As many of you know by now, Gentoo has been chosen to fill one of the
last spaces in this year's Google Summer of Code. This is a great
opportunity for developers and users to interact and help out Gentoo as
well as the OSS community.
For those of you who haven't heard of Google's Summer of Code,
On Thursday 27 April 2006 22:36, Jan Kundrát wrote:
> Isn't it a *Vogon* poetry?
Actually, it's Weeve's poetry.. even worse.
--
Diego "Flameeyes" Pettenò - http://farragut.flameeyes.is-a-geek.org/
Gentoo/Alt lead, Gentoo/FreeBSD, Video, AMD64, Sound, PAM, KDE
pgpTFT4rVAt3T.pgp
Description: PGP
Jason Wever wrote:
> In the really off chance that you've just had a run-in with a Vorgon
> poetry session
Isn't it a *Vogon* poetry?
Cheers,
-jkt
--
cd /local/pub && more beer > /dev/mouth
--
cd /local/pub && more beer > /dev/mouth
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Thank you both for your detailed replies. I've got quite a list of
additional notions now for trying to implement this idea myself, and I'm
very grateful for the thoughtful suggestions. I also have a better
understanding of current portage capabilities, so I appreciate the
additional commentary o
On Thu, 2006-04-27 at 14:14 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Thursday 27 April 2006 10:54, Stuart Herbert wrote:
> > I think the way forward would be to have this clarification (of herds
> > vs teams) added to the metastructure document, and then for us to sort
> > out the metadata.xml files on th
A. Khattri wrote:
>Im working on an ebuild for a package and Im not sure what license to use.
>The package is Copyright Company "X" but has this underneath:
>
>
>## This software may be freely copied, modified and redistributed
>## without fee for non-commerical purposes provided that this license
On Thu, Apr 27, 2006 at 02:21:38PM -0400, A. Khattri wrote:
> ## This software may be freely copied, modified and redistributed
> ## without fee for non-commerical purposes provided that this license
> ## remains intact and unmodified with any distribution.
>
> Last time I looked, there were some
On Thu, 2006-04-27 at 14:21 -0400, A. Khattri wrote:
>
> Im working on an ebuild for a package and Im not sure what license to use.
> The package is Copyright Company "X" but has this underneath:
>
>
> ## This software may be freely copied, modified and redistributed
> ## without fee for non-com
On Thu, 2006-04-27 at 14:21 -0400, A. Khattri wrote:
>
> Im working on an ebuild for a package and Im not sure what license to use.
> The package is Copyright Company "X" but has this underneath:
>
>
> ## This software may be freely copied, modified and redistributed
> ## without fee for non-com
On Thu, 2006-04-27 at 19:54 +0200, Kevin F. Quinn (Gentoo) wrote:
> > Where?
>
> Two places. First, in the description of maintainer:
>
> "Besides being a member of a herd, a package can also be maintained
> directly"
>
> which implies packages can be maintained by being a member of a herd and
Hi Mike,
On 4/27/06, Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thursday 27 April 2006 10:54, Stuart Herbert wrote:
> > I think the way forward would be to have this clarification (of herds
> > vs teams) added to the metastructure document, and then for us to sort
> > out the metadata.xml file
A. Khattri wrote:
Im working on an ebuild for a package and Im not sure what license to use.
The package is Copyright Company "X" but has this underneath:
## This software may be freely copied, modified and redistributed
## without fee for non-commerical purposes provided that this license
##
On Thursday 27 April 2006 10:54, Stuart Herbert wrote:
> I think the way forward would be to have this clarification (of herds
> vs teams) added to the metastructure document, and then for us to sort
> out the metadata.xml files on the back of that.
imho, rather than "fixing" the people's understa
On Thu, 2006-04-27 at 15:54 +0100, Stuart Herbert wrote:
> > A herd is a group of like *packages*
> > A team is a bunch of people who share a common goal (sometimes to
> > maintain a herd of packages).
> > A herd is also a bunch of mindless beasts who follow each other.
>
> The metastructure docum
Im working on an ebuild for a package and Im not sure what license to use.
The package is Copyright Company "X" but has this underneath:
## This software may be freely copied, modified and redistributed
## without fee for non-commerical purposes provided that this license
## remains intact and
On Thu, Apr 27, 2006 at 07:11:33PM +0200, Paul de Vrieze wrote:
> The thing is, in most cases it doesn't really matter. But a herd is a group
> of
> packages.
That may be how it was originally intended, but it seems to me - and
to others it seems - that the "herds" have evolved into what was
ori
On Thu, 27 Apr 2006 10:27:12 -0400
Chris Gianelloni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 2006-04-27 at 09:22 +0200, Kevin F. Quinn (Gentoo) wrote:
> > I must admit I've assumed that the herd entry in metadata.xml is a
> > reasonable fall-back if the maintainer entry is missing or the
> > listed ma
On Thursday 27 April 2006 09:22, Kevin F. Quinn (Gentoo) wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Apr 2006 20:29:32 -0400
>
> Seemant Kulleen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > To that end, it's been brought up that perhaps the metadata.xml files
> > are partly to blame, in that they imply that the package is maintained
>
Hi Seemant,
On 4/27/06, Seemant Kulleen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hi All,
>
> Consider this both a rant and a GLEP pre-proposal. When we created the
> idea of herds back in the day, there was a clear distinction between a
> herd and a team (and a project). Over time, those definitions have
On Thu, 2006-04-27 at 09:22 +0200, Kevin F. Quinn (Gentoo) wrote:
> I must admit I've assumed that the herd entry in metadata.xml is a
> reasonable fall-back if the maintainer entry is missing or the listed
> maintainer is away/not responding. This is implied by
> http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/met
On 4/27/06, Duncan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In any case, once you get your list and weed out the stuff you /don't/
> want on it, rather than doing that copy trickery, try this:
Yeah, much smarter than my cp tricks. Although using emerge to
generate the package list will have a problem in that
On Thu, 27 Apr 2006 12:50:02 +0200 Marien Zwart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| We (portage project) are fixing known broken Manifests/digests. If you
| come across any broken SHA256 digests feel free to fix them though:
| the package is basically unusable with ~arch portage until it is
| fixed, and f
As reported in bug 131293 a pycrypto bug caused a lot of digest and
Manifest files to be created with bogus sha256 hashes. A fixed
pycrypto (2.0.1-r5) was committed to the tree. This means the
following:
- If you run ~arch portage and the latest pycrypto you will hit digest
failures. You will hi
Kevin F. Quinn (Gentoo) wrote:
>It would be useful to know how many people think herds are not
>maintainers - if only a few people think this then I suggest it would
>be better to accept the common interpretation of herd as a group of
>people who can maintain a package.
>
>
>
I've always conside
On Wed, 26 Apr 2006 20:29:32 -0400
Seemant Kulleen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> To that end, it's been brought up that perhaps the metadata.xml files
> are partly to blame, in that they imply that the package is maintained
> by a herd. There is not maintainer-team listed, just a herd.
>
> So, I
Richard Fish posted
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, excerpted
below, on Wed, 26 Apr 2006 22:10:27 -0700:
> So maybe this could be satisified by allowing user-defined categories
> of packages beyond system and world? Something like world, system,
> fragile, non-fragile?
Actually, that's called set support,
26 matches
Mail list logo
