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

On Fri, 2005-11-25 at 12:14 +, kang wrote: > Now people can also use NCSA Mosaic. It's valid as long as you can run > it. But a browser with vulns, unsupported by the vendor, with a broken > CSS, I think you do not have to support it. Well of course, if you like > it just do it ;) Hmmm.. I thin

Re: [gentoo-dev] Misquoted in the GWN

On Mon, 2005-11-28 at 17:54 +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Mon, 28 Nov 2005 10:48:01 +0100 Henrik Brix Andersen > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > | A friend of mine just alerted me to the fact, that I am featured in > | this weeks Gentoo Weekly News. Odd, I thought, noone had asked me > | anything

[gentoo-dev] Optimizing performance

Hi all, I was wondering if there are any sane ways to optimize the performance of a Gentoo system. Overoptimization (the well known "-O9 -fomgomg" CFLAGS etc.) tends to make things unstable, which is of course not what we want. The "easy" way out would be buying faster hardware, but that is usuall

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Optimizing performance

On Thu, 2005-12-15 at 07:43 -0700, Duncan wrote: > > I was wondering if there are any sane ways to optimize the performance > > of a Gentoo system. > This really belongs on user, or perhaps on the appropriate purposed list, > desktop or hardened or whatever, not on devel. That said, some > comment

Re: [gentoo-dev] Optimizing performance

On Thu, 2005-12-15 at 14:43 +0100, Francesco Riosa wrote: > having more than one disk or a lot of memory add very interesting > addition, read raid 0 (stripe) or tmpfs for working data that does'nt > need a backup fex: $PORTIR, /var/tmp ... tmpfs has miserable performance when larger than RAM iirc

Re: [gentoo-dev] glep 42 (news) round six

On Sun, 2005-12-18 at 09:57 -0500, Philip Webb wrote: > > You are encouraged to reply to this thread > > saying "I agree with ciaranm > > that repository IDs should not be allowed to contain spaces". > > No problem at all there (smile): spaces in names are A Bad Thing for Unix, > as they conflict

Re: [gentoo-dev] Viability of other SCM/version control systems for big repo's

On Mon, 2005-12-19 at 11:44 -0800, Donnie Berkholz wrote: > Hi all, > > I know some of you have done research on how gentoo-x86 converts over to > other systems besides CVS such as SVN, arch, etc. But I can't find the > info anywhere in my archives. > > Could whoever's got it, post it? > > I'm p

Re: [gentoo-dev] Viability of other SCM/version control systems for big repo's

On Mon, 2005-12-19 at 21:23 +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Mon, 19 Dec 2005 22:17:56 +0100 Patrick Lauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > | I've only tried svn with the cvs2svn script. > | Importing with history took ~8h on a 500Mhz box (which surprised me > | because

Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for January

On Mon, 2006-01-02 at 12:50 -0600, Lance Albertson wrote: > A mission statement only goes so far. The underlying leadership has to > make sure that statement is upheld and kept alive. Too many folks have a > mission statement, but no one ever remembers what it is or abides by it. I guess there isn'

[gentoo-dev] developer keyring?

Hi all, I'm wondering if there is an easy way to get a keyring with all developer gpg keys pushed to users. I know that carpaski had at one point put such a keyring online, but it hasn't been maintained. So right now you'd have to go through the website (fetch the keys from the roll-call page ...

Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for January

On Mon, 2006-01-02 at 20:49 +0100, Grobian wrote: > On 02-01-2006 20:03:54 +0100, Patrick Lauer wrote: > > On Mon, 2006-01-02 at 12:50 -0600, Lance Albertson wrote: > > > I guess I'm almost hinting at that Gentoo needs a single entity that's > > > sole purpo

Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for January

On Mon, 2006-01-02 at 15:03 -0600, Lance Albertson wrote: > > Lance mentioned something about what he sees is a niche where Gentoo > > does quite well. "Produce the best software distribution, ever" sounds > > a bit vague to me. That's why I agree with Lance for now. Maybe after > > a little res

[gentoo-dev] SLOTs and libraries

Hi all, I recently ran into an interesting problem: One app I have seems to trigger a bug in Python 2.4, so I want to use it with Python 2.3 But, as it imports a few python modules I can't use it - the modules only get installed to the most recent Python version. From a portage dependency p.o.v

Re: [gentoo-dev] SLOTs and libraries

On Wed, 2006-01-04 at 09:04 -0800, Donnie Berkholz wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > Patrick Lauer wrote: > | Hi all, > | > | I recently ran into an interesting problem: > | > | One app I have seems to trigger a bug in Python 2.4, so I want to

Re: [gentoo-dev] SLOTs and libraries

On Wed, 2006-01-04 at 09:13 -0800, Robin H. Johnson wrote: > On Wed, Jan 04, 2006 at 05:45:22PM +0100, Patrick Lauer wrote: > > Now I'm wondering - is there a sane way of handling this that doesn't > > forcefully remove python 2.4? > > e.g. could python modules

[gentoo-dev] RFC: regular project updates

Hi all, as the debate about the future direction of Gentoo continues it's getting more and more obvious to me that there's a lack of information skewing the debate. It seems that while most devs (and users) have a good idea what's happening in "their" projects it's quite difficult to see what is h

Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for January

On Thu, 2006-01-05 at 09:42 -0600, Lance Albertson wrote: > Chris Gianelloni wrote: > > > Really, I don't have any vision for Gentoo and I like it that way. > Amazing words to come from Gentoo's release manager. We might as well > call our releases 'maintenance updates' then if thats the case. I

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: regular project updates

On Thu, 2006-01-05 at 16:41 +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Thu, 5 Jan 2006 17:28:13 +0100 Grobian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > | I'm thinking of quite dull news, so absolutely not meant to be a > | publication like GWN, but just thingis like some commits on the > | portage sources that say to f

Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for January

On Thu, 2006-01-05 at 16:33 +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Thu, 05 Jan 2006 17:20:09 +0100 Patrick Lauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > | It's getting more and more difficult to get things done, more and > | more people / groups / herds to wait on to decide "obvi

Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for January

On Thu, 2006-01-05 at 23:23 -0500, Philip Webb wrote: > After reading -- quickly -- this thread for a day or two, > to see what Gentoo devs are thinking, I'm surprised > anyone has been taking this rubbish seriously enough to reply at length. > The final line suggests the writer has no serious inte

Re: [gentoo-dev] Parallizing ebuilds - 'trivial' ebuilds

On Fri, 2006-01-13 at 19:53 +0900, Kalin KOZHUHAROV wrote: > > Make this distributed tool for tar zip bzip2 and gzip and I'm in, I > > don't think it would be useful with anything else than Gigabit Ethernet. One 2Ghz CPU can't even saturate a 100Mbit line with bzip2 as far as I can tell. Although t

Re: [gentoo-dev] Eclass for prime numbers

On Sun, 2006-02-12 at 18:22 +0100, Michael Hanselmann wrote: > Hello > > For an ebuild I'm working on, I need a function to test wether a number > is a prime number. For that, I wrote an Eclass you find attached to this > e-mail. Can this be commited? In what range do you need the random numbers?

[gentoo-dev] FOSDEM developer (and user) meeting

Hi all, as you might have read in the GWN already we're going to be present at FOSDEM [1] in Brussels next weekend, February 25 and 26. Sunday will feature some talks by devs in our own devroom, Saturday will be limited to a small booth as there aren't enough devrooms. The talks [2] include topic

[gentoo-dev] enable UTF8 per default?

Hi all, at FOSDEM we had a nice discussion about languages, translations etc. Having people from the US (wolf31o2) who never have problems and people from Japan (usata) who always have problems with encodings / charsets / ... was quite interesting. During that discussion we realized that having u

Re: [gentoo-dev] enable UTF8 per default?

On Tue, 2006-02-28 at 12:32 +0100, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote: > On Tuesday 28 February 2006 11:58, Patrick Lauer wrote: > > During that discussion we realized that having utf-8 not enabled by > > default and no utf8 fonts available by default causes lots

Re: [gentoo-dev] enable UTF8 per default?

On Tue, 2006-02-28 at 13:50 +0100, Lars Weiler wrote: > * Patrick Lauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [06/02/28 11:58 +0100]: > > Enabling the unicode useflag in the profiles should help our > > international users and should not cause any problems. Are there any > > known bugs /

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] QA Team's role

On Tue, 2006-02-28 at 14:52 +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 10:38:17 +0100 Jakub Moc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > | You still haven't posted posted a *single example* of webapp-config > | brokeness. You, I'd say you should either back up claims about "all > | the ways in which w

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] QA Team's role

On Tue, 2006-02-28 at 15:42 +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 16:26:37 +0100 Jakub Moc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > | If you can't do any better, then please apologize for your conduct > | and false claims and shut up... TIA. > > Sure I can do better. But you didn't originally as

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] QA Team's role

On Tue, 2006-02-28 at 17:38 +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > Sheesh, you'll probably claim that this isn't broken next too: > > if [ "${IS_UPGRADE}" = "1" ] ; then > einfo "Removing old version ${REMOVE_PKG}" > > emerge -C "${REMOVE_PKG}" > fi Ciaran, (and this is valid for

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] QA Team's role

On Tue, 2006-02-28 at 18:19 +, Stephen Bennett wrote: > On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 18:59:49 +0100 > Patrick Lauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > (and this is valid for all emails to technical lists,) > > please save us some time and many emails by stating what is w

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] QA Team's role

On Tue, 2006-02-28 at 16:14 -0600, Grant Goodyear wrote: > So, back to the big issue, are there any real complaints about the QA > team essentially formulating QA policy? Should new QA policies instead > follow the same rules as new global USE flags or eclasses--an e-mail to > -dev asking for comm

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] QA Team's role

On Tue, 2006-02-28 at 22:50 +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 23:42:34 +0100 Patrick Lauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > | ("We'll file bugs on Saturday if there are no objections to removal > | of mkdir in global scope") > > Eek no. Have

Re: [gentoo-dev] QA Roles v2

On Thu, 2006-03-02 at 09:01 +, Stuart Herbert wrote: [snip] > * There's nothing in this policy about end users. If this QA team is > not *focused* on delivering benefit to end users, then (as has > happened this week) it becomes a self-serving team, focused instead on > what can only be descri

Re: [gentoo-dev] firefox-1.5.x still in ~arch

On Sun, 2006-03-19 at 15:24 +0100, Matthias Langer wrote: > I'm just curious: What is the reason that firefox-1.5.x is still in > ~arch ? Looking at bugreports it seems that firefox 1.5 has - at least on some systems - quite serious issues. Some users report excessive memory usage, I've masked it

Re: [gentoo-dev] who renamed adsl-start to pppoe-start and why

On Fri, 2006-03-31 at 13:26 +0200, Jürgen Schinker wrote: > how ca i make sure that i am informed earlier about such changes? Hi Juergen, I haven't seen this myself yet, searching on bugs.gentoo.org hasn't shown me any known bugs. I assume you are talking about the net-dialup/rp-pppoe package - s

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Improving Gentoo User Relations

On Fri, 2006-04-07 at 11:33 +0200, Grobian wrote: > Maybe user-rel should, together with GWN bridge this problem by keeping > the source of news anonymous? Just to use it as teasers of what kind of > things are being done in Gentoo's kitchen? > Of course this only holds for new projects like in yo

[gentoo-dev] General flaming guidelines ;-)

On Wed, 2006-04-26 at 15:55 -0400, Kevin wrote: > Which is it, Chris? You've taken that out of context ... > Make up your mind... I think he has, but wasn't able to communicate his ideas to you in an adequte way > For all the credit that I give to the Gentoo developers, you are one > from whom I

[gentoo-dev] Having fun with compression

Hi all, I had this random idea that many of our distfiles are .tar.gz while more efficient compression methods exist. So I did some testing for fun: We have ~15k .tar.gz in distfiles. ~6500 .tar.bz2, ~2000 others. A short run over 477 distfiles spanning 833M gave me 586M of .tar.bz2 - roughly 30%

Re: [gentoo-dev] Having fun with compression

On Sun, 2006-04-30 at 10:30 -0700, Robin H. Johnson wrote: > On Sun, Apr 30, 2006 at 06:30:23PM +0200, Patrick Lauer wrote: > > We have ~15k .tar.gz in distfiles. ~6500 .tar.bz2, ~2000 others. > > A short run over 477 distfiles spanning 833M gave me 586M of .tar.bz2 - >

Re: [gentoo-dev] Having fun with compression

On Sun, 2006-04-30 at 22:36 -0500, Jon Hood wrote: > Hey Patrick, > I agree, tar.bz2 is the way to go when possible, but I have many > friends on old bsd-based systems and some old linux boxes I must > maintain that don't have bzip2 support. Normally if I know a package I > write is going to ne

Re: [gentoo-dev] Having fun with compression

On Tue, 2006-05-02 at 08:50 -0700, Ryan Phillips wrote: > Patrick, > > did you benchmark CPU load? Often bzip2 takes 3x as long to > uncompress a package than bzip. Often, the space savings doesn't > justify the cost of how long it takes for the cpu to decompress the > archive. I did not comp

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: Re: When will KDE 3.5 be marked as stable?

On Fri, 2006-05-05 at 09:20 +0200, Bart Braem wrote: > > That way, people who prefer stability over the latest features can run > > "arch", and everyone who bitches about packages being out of date can run > > the middle tag, and "~arch" can be kept for testing. > > I really, really agree here. I

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: etiquette enforcement

On Thu, 2006-05-18 at 14:54 -0500, Mike Doty wrote: > Developer relations has started a discussion about how to handle > etiquette problems on public communication channels. The discussion is > currently taking place on the gentoo-devrel mailing list. This list is > public and we appreciate anyo

[gentoo-dev] Signing everything, for fun and for profit

Hello all, I flood you again with a long email. Apologies to all that don't want to read so much, but it is a problem of rather high importance that has not really been fixed, and the first discussions happened in 2003 as far as I can tell. Time to FIX IT!!! The problem, in short, is how to h

Re: [gentoo-dev] Signing everything, for fun and for profit

On Fri, 2006-05-19 at 10:46 +0100, Chris Bainbridge wrote: > The only attack most people really care about is a compromised rsync > server. There is no practical way to protect against the other attacks > - and at the end of the day, if a developer gets compromised it > doesn't matter whether it's

Re: [gentoo-dev] Signing everything, for fun and for profit

On Fri, 2006-05-19 at 15:13 +0100, Chris Bainbridge wrote: > There are now several hundred gentoo developers. It is more likely > that one of them has a security lapse than cvs.gentoo.org. One is a "local" bug, the other one "global". I'd prefer a system that is resilient against two devs going cra

Re: [gentoo-dev] Signing everything, for fun and for profit

On Fri, 2006-05-19 at 22:03 -0400, Ned Ludd wrote: > If there is anything you or genone need to make signing happening you > have to the full support of the > council That should not be difficult if the proposal is discussed and accepted by all other groups > infra it should be non-invasive and

Re: [gentoo-dev] Signing everything, for fun and for profit

On Sat, 2006-05-20 at 10:13 +0200, Thierry Carrez wrote: > Patrick Lauer wrote: > > > Signing strategies > > == > > > > Once there is an agreement on what files to sign with what kind of keys > > there remains the question how to sign it. The

Re: [gentoo-dev] Project Sunrise thread -- a try of clarification

On Thu, 2006-06-08 at 20:06 -0400, Chris Gianelloni wrote: > > You don't need a subversion client, you perhaps notice the http in front > > of the url.. just open it up in your browser and you get the source > > immediately. > > Umm... so now I need to go and instead of clicking a nice link in > b

Re: [gentoo-dev] Project Sunrise thread -- a try of clarification

On Fri, 2006-06-09 at 12:20 -0400, Chris Gianelloni wrote: > > bugzilla sucks. Ever had to download 10 attachments for one ebuild? > > It is a good tool for discussion, but I would prefer a simple tool (like > > layman) that can automatically update things. You obviously don't like > > overlays, bu

Re: [gentoo-dev] Project Sunrise thread -- a try of clarification

On Fri, 2006-06-09 at 16:14 -0400, Chris Gianelloni wrote: [snip] > > If someone wanted to exploit boxen he'd use a much simpler attack > > vector ... our rsync mirrors are wide open. No need to secure the little > > window over there when the front door is open ... > > Really? I'd like you to gi

Re: [gentoo-dev] Project Sunrise thread -- a try of clarification

On Fri, 2006-06-09 at 16:14 -0400, Chris Gianelloni wrote: > Since when was overlays.gentoo.org supposed to even be a service to our > users? As I understand it, the goal was to ease development, not to > provide an easy method for half-working ebuilds to make it to our user's > machines. What's

Re: [gentoo-dev] July Council Meeting: Requested Agenda Item

on ;-) > 1. Reliability. The GWN claims to be a weekly publication, yet it > frequently fails to publish without prior warning. There was no edition > this week, and Patrick Lauer says that it is "unknown" whether there > will be an edition next week as Ulrich Plate is AW

Re: [gentoo-dev] July Council Meeting: Requested Agenda Item

On Sat, 2006-06-10 at 11:37 -0400, Alec Warner wrote: > Have the GWN posted to -core in a sane time period prior to it's > release. I seriously doubt anyone cares about whether the publication > is always "on time" (whatever that may be). So what would a sane time period be? 12h? 24h? The probl

Re: [gentoo-dev] GWN Comments

On Mon, 2006-06-19 at 07:37 -0400, Caleb Tennis wrote: > I'd like to propose some form of ability to post user comments to GWN > stories. I suppose a full blown CMS system would work, (Ab)using a blog for that might work > but for the ease > of time I'm suggesting that perhaps we open up a GWN s

Re: OT: offensive (Re: [gentoo-dev] explicit -r0 in ebuild filename)

Anders Ossowicki wrote: On 31/03/2008, *Thilo Bangert* <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote: > Please think things through before asking to have pkgcore's bugs > 'fixed' via specification next time... maybe my english language skills or social interaction qualities

Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for April

Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Thu, 03 Apr 2008 13:17:51 +0100 Mike Auty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Ciaran McCreesh wrote: | Signing offers no protection against a malicious developer. I had envisaged a system whereby when the tree was synced, as was some kind of master signed list of all accepta

Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for April

Mike Auty wrote: Ciaran McCreesh wrote: | | Signing offers no protection against a malicious developer. | I had envisaged a system whereby when the tree was synced, as was some kind of master signed list of all acceptable dev-keys. Every package would also be signed, and would only be installed

Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for April

Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Thu, 03 Apr 2008 14:29:10 +0200 Patrick Lauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Nope. In fact, using such a system, there are ways of getting in code that doesn't get triggered until someone's key gets invalidated. By this reasoning you shouldn

Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for April

Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Thu, 03 Apr 2008 14:44:45 +0200 Patrick Lauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: and then, from that design space, select the option(s) that have the best behaviour. If you get bored you can read the not-yet-GLEPs robbat2 has written with the help of a few others,

Re: [gentoo-dev] EAPI-2 - Let's get it started

Doug Goldstein wrote: Let's try to aim to do an EAPI=2 sometime soonish since Portage now has USE flag depends in version 2.2 which is looming on the horizon. It'd be nice to hit the ground running with supporting these. I know it'll be trivial for the Paludis and pkgcore guys to make this work

Re: [gentoo-dev] EAPI-2 - Let's get it started

On Tuesday 10 June 2008 16:54:49 Richard Brown wrote: > On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 17:39, Doug Goldstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > At this point, we should really only discuss features that all 3 package > > managers have implemented. > > I'm not sure that's a good idea, only two have implemented

Re: [gentoo-dev] EAPI-2 - Let's get it started

Bernd Steinhauser wrote: Luca Barbato schrieb: Ciaran McCreesh wrote: The point is to make pkgcore a better package manager by getting the developers to do some basic testing. We're not talking some obscure, weird bug here. We're talking a really obvious, major screwup that a couple of quick un

Re: [gentoo-dev] EAPI-2 - Let's get it started

Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 15:20:55 +0200 Luca Barbato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: because EAPI1 isn't specified completely so you don't have a large field to cover but you also do not know the bounds of it. It really doesn't matter how it is specified. You have an im

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]

Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 09:30:54 +0530 "Arun Raghavan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: And why do you have to be plain insulting about it? Nobody can magically spot every single bug in any piece of code presented to them. In fact it's why the "given enough eyes ..." adage is one

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]

Fernando J. Pereda wrote: Just to pour some oil on the flames - Then don't do it. You are doing a very bad marketing for the pkgcore guys with your whinnings. Dude. Shut up. I'm not a pkgcore guy. If anything I'm a portage supporter. That I accidentally host pkgcore.org doesn't mean I'm "

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June]

Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 11:16:31 +0200 Patrick Lauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Yes, we are aware of that bug in a feature we consider highly experimental. Hmm, I'd have guessed config files are moderately relevant. You didn't notice t

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: A few questions to our nominees

On Saturday 14 June 2008 11:53:51 Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote: > What's the need for a GLEP covering "live" ebuilds and what's wrong with > - ebuilds? I made myself that question when GLEP54 was submitted and > during the initial discussion. At that time, I wasn't convinced of the > need f

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: A few questions to our nominees

On Saturday 14 June 2008 14:11:12 Bernd Steinhauser wrote: > > That's what metadata is there for. And ebuilds don't mind carrying a bit > > more ... after all it's just one line of text. > > So, what you want to do is to read every ebuild, if you want to find all > live ebuilds? Metadata cache. It

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: A few questions to our nominees

> > emerge -C @kde-svn > > > > emerge @kde-svn > > > > that should suffice. > > I don't see that working for something like, say, python or glibc. No need, emerge @kde-svn will re-merge all packages in the set by default. So unmerging isn't needed and it just works. -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Retirement

Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Sun, 10 Aug 2008 21:51:11 -0700 "Alec Warner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Despite our best efforts Gentoo is not a fun-loving community where everyone gets along. Actually, I'd say that's a fairly accurate description of the problem. Some people think Gentoo sh

[gentoo-dev] RFC: Deprecating EAPI0

Hi all, with the discussion about EAPI3 we have now 4 (or 7, depending on how you count them ;) ) EAPIs available or almost available. This is getting quite confusing. To make our lives easier I would suggest deprecating EAPI0 and migrating existing ebuilds over some time to EAPI1 or higher unt

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Deprecating EAPI0

On Saturday 21 March 2009 21:21:47 Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Sat, 21 Mar 2009 18:37:12 +0100 > > Patrick Lauer wrote: > > To make our lives easier I would suggest deprecating EAPI0 and > > migrating existing ebuilds over some time to EAPI1 or higher until > > EAP

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Deprecating EAPI0

On Saturday 21 March 2009 21:55:20 Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Sat, 21 Mar 2009 21:53:16 +0100 > > Patrick Lauer wrote: > > Because, as you have noticed before, developers get confused which > > eapi has which features available. And eapi1 is a superset of eapi0, > >

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Deprecating EAPI0

On Saturday 21 March 2009 22:26:41 Alec Warner wrote: > >> > > Introducing a policy encouraging moving things that definitely > >> > > aren't in the least bit likely to be a system dep on a bump, sure. > >> > > Making 1 or 2 the default for new packages, sure. But rewriting > >> > > existing things

Re: [gentoo-dev] EAPI 3 PMS Draft

On Thursday 09 April 2009 16:37:55 Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Thu, 09 Apr 2009 04:12:02 +0300 > > Mart Raudsepp wrote: > > It is quite irresponsible to enable that by default for the FULL user > > base, given the state of the tree in regards to it > > Which is why we are not talking about enablin

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Training points for users interested in helping out with ebuild development

On Tuesday 12 May 2009 00:31:36 Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Mon, 11 May 2009 23:17:32 +0100 > > George Prowse wrote: > > An equilibrium seems to have been reached which currently works. > > An equilibrium has been reached, agreed, but that it works is up for > debate. There is a strong argument to

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: Project proposal -- maintainer-wanted

[Snip] > Maybe you just want Sunrise in the main tree instead of as a dedicated, > supervised overlay. There were people with VERY strong feelings against > Sunrise, to the point I believe at least one dev opposing it resigned > over it Yes, one did. Some people just need a good excuse to leave :

[gentoo-dev] The fallacies of GLEP55

For quite some time (over a year, actually) we've been discussing the mysterious and often misunderstood GLEP55. [http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/glep/glep-0055.html] The proposed solution to a problem that is never refined, in short, is to add the EAPI into the ebuild filename "to make things easi

Re: [gentoo-dev] The fallacies of GLEP55

On Thursday 14 May 2009 20:39:07 Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Thu, 14 May 2009 20:06:51 +0200 > > Patrick Lauer wrote: > > "You need to know the EAPI to parse the ebuild to find the EAPI" > > Obviously that's not true, because somehow we manage at the

Re: [gentoo-dev] The fallacies of GLEP55

On Thursday 14 May 2009 21:20:18 Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Thu, 14 May 2009 13:17:24 -0600 > > RB wrote: > > On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 13:11, Ciaran McCreesh > > > > wrote: > > > Please explain why you claimed GLEP 55 makes things slower. Until > > > you answer that, it's hard to take you for any

Re: [gentoo-dev] The fallacies of GLEP55

On Thursday 14 May 2009 23:53:37 Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Thu, 14 May 2009 16:49:09 -0500 > > William Hubbs wrote: > > The second solution seems to be the better one because it does not go > > against standards. For example, we see extentions like .c, .py and > > .pl, instead of .c-43, .py-25

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: The fallacies of GLEP55

On Sunday 17 May 2009 06:43:50 Richard Freeman wrote: > Duncan wrote: > > So I believe the cost to be quite reasonably managed, after all. > > Benchmarks would of course be needed to demonstrate that, but I believe > > it worth pursuing. I thought we had agreed that (1) with GLEP55 you have to sour

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: The fallacies of GLEP55

On Sunday 17 May 2009 09:40:14 Tiziano Müller wrote: > Am Sonntag, den 17.05.2009, 01:50 +0100 schrieb Ciaran McCreesh: > > On Sun, 17 May 2009 00:35:45 + (UTC) > > > > Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote: > > > As for ciaranm's argument that you're restricting changes to the > > > version stri

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: The fallacies of GLEP55

On Sunday 17 May 2009 18:35:29 Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > Please stop wasting everyone's time. Yes, please do. Your replies are full of emotional arguments and ad hominem attacks. If you are unable to keep to the technical aspects of a discussion you should reconsider answering to every email (whi

Re: [gentoo-dev] blocking mixed versions of split QT libraries

On Monday 18 May 2009 20:19:24 Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Mon, 18 May 2009 20:05:51 +0200 > > Maciej Mrozowski wrote: > > > That's not in the least bit well defined, and it's also extremely > > > dangerous. > > > > Please elaborate on that. > > With Portage's soft blocks, there's no guarantee tha

Re: [gentoo-dev] blocking mixed versions of split QT libraries

On Monday 18 May 2009 21:20:10 Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Mon, 18 May 2009 21:08:25 +0200 > > Patrick Lauer wrote: > > In terms of the on-disk result it's invariant, the result is what > > you'd expect. There are intermediate stages that are "inconsistent"

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC] Allow bash-4.0 features in EAPI="3" ebuilds

On Sunday 24 May 2009 22:43:52 Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > > Here, this sums up what's wrong with most of your cockamamy ideas (as > > attractive, and oh so right, as they may seem to you now): > > > > http://www.catb.org/~esr/writings/taoup/html/ch01s07.html > > > > To paraphrase you: Go and read it

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC] Allow bash-4.0 features in EAPI="3" ebuilds

On Sunday 24 May 2009 23:22:21 Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Sun, 24 May 2009 23:16:13 +0200 > > Patrick Lauer wrote: > > Okay, yes, Mr. Long was quite rude there (trying to fight fire with > > fire I guess). But in this case you're discussing rather subjective > > t

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo Council Reminder for May 28

On Wednesday 27 May 2009 22:57:25 Joe Peterson wrote: > > Gentoo should not repeat the VHS vs Betamax war. For those who do not > > remember, VHS was the better marketed but inferior technical solution > > that won the standards war for domestic Video recorders. > > > :) Yep. And bad design deci

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo Council Reminder for May 28

On Thursday 28 May 2009 00:12:56 Piotr Jaroszyński wrote: > 2009/5/27 Patrick Lauer : > > On Wednesday 27 May 2009 22:57:25 Joe Peterson wrote: > >> > Gentoo should not repeat the VHS vs Betamax war. For those who do not > >> > remember, VHS was the better markete

Re: [gentoo-dev] How not to discuss

This is becoming a rather lengthy email ping pong, but as people seem to be unable to discuss things I had to highlight a few issues there. Short version: - Try to avoid subjective statements. Statements like "C++ feels better" don't add anything to the discussion and are objectively wrong for

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo Council Reminder for May 28

On Thursday 28 May 2009 01:10:50 Piotr Jaroszyński wrote: > >> > >> How is it one-way exactly? You can do pretty much anything you want in > >> a new EAPI (that's the point). > > > > You cannot undo it. > > > > In other words, you'll have to allow stupid filenames until the end of > > times even i

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo Council Reminder for May 28

On Thursday 28 May 2009 07:46:36 Tiziano Müller wrote: > And here is why (I'm only looking at the non-degenerated case with valid > metadata, ignoring overlays which some consider a corner case (I don't > understand that argument, but that's another thing)): overlays tend to come without metadata

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo Council Reminder for May 28

On Thursday 28 May 2009 20:04:18 Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Thu, 28 May 2009 18:56:00 +0100 > > Roy Bamford wrote: > > As I understand this, it may add six seconds to an emerge world while > > the dep tree is calculated. Lets say it takes an hour to do emerge > > world, the time has increased fro

Re: [gentoo-dev] How not to discuss

On Thursday 28 May 2009 20:14:57 Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Thu, 28 May 2009 08:28:12 +0200 > > Patrick Lauer wrote: > > - Try to avoid subjective statements. Statements like "C++ feels > > better" don't add anything to the discussion and are objectively >

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo Council Reminder for May 28

You know, usually snipping away everything else is a bit evil because it removes context, but in this case I just want to point out one or two little pieces ... I almost feel bad for writing so many emails to this list. On Thursday 28 May 2009 20:48:45 Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > > For example a r

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo Council Reminder for May 28

On Thursday 28 May 2009 21:26:43 Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Thu, 28 May 2009 21:19:35 +0200 > > Patrick Lauer wrote: > > You know, usually snipping away everything else is a bit evil because > > it removes context, but in this case I just want to point out one or

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo Council Reminder for May 28

On Thursday 28 May 2009 21:52:49 Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Thu, 28 May 2009 21:46:48 +0200 > > Patrick Lauer wrote: > > > And just how do you plan to enforce that? What measures will you > > > take to ensure that there's no way for developers or users to > &

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: How not to discuss

On Friday 29 May 2009 04:12:04 Ryan Hill wrote: > On Thu, 28 May 2009 08:28:12 +0200 > > Patrick Lauer wrote: > > This is becoming a rather lengthy email ping pong, but as people seem to > > be unable to discuss things I had to highlight a few issues there. > > I&#

  1   2   3   4   5   >