> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> Chris Gianelloni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Feel free to bring up an issue with Developer Relations. They'll
> > likely throw it out because YOU ARE NOT A DEVELOPER. Also, you'll
> > notice that rather than call you names, which is really
> your forte, I
> > hav
On Thu, 10 Jan 2008 11:49:24 -0800
Chris Gianelloni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Feel free to bring up an issue with Developer Relations. They'll
> likely throw it out because YOU ARE NOT A DEVELOPER. Also, you'll
> notice that rather than call you names, which is really your forte, I
> have inst
On Thu, Jan 10, 2008 at 11:49:24AM -0800, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> I've not been doing the GWN for a few months now
Yes, we noticed that.
What about 2007.1? As release engineering lead that *should* be your pet
project.
--
Alexander Færøy
--
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
On Thu, 2008-01-10 at 07:08 +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 12:33:40 -0800
> Chris Gianelloni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > This is why I find it funny that people even bother to listen to
> > Ciaran, at all. All he cares about is his little pet projects/teams
> > and doesn't
On Thu, 10 Jan 2008 07:08:46 +
Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In the mean time, I'll just say that if you don't drop the personal
> attacks and apologise, I'll have no choice but to take it up with
> devrel.
s|devrel|userrel|
Thanks,
JeR
--
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org ma
On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 12:33:40 -0800
Chris Gianelloni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This is why I find it funny that people even bother to listen to
> Ciaran, at all. All he cares about is his little pet projects/teams
> and doesn't care if it increases workload for everybody else. I
> mean, where w
On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 12:52:37 -0800
Chris Gianelloni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I went and created a tiny script[1] to change mips KEYWORDS to ~mips
> in the tree, and created a patch[2] against the current CVS tree.
> Were the Council to choose this course of action, the work is mostly
> done.
O
On Wed, 2008-01-09 at 20:45 +0100, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> >> a) Drop all keywords but those of mips. Leaves mips and, more
> >> importantly, its users with a vulnerable and unmaintained set of
> >> packages.
> >
> > ...and break the tree spectacularly, causing huge a
On Wed, 2008-01-09 at 18:56 +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 20:50:38 +0200
> Petteri Räty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > So you just ignore for example my post about CIA activity for the
> > mips team?
>
> That falls into the highly misleading category.
Yes, hard numbers are a
On Wed, 2008-01-09 at 20:50 +0200, Petteri Räty wrote:
> Ciaran McCreesh kirjoitti:
> > On Tue, 08 Jan 2008 18:59:29 -0800
> > Chris Gianelloni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> The issue that was raised is that certain arch teams are incapable of
> >> keeping up with the minimal workload they alread
On Wed, 2008-01-09 at 18:45 +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Wed, 9 Jan 2008 19:29:53 +0100
> "Wulf C. Krueger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Wednesday, 09. January 2008 19:16:24 Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > > > So what happens if a flaw is discovered in KDE 3.5.5 that allows
> > > > root acces
On Wed, 2008-01-09 at 18:11 +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Wed, 9 Jan 2008 10:07:31 -0800
> "Alec Warner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Actually if they dump kde-3.5.5 and anything depending on it, then
> > they don't break the tree and everyone is happy, no?
>
> Everyone except the users, wh
On Wed, 2008-01-09 at 18:56 +0100, Jan Kundrát wrote:
> Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> > I have foo 1.0, which is mips. There is foo 2.0, which is stable
> > everywhere else. The foo 1.0 ebuild does not conform to current ebuild
> > standards. I want to commit changes to foo 2.0, and repoman won't al
On Wed, 2008-01-09 at 15:11 +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> Heck, most of the repoman messages people are moaning about are caused
> by developers doing exactly this.
No, most of the ones we're complaining about have nothing to do with
KEYWORDS, at all, and everything to do with changes to policy
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> And why does repoman do that?
>
> Oh. Yeah. Because people with an attitude like yours think that the
> correct way to fix a repoman message is to start nuking arch keywords,
> ignoring what it does to the rest of the tree.
Dropping keywords works perfectly to have repoma
On Wed, 2008-01-09 at 14:44 +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > We want the Council to do something about this issue. You can deny
> > the issue all that you want or try to deflect conversation from the
> > actual issue, but your opinion isn't very important to the much of
> > the current developer p
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
a) Drop all keywords but those of mips. Leaves mips and, more
importantly, its users with a vulnerable and unmaintained set of
packages.
...and break the tree spectacularly, causing huge amounts of pain for
your fellow developers when they encounter horrible repoman ou
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Ciaran McCreesh a écrit :
> On Wed, 9 Jan 2008 20:06:00 +0100
> "Wulf C. Krueger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Wednesday, 09. January 2008 19:45:38 Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> Then the one particular part of 3.5.5 that's affected gets fixed
>
On Wednesday 09 January 2008 18:16:24 Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 17:27:52 +
>
> Roy Marples <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Wed, 2008-01-09 at 17:01 +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > > 3.5.5 was good enough to be keyworded stable at one point. Thus, it
> > > can't be *that*
On Wed, 9 Jan 2008 20:06:00 +0100
"Wulf C. Krueger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wednesday, 09. January 2008 19:45:38 Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > > > Then the one particular part of 3.5.5 that's affected gets fixed
> > > > and priority keyworded.
> > > So you suggest that mips keeps doing nothing
On Wednesday, 09. January 2008 19:45:38 Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > > Then the one particular part of 3.5.5 that's affected gets fixed
> > > and priority keyworded.
> > So you suggest that mips keeps doing nothing and expect others to
> > work *more* in exchange for that?
> Well, most users will sim
On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 20:50:38 +0200
Petteri Räty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So you just ignore for example my post about CIA activity for the
> mips team?
That falls into the highly misleading category.
--
Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
Ciaran McCreesh kirjoitti:
On Tue, 08 Jan 2008 18:59:29 -0800
Chris Gianelloni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The issue that was raised is that certain arch teams are incapable of
keeping up with the minimal workload they already have and what should
be done about it.
The issue was raised, with ab
On Wed, 9 Jan 2008 19:29:53 +0100
"Wulf C. Krueger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wednesday, 09. January 2008 19:16:24 Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > > So what happens if a flaw is discovered in KDE 3.5.5 that allows
> > > root access?
> > Then the one particular part of 3.5.5 that's affected gets fi
On Wednesday, 09. January 2008 19:16:24 Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > So what happens if a flaw is discovered in KDE 3.5.5 that allows root
> > access?
> Then the one particular part of 3.5.5 that's affected gets fixed and
> priority keyworded.
So you suggest that mips keeps doing nothing and expect
On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 17:27:52 +
Roy Marples <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 2008-01-09 at 17:01 +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > 3.5.5 was good enough to be keyworded stable at one point. Thus, it
> > can't be *that* bad.
>
> So what happens if a flaw is discovered in KDE 3.5.5 that allow
On Wed, 9 Jan 2008 10:07:31 -0800
"Alec Warner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Actually if they dump kde-3.5.5 and anything depending on it, then
> they don't break the tree and everyone is happy, no?
Everyone except the users, who end up with pages and pages of horrible
Portage output...
--
Ciara
On 1/9/08, Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 17:49:40 +0100
> "Wulf C. Krueger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >> What's the proper fix for when keyword requests stagnate in
> > >> bugzilla?
> > > That depends upon whether the keyword request is important.
> >
> > Let
Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> I have foo 1.0, which is mips. There is foo 2.0, which is stable
> everywhere else. The foo 1.0 ebuild does not conform to current ebuild
> standards. I want to commit changes to foo 2.0, and repoman won't allow
> me due to problems in foo 1.0, but I don't want to WASTE
On Wed, 2008-01-09 at 17:01 +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> 3.5.5 was good enough to be keyworded stable at one point. Thus, it
> can't be *that* bad.
So what happens if a flaw is discovered in KDE 3.5.5 that allows root
access?
In your world you allow mips users to trivially install now flawed a
Hello Ciaran!
(On a totally unrelated side-note - how do you pronounce your name?)
Let's take a real world example: KDE 3.5.5 is old, buggy and has
some important issues which won't be fixed anymore.
Yet it's the most proven version on mips.
Yes.
...and break the tree spectacularly, causin
On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 17:49:40 +0100
"Wulf C. Krueger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> What's the proper fix for when keyword requests stagnate in
> >> bugzilla?
> > That depends upon whether the keyword request is important.
>
> Let's take a real world example: KDE 3.5.5 is old, buggy and has
> som
Hello Ciaran!
What's the proper fix for when keyword requests stagnate in
bugzilla?
That depends upon whether the keyword request is important.
Let's take a real world example: KDE 3.5.5 is old, buggy and has some
important issues which won't be fixed anymore.
At first, this wasn't too im
On Wed, 9 Jan 2008 10:36:13 -0500 (EST)
"Caleb Tennis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The issue was raised, with absolutely no proof or justification, and
> > every previous time said issue has been raised it's turned out to be
> > somewhere between highly misleading and utter bollocks.
>
> Let's
> The issue was raised, with absolutely no proof or justification, and
> every previous time said issue has been raised it's turned out to be
> somewhere between highly misleading and utter bollocks.
Let's assume that you are right, and that dropping keywords is not a proper
thing to
do.
What's
> I'd imagine most of them are staying well clear of it because they've
> already seen this discussion a dozen times before and know that it's
> just the usual malcontents going around making largely bogus claims and
> backing them up with lots of thinly veiled mips bashing rather than
> anything r
On Wed, 9 Jan 2008 06:58:40 -0800
"Alec Warner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think the argument here is that developers control ebuilds. If a
> given ebuild is causing 'trouble' for a maintainer it is within their
> control to remove the ebuild. Just as if a given package is causing
> the maint
On 1/8/08, Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 8 Jan 2008 18:44:22 -0800
> "Alec Warner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Uh... So where do the original problems come from? Are you saying
> > > that packages mysteriously start breaking on their own because
> > > no-one's maintainin
On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 04:11:58 +0100
Matthias Langer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Really, this discussion is completely pointless unless some mips
> users/developers join in - or aren't there any at all?
I'd imagine most of them are staying well clear of it because they've
already seen this discussi
On Tue, 08 Jan 2008 18:59:29 -0800
Chris Gianelloni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The issue that was raised is that certain arch teams are incapable of
> keeping up with the minimal workload they already have and what should
> be done about it.
The issue was raised, with absolutely no proof or just
On Wed, 2008-01-09 at 02:47 +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Tue, 8 Jan 2008 18:44:22 -0800
> "Alec Warner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Uh... So where do the original problems come from? Are you saying
> > > that packages mysteriously start breaking on their own because
> > > no-one's maint
On Wed, 2008-01-09 at 02:47 +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Tue, 8 Jan 2008 18:44:22 -0800
> "Alec Warner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Uh... So where do the original problems come from? Are you saying
> > > that packages mysteriously start breaking on their own because
> > > no-one's mainta
On Tue, 8 Jan 2008 18:44:22 -0800
"Alec Warner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Uh... So where do the original problems come from? Are you saying
> > that packages mysteriously start breaking on their own because
> > no-one's maintaining them?
>
> Of course they do
Ah, right. Because of the magica
On 1/8/08, Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 08 Jan 2008 18:38:07 -0800
> Chris Gianelloni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Wed, 2008-01-09 at 02:17 +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > > Oh. Yeah. Because people with an attitude like yours think that the
> > > correct way to fix a
On Tue, 08 Jan 2008 18:38:07 -0800
Chris Gianelloni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 2008-01-09 at 02:17 +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > Oh. Yeah. Because people with an attitude like yours think that the
> > correct way to fix a repoman message is to start nuking arch
> > keywords, ignoring
On Wed, 2008-01-09 at 02:17 +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> Oh. Yeah. Because people with an attitude like yours think that the
> correct way to fix a repoman message is to start nuking arch keywords,
> ignoring what it does to the rest of the tree.
...for the architecture in question which is pro
On Tue, 08 Jan 2008 14:04:49 -0800
Chris Gianelloni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I have foo 1.0, which is mips. There is foo 2.0, which is stable
> everywhere else. The foo 1.0 ebuild does not conform to current
> ebuild standards. I want to commit changes to foo 2.0, and repoman
> won't allow m
On Sun, 2008-01-06 at 23:35 +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Sun, 06 Jan 2008 14:09:24 +0100
> Matthias Langer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > This kind of conversation is not technical at all... Ciaranm, are you
> > a MIPS user? If so, do you think that running KEYWORDS="mips" is less
> > likely
On Sun, 2008-01-06 at 23:34 +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> Ok, so explain:
>
> * How perpetually open bugs are a maintenance burden. They don't
> generate emails and they don't require any work on the maintainer's
> part. Is the mere fact that they show up in queries all you're
> concerned about,
On Sun, 2008-01-06 at 11:36 -0600, Ryan Hill wrote:
> that has both sides happy here, but that won't happen if you don't admit
> there's a problem.
He doesn't have to admit anything. He is neither an ebuild maintainer
nor an arch team developer. Basically, his opinion is useless in this
case, a
On Sat, 2008-01-05 at 04:32 +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 20:20:18 -0800
> Chris Gianelloni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > No offense to anyone, but holding back hundreds of developers and
> > thousands of users for a handful of developers
>
> ...and how exactly are hundreds
On Sun, 2008-01-06 at 23:35 +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Sun, 06 Jan 2008 14:09:24 +0100
> Matthias Langer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > This kind of conversation is not technical at all... Ciaranm, are you
> > a MIPS user? If so, do you think that running KEYWORDS="mips" is less
> > likely
Christian Faulhammer kirjoitti:
Hi,
Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
On Mon, 7 Jan 2008 00:35:41 +0100
Christian Faulhammer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
http://tinyurl.com/ypoxyg> is a list of closed security bugs
where mips is still cced. 163 is the total number, where surely
some duplica
On Mon, 7 Jan 2008 00:35:41 +0100
Christian Faulhammer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> http://tinyurl.com/ypoxyg> is a list of closed security bugs
> where mips is still cced. 163 is the total number, where surely some
> duplicates can be found (PHP, Mozilla products), but we can assume
> that quite
On Sun, 06 Jan 2008 14:09:24 +0100
Matthias Langer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This kind of conversation is not technical at all... Ciaranm, are you
> a MIPS user? If so, do you think that running KEYWORDS="mips" is less
> likely to result in breakage than running KEYWORDS="~mips"?
I think you'd
On Sun, 06 Jan 2008 11:36:06 -0600
Ryan Hill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > How will providing specific examples of how people are being held up
> > not be beneficial to the decision-making process?
>
> First you have to acknowledge that old perpetually open bugs and old
> unmaintained ebuilds ar
Piotr Jaroszyński wrote:
> Might as well toss a coin or check the phase of the moon...
Forgot those and dropping mips from the main repo as whole, yes.
lu
--
Luca Barbato
Gentoo Council Member
Gentoo/linux Gentoo/PPC
http://dev.gentoo.org/~lu_zero
--
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
On Sunday 06 of January 2008 13:04:13 Luca Barbato wrote:
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > On Sat, 05 Jan 2008 18:19:10 +0100
> >
> > Luca Barbato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> PS: has anybody checked how viable is now qemu-system ?
> >
> > Testing on qemu isn't anything like testing on real hardware
On Sun, 2008-01-06 at 09:12 +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Sun, 6 Jan 2008 10:08:47 +0100
> "Denis Dupeyron" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > No. What he meant and doesn't dare to say is you didn't ask, but
> > demanded, in your usual dry and pesky "I'm a spoiled 6-year old" tone.
> > And this a
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Sat, 05 Jan 2008 18:19:10 +0100
> Luca Barbato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> PS: has anybody checked how viable is now qemu-system ?
>
> Testing on qemu isn't anything like testing on real hardware. It's not
> a reliable or useful way of doing arch work.
>
We ALL know
В Сбт, 05/01/2008 в 18:17 -0600, Ryan Hill пишет:
> I don't know, I can kinda see both sides. Alt arches tend to be finicky
> so it's important that updates are well tested on them. Also they're
> more prone to break during upgrades, not only because they're more
> fragile but because upstream
On Sun, 6 Jan 2008 10:08:47 +0100
"Denis Dupeyron" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> No. What he meant and doesn't dare to say is you didn't ask, but
> demanded, in your usual dry and pesky "I'm a spoiled 6-year old" tone.
> And this as usual results in people ignoring you. People aren't as
> stupid as
On Jan 6, 2008 1:33 AM, Ciaran McCreesh
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, 5 Jan 2008 09:03:43 -0500 (EST)
> "Caleb Tennis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > If anyone has any examples of where they really are being held back
> > > and where they really have given the arch teams plenty of time to
On Sun, 2008-01-06 at 02:06 +0300, Peter Volkov wrote:
> В Сбт, 05/01/2008 в 18:19 +0100, Luca Barbato пишет:
> > Anything other suggestions?
>
> I think, arch which does not manage to cope with stabilize bugs force
> users to use unstable branch so it's good both for developers and users
> to fo
On Sat, 05 Jan 2008 18:19:10 +0100
Luca Barbato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> PS: has anybody checked how viable is now qemu-system ?
Testing on qemu isn't anything like testing on real hardware. It's not
a reliable or useful way of doing arch work.
--
Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description:
Ryan Hill wrote:
>> PS: has anybody checked how viable is now qemu-system ?
>
> Does it build with GCC 4 yet?
not yet...
--
Luca Barbato
Gentoo Council Member
Gentoo/linux Gentoo/PPC
http://dev.gentoo.org/~lu_zero
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
On Sat, 5 Jan 2008 09:03:43 -0500 (EST)
"Caleb Tennis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > If anyone has any examples of where they really are being held back
> > and where they really have given the arch teams plenty of time to do
> > something, I'd like to see them... Somehow I doubt it happens very
>
On Sat, 5 Jan 2008 12:47:51 +0200
Samuli Suominen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Mainly, talking about categories (yes, categories, no need to mention
> single ebuilds at this point) xfce-* and media-* here.
So nothing that's a priority for the users of those archs then. Now
please provide specific
В Сбт, 05/01/2008 в 18:19 +0100, Luca Barbato пишет:
> Anything other suggestions?
I think, arch which does not manage to cope with stabilize bugs force
users to use unstable branch so it's good both for developers and users
to force such arch to concentrate on fixing real bugs and maintain only
u
Ciaran McCreesh kirjoitti:
If anyone has any examples of where they really are being held back and
where they really have given the arch teams plenty of time to do
something, I'd like to see them... Somehow I doubt it happens very
often, if at all.
Maintainers want that the versions they prov
On Samstag, 5. Januar 2008, Wulf C. Krueger wrote:
> > Anything other suggestions?
>
> Let the maintainer of said package decide on the keywording (and therefore
> how to handle slacker arches).
That's not a good idea. What Gentoo needs is users (and this includes
co-develoepers) having a reliabl
On Saturday, 05. January 2008 18:19:10 Luca Barbato wrote:
> This thread so far spawned lots of reply from an external contributor
> making the point of keeping stale ebuilds around and 4 developers
> against the idea
Make that 5.
> Anything other suggestions?
Let the maintainer of said package
Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> This has been an issue for quite some time. Of course, the impact is
> debatable, but it seems that we cannot agree ourselves on what is
> agreeable, so I see this as a point to bring to the Council simply so it
> can be resolved "once and for all" and things can resume n
> If anyone has any examples of where they really are being held back and
> where they really have given the arch teams plenty of time to do
> something, I'd like to see them... Somehow I doubt it happens very
> often, if at all.
Why? You aren't the person I or anyone else has to make a case to.
On Sat, 5 Jan 2008 04:32:33 +
Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 20:20:18 -0800
> Chris Gianelloni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > No offense to anyone, but holding back hundreds of developers and
> > thousands of users for a handful of developers
>
> ...and how e
On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 20:20:18 -0800
Chris Gianelloni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> No offense to anyone, but holding back hundreds of developers and
> thousands of users for a handful of developers
...and how exactly are hundreds of developers and thousands of users
being held back? So far as I can
On Fri, 2008-01-04 at 22:37 +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> Really, I'd like to see some genuine examples of cases where people
> think they have a legitimate value of Z...
How about we base X Y and Z on the number of verifiable users of said
arch? That's just as arbitrary and fits with the norma
On Fri, 2008-01-04 at 21:02 +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> X and Y are pretty much irrelevant. The important factor is Z, the
> impact of leaving things the way they are.
...and the idea is to let the Council decide what level of Z is
acceptable. Currently, it appears as if the "issue" is mainta
On Fri, 4 Jan 2008 17:26:39 -0500 (EST)
"Caleb Tennis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > X and Y are pretty much irrelevant. The important factor is Z, the
> > impact of leaving things the way they are.
>
> Well, I'm asking the council to discuss when "pretty much" irrelevant
> no longer applies.
Co
> X and Y are pretty much irrelevant. The important factor is Z, the
> impact of leaving things the way they are.
Well, I'm asking the council to discuss when "pretty much" irrelevant no longer
applies.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
On Fri, 4 Jan 2008 06:23:11 -0500 (EST)
"Caleb Tennis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Most of the time, when people are moaning about 'slacker' archs,
> > they don't have any kind of decent technical reason for doing so...
> > In cases where such a reason exists, the arch teams are usually
> > qui
> Most of the time, when people are moaning about 'slacker' archs, they
> don't have any kind of decent technical reason for doing so... In cases
> where such a reason exists, the arch teams are usually quite happy to
> prioritise if asked.
And the point of me asking for the council to talk about
On Thu, 03 Jan 2008 19:21:39 -0600
Ryan Hill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > On Thu, 03 Jan 2008 18:40:43 -0600
> > Ryan Hill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> I have four versions of freetype sitting around that I'd really
> >> like to get rid of
> >
> > And what is the cost
On Thu, 03 Jan 2008 18:40:43 -0600
Ryan Hill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I have four versions of freetype sitting around that I'd really like
> to get rid of
And what is the cost of you not getting rid of them? Is there any
particular reason it matters when it's done?
--
Ciaran McCreesh
signa
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Jon Portnoy wrote:
| On Fri, Jan 06, 2006 at 01:37:45AM -0700, Duncan wrote:
|
|>What word to use in place of "distribution", when one wants to include the
|>BSDs and other "non-distributions" as well, other than
|>Linux/BSD[/*ix]][/OSX], or simply *i
Lance Albertson wrote:
I never meant that each subproject can't have their own goals. They need
to have those of course! I was more directed that there isn't a person
in charge of all the subprojects just to keep track of them (Not
governing them). i.e. if subproject foo is working on adding feat
On Friday 06 January 2006 09:37, Duncan wrote:
> Well, for that matter, "distribution" is considered at least by my *BSD
> friends, to be a peculiarly Linux term. From their perspective, Linux has
> 1001 "distributions", but they only have the one *BSD they choose to use.
That's what we started ch
On Fri, Jan 06, 2006 at 01:37:45AM -0700, Duncan wrote:
>
> What word to use in place of "distribution", when one wants to include the
> BSDs and other "non-distributions" as well, other than
> Linux/BSD[/*ix]][/OSX], or simply *ix... *IS* there such a term?
>
Well we could say "meta operating s
On Thursday 05 January 2006 11:26, Duncan wrote:
> This man speaks my mind. That's one of the things I'm worried about with
> the Enterprise Gentoo thing, and why I think it will make a better
> separate project than part of Gentoo itself.
I agree mostly, too. Just that QA has more aspects than "
On Thu, 05 Jan 2006 03:26:03 -0700 Duncan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| Anyone who thinks Gentoo isn't progressing simply isn't seeing the
| forest for all the trees, as they say. Another way of putting it is
| that Gentoo seems to be in that critical period after the honeymoon,
| it has hit its mi
Lance Albertson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Mark Loeser wrote:
> > Chris Gianelloni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> >>I completely agree with you here. What Gentoo does is make a
> >>meta-distribution, that one can utilize to build their own distribution
> >>easily. This isn't limited to Linux, eithe
Mark Loeser wrote:
> Chris Gianelloni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
>>On Tue, 2006-01-03 at 04:08 -0700, Duncan wrote:
>>
>>>I believe that's where the differing opinions begin to come in. Here's
>>>mine. I don't believe that Gentoo, /as/ /Gentoo/, will ever be very
>>>successful as an Enterprise
Chris Gianelloni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Tue, 2006-01-03 at 04:08 -0700, Duncan wrote:
> > I believe that's where the differing opinions begin to come in. Here's
> > mine. I don't believe that Gentoo, /as/ /Gentoo/, will ever be very
> > successful as an Enterprise distribution, and I don'
On Tue, 2006-01-03 at 04:08 -0700, Duncan wrote:
> Patrick Lauer posted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, excerpted
> below, on Mon, 02 Jan 2006 22:52:43 +0100:
>
> Lance Albertson wrote:
> >> When I say "we have a niche we're perfect at",
> >> I'm mainly referring to the source-based nature of our OS. There
94 matches
Mail list logo
