Re: [gentoo-dev] Last rites for media-video/realone, media-video/realvideo-codecs and old versions of realplayer

On Wednesday 16 November 2005 20:16, Mike Frysinger wrote: > you asking or telling ?  didnt you learn anything in elementary school ? Is "rhetorical question" a new concept for you? -- Diego "Flameeyes" Pettenò - http://dev.gentoo.org/~flameeyes/ Gentoo/ALT lead, Gentoo/FreeBSD, Video, AMD64, Sou

Re: [gentoo-dev] Last rites for media-video/realone, media-video/realvideo-codecs and old versions of realplayer

On Fri, Nov 18, 2005 at 01:28:02AM +0100, Diego 'Flameeyes' Petten? wrote: > On Wednesday 16 November 2005 20:16, Mike Frysinger wrote: > > you asking or telling ? ?didnt you learn anything in elementary school ? > Is "rhetorical question" a new concept for you? Maybe I'm daft, but this OT cruft _

Re: [gentoo-dev] FEATURES=test and the internet

On Thursday 17 November 2005 22:17, Michael Cummings wrote: > Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > > https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=82513 > > Anyone know why jstubbs closed the bug without comment? I don't see > where it was particualrly resolved. There are several requests on the bug, the majority a

Re: [gentoo-dev] Where to post bug report/questions about webapp-config?

Georgi Georgiev wrote: > maillog: 16/11/2005-20:58:44(-0500): Kevin types > ... > >>Has development stopped on webapp-config? Does it need a new maintainer? > > > Development has far from stopped: > > http://svn.gnqs.org/projects/vhost-tools > Thanks for the pointer, but how does one make us

Re: [gentoo-dev] FEATURES=test and the internet

Jason Stubbs wrote: > There are several requests on the bug, the majority are now fixed and > everybody (at least within the portage team) is agreed that FEATURES > should not be added to USE_EXPAND. Essentially, I didn't take the time > to read through all the follow-ups related (and unrelated) t

[gentoo-dev] use.defaults and pointless commits

Hello everyone, would someone more competent explain to me, why - this feature even exists - why has a mass of things been commited in there recently ? It's - confusing users - rendering /etc/portage/package.keywords useless (install a dep for one particular ebuild and enjoy the USE flag enabl

Re: [gentoo-dev] use.defaults and pointless commits

Jakub Moc wrote: would someone more competent explain to me, why - this feature even exists It makes sense to enable support for packages you have installed. This should be the default behavior, and it should require manually disabling. Thanks, Donnie -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

[gentoo-dev] Re: use.defaults and pointless commits

18.11.2005, 16:33:08, Jakub Moc wrote: > - rendering /etc/portage/package.keywords useless (install a dep for one > particular ebuild and enjoy the USE flag enabled globally) - causing unwanted > results (I did not really install app-text/recode for the purpose of enabling Err, /etc/portage/pack

Re: [gentoo-dev] punting the use.defaults feature

On Fri, Nov 18, 2005 at 04:33:08PM +0100, Jakub Moc wrote: > would someone more competent explain to me, why you approached this all wrong ... you were supposed to say something like "can we get rid of this hidden feature please" i see no reason to keep use.defaults around anymore, i think the re

Re: [gentoo-dev] FEATURES=test and the internet

On Friday 18 November 2005 22:20, Michael Cummings wrote: > Jason Stubbs wrote: > > There are several requests on the bug, the majority are now fixed and > > > > everybody (at least within the portage team) is agreed that FEATURES > > should not be added to USE_EXPAND. Essentially, I didn't take t

Re[2]: [gentoo-dev] punting the use.defaults feature

18.11.2005, 16:43:12, Mike Frysinger wrote: > i see no reason to keep use.defaults around anymore, i think the rest of our > config/profile system covers for it adequately and in a manner that doesnt > confused people Also, IIRC, saner alternatives have been suggested, like IUSE="+bleh" to enabl

Re: [gentoo-dev] Where to post bug report/questions about webapp-config?

maillog: 18/11/2005-08:16:33(-0500): Kevin types > Georgi Georgiev wrote: > > maillog: 16/11/2005-20:58:44(-0500): Kevin types > > ... > > > >>Has development stopped on webapp-config? Does it need a new maintainer? > > > > > > Development has far from stopped: > > > > http://svn.gnqs.org/proj

Re: [gentoo-dev] FEATURES=test and the internet

On Saturday 19 November 2005 01:13, Michael Cummings wrote: > Jason Stubbs wrote: > > "Resolved - Fixed"? > > Hmmm, might have been aq epiphany quirk (wouldn't be the first) - when i > looked there was no comment indicated. Nope. I wrote ".". Bugs wrote the above for me. ;) > > The last discussio

[gentoo-dev] Email subdomain

Now that GLEP 41 (AT/HT) has passed, we need to designate a subdomain for their email. This will cover AT/HT's as well as forum help, so needs to be generic. So to start with let me throw a couple out: @staff.g.o @assist.g.o Thoughts, better ideas appreciated. -- Homer Parker

Re: [gentoo-dev] Email subdomain

On Fri, Nov 18, 2005 at 11:09:07AM -0600, Homer Parker wrote: > @staff.g.o Staff sounds pretty good to me. ./Brix -- Henrik Brix Andersen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Gentoo Metadistribution | Mobile computing herd pgpMNlWblXTny.pgp Description: PGP signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] punting the use.defaults feature

Jakub Moc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Well, I don't think so... If I want to enable a feature for one > specific ebuild and a USE flag in /etc/portage/package.use pulls in a > dep, that in turn enables that use flag globally, it's obviously not > what I intended and forces me to add yet another -f

Re: [gentoo-dev] Email subdomain

On Fri, Nov 18, 2005 at 11:09:07AM -0600, Homer Parker wrote: > Now that GLEP 41 (AT/HT) has passed, we need to designate a subdomain > for their email. This will cover AT/HT's as well as forum help, so needs > to be generic. So to start with let me throw a couple out: Just for the record an

Re: [gentoo-dev] punting the use.defaults feature

On Fri, 18 Nov 2005 11:18:58 -0800 Drake Wyrm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: | Jakub Moc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: | > Well, I don't think so... If I want to enable a feature for one | > specific ebuild and a USE flag in /etc/portage/package.use pulls in | > a dep, that in turn enables that use flag g

Re: [gentoo-dev] punting the use.defaults feature

On Fri, Nov 18, 2005 at 07:31:30PM + or thereabouts, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > | Put USE="-* oneuse twouse reduse blueuse" in make.conf to set the > | globals, and _then_ start tweaking in "package.use". > > ...and then watch your system explode because you didn't set various > USE flags which

Re: [gentoo-dev] Email subdomain

Actually "staff" gives the ideal ambiguity that is needed for these placements. The need to seperate developers from staff who have seperate jobs to do is an acute one. At the moment the @gentoo.org address is seen as a developer one but as you mentioned the word "staff" is already used to descri

Re: [gentoo-dev] punting the use.defaults feature

On Fri, 18 Nov 2005 19:45:25 + Kurt Lieber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: | We've been using the USE="-* foo bar" method on all of our | infrastructure servers since as far back as I can remember and have | never had a problem as a result. | | Not trying to fan the flames one way or the other -- j

Re[2]: [gentoo-dev] punting the use.defaults feature

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 18.11.2005, 20:18:58, Drake Wyrm wrote: > Jakub Moc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Well, I don't think so... If I want to enable a feature for one >> specific ebuild and a USE flag in /etc/portage/package.use pulls in a >> dep, that in turn enables th

Re: [gentoo-dev] punting the use.defaults feature

Drake Wyrm wrote: Jakub Moc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Well, I don't think so... If I want to enable a feature for one specific ebuild and a USE flag in /etc/portage/package.use pulls in a dep, that in turn enables that use flag globally, it's obviously not what I intended and forces me to add

Re: [gentoo-dev] Email subdomain

Hi. On 11/18/05, Homer Parker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Thoughts, better ideas appreciated. > Well, they are called testers, so why not @testers.g.o? Max -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Email subdomain

Henrik Brix Andersen wrote: On Fri, Nov 18, 2005 at 11:09:07AM -0600, Homer Parker wrote: @staff.g.o Staff sounds pretty good to me. ./Brix This sounds good to me as well, very professional. How easy is it going to be to change to a normal @g.o address? As simple as a forward? For insta

Re: [gentoo-dev] Email subdomain

On Fri, 2005-11-18 at 17:01 -0500, Curtis Napier wrote: > This sounds good to me as well, very professional. How easy is it > going > to be to change to a normal @g.o address? As simple as a forward? For > instance, if someone who is an AT decides to become a full dev. That's what the GL

Re: [gentoo-dev] Email subdomain

On Fri, 18 Nov 2005 17:01:34 -0500 Curtis Napier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: | This sounds good to me as well, very professional. The problem with staff is that staff who aren't ATs/HTs won't be using it... -- Ciaran McCreesh : Gentoo Developer (Look! Shiny things!) Mail: ciaranm at g

Re: [gentoo-dev] Email subdomain

On Fri, 2005-18-11 at 22:06 +0100, Max wrote: > Hi. > > On 11/18/05, Homer Parker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Thoughts, better ideas appreciated. > > > Well, they are called testers, so why not @testers.g.o? I like @testers.g.o .. it feels like an army of mini-me ! Can I get [EMAI

Re: [gentoo-dev] Email subdomain

Homer Parker wrote: > On Fri, 2005-11-18 at 17:01 -0500, Curtis Napier wrote: > >>This sounds good to me as well, very professional. How easy is it >>going >>to be to change to a normal @g.o address? As simple as a forward? For >>instance, if someone who is an AT decides to become a full dev. > >

Re: [gentoo-dev] Email subdomain

On Fri, 18 Nov 2005 17:44:53 -0500 Curtis Napier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: | Maybe a new GLEP is in order? It makes sense to do it now since infra | is going to be setting up alias' anyway. While we're at it possibly | an @dev.g.o as well (as someone mentioned)? That way there is no | confusion. I

Re: [gentoo-dev] punting the use.defaults feature

On Fri, Nov 18, 2005 at 11:18:58AM -0800, Drake Wyrm wrote: > Jakub Moc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Well, I don't think so... If I want to enable a feature for one > > specific ebuild and a USE flag in /etc/portage/package.use pulls in a > > dep, that in turn enables that use flag globally, it's

Re: [gentoo-dev] Email subdomain

Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Fri, 18 Nov 2005 17:44:53 -0500 Curtis Napier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: | Maybe a new GLEP is in order? It makes sense to do it now since infra | is going to be setting up alias' anyway. While we're at it possibly | an @dev.g.o as well (as someone mentioned)? That way t

Re: [gentoo-dev] Email subdomain

On Fri, 18 Nov 2005 18:18:12 -0500 Scott Stoddard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: | Being relatively new to the team, I speak with a bit of naivet'e | about the whole thing, but doesn't that seem to make the most sense? | | @dev.gentoo.org for devs | @herd.gentoo.org for herd ATs | @staff.gentoo.org fo

Re: [gentoo-dev] Email subdomain

On Fri, Nov 18, 2005 at 05:44:53PM -0500 or thereabouts, Curtis Napier wrote: > Maybe a new GLEP is in order? It makes sense to do it now since infra is > going to be setting up alias' anyway. While we're at it possibly an > @dev.g.o as well (as someone mentioned)? That way there is no confusion.

Re[2]: [gentoo-dev] Email subdomain

19.11.2005, 0:29:24, Kurt Lieber wrote: > What purpose does this serve? This would create all sorts of confusion. > Right now, you can meet someone in IRC and make a reasonable assumption that > their email address is @gentoo.org. This would confuse things > horribly imo. What about people lik

Re: [gentoo-dev] Email subdomain

Kurt Lieber wrote: On Fri, Nov 18, 2005 at 05:44:53PM -0500 or thereabouts, Curtis Napier wrote: There is no technical reason why any of this is necessary and it doesn't provide any tangible benefits that I can see. If a user really wants to know someone's role within the project, they can go

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 42 "Critical News Reporting" Round Two

Hi Chris, Sorry for the delay in replying. Having a few reliability problems with my broadband atm. On Mon, 2005-11-14 at 08:59 -0500, Chris Gianelloni wrote: > I thought your proposal was to get critical information to our users, > not force every user to read that $dev is going to be in $count

Re: [gentoo-dev] Email subdomain

Kurt Lieber wrote: > On Fri, Nov 18, 2005 at 05:44:53PM -0500 or thereabouts, Curtis Napier wrote: > >>Maybe a new GLEP is in order? It makes sense to do it now since infra is >>going to be setting up alias' anyway. While we're at it possibly an >>@dev.g.o as well (as someone mentioned)? That wa

Re: [gentoo-dev] Email subdomain

On Fri, 2005-11-18 at 23:29 +, Kurt Lieber wrote: > There is no technical reason why any of this is necessary and it doesn't > provide any tangible benefits that I can see. If a user really wants to > know someone's role within the project, they can go look it up on the web > site. > > --kurt

Re: [gentoo-dev] Email subdomain

Kurt Lieber wrote: What purpose does this serve? This would create all sorts of confusion. Right now, you can meet someone in IRC and make a reasonable assumption that their email address is @gentoo.org. This would confuse things horribly imo. What about people like me that span multiple roles

Re: [gentoo-dev] Email subdomain

Curtis Napier wrote: [Fri Nov 18 2005, 04:44:53PM CST] > >The problem with staff is that staff who aren't ATs/HTs won't be using > >it... > > > > I agree with this. Those of us who don't have commit rights to the tree > should have an @staff.g.o, people like me for instance. I happen to be > par

Re: [gentoo-dev] Email subdomain

Kurt Lieber wrote: On Fri, Nov 18, 2005 at 05:44:53PM -0500 or thereabouts, Curtis Napier wrote: Maybe a new GLEP is in order? It makes sense to do it now since infra is going to be setting up alias' anyway. While we're at it possibly an @dev.g.o as well (as someone mentioned)? That way there

Re: [gentoo-dev] Email subdomain

On Fri, 2005-11-18 at 23:29 +, Kurt Lieber wrote: > There is no technical reason why any of this is necessary and it > doesn't > provide any tangible benefits that I can see. If a user really wants > to > know someone's role within the project, they can go look it up on the > web > site.

Re[2]: [gentoo-dev] Email subdomain

19.11.2005, 0:58:29, Grant Goodyear wrote: > My preference is that the subdomain chosen should succinctly reflect the role > that arch testers serve. My personal preference would be to choose something > like "aide", "helper", "assistant", or something similar. (Indeed, I'd have > preferred "vol

Re[2]: [gentoo-dev] Email subdomain

19.11.2005, 1:07:40, Homer Parker wrote: > On Fri, 2005-11-18 at 23:29 +, Kurt Lieber wrote: >> There is no technical reason why any of this is necessary and it >> doesn't >> provide any tangible benefits that I can see. If a user really wants >> to >> know someone's role within the project,

Re: [gentoo-dev] Email subdomain

On Fri, Nov 18, 2005 at 06:07:40PM -0600 or thereabouts, Homer Parker wrote: > I'm guessing you didn't read the logs from the council meeting where it > got stipulated that this be done. [1] I also apologize (again) for it > hitting the list the day before it was to be voted on, and stated th

Re: [gentoo-dev] Email subdomain

Jakub Moc wrote: [Fri Nov 18 2005, 06:07:48PM CST] > > 19.11.2005, 0:58:29, Grant Goodyear wrote: > > > My preference is that the subdomain chosen should succinctly reflect > > the role that arch testers serve. My personal preference would be > > to choose something like "aide", "helper", "assis

Re: [gentoo-dev] Email subdomain

Kurt Lieber wrote: [Fri Nov 18 2005, 06:22:28PM CST] > @yellowstar.gentoo.org > > You can now declare godwin's law. tyvm & hand Huh? > --kurt (who finds the very idea of "second-class devs" revolting and > embarassing) I happen to agree with that sentiment. It's just not clear to me that it a

Re: [gentoo-dev] Email subdomain

Lance Albertson wrote: [Fri Nov 18 2005, 05:46:47PM CST] > Anyways, I don't see any problem with us giving them straight up > [EMAIL PROTECTED] aliases. They won't have shell access, nor cvs so we > don't have to worry about that. This makes it very simple for us infra > folks to manage. I can only

Re: [gentoo-dev] Email subdomain

Jakub Moc wrote: 19.11.2005, 0:58:29, Grant Goodyear wrote: My preference is that the subdomain chosen should succinctly reflect the role that arch testers serve. My personal preference would be to choose something like "aide", "helper", "assistant", or something similar. (Indeed, I'd have

Re: [gentoo-dev] Email subdomain

Grant Goodyear wrote: Jakub Moc wrote: [Fri Nov 18 2005, 06:07:48PM CST] 19.11.2005, 0:58:29, Grant Goodyear wrote: My preference is that the subdomain chosen should succinctly reflect the role that arch testers serve. My personal preference would be to choose something like "aide",

Re: [gentoo-dev] Email subdomain

Grant Goodyear wrote: Lance Albertson wrote: [Fri Nov 18 2005, 05:46:47PM CST] Anyways, I don't see any problem with us giving them straight up [EMAIL PROTECTED] aliases. They won't have shell access, nor cvs so we don't have to worry about that. This makes it very simple for us infra folks

Re: [gentoo-dev] Email subdomain

On Fri, 18 Nov 2005 21:13:51 -0400 "Luis F. Araujo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: | Let's write a GLEP to clarify that @g.o addresses is for people who | cooperates (in a direct way) with Gentoo. Don't forget the "... and make a reasonable commitment for a substantial period of time". In other words

Re: [gentoo-dev] Email subdomain

The only reason any of this is coming up is because some wanted to keep the .g.org addresses to the developer staff. If the CVS access is read only and they are working for gentoo what difference would it make? This would sort out the AT and forums question in one swoop. George On 11/19/05, Grant

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 42 "Critical News Reporting" Round Two

Having organised several Gentoo UK meetings I would like to be advised if anyone has a problem; especially if they dont come or have no idea when, where or what they are. George ProwseOn 11/18/05, Stuart Herbert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Hi Chris,Sorry for the delay in replying.  Having a few rel

Re: [gentoo-dev] Email subdomain

Grant Goodyear wrote: > Lance Albertson wrote: [Fri Nov 18 2005, 05:46:47PM CST] > >>Anyways, I don't see any problem with us giving them straight up >>[EMAIL PROTECTED] aliases. They won't have shell access, nor cvs so we >>don't have to worry about that. This makes it very simple for us infra >>

Re: [gentoo-dev] Email subdomain

Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Fri, 18 Nov 2005 21:13:51 -0400 "Luis F. Araujo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > | Let's write a GLEP to clarify that @g.o addresses is for people who > | cooperates (in a direct way) with Gentoo. > > Don't forget the "... and make a reasonable commitment for a > substa

Re: [gentoo-dev] Email subdomain

Ciaran McCreesh wrote: Don't forget the "... and make a reasonable commitment for a substantial period of time". In other words, not ATs, who are ATs because they lack the experience or commitment to be fully fledged developers. Far easier to withdraw the GLEP and just ask for anon cvs access fo

Re: [gentoo-dev] Email subdomain

On Fri, 18 Nov 2005 21:03:26 -0500 Scott Stoddard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: | I wholeheartedly disagree. The fact that I am an AT with aspirations | towards becoming a full dev does not in any way imply that all ATs | fill the same mindset. I see the AT position as a wonderful | opportunity to

Re[2]: [gentoo-dev] Email subdomain

19.11.2005, 1:38:03, Grant Goodyear wrote: > Incidentally, the benefit is to make users who are actively helping Gentoo > feel like they're part of the family. It was decided that a straight > @gentoo.org address would be confusing, though, since most people associate > those addresses with deve

Re: [gentoo-dev] Email subdomain

As an AT... albiet a very busy/cannot help as much as I'd like one... The only useful thing I see in here is ro-cvs access. This facilitates testing by allowing the tester to get the ebuilds as they are committed, instead of syncing and hoping not to get banned from rsync servers. I could care l

Re[2]: [gentoo-dev] Email subdomain

19.11.2005, 3:07:41, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > Sure, recognise their contributions, by giving them credit in ChangeLogs. How exactly does testing stuff fit into *changelogs*, have I missed something? -- jakub pgpd4At0gxKS4.pgp Description: PGP signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] Email subdomain

On Friday 18 November 2005 06:15 pm, Jakub Moc wrote: > 19.11.2005, 1:38:03, Grant Goodyear wrote: > > Incidentally, the benefit is to make users who are actively helping > > Gentoo feel like they're part of the family. It was decided that a So we give them an email account?? Is there any other

Re: [gentoo-dev] Email subdomain

On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 03:27:13 +0100 Jakub Moc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: | 19.11.2005, 3:07:41, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: | > Sure, recognise their contributions, by giving them credit in | > ChangeLogs. | | How exactly does testing stuff fit into *changelogs*, have I missed | something? "Stable on $

Re: [gentoo-dev] Email subdomain

On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 13:34:10 -0800 Corey Shields <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: | Why not ditch the idea of yellow-starred "arch testers" and make it | easy for *all* users to participate in the stability-validation of | all of our packages? We've seen why this won't work in the past... Too few users

Re[2]: [gentoo-dev] Email subdomain

19.11.2005, 3:49:46, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 03:27:13 +0100 Jakub Moc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > | 19.11.2005, 3:07:41, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: | >> Sure, recognise their contributions, by giving them credit in | >> ChangeLogs. > | > | How exactly does testing stuff fit int

Re: [gentoo-dev] Email subdomain

Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 03:27:13 +0100 Jakub Moc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: | 19.11.2005, 3:07:41, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: | > Sure, recognise their contributions, by giving them credit in | > ChangeLogs. | | How exactly does testing stuff fit into *changelogs*, have I missed

Re: [gentoo-dev] Email subdomain

As these would be @gentoo.org people they would be easier for devrel to tackle. Making them closer under the gentoo wing just makes them easier to dicipline.On 11/19/05, Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 13:34:10 -0800 Corey Shields <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:| Why not di

Re: [gentoo-dev] Email subdomain

(apologies for the messed up time in my last message) On Friday 18 November 2005 06:53 pm, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > We've seen why this won't work in the past... Too few users know how to > do proper testing. We've had "please keyword, works for me" bugs for > things that will always segfault on s

Re: [gentoo-dev] Email subdomain

On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 03:59:15 +0100 Jakub Moc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: | Thanks, no... Reminds ne of the debates on forums.g.o, why emerge | --changelog feature is useless and why people file pointless bugs: | too much irrelevant stuff. Er, keywording is entirely relevant. *You* might not use it,

Re: [gentoo-dev] Email subdomain

On Friday 18 November 2005 07:01 pm, George Prowse wrote: > As these would be @gentoo.org people they would be > easier for devrel to tackle. Making them closer under the gentoo wing just > makes them easier to dicipline. No, you misunderstood... In the theoretical site I was

Re: [gentoo-dev] Email subdomain

On Fri, 18 Nov 2005 19:09:57 -0800 Corey Shields <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: | I think having users systems would be profiled may help ease the | ricer issue. fex, user A has 3 systems, and marks package B as "!WFM" | on one. devs can cross link that negative mark to the system profile | and note t

Re: [gentoo-dev] Email subdomain

On Friday 18 November 2005 07:23 pm, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > See, it's a question of quality rather than numbers. One "it works" > report from someone who knows what they're doing is worth far more than > a thousand "it works" reports from random users. Expecting a large > number of average Joe ty

Re: [gentoo-dev] Email subdomain

Yeah, I think a sub-domain may not be a good solution but unfortunately it is the best at present. The site is a good idea but nothing stops it from abuse. The suggestion that people are ATs for a short time before becoming full devs anyway is another reason for them to be give @g.o addresses. Leav

Re: [gentoo-dev] Email subdomain

On Friday 18 November 2005 07:40 pm, George Prowse wrote: > Yeah, I think a sub-domain may not be a good solution but unfortunately it > is the best at present. The site is a good idea but nothing stops it from I disagree that it is the best idea.. Better on my list is to just not hand out emai

Re: [gentoo-dev] Email subdomain

Of course, by being restrictive to the people who wish to help long-term that is the greatest benefit to gentoo. If the @g.o email addresses are a problem then the subdomain @staff.g.o has been suggested. The staff subdomain would contain almost all relevant other domains. If in the unlikely event

Re: [gentoo-dev] Email subdomain

On Friday 18 November 2005 08:02 pm, George Prowse wrote: > Of course, by being restrictive to the people who wish to help long-term > that is the greatest benefit to gentoo. If the @g.o email addresses are a > problem then the subdomain @staff.g.o has been suggested. The staff > subdomain would co

Re: [gentoo-dev] Email subdomain

On Friday 18 November 2005 03:46 pm, Lance Albertson wrote: > I'm very disappointed that the council did not wait on the vote for this > considering the sudden submission of the revision of the GLEP. I'm > curious the reasoning for going ahead with this? So.. I'm hearing that the GLEP was submitt

Re: [gentoo-dev] Email subdomain

Testing ebuilds when keywording/marking stable is supposed to be mandatory and such stuff does not belong into changelogs. Sorry, but that's a big no. People that add/remove keywords without making note in the Changelog deserve a massive kick in the nuts. I'm not sure if you have been paying

Re: [gentoo-dev] Email subdomain

Corey Shields wrote: > On Friday 18 November 2005 03:46 pm, Lance Albertson wrote: > >>I'm very disappointed that the council did not wait on the vote for this >>considering the sudden submission of the revision of the GLEP. I'm >>curious the reasoning for going ahead with this? > > > So.. I'm

Re: [gentoo-dev] Email subdomain

On Friday 18 November 2005 08:31 pm, Lance Albertson wrote: > No, thats not entirely true. It was submitted a few months ago and taken > to the council where it was rejected and asked to be revised. When the > council asked for things to put on their agenda for this latest meeting, > it was asked t

Re: [gentoo-dev] Email subdomain

Read the log before commenting. Along with the email containing the log It explains what occurred fairly well, oddly enough. On 11/18/05, Corey Shields <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Friday 18 November 2005 08:31 pm, Lance Albertson wrote: > > No, thats not entirely true. It was submitted a few

[gentoo-dev] [test/suggestion request] MySQL rc scripts

---> ChangeLog extract 19 Nov 2005; Francesco Riosa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> +files/mysql-slot.conf.d, +files/mysql-slot.rc6: These two are born for slotted MySQL, however they work as is on normal MySQL installations too. (require my_print_defaults) Features added or changed - Not using mysqld_safe an

Re: [gentoo-dev] Email subdomain

On Fri, Nov 18, 2005 at 10:06:02PM +0100, Max wrote: > On 11/18/05, Homer Parker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Thoughts, better ideas appreciated. > > Well, they are called testers, so why not @testers.g.o? because the idea was to put all future 'staff' there, not just AT's -mike --

Re: [gentoo-dev] Email subdomain

On Fri, Nov 18, 2005 at 09:09:29PM -0400, Luis F. Araujo wrote: > What is the problem of giving them @g.o addresses? read the first meeting where GLEP 41 was covered ... -mike -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Email subdomain

On Sat, Nov 19, 2005 at 05:33:17AM + or thereabouts, Mike Frysinger wrote: > On Fri, Nov 18, 2005 at 09:09:29PM -0400, Luis F. Araujo wrote: > > What is the problem of giving them @g.o addresses? > > read the first meeting where GLEP 41 was covered ... If I'm understanding it correctly, the c

Re: [gentoo-dev] Email subdomain

On Sat, Nov 19, 2005 at 05:54:44AM +, Kurt Lieber wrote: > On Sat, Nov 19, 2005 at 05:33:17AM + or thereabouts, Mike Frysinger wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 18, 2005 at 09:09:29PM -0400, Luis F. Araujo wrote: > > > What is the problem of giving them @g.o addresses? > > > > read the first meeting

[gentoo-dev] Re: GLEP 42 "Critical News Reporting" Round Two

George Prowse posted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, excerpted below, on Sat, 19 Nov 2005 01:44:31 +: > Having organised several Gentoo UK meetings I would like to be advised if > anyone has a problem; especially if they dont come or have no idea when, > where or what they are. Top posting lost the con