo-dev-annouce or whatever it
> would be called? Many people gave up on reading -core due to the constant
> flames...
Nothing, of course. But how would you prevent flames from happening on a new
li
11.10.2005, 10:39:56, Jan Kundrát wrote:
> On Monday 10 of October 2005 23:36 Marcin Kryczek wrote:
>> council could decide if it's worth to try and put some herd (GDP?) to be
>> responsible for it.
> Uh, and what *exactly* do you mean by "be responsible for it"? I mean, are we
> supposed to wat
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Oct 2005 23:36:36 +0200 Marcin Kryczek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> | someone (sorry - but i can't remind who exactly and i can't find that
> | mail) mentiond it'd be nice to have some ~weekly summary of important
> | (for developers) decisions made in commu
On Monday 10 of October 2005 23:36 Marcin Kryczek wrote:
> council could decide if it's worth to try and put some herd (GDP?) to be
> responsible for it.
Uh, and what *exactly* do you mean by "be responsible for it"? I mean, are we
supposed to watch every possible communication channel or would t
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: [Mon Oct 10 2005, 05:40:37PM CDT]
> I see the number of objections raised regarding GLEP 40 as a sign that
> it needs rewriting, not a sign that it should be pushed to voting...
> Perhaps making everyone happy is impossible, but equally there
> shouldn't be huge amounts of un
On Mon, 10 Oct 2005 17:22:07 -0500 Grant Goodyear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| Ciaran McCreesh wrote: [Mon Oct 10 2005, 04:43:19PM CDT]
| > Isn't the idea that someone writes out a draft GLEP and gets it
| > discussed on -dev (and repeats said process until everyone is happy
| > with the GLEP) *bef
Grant Goodyear wrote: [Mon Oct 10 2005, 05:22:07PM CDT]
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote: [Mon Oct 10 2005, 04:43:19PM CDT]
> > Isn't the idea that someone writes out a draft GLEP and gets it
> > discussed on -dev (and repeats said process until everyone is happy
> > with the GLEP) *before* pushing things t
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: [Mon Oct 10 2005, 04:43:19PM CDT]
> Isn't the idea that someone writes out a draft GLEP and gets it
> discussed on -dev (and repeats said process until everyone is happy
> with the GLEP) *before* pushing things to the council?
I disagree, but only very slightly. I never exp
On Mon, 10 Oct 2005 23:36:36 +0200 Marcin Kryczek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| someone (sorry - but i can't remind who exactly and i can't find that
| mail) mentiond it'd be nice to have some ~weekly summary of important
| (for developers) decisions made in community.
| i think it's good idea, b
On Mon, Oct 10, 2005 at 02:33:45PM +0200, Thierry Carrez wrote:
> Reminder:
>
> Next council meeting is scheduled for this Thursday. Deadline to submit
> discussion items and/or GLEPs is set to Tuesday, October 11th, 1900 UTC.
>
someone (sorry - but i can't remind who exactly and i can't find tha
Chris Gianelloni wrote: [Mon Oct 10 2005, 08:00:57AM CDT]
> I'd like to see the council fight it out over^W^W^W^Wdiscuss which
> logger should be the default.
Gads, what a horrible idea (in my opinion, anyway). Surely we can come
to some sort of decision on this issue without involving the council
On Mon, 2005-10-10 at 14:33 +0200, Thierry Carrez wrote:
> Reminder:
>
> Next council meeting is scheduled for this Thursday. Deadline to submit
> discussion items and/or GLEPs is set to Tuesday, October 11th, 1900 UTC.
I'd like to see the council fight it out over^W^W^W^Wdiscuss which
logger sho
Reminder:
Next council meeting is scheduled for this Thursday. Deadline to submit
discussion items and/or GLEPs is set to Tuesday, October 11th, 1900 UTC.
--
Thierry Carrez (Koon)
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
25 matches
Mail list logo
