Why it's so hard not to delete ebuilds from the tree? Also it was
already discussed that if maintainer wishes he/she could drop some
keywords from old ebuild, e.g. if you have more recent version of
package stabilized on arch, just drop arch keyword from the old ebuild.
В Пнд, 10/11/2008 в 20:21
Mark Loeser wrote:
Jose Luis Rivero <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
Mark, I think you are looking at the problem only with the ebuild
maintainer hat put on. We have other players in our business, being one of
them the users. This policy would bring too many problems to them so ..
nono by my side.
Jeroen Roovers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted
[EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Tue, 11
Nov 2008 17:24:50 +0100:
> Words
> like "production", "critical" and "important" can be applied as easily
> to the state of a company's or nation's system as to a single person's.
Yes, but it's a relative th
On Tue, 2008-11-11 at 17:26 +, Duncan wrote:
> Jeroen Roovers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted
> [EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Tue, 11
> Nov 2008 17:24:50 +0100:
>
> > Words
> > like "production", "critical" and "important" can be applied as easily
> > to the state of a company's or nation
On Tue, 11 Nov 2008 17:26:51 + (UTC)
Duncan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Words
> > like "production", "critical" and "important" can be applied as
> > easily to the state of a company's or nation's system as to a
> > single person's.
> Yes, but it's a relative thing.
>huge snip<
That's wha
On Tue, 11 Nov 2008 16:06:02 + (UTC)
Duncan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If it's a "production, critical, important" system, then what is one
> doing installing updates on it directly without verifying them on a
> generally identical test system first?
Now you're ridiculing the idea of havi
Jeroen Roovers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted
[EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Tue, 11
Nov 2008 19:12:41 +0100:
> You did it again in the "IOW" quotation above explaining it as a "triple
> emphasis" instead of what it was intended to denote, namely as a few
> possible examples of the meaning of
Richard Freeman wrote:
Jose Luis Rivero wrote:
I would prefer to analyze the causes of the slacker arch (manpower,
hardware, etc) and if we are not able to solve the problem by any way
(asking for new devs, buying hardware, etc) go for mark it as
experimental and drop all stable keywords.
Ho
On Tue, 2008-11-11 at 11:18 +0100, Jose Luis Rivero wrote:
> Richard Freeman wrote:
> > Jose Luis Rivero wrote:
> >> I would prefer to analyze the causes of the slacker arch (manpower,
> >> hardware, etc) and if we are not able to solve the problem by any way
> >> (asking for new devs, buying har
Jose Luis Rivero <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted [EMAIL PROTECTED],
excerpted below, on Tue, 11 Nov 2008 11:18:34 +0100:
> Mixing software branches is very easy in the Gentoo world but it has
> some problems. Are you going to install in your stable (production,
> critial, important,...) system a combi
So, gentoo-wiki.com went down for a awhile and took something away from
our users something that is useful. Its back now, but I think we should
consider having our own official wiki that our users can contribute to.
We already have something very similar to this on the forums, and this
would just
Mark Loeser wrote:
> What are others feelings on this? What issues do you see with having a
> wiki? Do you see anyway to resolve the issue you see with us having a
> wiki?
+1! I have set up several wikis for work projects and used many others
to great benefit. Even those (on my work projects)
Mark Loeser wrote:
> So, gentoo-wiki.com went down for a awhile and took something away from
> our users something that is useful. Its back now, but I think we should
> consider having our own official wiki that our users can contribute to.
> We already have something very similar to this on the f
On Tue, 11 Nov 2008 18:45:32 -0500
Mark Loeser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So, gentoo-wiki.com went down for a awhile and took something away from
> our users something that is useful. Its back now, but I think we should
> consider having our own official wiki that our users can contribute to.
>
Mark Loeser wrote:
So, gentoo-wiki.com went down for a awhile and took something away from
our users something that is useful. Its back now, but I think we should
consider having our own official wiki that our users can contribute to.
We already have something very similar to this on the forums,
On Tue, 11 Nov 2008 18:45:32 -0500
Mark Loeser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What are others feelings on this? What issues do you see with having
> a wiki? Do you see anyway to resolve the issue you see with us
> having a wiki?
What will policy on articles that are horribly dangerous or outright
Hi,
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Tue, 11 Nov 2008 18:45:32 -0500
Mark Loeser<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
What are others feelings on this? What issues do you see with having
a wiki? Do you see anyway to resolve the issue you see with us
having a wiki?
What will policy on articles that are horri
Mark Loeser wrote:
So, gentoo-wiki.com went down for a awhile and took something away from
our users something that is useful. Its back now, but I think we should
consider having our own official wiki that our users can contribute to.
We already have something very similar to this on the forums,
On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 08:39:41PM -0600, Jeremy Olexa wrote:
> I am throwing this out there, can we ask Mike Valstar for a dump of all his
> stuff, slap it on gentoo hardware under a wiki.gentoo.org link?
>
> It could be a "community building" experience and offering the
> stability of gentoo har
19 matches
Mail list logo
