Re: [gentoo-dev] Council meeting Thursday October 13th

volving the council? My suggestion: leave it up to base-system to choose a default, and if it differs from what's in the docs then it would be nice if they'd let the docs folks know. -g2boojum- -- Grant Goodyear Gentoo Developer [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.gentoo.org/~g2boojum GPG Finger

Re: [gentoo-dev] Council meeting Thursday October 13th

GLEP 40 for an example. -g2boojum- -- Grant Goodyear Gentoo Developer [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.gentoo.org/~g2boojum GPG Fingerprint: D706 9802 1663 DEF5 81B0 9573 A6DC 7152 E0F6 5B76 pgpEJU0V4CDEQ.pgp Description: PGP signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] Council meeting Thursday October 13th

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 GLE

Re: [gentoo-dev] Council meeting Thursday October 13th

e huge amounts of unhappiness... Yep, I'll certainly agree w/ that (except that it's GLEP 41, not 40, I believe). -g2boojum- -- Grant Goodyear Gentoo Developer [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.gentoo.org/~g2boojum GPG Fingerprint: D706 9802 1663 DEF5 81B0 9573 A6DC 7152 E0F6 5B76 pgpAPFt

Re: [gentoo-dev] Council meeting Thursday October 13th

eal. If the council chooses to address this issue I'm hardly going to complain, but I don't really think that it's worth their time. -g2boojum- -- Grant Goodyear Gentoo Developer [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.gentoo.org/~g2boojum GPG Fingerprint: D706 9802 1663 DEF5 81B0 9573 A6DC 7152 E0F6 5B76 pgpuQtKOU5ZVs.pgp Description: PGP signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] Scratching of GLEP22

replacement would work. > Also because right now we're not following that scheme anyway right now... Which is fine, of course, since nothing is in the tree yet, but there will be real complaints if this stuff makes it into the tree w/o following that GLEP (or a new GLEP if it's approv

Re: [gentoo-dev] Reminder on dependencies.

raries, and setting up Ubuntu or Debian for one of our project developers was a pain as I struggled to ensure that I had all of the necessary development packages installed. At the same time, I'm suppose that including header files by default is not such a good thing for the embedded folks. -g2boojum-

Re: [gentoo-dev] Reminder on dependencies.

y job. I don't run into this problem solely because I don't install binary packages. My apologies if I'm missing the point here. -g2boojum- -- Grant Goodyear Gentoo Developer [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.gentoo.org/~g2boojum GPG Fingerprint: D706 9802 1663 DEF5 81B0 9573 A6DC 7152 E0F6 5B76 pgp7Y17lJ74cw.pgp Description: PGP signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] Ebuilds for packages without a homepage?

e something to click on who use packages.g.o. -g2boojum- -- Grant Goodyear Gentoo Developer [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.gentoo.org/~g2boojum GPG Fingerprint: D706 9802 1663 DEF5 81B0 9573 A6DC 7152 E0F6 5B76 pgpAyVt1md52l.pgp Description: PGP signature

[gentoo-dev] quixote currently unmaintained

rsions from bugzilla. Best, g2boojum -- Grant Goodyear Gentoo Developer [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.gentoo.org/~g2boojum GPG Fingerprint: D706 9802 1663 DEF5 81B0 9573 A6DC 7152 E0F6 5B76 pgp8J2OwJtfAY.pgp Description: PGP signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP ??: Critical News Reporting

this issue was never ignored, but it often wasn't at the top of the list for what our limited portage devs should be working on: see http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=11359#c83 .) -g2boojum- -- Grant Goodyear Gentoo Developer [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.gentoo.org/~g2boojum GPG Finge

Re: [gentoo-dev] quixote currently unmaintained

necessary, then I see no reason we shouldn't have those packages.) -g2boojum- -- Grant Goodyear Gentoo Developer [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.gentoo.org/~g2boojum GPG Fingerprint: D706 9802 1663 DEF5 81B0 9573 A6DC 7152 E0F6 5B76 pgpci6MNIfVNI.pgp Description: PGP signature

<    1   2   3