I'm with Ned & fozer on this, in general at least. This is the second time this
issue has come up over the last month or so; it's what kicks off the flat-tree
debate. My preference in practice is to leave the current tree allocation of
packages to categories well alone (to avoid unnecessary dis
On Sunday 05 June 2005 23:55, Ned Ludd wrote:
> On Sun, 2005-06-05 at 16:57 -0400, Nathan L. Adams wrote:
> > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> > Hash: SHA1
> >
> >
> > Well obviously there needs to be a consensus on *how* to logically
> > organize things before anyone goes willy nilly changing
Mike Doty wrote:
>I wonder if there is a svn interface to cvs, or if one could be written.
>
>
>
rename/move is a feature of the svn database, not of the svn interface.
also support symlinks, btw.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
On Sun, 2005-06-05 at 17:44 +0300, Alin Nastac wrote:
[snip]
> it is a laborious work, but it could be done.
> too bad we don't use subversion :(
I wonder if there is a svn interface to cvs, or if one could be written.
--
===
Mike Doty
On Sun, Jun 05, 2005 at 04:22:10PM +0200, Diego 'Flameeyes' Petten? wrote:
> Currently pam stuff (implementations, modules) are organized in the worst way
> I ever seen.
> Most of them are in sys-libs, some of them in app-admin, other in app-crypt,
> pam_smb in net-misc and so on.
>
> I think we
On Sun, 2005-06-05 at 16:57 -0400, Nathan L. Adams wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Ned Ludd wrote:
> > *poof* we now reshuffle, but then we can do auth with ldap. So lets
> > move
> > all the */ldap* related subjects under it sys-auth/... Then a month or
> > six late
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Nathan L. Adams wrote:
> Well obviously there needs to be a consensus on *how* to logically
> organize things before anyone goes willy nilly changing stuff. Do you
> group by what the package is used for (email vs. game vs. web browser)
> or by what it
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Ned Ludd wrote:
> *poof* we now reshuffle, but then we can do auth with ldap. So lets
> move
> all the */ldap* related subjects under it sys-auth/... Then a month or
> six later comes along sys-ldap and it gets moved there. The logic will
> go full
On Sun, 2005-06-05 at 21:21 +0200, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
> On Sunday 05 June 2005 21:03, Ned Ludd wrote:
> > 14 files matching the pam prefix and 18 thing matching description.
> You missed pam_ssh. And that's just an example.
> By the way... mind telling everyone here how did you do tha
On Sunday 05 June 2005 21:03, Ned Ludd wrote:
> 14 files matching the pam prefix and 18 thing matching description.
You missed pam_ssh. And that's just an example.
By the way... mind telling everyone here how did you do that search? I still
feel that looking for pam things in a *single* place is m
Nathan L. Adams wrote:
>
>>Then why is their a browsable "Categories" link on the packages site?
>>
>>http://packages.gentoo.org/categories/
>>
>>
Very good question , ..
>>I don't agree with Ned. Organizing the packages logically makes things
>>less confusing for the end-user and developers
On Sun, 2005-06-05 at 13:25 -0400, Nathan L. Adams wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> foser wrote:
> > On Sun, 2005-06-05 at 18:34 +0200, Jonas Geiregat wrote:
> >
> >>I do agree with you but some package just have completely wrong place
> >>within portage, such package
On Sun, 2005-06-05 at 19:34 +0200, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
> On Sunday 05 June 2005 17:37, Ned Ludd wrote:
> > I think they are fine where they are. Moving stuff around is a waste of
> > time. Makes things more complex. Makes more work on everybody.
> Sorry but I don't agree with that, at
On Sun, 2005-06-05 at 13:50 -0400, Michael Cummings wrote:
> Solar,
> I realize you meant this as a general statement of opinion and not a
> flame-baiter, but can you elaborate on:
>
> On Sunday 05 June 2005 11:37, Ned Ludd wrote:
> > Invalidates binary package trees.
>
> My (wrong?) unde
Solar,
I realize you meant this as a general statement of opinion and not a
flame-baiter, but can you elaborate on:
On Sunday 05 June 2005 11:37, Ned Ludd wrote:
> Invalidates binary package trees.
My (wrong?) understanding was that this is addressed when portage runs a
fixpackages (ot
On Sunday 05 June 2005 17:37, Ned Ludd wrote:
> I think they are fine where they are. Moving stuff around is a waste of
> time. Makes things more complex. Makes more work on everybody.
Sorry but I don't agree with that, at least for the particular case of pam.
The way it's now, makes my work hardwa
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
foser wrote:
> On Sun, 2005-06-05 at 18:34 +0200, Jonas Geiregat wrote:
>
>>I do agree with you but some package just have completely wrong place
>>within portage, such package placements migh confuse the user.
>>To give an example: mzscheme was place
On Sun, 2005-06-05 at 18:34 +0200, Jonas Geiregat wrote:
> I do agree with you but some package just have completely wrong place
> within portage, such package placements migh confuse the user.
> To give an example: mzscheme was placed in dev-lisp while portage had a
> dev-scheme directory.
The cu
Ned Ludd wrote:
>On Sun, 2005-06-05 at 16:22 +0200, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
>
>
>>Currently pam stuff (implementations, modules) are organized in the worst way
>>I ever seen.
>>Most of them are in sys-libs, some of them in app-admin, other in app-crypt,
>>pam_smb in net-misc and so on
On Sun, 2005-06-05 at 16:22 +0200, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
> Currently pam stuff (implementations, modules) are organized in the worst way
> I ever seen.
> Most of them are in sys-libs, some of them in app-admin, other in app-crypt,
> pam_smb in net-misc and so on.
>
> I think we should
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
> Currently pam stuff (implementations, modules) are organized in the worst way
> I ever seen.
> Most of them are in sys-libs, some of them in app-admin, other in app-crypt,
> pam_smb in net-misc and so on.
>
> I thi
Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
>Currently pam stuff (implementations, modules) are organized in the worst way
>I ever seen.
>Most of them are in sys-libs, some of them in app-admin, other in app-crypt,
>pam_smb in net-misc and so on.
>
>I think we should reorganize them and have a sys-pam cate
Currently pam stuff (implementations, modules) are organized in the worst way
I ever seen.
Most of them are in sys-libs, some of them in app-admin, other in app-crypt,
pam_smb in net-misc and so on.
I think we should reorganize them and have a sys-pam category with
implementations (Linux-PAM an
23 matches
Mail list logo
