Re: [gentoo-dev] Around 425 non-existent packages in p.mask?

Marius Mauch wrote: If not, i *personally* could go slowly removing the entries, along with other people willing to help, or any other _better_ suggestion to deal with this? Don't do this without explicitly checking with the maintainer for a package (if existant). Generally redund

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

On Wednesday 23 November 2005 05:01, Andrew Muraco wrote: > > (I've read all of the comments up until now, but my response is not > directed at any particular post.) > > Facts: (according to me, and what I've read) > -The releng team DID make a good decision by making stage 3 default in > the instr

Re: [gentoo-dev] Around 425 non-existent packages in p.mask?

On Wednesday 23 November 2005 05:05, Donnie Berkholz wrote: > Luis F. Araujo wrote: > | So, i wrote a script to try to get a list of those orphaned entries, > | and it looks like there are more than 400 packages/ebuilds which are > | still listed in p.m but that don't exist in the tree anymore. > |

Re: [gentoo-dev] Update of http://wwwredesign.gentoo.org

On Wednesday 23 November 2005 07:40, Curtis Napier wrote: > Aarons design uses a smaller default font, that is not acceptable from > an accessibility POV. The main font is at 1em and all cursory fonts > multipliers of 1em. The main font will remain at 1em which is the > standard for the accessibili

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: status of http://wwwredesign.gentoo.org

On Tuesday 22 November 2005 18:45, Duncan wrote: > I run Konqueror/KHTML, and obviously it isn't setting it, either. > However, I do run thru privoxy, and may be able to whip up a filter to > add it... I'll have to think a bit... > > I've not gotten into wget, much more than being aware it's  often

Re: [gentoo-dev] Update of http://wwwredesign.gentoo.org

Paul de Vrieze wrote: On Wednesday 23 November 2005 07:40, Curtis Napier wrote: ps. I also found two graphical glitches: - There is a misterious white bar just below the overview bar (see ws1.png) - The corners of the jump pads do not have the proper background color (see ws2.png) Fixed. In

[gentoo-dev] Re: new developer Joshua Nichols (nichoj)

Petteri Räty posted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, excerpted below, on Wed, 23 Nov 2005 00:26:57 +0200: > Jochen Maes wrote: >> Hello all, >> >> > >> I'd appreciate a nice welcome and a descent slap on the butt when you >> pass him... >> >> Joshua, welcome! >> >> >> > http://tinyurl.com/n9qb > I hop

Re: [gentoo-dev] Update of http://wwwredesign.gentoo.org

On Wed, Nov 23, 2005 at 01:40:45AM -0500, Curtis Napier wrote: > If there are no more outstanding issues reported I will submit this > current layout for approval. there's still a ton of wasted space in the purple bar ... if that was tightened up, more news could be displayed ... having the last

Re: Re[6]: [gentoo-dev] Decision to remove stage1/2 from installation documentation

On Wednesday 23 November 2005 01:55, Jakub Moc wrote: > > emerge -e world && emerge -e world && emerge depclean > > You've missed revdep-rebuild to fix the borkage that emerge depclean > produced. ;) After double rebuilding of the complete world I would seriously doubt it that any stray dependenc

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: new developer Joshua Nichols (nichoj)

On Wed, Nov 23, 2005 at 03:14:25AM -0700, Duncan wrote: > OK, this is a gripe of mine, so... [snip unuseful rant] Do you always have this much time on your hands? Perhaps if you try cutting down on the length of your emails someone might actually read them - instead you could then spend the time o

[gentoo-dev] Possible solution: email subdomain

Marius Mauch posted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, excerpted below, on Wed, 23 Nov 2005 00:26:05 +0100: > On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 11:19:17 +0100 > Paul de Vrieze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Why not just @at.gentoo.org >> Makes clear what it is. Arch testers are not staff. Not that we have any >> staff. >

Re: [gentoo-dev] Around 425 non-existent packages in p.mask?

On Tue, Nov 22, 2005 at 08:29:36PM -0800, Tuan Van wrote: > Luis F. Araujo wrote: > >Hello everyone, > > > >A few days ago i glanced over package.mask , and i was surprised > >about how many non-existent ebuild/packages entries are there. > > > > please adjust your script. > >=cat/foo-1.2 is valid

Re: [gentoo-dev] Around 425 non-existent packages in p.mask?

On Wednesday 23 November 2005 11:52, Mike Frysinger wrote: > yes, i imagine there are a bunch of these false positives ... you can > see the gcc-config mask is wrongly flagged for this reason And the complete KDE mask that is around 300 ebuilds... Really, don't have hurry to "fix" those entries bef

Re[8]: [gentoo-dev] Decision to remove stage1/2 from installation documentation

23.11.2005, 11:25:58, Paul de Vrieze wrote: > On Wednesday 23 November 2005 01:55, Jakub Moc wrote: >> > emerge -e world && emerge -e world && emerge depclean >> >> You've missed revdep-rebuild to fix the borkage that emerge depclean >> produced. ;) > After double rebuilding of the complete worl

Re: [gentoo-dev] Update of http://wwwredesign.gentoo.org

On Wed, Nov 23, 2005 at 01:40:45AM -0500, Curtis Napier wrote: > If there are no more outstanding issues reported I will submit this > current layout for approval. the links in the footbars still dont have 'on mouse over' behavior like all the other links -mike -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing l

[gentoo-dev] Re: Update of http://wwwredesign.gentoo.org

Curtis Napier posted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, excerpted below, on Wed, 23 Nov 2005 01:40:45 -0500: > Here is a list of items that have changed since my last post: Wow! Very good (near perfect!) and dramatically improved (beyond what I would have considered possible). Thanks for addressing directly

[gentoo-dev]

unsubscribe

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

R Hill posted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, excerpted below, on Wed, 23 Nov 2005 00:16:38 -0600: > this is why things need to be made clear > before the fact, not after they happen, and need to be discussed with both > devs and users to make sure everyone's on the same page, instead of > spending all day

Re: Re[8]: [gentoo-dev] Decision to remove stage1/2 from installation documentation

On Wed, 2005-11-23 at 12:06 +0100, Jakub Moc wrote: > BTW, I'd still like to know how I'll get nptl(only) hardened install once > stage1 is gone. i386 does not have nptl, and I've done change CHOST && emerge > -e system && emerge -e world job a couple of times and it never went smoothly. Please c

[gentoo-dev] Re: Re: new developer Joshua Nichols (nichoj)

Henrik Brix Andersen posted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, excerpted below, on Wed, 23 Nov 2005 11:36:11 +0100: > On Wed, Nov 23, 2005 at 03:14:25AM -0700, Duncan wrote: >> OK, this is a gripe of mine, so... > [snip unuseful rant] Political point: Calling someone's hard work "unuseful" without qualificat

[gentoo-dev] Re: (unknown)

Chris posted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, excerpted below, on Wed, 23 Nov 2005 11:42:42 +: > List-Unsubscribe: > unsubscribeunsubscribe Read the headers in every post on the list, including yours, and quoted above for your convenience. -- Duncan - List replies prefe

Re: Re[8]: [gentoo-dev] Decision to remove stage1/2 from installation documentation

On Wed, 2005-11-23 at 08:01 -0500, Ned Ludd wrote: > On Wed, 2005-11-23 at 12:06 +0100, Jakub Moc wrote: > > > BTW, I'd still like to know how I'll get nptl(only) hardened install once > > stage1 is gone. i386 does not have nptl, and I've done change CHOST && > > emerge > > -e system && emerge -e

Re: Re[8]: [gentoo-dev] Decision to remove stage1/2 from installation documentation

On Wednesday 23 November 2005 12:06, Jakub Moc wrote: > 23.11.2005, 11:25:58, Paul de Vrieze wrote: > > On Wednesday 23 November 2005 01:55, Jakub Moc wrote: > >> > emerge -e world && emerge -e world && emerge depclean > >> > >> You've missed revdep-rebuild to fix the borkage that emerge depclean >

Re: Re[8]: [gentoo-dev] Decision to remove stage1/2 from installation documentation

On Wed, Nov 23, 2005 at 08:19:40AM -0500, Ned Ludd wrote: > ha ok new rule for me. drink coffee before sending first mail of the > morn. What's this supposed to imply? That you didn't intend to repeat yourself in the original mail - or that hardened will continue to ship 2.4.x stages for 2006.0+?

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

On Wed, 2005-11-23 at 10:24 +0100, Paul de Vrieze wrote: > Most people that complain are probably misinformed about the usefulness of > stages 1 and 2. They are really only useful if you know what you're doing > and don't really need the handbook that much. Those users should be able > to find t

Re: Re[8]: [gentoo-dev] Decision to remove stage1/2 from installation documentation

On Wed, 2005-11-23 at 16:57 +0100, Henrik Brix Andersen wrote: > On Wed, Nov 23, 2005 at 08:19:40AM -0500, Ned Ludd wrote: > > ha ok new rule for me. drink coffee before sending first mail of the > > morn. > > What's this supposed to imply? That you didn't intend to repeat > yourself in the origin

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: new developer Joshua Nichols (nichoj)

Duncan wrote: > Petteri Räty posted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, excerpted below, on > Wed, 23 Nov 2005 00:26:57 +0200: > > >>Jochen Maes wrote: >> >>>Hello all, >>> >>> >> >>>I'd appreciate a nice welcome and a descent slap on the butt when you >>>pass him... >>> >>>Joshua, welcome! >>> >>> >>> >> >>ht

Re: [gentoo-dev] Possible solution: email subdomain

On Wed, 23 Nov 2005 03:39:08 -0700 Duncan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Here's the proposal again. If there's an issue with it, shoot it > down, but from here, it certainly seems to fit the bill. Again, > I'd /love/ to say I was the one that came up with it, but I wasn't. > =8^) > > * give [AH]T

Re: [gentoo-dev] Around 425 non-existent packages in p.mask?

On Wed, 23 Nov 2005 08:26:03 +0200 Alin Nastac <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Marius Mauch wrote: > > >>If not, i *personally* could go slowly removing the entries, along > >>with other people willing to help, or any other _better_ suggestion > >>to deal with this? > >> > >> > > > >Don't do thi

[gentoo-dev] R/O CVS access and its purpose for ATs (was Email subdomain)

On Tue, 2005-11-22 at 17:56 -0600, Lance Albertson wrote: > Marius Mauch wrote: > > On Sun, 20 Nov 2005 09:32:55 +1100 > > Ben Skeggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > >>Anyway, the most important reason for the GLEP (IMO) is giving AT's > >>r/o access to CVS. When working on bugs, it's alway

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: new developer Joshua Nichols (nichoj)

On Wed, 23 Nov 2005 06:05:09 -0700 Duncan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > If it's so useless, after > all, would someone have spent the time to post it? Apparently someone did. -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

[gentoo-dev] New Dev: Marien Zwart (marienz)

Hola all. Please welcome Marien Zwart, aka marienz to the crew. He's joining up as a python monkey, working on twisted (2.x stable ebuilds anyone? ^.^), portage 3 hacking, and pretty much anything python wise. Finally, he's been helping out in #gentoo for quite some time. His words- From Groni

Re: [gentoo-dev] R/O CVS access and its purpose for ATs (was Email subdomain)

On Wed, Nov 23, 2005 at 10:38:39AM -0500 or thereabouts, Daniel Ostrow wrote: > And herein I think lies some confusion. Personally if I were an AT both > would be important but more to the point the "more up to date" issue > would be the most important. I agree -- this was the main point of the o

[gentoo-dev] Re: Digest of gentoo-dev@gentoo.org issue 132 (7727-7776)

UNSUBSCRIBE -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Update of http://wwwredesign.gentoo.org

On Wed, 2005-11-23 at 01:40 -0500, Curtis Napier wrote: > Accessibilty guidelines say that all text links should be underlined. I > made an exception for the grey menu bar for aesthetic purposes but will > not make an exception for any other links. Given the above shouldn't the text links b

Re: [gentoo-dev] R/O CVS access and its purpose for ATs (was Email subdomain)

Daniel Ostrow wrote: > Lance: > > I know this is a far cry from what you are proposing, and I understand > that the present CVS server cannot handle this sort of load but I > believe that this was the original intention at least...someone correct > me if I am wrong. One of the issues we had with

Re: [gentoo-dev] Around 425 non-existent packages in p.mask?

Mike Frysinger wrote: On Tue, Nov 22, 2005 at 08:29:36PM -0800, Tuan Van wrote: Luis F. Araujo wrote: Hello everyone, A few days ago i glanced over package.mask , and i was surprised about how many non-existent ebuild/packages entries are there. please adjust your script.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Around 425 non-existent packages in p.mask?

Marius Mauch wrote: On Wed, 23 Nov 2005 08:26:03 +0200 Alin Nastac <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Marius Mauch wrote: If not, i *personally* could go slowly removing the entries, along with other people willing to help, or any other _better_ suggestion to deal with this? Do

Re: [gentoo-dev] status of http://wwwredesign.gentoo.org

Looks nice in Firefox-1.0.7-r3 with SyncMaster710N (birghtness 35, contrast 65). Suggestions (wrt http://wwwredesign.gentoo.org): 1) The additional links in green at the top look out of place, a bit hard to read, and there lacks any break between the links adding to reading difficulty and, perhaps

Re: [gentoo-dev] Update of http://wwwredesign.gentoo.org

On Wed, 23 Nov 2005 01:40:45 -0500 Curtis Napier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: | The artwork is all part of the winning design. Any issues with the | infinity symbol should have been addressed a year ago. I did bring this up a year ago. I brought it up before the close of voting too. Back then, it w

Re: [gentoo-dev] Update of http://wwwredesign.gentoo.org

On Wed, Nov 23, 2005 at 04:57:11PM +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > I did bring this up a year ago. I brought it up before the close of > voting too. Back then, it was claimed that the infinity was just a > minor detail and not part of the design itself. Yes, I remember that - I just can't locate i

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

On Tue, Nov 22, 2005 at 07:47:11PM +0100, Danny van Dyk wrote: [... About the stage1/2 instructions in the Gentoo FAQ ...] > That's currently a stub. If i recall right, Swift mentioned on #-dev > that he'd need to refurbish this. Lots of heat again. Good thing, because it is quite cold here in Bel

[gentoo-dev] request for comments/review: twisted.eclass

Hi all, Since it's policy and especially since it's the first time I write one of these things I'm submitting an eclass I want to add to the tree for review. It will only be used by the twisted subpackages I'll be maintaining (see bug 80639). Subpackage ebuilds using this only have to set MY_PACK

Re: [gentoo-dev] Update of http://wwwredesign.gentoo.org

On Wed, 23 Nov 2005 20:49:47 +0100 Henrik Brix Andersen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: | On Wed, Nov 23, 2005 at 04:57:11PM +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: | > I did bring this up a year ago. I brought it up before the close of | > voting too. Back then, it was claimed that the infinity was just a | > mi

[gentoo-dev] enewuser/enewgroup getting their own eclass

OK. I've been looking at some of these issues we've been having, and I've been thinking of moving enewuser, egetent, and enewgroup to their own eclass. This will resolve some issues with things in system, or otherwise early on, requiring shadow on Linux to get useradd. Two examples of this are b

[gentoo-dev] Re: Re: new developer Joshua Nichols (nichoj)

Petteri Räty posted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, excerpted below, on Wed, 23 Nov 2005 16:25:21 +0200: > 16:19 -!- Topic for #gentoo-java: Java on Gentoo Linux | For Java issues > not related to Gentoo, please refer to ##java | Java Bugs: > http://tinyurl.com/n9qb | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Ahh.. well explain

Re: [gentoo-dev] enewuser/enewgroup getting their own eclass

On Wednesday 23 November 2005 19:15, Chris Gianelloni wrote: > I'd be willing to make all the changes to the tree to facilitate this, > and unless someone has a really good reason not to do so, I think I'll > probably do it after the Thanksgiving holiday. Well if you can give us an ISO date it woul

Re: [gentoo-dev] request for comments/review: twisted.eclass

Alle 19:03, mercoledì 23 novembre 2005, Marien Zwart el ga butta: > |Hi all, > | > |Since it's policy and especially since it's the first time I write > | one of these things I'm submitting an eclass I want to add to the > | tree for review. It will only be used by the twisted subpackages > | I'll

[gentoo-dev] ***SPAM*** Gentoo

I want have Gentoo in e-shop with Linux distributions. I find, that Gentoo is under GNU/GPL. Must I distribute in e-shop sources of Gentoo too? Where I can found them(sources)? Where I can found graphics, which I can use on CD with Gentoo? With best regards Filip Bartmann -

[gentoo-dev] Re: Possible solution: email subdomain

Marius Mauch posted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, excerpted below, on Wed, 23 Nov 2005 15:40:49 +0100: > On Wed, 23 Nov 2005 03:39:08 -0700 > Duncan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Here's the proposal again. If there's an issue with it, shoot it down, >> but from here, it certainly seems to fit the bill

Re: [gentoo-dev] request for comments/review: twisted.eclass

On Wed, 23 Nov 2005 19:44:32 +0100 "Francesco R." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: | `tr abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ` | | ^^^ this one is chosen from MySQL configure script so it should be | portable (or as often I'm missing something ?) Can't use tr in global scope. -- Cia

Re: [gentoo-dev] enewuser/enewgroup getting their own eclass

On Wed, Nov 23, 2005 at 01:15:52PM -0500, Chris Gianelloni wrote: > OK. I've been looking at some of these issues we've been having, and > I've been thinking of moving enewuser, egetent, and enewgroup to their > own eclass. This will resolve some issues with things in system, or > otherwise early

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo

On Wed, 23 Nov 2005 19:49:18 +0100 Filip Bartmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: | I want have Gentoo in e-shop with Linux distributions. I find, that | Gentoo is under GNU/GPL. Must I distribute in e-shop sources of | Gentoo too? Where I can found them(sources)? Where I can found | graphics, which I c

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Possible solution: email subdomain

On 11/23/05, Duncan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Marius Mauch posted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > excerpted below, on Wed, 23 Nov 2005 15:40:49 +0100: > > > On Wed, 23 Nov 2005 03:39:08 -0700 > > Duncan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >> Here's the proposal again. If there's an issue with it, shoot it

Re: [gentoo-dev] enewuser/enewgroup getting their own eclass

On Wed, 2005-11-23 at 19:30 +0100, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote: > On Wednesday 23 November 2005 19:15, Chris Gianelloni wrote: > > I'd be willing to make all the changes to the tree to facilitate this, > > and unless someone has a really good reason not to do so, I think I'll > > probably do it

Re: [gentoo-dev] enewuser/enewgroup getting their own eclass

On Wed, 2005-11-23 at 12:52 -0600, Brian Harring wrote: > On Wed, Nov 23, 2005 at 01:15:52PM -0500, Chris Gianelloni wrote: > > OK. I've been looking at some of these issues we've been having, and > > I've been thinking of moving enewuser, egetent, and enewgroup to their > > own eclass. This will

Re[2]: [gentoo-dev] Re: Possible solution: email subdomain

23.11.2005, 20:07:15, Dan Meltzer wrote: > Can we get all current developers renamed to nick.developer then? just > to alleiviate any confusion someone may have... > [snip a buttload or two] NO (I sincerely hope at least), and please let's finally stop messing w/ email addresses causing furthe

Re: [gentoo-dev] enewuser/enewgroup getting their own eclass

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Chris Gianelloni wrote: | These packages do not need shadow (though the system might, but that's | outside my scope) once they are installed, only to install. However, it | is not needed to build. What *DEPEND is correct? It fits into RDEPEND (oddl

Re: Re[2]: [gentoo-dev] Re: Possible solution: email subdomain

forgot my sarcasm tags :) Get the idea though? On 11/23/05, Jakub Moc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 23.11.2005, 20:07:15, Dan Meltzer wrote: > > > > Can we get all current developers renamed to nick.developer then? just > > to alleiviate any confusion someone may have... > > > [snip a buttload o

Re: [gentoo-dev] enewuser/enewgroup getting their own eclass

On Wed, 2005-11-23 at 11:40 -0800, Donnie Berkholz wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > Chris Gianelloni wrote: > | These packages do not need shadow (though the system might, but that's > | outside my scope) once they are installed, only to install. However, it > | is not

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

On 11/22/05, Chris Gianelloni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Give me one example of something that you can do with a stage1 or stage2 > tarball that you cannot with a stage3 tarball. > I may not be the typical user, but I use Stage1 to build servers, because I can fit a boot image + stage1 tarball o

[gentoo-dev] Re: enewuser/enewgroup getting their own eclass

Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò posted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, excerpted below, on Wed, 23 Nov 2005 19:30:21 +0100: > On Wednesday 23 November 2005 19:15, Chris Gianelloni wrote: >> I'd be willing to make all the changes to the tree to facilitate this, >> and unless someone has a really good reason not to

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

On 11/23/05, Mike Owen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 11/22/05, Chris Gianelloni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Give me one example of something that you can do with a stage1 or stage2 > > tarball that you cannot with a stage3 tarball. > > > > I may not be the typical user, but I use Stage1 to bui

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: enewuser/enewgroup getting their own eclass

On Wed, Nov 23, 2005 at 01:06:18PM -0700, Duncan wrote: > Fourth Thursday in November... so tomorrow... Except in Canada, where it falls on the second Monday in October. So Chris might to well to have a time-machine and make the change last month. -- Robin Hugh Johnson E-Mail : [EMAIL PROTECT

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: enewuser/enewgroup getting their own eclass

On Wed, 2005-11-23 at 13:06 -0700, Duncan wrote: > From an outside perspective, I'm sure it's amazing and crass that USians > see nothing unusual about the national holiday of thanks being > directly followed by the biggest day of commercial greed in the entire > year, as the opening day of the big

Re: [gentoo-dev] enewuser/enewgroup getting their own eclass

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Chris Gianelloni wrote: | That is what I thought. I was just wondering if there were some other | *DEPEND that I wasn't aware of that fit the bill of "needed for | installing from a package but not needed afterwards". It doesn't | *really* matter si

Re: [gentoo-dev] enewuser/enewgroup getting their own eclass

On Wed, Nov 23, 2005 at 12:38:44PM -0800, Donnie Berkholz wrote: > /me begins clamoring for IDEPEND (install-time deps). I've read the initial post a couple of times now, and I still don't get it. Could somebody please clarify how this differs from DEPEND? Regards, Brix -- Henrik Brix Andersen

Re: [gentoo-dev] enewuser/enewgroup getting their own eclass

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Henrik Brix Andersen wrote: | I've read the initial post a couple of times now, and I still don't | get it. | | Could somebody please clarify how this differs from DEPEND? Because DEPEND is only needed for the actual build (src_* functions). With bin

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

On 11/23/05, Dan Meltzer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 11/23/05, Mike Owen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I may not be the typical user, but I use Stage1 to build servers, > > because I can fit a boot image + stage1 tarball on a small usb drive, > > boot to that, and then I nfs mount $DISTDIR and

Re: [gentoo-dev] enewuser/enewgroup getting their own eclass

On Wed, Nov 23, 2005 at 01:03:00PM -0800, Donnie Berkholz wrote: > Because DEPEND is only needed for the actual build (src_* functions). > With binary packages, all the pkg_* functions are run but DEPEND > packages are not required to be installed. So anything external run in a > pkg_* function mus

[gentoo-dev] Re: Re: enewuser/enewgroup getting their own eclass

Chris Gianelloni posted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, excerpted below, on Wed, 23 Nov 2005 15:29:15 -0500: > On Wed, 2005-11-23 at 13:06 -0700, Duncan wrote: >> From an outside perspective, I'm sure it's amazing and crass that USians >> see nothing unusual about the national holiday of thanks being direct

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

On 11/23/05, Mike Owen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 11/23/05, Dan Meltzer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 11/23/05, Mike Owen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I may not be the typical user, but I use Stage1 to build servers, > > > because I can fit a boot image + stage1 tarball on a small usb

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: enewuser/enewgroup getting their own eclass

On Wed, 23 Nov 2005 14:14:31 -0700 Duncan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: | It may be possible to automate code creation, but it's not possible to | automate a community This list is not about making a 'community'. It's about getting development done. If you want to go and make lots of noise about comm

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: enewuser/enewgroup getting their own eclass

On Wed, 2005-11-23 at 14:14 -0700, Duncan wrote: > Chris Gianelloni posted > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, excerpted below, on > Wed, 23 Nov 2005 15:29:15 -0500: > > > On Wed, 2005-11-23 at 13:06 -0700, Duncan wrote: > >> From an outside perspective, I'm sure it's amazing and crass that USians > >> see no

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

On Tuesday 22 November 2005 16:14, Chris Gianelloni wrote: > Give me one example of something that you can do with a stage1 or stage2 > tarball that you cannot with a stage3 tarball. It's useful if you have to change compiler or other tool-chain part right from the start (e.g. use 3.4.* on i386,

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: enewuser/enewgroup getting their own eclass

23.11.2005, 22:14:31, Duncan wrote: [irrelevant twaddle omitted] > It may be possible to automate code creation, but it's not possible to > automate a community, and humans in such a community /don't/ tend to stay > strictly on topic. That's just the way humans are, and have been for far > longe

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Possible solution: email subdomain

On Wed, Nov 23, 2005 at 11:47:18AM -0700 or thereabouts, Duncan wrote: > As proposed, that recognizably distinct address was a subdomain. However, > infra has objected to that as unworkable. However, the wording of the > GLEP makes it clear that the subdomain was a proposal and that the details >

[gentoo-dev] Re: Update of http://wwwredesign.gentoo.org

Mike Frysinger wrote: > On Wed, Nov 23, 2005 at 01:40:45AM -0500, Curtis Napier wrote: >> The artwork is all part of the winning design. Any issues with the >> infinity symbol should have been addressed a year ago. > > well it clearly wasnt, might as well cover it now before the site goes > live

[gentoo-dev] Re: Possible solution: email subdomain

Kurt Lieber posted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, excerpted below, on Wed, 23 Nov 2005 22:28:35 +: > This solution has the same yellow star stigma that the original proposal > does. Agreed, altho it seems that's the way the council wanted it... > The only outstanding administrative issue is how the

Re: [gentoo-dev] Frozen Bacula??

Chris Lee wrote: As for 1.38.[01], I will have it committed to portage when I have some time in the near future, but please be aware that it will spend some time in ~arch just like every other pacakge. Better start out with a hard masked package at least for some time! The implications of the

[gentoo-dev] Maintainer's guides?

As someone probably already know (thru my blog or by looking to my commits), I'm being lately working on documenting the process I use to maintain some of my packages, in particular xine[1], vlc[2] and alsa[3]. I'm going in the next days to add more and more documentation about this as I want t

[gentoo-dev] Multi hash support in portage - status

So, along with the gpg signing stuff came along again the question to have multiple hash formats in digests and manifests. Current status is that portage only generates MD5 checksums and can verify both MD5 and SHA1 checksums. Creation of SHA1 is also possible but has so far been disabled as older

Re: [gentoo-dev] Multi hash support in portage - status

On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 01:04:32 +0100 Marius Mauch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Ok I have three modifications that are pending to go into portage: > - The first simply enables creation of SHA1 checksums (and others if > implemented like with the second mod), if you want to try it yourself > see the a

Re: [gentoo-dev] Multi hash support in portage - status

On Thursday 24 November 2005 09:32, Marius Mauch wrote: > On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 01:04:32 +0100 > > Marius Mauch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Ok I have three modifications that are pending to go into portage: > > - The first simply enables creation of SHA1 checksums (and others if > > implemented li

Re: [gentoo-dev] Multi hash support in portage - status

On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 09:49:20 +0900 Jason Stubbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thursday 24 November 2005 09:32, Marius Mauch wrote: > > On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 01:04:32 +0100 > > > > Marius Mauch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Ok I have three modifications that are pending to go into portage: > > >

Re: [gentoo-dev] enewuser/enewgroup getting their own eclass

On Wed, Nov 23, 2005 at 01:15:52PM -0500, Chris Gianelloni wrote: > OK. I've been looking at some of these issues we've been having, and > I've been thinking of moving enewuser, egetent, and enewgroup to their > own eclass. This will resolve some issues with things in system, or > otherwise early

Re: [gentoo-dev] Update of http://wwwredesign.gentoo.org

On Wed, Nov 23, 2005 at 06:05:53PM +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > > Afaicr, the infinity sign will be kept, but I know a huge discussion > > will be held on this. It's not important in this stage of the > > development though... > > And now we're told that it *was* important at that stage and it'

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

On Wed, Nov 23, 2005 at 10:24:55AM +0100, Paul de Vrieze wrote: > Most people that complain are probably misinformed about the usefulness of > stages 1 and 2. They are really only useful if you know what you're doing > and don't really need the handbook that much. Those users should be able > to

Re: [gentoo-dev] Update of http://wwwredesign.gentoo.org

On Thu, Nov 24, 2005 at 06:23:37AM +0100, Sven Vermeulen wrote: > On Wed, Nov 23, 2005 at 06:05:53PM +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > > > Afaicr, the infinity sign will be kept, but I know a huge discussion > > > will be held on this. It's not important in this stage of the > > > development though.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Multi hash support in portage - status

Marius Mauch wrote: [..] So much for background information, now to the actual question: Would you rather have now the ability to create multi-hash digests and Manifests with the result of a short and mid-term larger portage tree (in the long term the format will be phased out hopefully) or rathe