Stephen Bennett wrote:
> On Wed, 17 May 2006 09:42:50 -0400
> Chris Gianelloni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>> I would say it wouldn't hurt to start a project for ensuring Paludis
>> support in the Portage tree. It would give a bit more credibility to
>> your cause.
>>
>
> The problem th
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Sep 2006 15:44:22 -0700 Zac Medico <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> | 3) Prevents /etc/foo from matching /etc/foobaz or /etc/foobaz/bar.
>
> Is this really desired behaviour?
>
> Once we decide that, I'll have a testsuite we can use. It's written for
> Paludis, but
Well, O2K is up and running, so someone can go ahead and
give it a shot at -j20
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Sun, 01 Oct 2006 19:23:16 +0200 Tiziano Müller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> | Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> | > On Sun, 01 Oct 2006 15:04:52 +0200 Tiziano Müller
> | > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrot
Eldad Zack wrote:
> Christian Heim wrote:
>> Its my pleasure to introduce to you Alon "alonbl" Bar-Lev, the latest
>> addition joining to help out with the crypto herd.
>>
>> He hails from Israel (hrm, they don't have cities down there ?). So
>> far it looks like Alon is completely constrained to h
So, are you proposing to encourage people to do commits for
the sake of commits? Make people do revbumps/keywording
just to get their commits in, without doing proper testing?
Or to hold on number of commits till commitfest?
It's not the commits that should be encouraged - it's the
bug fixing, and
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Sat, 21 Oct 2006 14:17:32 +0200 Simon Stelling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> | No worries, there are people who even wanted to merge amd64 with x86.
>
> Yeah, that's almost as daft as suggesting a single keyword to cover
> both sparc v8 and sparc v9, or ip22 and ip27.
Simon Stelling wrote:
> Ilya A. Volynets-Evenbakh wrote:
>
>>> | No worries, there are people who even wanted to merge amd64 with x86.
>>>
>>> Yeah, that's almost as daft as suggesting a single keyword to cover
>>> both sparc v8 and sparc v9, o
Ryan Hill wrote:
> Ilya A. Volynets-Evenbakh wrote:
>
>> So, are you proposing to encourage people to do commits for
>> the sake of commits? Make people do revbumps/keywording
>> just to get their commits in, without doing proper testing?
>> Or to hold on num
Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Sunday 22 October 2006 01:45, Ilya A. Volynets-Evenbakh wrote:
>
>> Let's look at reality here, OK?
>>
>
> any reality that includes you makes me laugh
> -mike
>
Good good! Laugh is good for your health, and you'll
need
Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Sunday 22 October 2006 20:45, Ilya A. Volynets-Evenbakh wrote:
>
>> Good good! Laugh is good for your health, and you'll
>> need lot of support in that area next time I see you...
>>
>
> what you gonna do, climb up my trunk ?
As far as volunteers, I'm in!
Alec Warner wrote:
> Purpose:
> To increase funding for Gentoo Infrastructure and events.
>
> Overview:
>
> Developers volunteer to dual off against other developers (including
> retired developers!) in the ring. We then allow betting on the
> outcome of the match w
Michael Cummings wrote:
> Not attempting to join this ruckus - but I'll meekly raise my hand and
> say that'd be awesome. I have an account on a mips box, but its
> connection to the internet has been unstable in recent months (which I
> was warned about ahead of time - that isn't a gripe).
Just FY
oo-dev mailing list?
--
Ilya A. Volynets-Evenbakh
Total Knowledge. CTO
http://www.total-knowledge.com
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Daniel Robbins wrote:
> However, I personally would not stay subscribed to gentoo-dev
> with Ciaran on the list.
So, instead of quietly un-subscribing you launch in a huge flamefest,
by hijacking an important discussion thread.
> I think there are others who have the same
> perspective and tend to
Hubert Mercier wrote:
> That's probably why it is so hard to renew developer pool.
Why do people keep repeating this myth? As kloeri pointed out,
developer base keeps growing constantly.
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Alex Tarkovsky wrote:
> By trying to silence parties involved in a disagreement you only force their
> differences to manifest in less desirble ways. And when that happens, things
> tend to get really ugly and it inevitably reflects back on Gentoo.
>
> Also, brushing things over to private email an
x27;s arguments according to formal logic rules,
he is denied further turns to speak.
Ilya A. Volynets-Evenbakh wrote:
> Alex Tarkovsky wrote:
>
>> By trying to silence parties involved in a disagreement you only force their
>> differences to manifest in less desirble ways. And wh
Angel Olivera wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 04 2007 19:22, Ilya A. Volynets-Evenbakh wrote:
>
>> That's an interesting idea. It would be nice to have a discussion ML,
>> which would have one simple rule enforced. Any discussion _must_
>> follow formal logic rules.
>>
Rather then analyze the proposed solution, I'd like to
question the problem itself. Do we really want to provide
all the different intermediate development "sort of releases"
in our tree?
William L. Thomson Jr. wrote:
> After reviewing
>
> http://devmanual.gentoo.org/ebuild-writing/file-format/in
William L. Thomson Jr. wrote:
> IMHO I think it should be up to the package maintainer how close they
> want to follow upstream. With regard to development, progress, testing,
> qa, feedback. I think it's a very good thing, since it allows things to
> be caught before actual releases, during develo
Ned Ludd wrote:
> The correct reply should of been.
> "I'm sorry I did not mean to offend anybody. I'll make an effort to not
> make any cheap shots"
>
Man, stop playing the silly "Ooh, we are all so fragile and offendable
game".
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Seemant Kulleen wrote:
> All,
>
> Please except my apologies for the strong language in my initial
> response to this. I've been informed that Samir is the real deal and
> not just a marketing droid.
>
Apology not accepted. Your language definitely wasn't strong enough.
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Apr 2007 18:45:13 -0400
> Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> PMS:
>> - should be up and running on Gentoo infra by next meeting
>>
>
> What is the justification for making this change? It's already
> inconvenient enough having to have som
Christian Faulhammer wrote:
> Alexander Færøy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>
>> I am really going to miss a lot of you guys. Especially the ones I met
>> during FOSDEM. Hope to see you there next year as well!
>>
>
> Damn! Who can I bash now regarding MIPS?
>
I guess you should have thought
Grmbl Can you do us a favor and provide us with a clone, for doing
MIPS keywording?
Alexander Færøy wrote:
> Hey,
>
> It is my time to leave Gentoo as well. It has been some exciting months
> and I have learned a lot from many of you guys.
>
> It has been interesting to be in one of the major
Way to go Proctors! I think you just tipped few more people over the edge.
Wernfried Haas wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 05, 2007 at 09:44:23PM +0100, Roy Bamford wrote:
>
>> Please step back, take a deep breath and avoid posting to this thread
>> for 24 hours.
>>
>
> Folks, while we're cutting som
Perhaps it would be a good time to try another approach to the problem?
How about proctors that are responsible for ensuring any arguments stay
within bounds of technical discussion and formal logic rules?
Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> I really have to agree with you. The proctors have completely los
Marius Mauch wrote:
> Do you really think people would voluntarily use it? That's an honest
> question, maybe people are fair enough to do it, but I have serious doubts
> about it. It's of no use if people have to be told to move threads from -dev
> to that new list.
>
We might need some sort
Steev Klimaszewski wrote:
> Ilya A. Volynets-Evenbakh wrote:
> > Marius Mauch wrote:
> >> Do you really think people would voluntarily use it? That's an
> honest question, maybe people are fair enough to do it, but I have
> serious doubts about it. It's of n
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Sun, 10 Jun 2007 21:27:44 -0600
> Ryan Hill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> PS. this thread is a good example of something that would belong on
>> gentoo-project. ;)
>>
>
> And this is why it's a bad idea: it's moving criticism away from where
> people will actua
Stephen Bennett wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 23:10:32 +0200
> Benjamin Judas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>> ...which means that he has a documented history of trolling not only
>> on mailinglists but also in irc-channels; not only against developers
>> but also against volunteering users.
>>
Steev Klimaszewski wrote:
> Ilya A. Volynets-Evenbakh wrote:
> > Stephen Bennett wrote:
> >> On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 23:10:32 +0200
> >> Benjamin Judas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>> ...which means that he has a documented
Benedikt Böhm wrote:
> +# Benedikt Böhm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (12 Jan 2008)
> +# Masked for apache-2.0 removal, bug #203578
> +dev-cpp/cppserv
>
I'll take care of fixing cppserv ebuild one way or another in nearest
few weeks.
> +=dev-libs/apr-0*
> +=dev-libs/apr-util-0*
> +=dev-util/subversion-1.3
Thomas Anderson wrote:
> In general, the quiz is supposed to test and educate recruits about Gentoo
> development practices. But if all parts of a question are asked in questions
> like that(where it's obvious that 'no' isn't a valid answer) it's just going
> to
> result in more googling rather th
Comrades!
Once more, I come before you with sad tidings. Evil anti-gentoo
conspirators are plotting to destroy our
wonderful distribution. Yet again they tried to subvert quality and
integrity of our distribution by falsely
claiming that certain packages build and run *gasp* stable *gasp* on
platf
Peter Johanson wrote:
>I know this is intended to be tongue in cheek,
>
Good.
> but I have a dev in the
>dotnet herd who's really pretty upset right now as a result of such
>apparently scathing comments accusing him of being an evil conspirator,
>a wrecker, and traitor, when it wasn't even *him*
36 matches
Mail list logo
