[gentoo-dev] Re: New Developer: Joshua Baergen
Mike Doty wrote: All- Please take a moment to welcome our newest developer, Josh_B. Josh is from Canada. Josh has joined to help out the X herd. In his own words, "I'm originally from Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, but moved to Edmonton, Alberta in 1992. For the summer I am living in Sylvan Lake where I am the only software developer for a small firm (3 people :P) that develops various electronics. This job is part of my Computer Software Engineering (Co-op) degree at the University of Alberta, which I plan to complete in 2008. Although most of my current interests lie within the computing world, the underlying enjoyment in my activities is usually the opportunity for (difficult) problem solving." Vive les Saskatchewanianians! ;) --de. (in Regina) -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
[gentoo-dev] Updating the list of non-SPARC herd devs keywording for SPARC
Hi All, In the past, a few folks that aren't part of the SPARC herd had communicated that they had the ability to actually test packages on SPARC hardware and been giving the blessing of the SPARC team to keyword select packages. I'm trying to go through and update that list now to make sure it is accurate. Currently I have the following people and/or teams listed as having the ability and permission to test and keyword on SPARC; NamePackage(s) -- Duncan Coutts dev-lang/ghc dev-lang/ghc-bin dev-lang/nhc98 dev-lang/hugs98 dev-haskell/* dev-util/darcs Java Herd dev-java/* Jeff Forman random stuff Tom Martin net-mail/* Please contact me privately if you are missing from this list but have notified the SPARC team in the past about an ability to keyword or if you need to update what information is on the list. Thanks, -- Jason Wever Gentoo/Sparc Team Co-Lead pgpPYIrbu4zLK.pgp Description: PGP signature
[gentoo-dev] New Developer: Joshua Baergen
All- Please take a moment to welcome our newest developer, Josh_B. Josh is from Canada. Josh has joined to help out the X herd. In his own words, "I'm originally from Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, but moved to Edmonton, Alberta in 1992. For the summer I am living in Sylvan Lake where I am the only software developer for a small firm (3 people :P) that develops various electronics. This job is part of my Computer Software Engineering (Co-op) degree at the University of Alberta, which I plan to complete in 2008. Although most of my current interests lie within the computing world, the underlying enjoyment in my activities is usually the opportunity for (difficult) problem solving." -- === Mike Doty [EMAIL PROTECTED] Gentoo/AMD64 Strategic Lead PGP Key: 0xA797C7A7 Gentoo Developer Relations ===GPG Fingerprint=== 0094 7F06 913E 78D6 F1BB 06BA D0AD D125 A797 C7A7 === -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
[gentoo-dev] Help with Jabber<->MSN
I'm trying to figure out wich branch of a new MSN transport for jabber to put in portage. If "you" could help would be great. What you need: 1-Jabber client with avatar support ( psi-0.9.3-r3 and r4 have, r4 is better) 2-One jabber acount (jabber.org or you can open one on on my server jabber.felisberto.net) 3-A msn account. What to do: 1-Browse the services on my server (jabber.felisberto.net) and register on the MSN gateway and use it normally to talk to your contacts. See if you can see their avatar. 2-Nothing more :) Thanks to all users. -- Gustavo Felisberto (HumpBack) Web: http://dev.gentoo.org/~humpback Blog: http://blog.felisberto.net/ It's most certainly GNU/Linux, not Linux. Read more at http://www.gnu.org/gnu/why-gnu-linux.html . - signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
[gentoo-dev] Perl 5.8.6 is unmasked
Just sharing :) Perl 5.8.7 is the new ~x86 and ~sparc version -- -o()o- Michael Cummings |#gentoo-dev, #gentoo-perl Gentoo Perl Dev|on irc.freenode.net -o()o- pgpumt0iPbBwC.pgp Description: PGP signature
[gentoo-dev] Something to remember when using the new maintainer-* aliases
Hi people, I've already noticed a few people assigning to the new aliases, but forgetting to put appropriate herds on the CC. This was mentioned in the previous thread, but not everybody may have read that one. So please keep in mind: If a bug is submitted for a package of interest to a certain herd, regardless whether the package is new or already in the tree and without maintainer, it is usually best to put the herd on the CC. That way if someone steps up to maintain the package and comments, the herd is immediately notified. Also if the herd itself wants to take a new package under its wing, it can reassign the bug. Thanks, Maurice. -- Maurice van der Pot Gentoo Linux Developer [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.gentoo.org Creator of BiteMe! [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.kfk4ever.com pgpvcYJ7wGYBf.pgp Description: PGP signature
[gentoo-dev] maintainer-needed@g.o and maintainer-wanted@g.o now available for use
On Mon, Jun 20, 2005 at 09:56:07PM +0200, Maurice van der Pot wrote: > Two new aliases will be made that bugs can be assigned to: > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Used for packages that are already in the tree and that are in > desperate need of a maintainer. > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Used for newly submitted ebuilds that can be added to the tree if > there is someone willing to step up and maintain it. The above has now been implemented and bugs have been reassigned where appropriate. Developers who were in the maintainer-needed alias (when still only that alias was present) are now listed in both. > P.S.: There will probably be another message to notify everyone when > this has been set up. You guessed it. That's what you're reading. Please use the addresses as intended. Regards, Maurice. -- Maurice van der Pot Gentoo Linux Developer [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.gentoo.org Creator of BiteMe! [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.kfk4ever.com pgpSdVootMASJ.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 38 round two
On Wed, Jun 29, 2005 at 12:27:31AM +0100, Ricardo Loureiro wrote: > Just a question, will there be a different group for moderators that > belong to staff and moderators which doesn't belong? I'm asking this > because users may relate different groups meaning official gentoo > replies from gentoo staff and not official from other moderators, > giving the idea of valid technical support from the gentoo staff > moderators. There is no such thing as an official Gentoo reply. You can have replies from Gentoo developers, but no Gentoo reply. Wkr, Sven Vermeulen -- Documentation project leader - Gentoo Foundation Trustee The Gentoo Project <<< http://www.gentoo.org >>> pgpsarpQ1BEwJ.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Initiation rites: sys-auth
On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 14:37:42 +0200 "Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wednesday 29 June 2005 10:02, Michele Noberasco wrote: > qingy seems to be just a replacement for getty so it isn't relative > directly with authorizations and authentication. > Same for kdm/gdm which are mere frontends and belongs better to their > own categories (as they can't belong to two of them). qingy handles directly tty binding (like getty), user authentication (graphically, via framebuffer) and session management (text console,gnome,kde)... Bye Michele -- If you think the system is working, ask someone who's waiting for a prompt. pgpHJrAOUixJs.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: GLEP 38: Status of forum moderators in the Gentoo project
On Tue, 2005-06-28 at 17:45 -0700, Duncan wrote: > OK, I'm with you on the security thing (being one that would prefer a > USE=clientonly flag, remember, tho I understand the reasons behind not > doing it), but I DO know there's quite the occasional use for someplace to > host scripts, patchlets, and sample config files for reference from > forums/news/lists/irc, that I've personally found useful, that others > would like to see as well. Honestly, we need a *mirrored and distributed* location for such things. It could easily be accessible from the shell box, but anything that resides on /home on toucan can not be considered safe. While the infrastructure staff does their best to ensure the data there, it is *our* responsibility to keep our own backups of everything there. In fact, there is GLEP15, which deals with this, specifically. > One particular example is my xorg.conf file, which I seem to get > requests for from time to time, when I mention that I have xorg running > xinerama on a dual-out Radeon 9200SE. It seems many have trouble getting > that to work, and an annotated working config can help tremendously. I've > been considering doing it up right and putting it on my web page. Sure, I > can put it on my ISP's page, but folks do change ISPs from time to time, > and for forum mods that are already staff, having a "staffspace" available > to make such things a bit more publicly available, could be /quite/ useful. Again, toucan is *not* this place, as has been said many times by infrastructure. Anything on dev.gentoo.org should be considered transitive, as it can disappear at any time. A more permanent solution to this should be done, rather than relying on something that we have been told time and time again that we should *not* rely on. This being said, I'm pretty guilty of this myself, with one minor exception. I keep my own backups. :P > The form of the URLs such resources get make it quite clear that while > hosted on a gentoo server, they are in personal devspace/staffspace on > that server, so there should be little chance of confusion with "official" > packages, particularly if there's a policy in place (I haven't seen one > but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist) to clearly mark any HTML formatted > anchor tags with non-obfuscated descriptions and URLs. (The forum > software may or may not make obfuscated URLs impossible, I don't know.) -- Chris Gianelloni Release Engineering - Strategic Lead/QA Manager Games - Developer Gentoo Linux signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] Keys and words: ways to fail your team
On Tue, 2005-06-28 at 16:30 -0700, Ilya A. Volynets-Evenbakh wrote: > > 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* who introduced the > >keywords in question, he did a by the book bump moving arch -> ~arch for > >all arches listed in keywords. > > > > > Book in question sort of presumes that ones who change keywords > *personally* tested that package in question works. You set keyword, > you sign the life of your first-born that it will work. Or at least that's > the way it should be. Actually, time and time again, we have heard that if the package is already marked stable on an arch, that it is safe to change that to ~arch when doing version bumps. I know that this is the rule that I follow, and haven't had a complaint about it yet. -- Chris Gianelloni Release Engineering - Strategic Lead/QA Manager Games - Developer Gentoo Linux signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] Package moves as repocopies
On Tue, 2005-06-28 at 15:35 -0700, Donnie Berkholz wrote: > Although this would require a request to someone with shell access to > the CVS box, it would preserve all the history of the moved packages. > The loss of history is (IMO) the _primary_ problem of moving packages. I definitely agree. Losing the history really stinks, especially if you have to pull something from the Attic. Not only this, but it affects moves outside of the portage tree, as well. As a good example, livecd-functions.sh was moved from baselayout to livecd-tools. All the history was lost. Luckily, it hadn't changed too much, and the broken part of the script was done by me after the move, so I was able to find it easily, but what if it had been before the move? -- Chris Gianelloni Release Engineering - Strategic Lead/QA Manager Games - Developer Gentoo Linux signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 38 round two
Hi,
On Wed, Jun 29, 2005 at 12:27:31AM +0100, Ricardo Loureiro wrote:
> Just a question, will there be a different group for moderators that
> belong to staff and moderators which doesn't belong?
I think this is not planned at the moment.
> I'm asking this
> because users may relate different groups meaning official gentoo
> replies from gentoo staff and not official from other moderators,
> giving the idea of valid technical support from the gentoo staff
> moderators.
Right, a global moderator or admin would give an "official" answer
while non-staff local moderator wouldn't. However, those moderators
are still kind-of-official like the AT as discussed earlier.
Mainly i think the issue of moderators giving official support
is not that important as a moderator's primary duty is to keep the
forums running, take care of misplaced posts etc.
If i don't reply to a post with something different than "Moved from..."
or "Please don't do..." (which represents an official act), i usually
answer questions about topics i have knowledge on. I sometimes also
answer to threads just asking some generic questions ("what's your
setup in detail", etc) to make it more likely to get support for this
user by some other poster because i don't have the slightest clue
about the software problem and/or architecture. Sometimes i find a bug
report on b.g.o and point the user to it.
Imo, these are posts that could be made by any other experienced user -
irrelevant if he's moderator, developer or user. Developers also
sometimes answer threads that are outside their work area, i'm not
sure how official this support is regarded.
Hope this clears things up and everyone is fine with that.
cheers,
Wernfried
--
Fppmpppffpppmpfpffmffmppmpm Mfpmmfmm
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
mfpfmpfmppfm://fpfppffpmmpppff.ppmfmfmpm.mmmfmp/~mmmppmpppmpmffppfppp/
http://www.namesuppressed.com/kenny/
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Initiation rites: sys-auth
On Wednesday 29 June 2005 10:02, Michele Noberasco wrote: > imho sys-apps/qingy should also belong here... > What about kdm and gdm? qingy seems to be just a replacement for getty so it isn't relative directly with authorizations and authentication. Same for kdm/gdm which are mere frontends and belongs better to their own categories (as they can't belong to two of them). -- Diego "Flameeyes" Pettenò Gentoo Developer - http://dev.gentoo.org/~flameeyes/ (Gentoo/FreeBSD, Video, Gentoo/AMD64, Sound, PAM) pgpHdxr2Zf5Tm.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Keys and words: ways to fail your team
On Wednesday 29 June 2005 05:45 am, Chris Bainbridge wrote: > On 28/06/05, Ilya A. Volynets-Evenbakh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Peter Johanson wrote: > > > it wasn't even *him* who introduced the > > >keywords in question, he did a by the book bump moving arch -> ~arch for > > >all arches listed in keywords. > > > > Book in question sort of presumes that ones who change keywords > > *personally* tested that package in question works. > > Really? I thought the policy was "When upgrading, drop all existing > keywords from arch to ~arch, and leave any existing ~arch keywords > intact.". the implied change was unstable to stable, not the other way around -mike -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
[gentoo-dev] Re: Re: GLEP 38: Status of forum moderators in the Gentoo project
christian.hartmann posted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, excerpted below, on Wed, 29 Jun 2005 09:54:35 +0200: > Lance Albertson: >> > I'm just getting ansty about all these new people we're bringing on >> > and the security behind it. Thats my main concern at this point, not >> > whether your work is more or less than a regular developer. > > Andrea Barisani: >> Seriously security_wise and admin_wise I don't see shell access useful >> neither appropriate imho. >> Btw how many forums moderators are we talking about? > > I know what you're talking about. I usually don't like to give ppl shell > access to boxes I'm in charge of. I'm kinda paranoid on this one. ;) But > it's just about 10 more accounts. Knowing that toucan and all the other > infrastructure servers are pretty locked down and knowing that most of us > are really aware of security (keeping your ssh-keys in a secure place; use > stong passwords; lock down boxes; don't run weird scripts on servers, > etc.) I don't see a problem here. We are very careful about whom to give > the permissions to moderate the forum. Before granting them access to > moderate (as in moving, deleting, editing etc) the forum we have a close > look at the ppl so that we can make sure they don't do something nasty > with their permissions. I don't blame anyone for being antsy about a whole group getting new access at one point, I'd be antsy too. However, keep in mind that these /are/ /global/ moderators we are talking about, that have demonstrated their worth to Gentoo over multiple forums over a long enough time to have already been made /global/ mods. CVS access is an entirely different story, of course, but for general shell access -- it should be pretty clear by now what their intentions are on Gentoo, and given their position in /very/ public view as Gentoo global mods, IMO they could do /far/ more damage to Gentoo in a few minutes or hours on the forums than they could with a single shell account on a single machine (assuming proper internal firewalling between that box and others, and proper administrative supervision of a box with that many folks having shell accounts on it) in any case. Not only do we trust them with the highly publicly visible position of global mods, but now we are making them staff. If there's any reasonable doubt security-wise, there's something wrong with the whole situation we find ourselves in in the first place. Also, as someone else pointed out in the earlier thread, in a year, when they get full Foundation voting rights, they'll need shell accounts anyway, to be able to properly vote, unless of course some other arrangements are to be made by then. That does give us a year to work with on activating the accounts, true, but they've got to be activated sooner or later, and if we're already trusting them to the degree we are in the global mod position and now as staff, it might as well be now. All that said, the more people with accounts on a box, the lower the "mean time before failure", just in general terms, even if each individual is 100% trusted. That's just the way things work. So, yeah, ten new in what amounts to one shot... it SHOULD be giving people a bit of the shivers. If it's not, those folks must either not be concerned about security, or they've lost their edge. All IMO of course. -- Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. "Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman in http://www.linuxdevcenter.com/pub/a/linux/2004/12/22/rms_interview.html -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Keys and words: ways to fail your team
On Wed, 2005-06-29 at 09:45 +, Chris Bainbridge wrote: > Really? I thought the policy was "When upgrading, drop all existing > keywords from arch to ~arch, and leave any existing ~arch keywords > intact.". It is. Sincerely, Brix -- Henrik Brix Andersen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Gentoo Metadistribution | Mobile computing herd signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] Keys and words: ways to fail your team
On 28/06/05, Ilya A. Volynets-Evenbakh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Peter Johanson wrote: > > > it wasn't even *him* who introduced the > >keywords in question, he did a by the book bump moving arch -> ~arch for > >all arches listed in keywords. > > > Book in question sort of presumes that ones who change keywords > *personally* tested that package in question works. Really? I thought the policy was "When upgrading, drop all existing keywords from arch to ~arch, and leave any existing ~arch keywords intact.". -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] New virtual: virtual/pcmcia
On Wed, 2005-06-29 at 11:18 +0200, Henrik Brix Andersen wrote: > For this to work, a new package called pcmciautils [1] will need to be > added to portage. Therefore, a new virtual/pcmcia (which will default to > sys-apps/pcmcia-cs in base/virtuals for now) will be added as well. I forgot to mention that the addition of pcmciautils is handled in bug #84234 [1]. Sincerely, Brix [1]: https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=84234 -- Henrik Brix Andersen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Gentoo Metadistribution | Mobile computing herd signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
[gentoo-dev] New virtual: virtual/pcmcia
Hi, Starting from linux-2.6.13-rc1 the PCMCIA subsystem has been patched to exports certain internals to sysfs, which allows using hotplug for handling insertion/ejection of 16bit PCMCIA cards. For this to work, a new package called pcmciautils [1] will need to be added to portage. Therefore, a new virtual/pcmcia (which will default to sys-apps/pcmcia-cs in base/virtuals for now) will be added as well. I have had sys-apps/pcmciautils in my portage overlay [2] for quite a while now, just waiting for the needed functionality to be merged into Linus' tree. The linux-mod eclass will be changed to depend on virtual/pcmcia for pcmcia support. Future ebuilds that just need a PCMCIA card manager should depend on virtual/pcmcia as well. If anybody has any objections and/or questions to this new virtual, please drop me an e-mail. Sincerely, Brix [1]: http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/utils/kernel/pcmcia/ [2]: http://dev.gentoo.org/~brix/files/overlay/ -- Henrik Brix Andersen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Gentoo Metadistribution | Mobile computing herd signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
[gentoo-dev] Re: Initiation rites: sys-auth
Michele Noberasco posted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, excerpted below, on Wed, 29 Jun 2005 10:02:31 +0200: > On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 00:03:59 +0200 > "Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > imho sys-apps/qingy should also belong here... > > What about kdm and gdm? Don't know about gdm, but kdm is part of KDE core, kdebase even, and from my observations, the KDE herd is pretty keen on keeping all that under kde-base, so that's a pretty definite and emphatic NO on it (unless you want to take over /all/ of kdebase, and possibly all of kde core, everything in kde-base). They want all of kde core kept nice and manageable under kde-base, and I don't blame them one bit, considering how the tarballs are delivered from upstream. -- Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. "Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman in http://www.linuxdevcenter.com/pub/a/linux/2004/12/22/rms_interview.html -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Initiation rites: sys-auth
On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 00:03:59 +0200 "Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: imho sys-apps/qingy should also belong here... What about kdm and gdm? Bye Michele -- Life can be so tragic -- you're here today and here tomorrow. pgpq1Bfk5g6we.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: GLEP 38: Status of forum moderators in the Gentoo project
Lance Albertson: > > I'm just getting ansty about all these new people we're bringing > > on and the security behind it. Thats my main concern at this point, not > > whether your work is more or less than a regular developer. Andrea Barisani: > Seriously security_wise and admin_wise I don't see shell access useful > neither > appropriate imho. > Btw how many forums moderators are we talking about? I know what you're talking about. I usually don't like to give ppl shell access to boxes I'm in charge of. I'm kinda paranoid on this one. ;) But it's just about 10 more accounts. Knowing that toucan and all the other infrastructure servers are pretty locked down and knowing that most of us are really aware of security (keeping your ssh-keys in a secure place; use stong passwords; lock down boxes; don't run weird scripts on servers, etc.) I don't see a problem here. We are very careful about whom to give the permissions to moderate the forum. Before granting them access to moderate (as in moving, deleting, editing etc) the forum we have a close look at the ppl so that we can make sure they don't do something nasty with their permissions. If anybody does something nasty on toucan just lock his/her account. - But that should be a rule for everyone having shell access. > OK, I'm with you on the security thing (being one that would prefer a > USE=clientonly flag, remember, tho I understand the reasons behind not > doing it), but I DO know there's quite the occasional use for someplace to > host scripts, patchlets, and sample config files for reference from > forums/news/lists/irc, that I've personally found useful, that others > would like to see as well. That is what I had in mind. Hosting sample configuration files etc. Andrea Barisani: > Would devwiki (or something like that) access for hosting files be > acceptable? It's not yet made public, is it? I don't really care about having shell access on toucan. I usually prefer hosting stuff on my server so that I've got it all in one place. All I'd like to bring up is that I'd like to have a real mailbox rather than just a mail forwarder. > Btw how many forums moderators are we talking about? ~10 Thanks for your feedback btw, Christian Hartmann (ian!) ps: webmailers suck ;) -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: GLEP 38: Status of forum moderators in the Gentoo project
On Tue, Jun 28, 2005 at 05:45:26PM -0700, Duncan wrote: > Lance Albertson posted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, excerpted > below, on Tue, 28 Jun 2005 18:14:11 -0500: > > > Ok, after talking with a few folks I want to retract my comment about no > > shell access. I didn't think about the other groups (docs) that already > > have shell access and retain a simliar status as forum mods do in > > Gentoo. I'm just getting ansty about all these new people we're bringing > > on and the security behind it. Thats my main concern at this point, not > > whether your work is more or less than a regular developer. I just > > wanted to make that point before I had a flamewar directed at me :) > > OK, I'm with you on the security thing (being one that would prefer a > USE=clientonly flag, remember, tho I understand the reasons behind not > doing it), but I DO know there's quite the occasional use for someplace to > host scripts, patchlets, and sample config files for reference from > forums/news/lists/irc, that I've personally found useful, that others > would like to see as well. Would devwiki (or something like that) access for hosting files be acceptable? Seriously security_wise and admin_wise I don't see shell access useful neither appropriate imho. Btw how many forums moderators are we talking about? Cheers -- Andrea Barisani <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>.*. Gentoo Linux Infrastructure Developer V ( ) GPG-Key 0x864C9B9E http://dev.gentoo.org/~lcars/pubkey.asc ( ) 0A76 074A 02CD E989 CE7F AC3F DA47 578E 864C 9B9E^^_^^ "Pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitate" -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
