Re: [gentoo-dev] baselayout-1.11.15-r3 testing for stable
060618 Dan Meltzer wrote: On 6/18/06, Philip Webb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There is something not quite right about 'testing/stable' as it exists now -- no, repeat no, criticism of hardworking developers implied -- : might it help everyone if instead we had 'testing/desktop/server' ? 'testing' = genuinely newly unmasked awaiting willing users to test; 'desktop' = generally reliable, but might occasionally trip you up; 'server' = believed wholly reliable for the most demanding duties. You mean GLEP 19? No. -- ,, SUPPORT ___//___, Philip Webb : [EMAIL PROTECTED] ELECTRIC /] [] [] [] [] []| Centre for Urban Community Studies TRANSIT`-O--O---' University of Toronto -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
[gentoo-dev] GWN Comments
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, but for the ease of time I'm suggesting that perhaps we open up a GWN section on the forums and post the text of the GWN (or perhaps each section) in a new thread each week and allow users to write comments. I think opening up this venue of feedback would let users more readily tell us what they're interested in, and it would allow GWN contributors/editors/etc to see some of the fruits of their labors. Any comments? Thanks, Caleb -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 42 (News) revisited
On Mon, 12 Jun 2006 23:19:10 +0100 Stephen Bennett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Since GLEP 42's original author and sponsor has left the project, I've taken it over, and would like to have another go at getting it implemented. OK, since noone has raised any significant issues with this, I'd like to ask the Council to discuss it at the next opportunity. -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
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 section on the forums and post the text of the GWN (or perhaps each section) in a new thread each week and allow users to write comments. Sounds like a good idea. I think opening up this venue of feedback would let users more readily tell us what they're interested in, and it would allow GWN contributors/editors/etc to see some of the fruits of their labors. Any comments? +1 from me Patrick -- Stand still, and let the rest of the universe move signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] strict-aliasing rules, don't break them
2006-06-17, Harald van Dijk sanoi, jotta: [F]orce LC_ALL=C to make that work, unless you want to check for every translation of the warning. You can also check against current locale’s translation of the warning using gettext(1) or such to extract it. -- Flammie, Gentoo Linux Documentation’s Finnish head translator and FlameEyes’ bot http://dev.gentoo.org/~flammie. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] i18n project
On Sunday 11 June 2006 13:08, Jan Kundrát wrote: Sure, translating GCC output is *not* good, but why don't provide localized version of Portage messages like, for example, those when Portage complains about unsatisfied dependency? What about messages output by ebuilds? Are they also going to be translated? In that case, how? Paul -- Paul de Vrieze Gentoo Developer Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net pgp8lqeYCol2W.pgp Description: PGP signature
[gentoo-dev] Pending Removal of $KV
Portage currently exports $KV as the current kernel version. We detect this by attempting to mess around with the things in /usr/src/linux (.config, make files, etc...) This is duplicating the superb efforts of the kernel team and of linux-info eclass. As such I would like to deprecate $KV in favor of using linux-info eclass. I don't see the need for portage to export $KV into the environment for all packages. There are a few packages left that use this. There will be a tracker bug shortly. Mostly this mail is just a heads up ;) -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Pending Removal of $KV
maillog: 19/06/2006-11:13:33(+): Alec Warner types Portage currently exports $KV as the current kernel version. We detect this by attempting to mess around with the things in /usr/src/linux (.config, make files, etc...) This is duplicating the superb efforts of the kernel team and of linux-info eclass. As such I would like to deprecate $KV in favor of using linux-info eclass. I don't see the need for portage to export $KV into the environment for all packages. There are a few packages left that use this. There will be a tracker bug shortly. Mostly this mail is just a heads up ;) But any kind of checks against something in $KERNEL_DIR are just wrong, wrong, wrong. The only exception being when the ebuild is building something *against* those sources (kernel modules, and that's it). It's annoying to have virtual/linux-sources pulled as a dep of gnupg, iptables or any other package that can do fine without them. -- / Georgi Georgiev/ Don't quit now, we might just as well lock / \ [EMAIL PROTECTED]\ the door and throw away the key. \ / http://www.gg3.net/ / / -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
[gentoo-dev] 1/2 OT: Comprehensive Source Database
Hi folks, I'm currently working on infrastructure for an comprehensive and detailed source database. It is not an replacement for freshmeat (which is good software index for human users), but an strictly defined database of package releases and assigned download URLs along with several meta-data (ie. maturity classifications, etc). This database can be queried by automated build systems to get download URLs, notify people on new releases, etc, etc. Distro/Package maintainers get the benefit of being notified properly on each new release and feeding these information directly into their buildsystems. Once the database is running, I plan to add more data, ie. hotfix patches or other qm relevant stuff (see my recent announcement about my oss-qm project). The intended audience are package maintainers and self-compiling people as well as evryone who needs an clean database of packages, releases and their URLs. Anyone here interested in joining me ? cu -- - Enrico Weigelt== metux IT service phone: +49 36207 519931 www: http://www.metux.de/ fax: +49 36207 519932 email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] cellphone: +49 174 7066481 - -- DSL ab 0 Euro. -- statische IP -- UUCP -- Hosting -- Webshops -- - -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] i18n project
Paul de Vrieze wrote: What about messages output by ebuilds? Are they also going to be translated? In that case, how? There's no way to provide localized output of einfo/... calls from ebuild that I'm aware of. Suggestions are welcome :) Cheers, -jkt -- cd /local/pub more beer /dev/mouth signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
[gentoo-dev] Re: Re: Changes to the way Java packages are built
Alec Warner [EMAIL PROTECTED] posted [EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Sun, 18 Jun 2006 13:32:58 -0400: May I ask, because I'm very confused, wtf is freedomware? I can only assume you mean oss/free java? As distinct from freeware, and also known as Free or Libre Software, libre being translated free as in freedom (where freeware in common usage means free as in beer, or sometimes free as in deliberately public domain, neither one of which is appropriate here), thus libre software == libreware == freedomware (and as opposed to slaveryware aka another-is-your-master-ware, xref the sig). Some here don't care. That's fine -- for them. It's a bit bigger than that for me, but they don't ask me to run what is to me slaveryware, and I won't ask them to give up what is to them convenienceware. -- 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 -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] i18n project
2006-06-19, Jan Kundrát sanoi, jotta: Paul de Vrieze wrote: What about messages output by ebuilds? Are they also going to be translated? In that case, how? There's no way to provide localized output of einfo/... calls from ebuild that I'm aware of. Suggestions are welcome :) Is there a reason why calling gettext from einfo() etc. or extracting messages from tree using e.g. xgettext wouldn’t work? Apart from technicalities, it does raise number of practical problems to keep translations up-to-date with live tree as well as making the messages easier to localise, as with current spliced strings it would generally be a PITA to do. -- Flammie, Gentoo Linux Documentation’s Finnish head translator and FlameEyes’ bot http://dev.gentoo.org/~flammie. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Pending Removal of $KV
Georgi Georgiev wrote: maillog: 19/06/2006-11:13:33(+): Alec Warner types Portage currently exports $KV as the current kernel version. We detect this by attempting to mess around with the things in /usr/src/linux (.config, make files, etc...) This is duplicating the superb efforts of the kernel team and of linux-info eclass. As such I would like to deprecate $KV in favor of using linux-info eclass. I don't see the need for portage to export $KV into the environment for all packages. There are a few packages left that use this. There will be a tracker bug shortly. Mostly this mail is just a heads up ;) But any kind of checks against something in $KERNEL_DIR are just wrong, wrong, wrong. The only exception being when the ebuild is building something *against* those sources (kernel modules, and that's it). It's annoying to have virtual/linux-sources pulled as a dep of gnupg, iptables or any other package that can do fine without them. In many cases those packages are looking for a specific kernel feature to make sure support is enabled for it. You could argue that in the case where you aren't compiling against the kernel that support being enabled isn't critical, but that is a discussion you need to have with the package maintainers. -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] GWN Comments
Hi! On Mon, 19 Jun 2006, 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, but for the ease of time I'm suggesting that perhaps we open up a GWN section on the forums and post the text of the GWN (or perhaps each section) in a new thread each week and allow users to write comments. I think opening up this venue of feedback would let users more readily tell us what they're interested in, and it would allow GWN contributors/editors/etc to see some of the fruits of their labors. Any comments? Principally, I agree (though I'd also rather go with the blog approach as Patrick suggested). One point though: commenting only being possible after registration may cut down on the spam (both commercial and vandalism), but it also raises the bar for legitimate comments. I'm not saying there should be no hurdle, it's just that it should be thought of/decided beforehand. Regards, Tobias -- You don't need eyes to see, you need vision. -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
RE: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: Changes to the way Java packages are built
Some here don't care. That's fine -- for them. It's a bit bigger than that for me, but they don't ask me to run what is to me slaveryware, and I won't ask them to give up what is to them convenienceware. I certaintly support your right to choose such a standard for yourself, however I don't think the basic premise that if you use the program, he is your master actually has any significance in regards to slaveryware versus freedomware, at least as far as most people are concerned. The vast majority of average people don't have the skill or in most cases, the desire to examine, modify, or understand the inner workings of the software they use. So whatever it is that makes freedomware free in your opinion, has little impact for the vast majority of users. For them it's still someone else who is the master of the program. It really makes little difference exactly who that some one else is. -- 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 -- Regards, Bob Young Software Engineer San Jose, CA. -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Pending Removal of $KV
Alec Warner wrote: Georgi Georgiev wrote: maillog: 19/06/2006-11:13:33(+): Alec Warner types Portage currently exports $KV as the current kernel version. We detect this by attempting to mess around with the things in /usr/src/linux (.config, make files, etc...) This is duplicating the superb efforts of the kernel team and of linux-info eclass. As such I would like to deprecate $KV in favor of using linux-info eclass. I don't see the need for portage to export $KV into the environment for all packages. There are a few packages left that use this. There will be a tracker bug shortly. Mostly this mail is just a heads up ;) But any kind of checks against something in $KERNEL_DIR are just wrong, wrong, wrong. The only exception being when the ebuild is building something *against* those sources (kernel modules, and that's it). It's annoying to have virtual/linux-sources pulled as a dep of gnupg, iptables or any other package that can do fine without them. In many cases those packages are looking for a specific kernel feature to make sure support is enabled for it. You could argue that in the case where you aren't compiling against the kernel that support being enabled isn't critical, but that is a discussion you need to have with the package maintainers. HmmmI don't know about this, since I'm jusr a user without much programming experience, and haven't developed anything that makes use of kernel features, but If they don't actually build against the kernel, couldn't/shouldn't they look at either kernel-headers or the output of `uname -r` (possibly with a way to force the feature on if the user knows it's available but the build system isn't detecting it)? --Arek -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] GWN Comments
On 19/06/06, Tobias Klausmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi! On Mon, 19 Jun 2006, 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, but for the ease of time I'm suggesting that perhaps we open up a GWN section on the forums and post the text of the GWN (or perhaps each section) in a new thread each week and allow users to write comments. I think opening up this venue of feedback would let users more readily tell us what they're interested in, and it would allow GWN contributors/editors/etc to see some of the fruits of their labors. Any comments? Principally, I agree (though I'd also rather go with the blog approach as Patrick suggested). One point though: commenting only being possible after registration may cut down on the spam (both commercial and vandalism), You have to register for a forums as well (usually) and if it were made part of Gentoo's forums then there would be no need for extra moderators. but it also raises the bar for legitimate comments. Again, the thread system of forums allows for easier viewing of comments. I'm not saying there should be no hurdle, it's just that it should be thought of/decided beforehand. Regards, Tobias Personally I think discussions in a wiki get more difficult the longer the discussion carries on, also i think the ability to get an email after comments have been made on a thread is a *big* advantage over the wiki style. It would be easier to clean up and cut down on vandalism because GWN contributors and authors could have an ability to moderate said forum and delete threads once they have been used or discarded. George -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Pending Removal of $KV
Arek (James Potts) wrote: If they don't actually build against the kernel, couldn't/shouldn't they look at either kernel-headers or the output of `uname -r`? Kernel headers being the virtual/linux-headers dependency that Georgi mentioned. `uname -r` works, but is annoying because you can't build for a kernel other than the one you're running. -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Pending Removal of $KV
On Mon, Jun 19, 2006 at 05:00:41PM -0700, infowolfe wrote: Kernel headers being the virtual/linux-headers dependency that Georgi mentioned. `uname -r` works, but is annoying because you can't build for a kernel other than the one you're running. Which only applies to kernel modules, not things like gnupg that don't REALLY need kernel sources in order to function. Gnupg builds it's secure memory functionality differently based on what is available from the kernel. All of the possible APIs are available in the headers, but depending on what the kernel is configured as, affects which of the APIs provide secure memory blocks. With GnuPG, it happens that on older LiveCDs, the kernel that is running from the LiveCD doesn't offer what it wants, but the one that you would be rebooting to does. Could upstream have handled it better? Yes, most definitely. Did they? No, not yet. We're stuck picking up the pieces. -- Robin Hugh Johnson E-Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] GnuPG FP : 11AC BA4F 4778 E3F6 E4ED F38E B27B 944E 3488 4E85 pgpEyOqdURUEi.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] GWN Comments
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Tobias Klausmann wrote: Hi! On Mon, 19 Jun 2006, 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, but for the ease of time I'm suggesting that perhaps we open up a GWN section on the forums and post the text of the GWN (or perhaps each section) in a new thread each week and allow users to write comments. I think opening up this venue of feedback would let users more readily tell us what they're interested in, and it would allow GWN contributors/editors/etc to see some of the fruits of their labors. Any comments? Principally, I agree (though I'd also rather go with the blog approach as Patrick suggested). One point though: commenting only being possible after registration may cut down on the spam (both commercial and vandalism), but it also raises the bar for legitimate comments. I'm not saying there should be no hurdle, it's just that it should be thought of/decided beforehand. Regards, Tobias CAPTCHA Registering should be possible but not required :x -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iQIVAwUBRJdeR2zglR5RwbyYAQIwCw/+Pmkd2BW3/qdSM00MQvVoMcTzrNdKWIx9 BlJFrviextRgZ5Las7bEoyxmbZC4ikNHPLgdlNUj2G8SrkdOdD1t9dyEV4/+TOWl YjKx0LaIjefbPL3UtfUZ6Dlrsq/Fp9MQzukjvfGWn4cKDEiLBSFZwOFBYBQT3mMY CWxyjAC7IVU+twu2VgD8wAhxavJEvxDVnoWT4dEtc4NWLRoWsRqlIj5meamuiGi0 FQsDUo7NZxgClpv3dnhPwC2IDXznN5wQ2BQjbnekObU4T7tNsxKKV2RyzwRvH1h2 I96ohmzny5pqC+pHZ8NMlG0ViD7azgwKgp7mecVhUNwb8yE8T13HGMK8LFPKJiT2 Cr+Q6qsllfXbL4+HH9jfe9K8z42YvEavlALlhNdPxKEL01JnJMylv2jInougbopi OO7x5iaNxh4+ZIcwY3o5GVK91r1dVWN4171O9TQRNbEFXbInJMuchPZSHr8Ucvfz tSTPth/V1AV13NG8KPqqWdEecyNJEMw8toKCh+4Y/169QhoZ9Z8Oc8jRvjDK6qJg Pqa2I0YrjJOGbejJ+UYYYwFp+Ird5XRiPByRu5Qu0zGjHlJN2hKYxEJ3oUyEi86w tR1aHMQvmH8Vk23Uqtlni3AmqKpa3Z/mUUCf06J9tFs73862rH+6fxSYSB4oPKkX rtrN+QJQvO8= =6sbe -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] GWN Comments
On Mon, 19 Jun 2006 14:00:19 +0200 Patrick Lauer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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 Should definitely use existing resources, so forums or planet, I think forums might work better due to a larger userbase, but that's just my impression (I don't think we have any reliable metric for planet usage). Marius -- Public Key at http://www.genone.de/info/gpg-key.pub In the beginning, there was nothing. And God said, 'Let there be Light.' And there was still nothing, but you could see a bit better. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
