[gentoo-dev] net-dialup/slirp pending for removal
# Alin Năstac <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (17 Apr 2007) # Pending for removal on 17 May 2007 # Reasons: #- all keywords are -arch (except for x86) #- source has numerous QA violations #- unmaintained for years net-dialup/slirp signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Resignation
On 17/04/07, Jakub Moc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: So Since devrel has been so kind and suspended me, based on our brand new CoC, I don't feel any need to stay on this project any more. I'm therefore resigning from this project. I'm pretty sure it will be actually no loss for Gentoo, since those folks that contributed to my retirement far outweigh the benefit I could ever possibly be to this project. This can be clearly evidenced by their long-lasting good record as in [1] and [2] and [3]. In devrel's own words, one needs to "respect the wishes of maintainers". So I'm respecting the wishes of said developer and am getting out of his way - cheers and keep slackin', Colin! Keep on the great work! I fully understand that respect for wishes of maintainers is far more important than fixing stuff in the tree for our users; unfortunately those wishes are incompatible with my tasks of a bug wrangler. Of course that can be quickly remedied by taking simple steps such as suspending the offenders who complain on the bugs, so no big deal. I'd also like to express my sincere thanks to our QA team, they've been a tremendous help to me, especially since spb took the position of QA lead and eroyf joined them. This can be documented on way too many bugs, this email is getting long so I'd just mention [4] as a good example of nice work these folks have been doing. Also thanks for the neutral approach you've taken on the other bugs quoted above, I'm pretty sure that's the right thing to do for QA. No need at all to be concerned about bugs that have been sitting there for mere two years, we shouldn't make the precious maintainers angry, right. Finally, my thanks go to devrel and especially our devrel lead, for the professional, unbiased etc. conduct they've presented on my devrel bug [5] (sorry, ask your friendly devrel member to unrestrict if you can't read it, after all I can't access it either), as well as before. I indeed entirely failed when I removed myself from the "discussion about possible misbehaviour on [my] side". I'm pretty sure the fact that noone CCed me there in the first place for about 9 months was just an unfortunate oversight of our fully professional devrel. So, thanks a bunch again, kloeri. I'm the worst CoC offender in the whole Gentoo ever, and fully deserve to be punished. In no way we should disturb the old good boys club around #-uk, that could endanger your position and would require guts; no need for that. Whoever is in charge, kindly change my bugzilla account to the email address this mail is sent from and take care of the setting the bugzilla privs accordingly. There's still a couple of bugs I've filed and maybe someone will take care of them. (No need to worry, Colin, you can sit on your bugs as long as you wish, I won't disturb you in your limbo), For all the rest of folks that haven't found themselves above, sorry, no thanks for you in this mail. I'm pretty sure you wouldn't appreciate to be thanked in this context, and that's a good thing. So Long, and Thanks for All the Fish! [1] http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=82772 [2] http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=143519 [3] http://cia.vc/stats/author/peitolm [4] http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=166790 [5] http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=134852 -- Jakub Moc Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list You are one of the most productive devs we have (had...). You've helped me on more than on occasion. While I'm sure anybody could build a "the world hates me" case from selecting a few particular bugzie entries I'm also pretty sure that peoples personalities will have caused more of an issue here than their actions... Good luck in the future, enjoy having some free time! -Rob -- /** * Gentoo Linux Developer * GPG : 0x2217D168 */
[gentoo-dev] media-gfx/imagemagick needs an active maintainer
media-gfx/imagemagick is without an active maintainer and has two open security bugs #152672 and #173186 (sekretarz seems to be MIA) https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=152672 https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=173186 Anyone willing to take care of this package in the future, please update metadata.xml and CC yourself on the bugs. -- Sune Kloppenborg Jeppesen Gentoo Linux Security Team pgpNxy3jBse9s.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Resignation
Jakub Moc wrote: > So Since devrel has been so kind and suspended me, based on our > brand new CoC, I don't feel any need to stay on this project any more. > I'm therefore resigning from this project. While there are situations in which you are right about complaining, the form of some of your complaints isn't exactly nice many times. The 2 weeks pause probably had been meant to just have you think about this issue. > I'm pretty sure it will be actually no loss for Gentoo, since those > folks that contributed to my retirement far outweigh the benefit I > could ever possibly be to this project. Nobody is perfect, complaints about conduct can be issued in a simpler and saner way... Since I consider your work precious I'd like to see you back after those 2 weeks. Please try to think about how to improve instead on how unfair this treatment had been. lu -- Luca Barbato Gentoo/linux Gentoo/PPC http://dev.gentoo.org/~lu_zero -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
[gentoo-dev] Resignation
So Since devrel has been so kind and suspended me, based on our brand new CoC, I don't feel any need to stay on this project any more. I'm therefore resigning from this project. I'm pretty sure it will be actually no loss for Gentoo, since those folks that contributed to my retirement far outweigh the benefit I could ever possibly be to this project. This can be clearly evidenced by their long-lasting good record as in [1] and [2] and [3]. In devrel's own words, one needs to "respect the wishes of maintainers". So I'm respecting the wishes of said developer and am getting out of his way - cheers and keep slackin', Colin! Keep on the great work! I fully understand that respect for wishes of maintainers is far more important than fixing stuff in the tree for our users; unfortunately those wishes are incompatible with my tasks of a bug wrangler. Of course that can be quickly remedied by taking simple steps such as suspending the offenders who complain on the bugs, so no big deal. I'd also like to express my sincere thanks to our QA team, they've been a tremendous help to me, especially since spb took the position of QA lead and eroyf joined them. This can be documented on way too many bugs, this email is getting long so I'd just mention [4] as a good example of nice work these folks have been doing. Also thanks for the neutral approach you've taken on the other bugs quoted above, I'm pretty sure that's the right thing to do for QA. No need at all to be concerned about bugs that have been sitting there for mere two years, we shouldn't make the precious maintainers angry, right. Finally, my thanks go to devrel and especially our devrel lead, for the professional, unbiased etc. conduct they've presented on my devrel bug [5] (sorry, ask your friendly devrel member to unrestrict if you can't read it, after all I can't access it either), as well as before. I indeed entirely failed when I removed myself from the "discussion about possible misbehaviour on [my] side". I'm pretty sure the fact that noone CCed me there in the first place for about 9 months was just an unfortunate oversight of our fully professional devrel. So, thanks a bunch again, kloeri. I'm the worst CoC offender in the whole Gentoo ever, and fully deserve to be punished. In no way we should disturb the old good boys club around #-uk, that could endanger your position and would require guts; no need for that. Whoever is in charge, kindly change my bugzilla account to the email address this mail is sent from and take care of the setting the bugzilla privs accordingly. There's still a couple of bugs I've filed and maybe someone will take care of them. (No need to worry, Colin, you can sit on your bugs as long as you wish, I won't disturb you in your limbo), For all the rest of folks that haven't found themselves above, sorry, no thanks for you in this mail. I'm pretty sure you wouldn't appreciate to be thanked in this context, and that's a good thing. So Long, and Thanks for All the Fish! [1] http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=82772 [2] http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=143519 [3] http://cia.vc/stats/author/peitolm [4] http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=166790 [5] http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=134852 -- Jakub Moc Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [GLEP] RFC - Keywording scheme
On Tue, Apr 17, 2007 at 11:19:24AM +1200, Christopher Sawtell wrote: > > Yeah, ulimit won't do it. We hit this issue with mimedefang, actually. > > Our problem is that the kernel is doing the limiting. We ended up > > having to split things up a good bit into multiple processes to get > > everything working. We also added another machine to the cluster to try > > to reduce the load on any one server at a time. Nothing we did with > > ulimit made a bit of difference. > http://www.cyberciti.biz/faq/linux-increase-the-maximum-number-of-open-files/ # sysctl fs.file-max fs.file-max = 206524 And tracking fs.file-nr indicates that the total number of files open in the entire system barely exceeds 2000 when the lists are flying. -- Robin Hugh Johnson Gentoo Linux Developer & Council Member E-Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] GnuPG FP : 11AC BA4F 4778 E3F6 E4ED F38E B27B 944E 3488 4E85 pgpnGVhvKhe2E.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [GLEP] RFC - Keywording scheme
On Tuesday 17 April 2007 01:10:20 Chris Gianelloni wrote: [ ... ] > Yeah, ulimit won't do it. We hit this issue with mimedefang, actually. > Our problem is that the kernel is doing the limiting. We ended up > having to split things up a good bit into multiple processes to get > everything working. We also added another machine to the cluster to try > to reduce the load on any one server at a time. Nothing we did with > ulimit made a bit of difference. http://www.cyberciti.biz/faq/linux-increase-the-maximum-number-of-open-files/ -- CS -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: New Developer: Tobias Heinlein (keytoaster)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Sun, 15 Apr 2007 14:05:23 +0100 "Charlie Shepherd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 15/04/07, Matti Bickel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Alec Warner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Dude masterdriverz is like 29, he just masquerades as a young > > > person to pick up all the 16 year old hotties on irc. > > > > There's such a thing? I mean for real, and not 40 year old fatties > > posing as 16 year old hotties to masterdriverz.. > > I'm hoping for 17th time lucky... > All developers/staffers under 18: ign up! Sign up! http://dev.gentoo.org/~mark_alec/youngones.xml FTW :D -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.1 (FreeBSD) iD4DBQFGI/Daii3l5JTHwkcRAoLfAJdp9jbii9BsN3Ox1izOjZs0GFfvAJ0XD9Q7 UMWq1ZqZhCTkvtkxMpvBPQ== =iUdX -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [GLEP] RFC - Keywording scheme
On Mon, 2007-04-16 at 05:03 -0700, Robin H. Johnson wrote: > On Mon, Apr 16, 2007 at 07:50:58AM -0400, Chris Gianelloni wrote: > > On Sat, 2007-04-14 at 05:41 -0700, Robin H. Johnson wrote: > > > Anybody that feels like inspecting C code, look at mlmmj-1.2.14/src. > > > getaddrsfromfd.c:27 - this mmap fails, 'Could not mmap fd: Invalid > > > argument' > > > mlmmj-send.c > > Is it possible we're hitting > 1024 fd open? We have had a similar > > problem at my current employer. > I raised all of the limits significantly in testing, with no effect. Yeah, ulimit won't do it. We hit this issue with mimedefang, actually. Our problem is that the kernel is doing the limiting. We ended up having to split things up a good bit into multiple processes to get everything working. We also added another machine to the cluster to try to reduce the load on any one server at a time. Nothing we did with ulimit made a bit of difference. -- Chris Gianelloni Release Engineering Strategic Lead Alpha/AMD64/x86 Architecture Teams Games Developer/Council Member/Foundation Trustee Gentoo Foundation signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [GLEP] RFC - Keywording scheme
On Mon, Apr 16, 2007 at 07:50:58AM -0400, Chris Gianelloni wrote: > On Sat, 2007-04-14 at 05:41 -0700, Robin H. Johnson wrote: > > Anybody that feels like inspecting C code, look at mlmmj-1.2.14/src. > > getaddrsfromfd.c:27 - this mmap fails, 'Could not mmap fd: Invalid argument' > > mlmmj-send.c > Is it possible we're hitting > 1024 fd open? We have had a similar > problem at my current employer. I raised all of the limits significantly in testing, with no effect. -- Robin Hugh Johnson Gentoo Linux Developer & Council Member E-Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] GnuPG FP : 11AC BA4F 4778 E3F6 E4ED F38E B27B 944E 3488 4E85 pgpQfWCW9BI4U.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] New developer: Ulrich Müller (ulm)
Raúl Porcel wrote: > Use repoman || die :) I doubt repoman would catch it, but having similar line in ebuild would basically render use flag useless ;-) Love, H -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [GLEP] RFC - Keywording scheme
On Sat, 2007-04-14 at 05:41 -0700, Robin H. Johnson wrote: > Anybody that feels like inspecting C code, look at mlmmj-1.2.14/src. > getaddrsfromfd.c:27 - this mmap fails, 'Could not mmap fd: Invalid argument' > mlmmj-send.c Is it possible we're hitting > 1024 fd open? We have had a similar problem at my current employer. -- Chris Gianelloni Release Engineering Strategic Lead Alpha/AMD64/x86 Architecture Teams Games Developer/Council Member/Foundation Trustee Gentoo Foundation signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: baselayout-2 and volumes (raid, lvm, crypt, etc)
On Sat, 2007-04-14 at 07:57 +0100, Steve Long wrote: > Doug Goldstein wrote: > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Tenorman_Must_Die > > > > I say we never piss Chris off again... ever... > > Thank YOU! That was hilarious! > > But seriously.. why don't you guys switch off reply-to munging, already?! > http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_120444.xml http://dev.gentoo.org/~wolf31o2/xml/reply-to.xml for those of you that care. -- Chris Gianelloni Release Engineering Strategic Lead Alpha/AMD64/x86 Architecture Teams Games Developer/Council Member/Foundation Trustee Gentoo Foundation signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] New developer: Ulrich Müller (ulm)
Use repoman || die :) -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
