Re: [gentoo-dev] Heritage
Thomas Cort wrote: > That is utterly disturbing! I too enjoy Larry the cow, and would like to keep > him around and improve his visibility on the site. I think he makes a nice > mascot for Gentoo. I completely agree. Let's not try to change things that have been part and parcel of Gentoo for quite a bit of time, and do not cause any harm by their existence. Regards, -- Shyam Mani | <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> docs-team | http://gdp.gentoo.org GPG Key| 0xFDD0E345 signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
[gentoo-dev] Disenchantment
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 It is with great joy that i report i finally cut myself loose from something that i once loved to do and spend my time on, but since have grown more and more disenchanted with. I don't mind spending my time in front of the screen for hours on end if it seems fruitfull to do so, however i am not able to seperate between the good things that i like, the good people that i like and those things i no longer can tolerate and the way people interact, yeah i know, the big bad dev has left the herd, and people have chosen not to interact negatively since, that doesn't mean gentoo is doing all that great, if people think we should call teams teams and not herds, and everyone agrees it is not a huge difference then why oppose it so hard? If threads intended to make us think on how we can be more open to the community get diverted into technical bickering over which VCS we should get we have lost one important thing out of sight, gentoo is a distro by users for users, and the users i think are left out of the loop on this whole situation (more power to you userrel guys, please prove me wrong), why would we want to be more open and inviting if being a badass who passed some generic quiz is so much more fun. If everyone would step down from the pedestal for a while and looked around, then maybe, just maybe we would realize that we no longer do things to be there for them (the users) but for ourselves, anything is geared towards improving our leetness level, why do things have to be so complicated that people think one can not work on ebuilds w/o some super hard special quiz or two, it all gears towards "what you don't know how to use XYZ, you must not be very smart/leet/cool." working on making things easier seems to not fit into people's ideals of how this distribution should operate. I will not spend my time on something where i met nice people who taught me a whole lot if the sole reason would be that i feel i owe them something. That would cause me to be unmotivated and drag my feet on stuff like the bloke next to me, and i no longer want to linger around like that. It just isn't fair to gentoo (the people i care about within), the users or me. I better stop being what i never liked about gentoo. So it is with great joy i can scream on the top of my lungs: EJECT EJECT EJECT! For devrel/recruiters: sorry i always confuse your roles, whoever actually does that, please remove my accounts and all that good stuff, for gentoo-dev change the email back to [EMAIL PROTECTED], kthxbye Yours truly, Daniel P.S. If you like source based, you like choice, and you especially do not expect gentoo2 try www.sourcemage.org for your next install. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.1 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFEXX70/aM9DdBw91cRArlDAKDHqy6s1vqfjUzdSkGb5aSNOsoYSQCfUSBB VHwivZ/FRjG0qHVxCleFlRA= =JhS9 -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Heritage
Thomas Cort wrote: On Sat, 06 May 2006 21:22:56 -0700 Joshua Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I've noticed a disturbing trend with the website redesign. Larry is disappearing from the site. That is utterly disturbing! I too enjoy Larry the cow, and would like to keep him around and improve his visibility on the site. I think he makes a nice mascot for Gentoo. ~tcort /me moos in agreement I was trying to show Lary to a coworker last week and I couldn't find him! -smithj -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Heritage
On Sat, 06 May 2006 21:22:56 -0700 Joshua Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I've noticed a disturbing trend with the website redesign. Larry is > disappearing from the site. That is utterly disturbing! I too enjoy Larry the cow, and would like to keep him around and improve his visibility on the site. I think he makes a nice mascot for Gentoo. ~tcort pgpynvUzOJHHX.pgp Description: PGP signature
[gentoo-dev] Heritage
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 I've talked about this multiple times but its fallen on death ears so I'm going to bring it up to the everyone who reads this mailing list. I've noticed a disturbing trend with the website redesign. Larry is disappearing from the site. Most noticeably from the about page. The Larry looking for something different in a OS poster is no where to be found. This is quite disturbing to me because I know a lot of the users and developers enjoy the wackiness having a cow as a mascot instead of a penguin to be one of the things that make us unique. Gentoo has four main things that define us as a whole just for appearances sake. Those are: the color purple, the signature G, Larry the (transgender via lots of debate over if a bull can be a cow, and why a bull would have udders) cow, and the little alien floating guy. Even within bugzilla there are references to Larry like the following: http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=11 . We've never had a penguin like most other distro's that help define their distro. Even our freebsd port is the Gentoo G in red with the horns and tail. Curtis has said he doesn't want to remove then entirely, but that is exactly what is happening. I just don't want to lose what gives us visually and jokingly personality. I just can't sit by any longer and not bring it up, as I feel that its just getting rid of the heritage that has been around longer then a lot of us have been developers. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFEXXYfSENan+PfizARArNqAJ9MasjnAcoCuqrqoTxHeF0LBQSFxACghit+ lySh2tUzKRJSxlEBq4JNz4E= =cKgC -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Packages that need maintainers
Daniel Goller wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 The following packages require a new maintainer, some might just be absorbed into their herds w/o a direct maintainer leaving them to the teams maintaining those herds, others might face extinction w/o a direct maintainer. ./net-misc/tightvnc 2 enh, 1 HPPA, 1 ppc-macos, and 1 uncomfirm bug. ./media-video/kino 2 enh, 1 AMD, and 1 dep bug. Please keep them. Tuan -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
[gentoo-dev] Re: Re: Re: Re: When will KDE 3.5 be marked as stable?
Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò posted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, excerpted below, on Sat, 06 May 2006 13:41:50 +0200: >> Any stable version of KDE will need kdelibs kdebase , but otherwise why >> can't the packages be made stable at least as each big downloadable file >> becomes ready, if not individually ? > Because they have to be stable at once. Period. > > Can't go stable piece by piece. Period. Can't. Period. Elucidating a bit for Philip. You are likely aware that the packages forming kde-base are uncommonly inter-dependent on each other. That's because KDE by design is very modular, with various pieces calling parts of other packages to do what they do best, increasing code reuse and decreasing unnecessary duplication and reimplementation of features. Most KDE users find that to be one of its strong points. However, what it means to a dev is that due to that very high degree of interdependency, while a few packages could be version pick-and-chosen at the user end and have it still basically work, that cannot and will not be a general policy, because tracing bugs would then be what would amount to an impossibility. Little dependencies not normally seen and never tested because testing both upstream and at Gentoo is per release, could and almost certainly would easily multiply bugs like the tribbles of startrek -- without end. It's a QA and testing nightmare that's easily avoidable by simply refusing to stabilize a release piecemeal. It's not just kdelibs and within the big category tarballs that the problems occur, either. In ordered to work properly, as you stated, many of the newer components depend on the newer kdelibs as well. So far so good. However, some will depend on various parts of kdebase (that's the tarball from upstream, not the kde-base Gentoo category) as well. However, that's not the end of it, because once you upgrade kdelibs and parts of kdebase, you are now running anything /not/ upgraded on a kdelibs/kdebase that it's never been tested with. Further compounding the problem, due to the interlinking of various components, it's actually very likely you'd have an upgraded application trying to work with an old kpart depending on an already upgraded part of kdebase depending on another part that wasn't upgraded, depending on the upgraded kdelibs! How on /earth/ do you propose to logically bugtrace /that/ sort of mess!? The answer is, it's simply not possible! The /only/ sane policy under those circumstances is to stabilize the entire release as a single unit. If a single part of it can't be stabilized, that means the entire release is held back and cannot be stabilized. Like it or not, that's simply part of living with and working with KDE -- the flip-side of all those nice features that interlock so well and work so seamlessly together. That's the reasoning behind "Can't go stable piece by piece. Period. Can't. Period." Indeed, in this case, "Can't. Period." is the absolute truth, to the the point that to to a developer, no more need be said, as it's simply uncontemplatable. Take those assumptions away, and there's simply nothing left to build upon or debug with. You might as well be trying to debug random bits -- the supporting logic and assumptions are that far gone. -- 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] Re: Re: Re: When will KDE 3.5 be marked as stable?
Philip Webb wrote: >>> Any stable version of KDE will need kdelibs kdebase , >>> but otherwise why can't the packages be made stable >>> at least as each big downloadable file becomes ready, if not individually ? >> Because they have to be stable at once. Period. >> Can't go stable piece by piece. Period. >> Can't. Period. > > Again, you're simply repeating yourself without any attempt to explain. > > Can anyone else offer an explanation for the claim > that all KDE packages (for one version) have to be stabilised together ? Look - every such mail defers stabilizing KDE, it's getting really annoying. No, they can't and won't be stabilized on a piece-by-piece basis, that would result in failed dependencies and compilation failures. Period, no need to discuss this. This has never been done, can't be done now and won't be done in future. The whole KDE shebang needs to go stable at once, together with many other non-KDE ebuilds that it depends on. So please, stop wasting limited time of limited number of Gentoo KDE maintainers by beating a dead horse. TIA. -- Best regards, Jakub Moc mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG signature: http://subkeys.pgp.net:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xCEBA3D9E Primary key fingerprint: D2D7 933C 9BA1 C95B 2C95 B30F 8717 D5FD CEBA 3D9E ... still no signature ;) signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: Re: When will KDE 3.5 be marked as stable?
060506 Diego 'Flameeyes' Petten? wrote: > On Saturday 06 May 2006 08:48, Philip Webb wrote: >> I've seen this stated before, but why does it have to be "_at once_" ? > Because 3.4 and 3.5 does _NOT_ mix together! That's not an explanation: it merely restates your assertion. >> Many packages have > 1 stable version available, >> so users might have KDE 3.4.3 (all) & 3.5.1 (parts) by now, >> with the rest of 3.5.1 & then some of 3.5.2 to follow soon. > KDE 3.5.1 is no more in portage, > a part those packages which haven't changed with 3.5.2 > and akregator that seems to have problems with 3.5.2 version at least here. Sorry, your sentence doesn't make sense as English. >> Any stable version of KDE will need kdelibs kdebase , >> but otherwise why can't the packages be made stable >> at least as each big downloadable file becomes ready, if not individually ? > Because they have to be stable at once. Period. > Can't go stable piece by piece. Period. > Can't. Period. Again, you're simply repeating yourself without any attempt to explain. Can anyone else offer an explanation for the claim that all KDE packages (for one version) have to be stabilised together ? -- ,, SUPPORT ___//___, Philip Webb : [EMAIL PROTECTED] ELECTRIC /] [] [] [] [] []| Centre for Urban & Community Studies TRANSIT`-O--O---' University of Toronto -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: Re: When will KDE 3.5 be marked as stable?
On Saturday 06 May 2006 08:48, Philip Webb wrote: > I've seen this stated before, but why does it have to be "_at once_" ? Because 3.4 and 3.5 does _NOT_ mix together! > Many packages have > 1 stable version available, > so users might have KDE 3.4.3 (all) & 3.5.1 (parts) by now, > with the rest of 3.5.1 & then some of 3.5.2 to follow soon. KDE 3.5.1 is no more in portage, a part those packages which haven't changed with 3.5.2 and akregator that seems to have problems with 3.5.2 version, at least here. > Any stable version of KDE will need kdelibs kdebase , > but otherwise why can't the packages be made stable > at least as each big downloadable file becomes ready, if not individually ? Because they have to be stable at once. Period. Can't go stable piece by piece. Period. Can't. Period. -- Diego "Flameeyes" Pettenò - http://farragut.flameeyes.is-a-geek.org/ Gentoo/Alt lead, Gentoo/FreeBSD, Video, AMD64, Sound, PAM, KDE pgpS8yVVPWCRv.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Last rites for dev-embedded/sdcc-cvs
On 5/6/06, Simon Stelling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Denis Dupeyron wrote: > > dev-embedded/sdcc-cvs will be masked right now, and then removed in a month > > or so if nobody complains. > > A pkg move might be wise to do, no? > > -- > Kind Regards, > > Simon Stelling > Gentoo/AMD64 Developer > -- > gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list Yes, it was planned. I was just waiting for an answer from dragonheart and had to leave home. It's done, now. Denis. -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: Re: When will KDE 3.5 be marked as stable?
On 5/5/06, Carsten Lohrke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: All the whining leaves me with the feeling that I'm less interested to work for you. The question "What can I do?" I do never hear. Stop whining, but decide to help or give another distro a try. These are your choices. Just to try to counter some of the whining, I am sure that most users do appreciate the work that you do for little glory and even less pay. And I think you did the right thing by holding off on stabilization this long. Yeah, I know, not as good as a "how can I help?", but my day job is keeping me busy with 60 hour weeks atm Cheers, -Richard -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: When will KDE 3.5 be marked as stable?
On 5/5/06, Philip Webb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: 060504 Chris Gianelloni wrote: > If we followed others blindly, as so many users suggest, > then we would have stabilized KDE 3.5 ages ago, > and every single one of you KDE users would be complaining > about how our QA sucks because KDE doesn't compile > or breaks badly in so many places. This is rubbish: I'm now using 3.5.2 & have had no problems whatsoever; nor did I have problems earlier with 3.5.0 & 3.5.1 . Not rubbish. I had problems. So did many others. Fortunately mine were of the "just annoying" variety, not of the "crap, did I make a backup last night?" kind. If you don't believe me, take a walk through bugs.kde.org. The Gentoo devs have done the right thing by holding back on stabilizing KDE. -Richard -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: When will KDE 3.5 be marked as stable?
On 5/4/06, Bart Braem <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: What makes us think we can not trust the KDE devs? 1. bugs.gentoo.org 2. bugs.kde.org I personally have been running KDE 3.5 since the RC days...when you actually had to add it to package.unmask. And *yes*, it has had more than it's share of problems. Even 3.5.1 had an annoying bug that caused a kicker segfault every time I logged out. 3.5.2 is the first 3.5 that seems completely stable. Honestly, if you want it so badly, add the necessary entries to package.keywords, merge it, and be happy. What is this obsession with pushing the Gentoo devs to mark things stable before they feel it is right to do so?? Is it just some pointless quest to have a completely "stable" system?? -Richard -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Last rites for dev-embedded/sdcc-cvs
Denis Dupeyron wrote: dev-embedded/sdcc-cvs will be masked right now, and then removed in a month or so if nobody complains. A pkg move might be wise to do, no? -- Kind Regards, Simon Stelling Gentoo/AMD64 Developer -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
[gentoo-dev] Last rites for dev-embedded/sdcc-cvs
The repository for SDCC has recently moved from CVS to Subversion. From now on, please use dev-embedded/sdcc-svn instead of dev-embedded/sdcc-cvs. dev-embedded/sdcc-cvs will be masked right now, and then removed in a month or so if nobody complains. Denis. -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
