On Thursday 15 June 2006 02:33, Kevin F. Quinn wrote:
> We could require that a herd mail alias be maintained for every herd,
> with the same name as the herd, such that the herd alias lists the
> maintainers of all packages in the herd.
this would be useful regardless
-mike
pgpNaJsppizDH.pgp
De
On Thu, 15 Jun 2006 00:31:41 -0400
Alec Warner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So apparently they suck, anyone have a new shiny idea on how to group
> packages and maintaining developers?
We could be boring and change "herd" to "packagegroup".
We could require that a herd mail alias be maintained f
On Wed, Jun 14, 2006 at 05:13:48PM -0400, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> On Wed, 2006-06-14 at 15:54 +0200, Harald van Dijk wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 14, 2006 at 09:13:34AM -0400, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> > > > A great example of this are web-based applications. The web-apps
> > > > project
> > > > does
On Monday 12 June 2006 17:15, Brian Harring wrote:
> B) council
> outcome tomorrow (no point in changing it till they've weighed in on
> the whole enchilada).
not really
it makes people dropping in their own stuff easier and doesnt adversely affect
the portage tree in any way
-mike
pgpouPWaF83
On Monday 12 June 2006 16:58, Stephen Bennett wrote:
> I am also aware that this falls roughly under what the Council was
> asked to discuss in its June meeting, but since that seems to have not
> happened, I'm bringing it up anyway, since I would like to get
> something done here.
we meet Jun 15t
On Thursday 15 June 2006 00:31, Alec Warner wrote:
> So apparently they suck, anyone have a new shiny idea on how to group
> packages and maintaining developers?
they work just fine for me
-mike
pgpyOk8hXaUzk.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Monday 12 June 2006 19:28, Alec Warner wrote:
> Joerg Plate wrote:
> >>Do make sure you back up the base /var/cache/edb/
> >
> > Why? Anything in /var/cache doesn't need to be in a backup,
> > because it can be generated when necessary (in theory...)
>
> in theory, yes;
in practice, this needs
On Monday 12 June 2006 09:28, Henrik Brix Andersen wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 01, 2006 at 11:02:46AM +, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > This is your monthly friendly reminder ! Same bat time (typically the
> > 2nd Thursday once a month), same bat channel (#gentoo-council @
> > irc.freenode.net) !
>
> I've
Alec Warner wrote:
> So apparently they suck, anyone have a new shiny idea on how to group
> packages and maintaining developers?
I suggest we create a murder of developers! Then we can be cool and not
suck! :-)
/me goes back into lurking mode
--
Lance Albertson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Gentoo Infra
On Saturday 10 June 2006 10:42, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Jun 2006 10:56:48 +0200 Patrick Lauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> | > When someone contacts GWN to have
> | > something corrected, it would be appreciated were the GWN staff to
> | > at least deign to acknowledge receipt, even if for so
On Monday 12 June 2006 08:23, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> On Sat, 2006-06-10 at 19:56 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On Saturday 10 June 2006 10:29, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> > > On Fri, 2006-06-09 at 18:34 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > > > On Friday 09 June 2006 16:35, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
>
So apparently they suck, anyone have a new shiny idea on how to group
packages and maintaining developers?
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
On Wed, 14 Jun 2006 20:54:21 -0400 "Dan Meltzer"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| According to the devmanual [1]
| "A herd is a collection of developers who maintain a collection of
| related packages"
|
| are you sure you are using the correct term?
Ah, yes, we're back to the old "what is a herd?" t
On Wed, 14 Jun 2006 20:54:21 -0400
"Dan Meltzer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> According to the devmanual [1]
> "A herd is a collection of developers who maintain a collection of
> related packages"
>
> are you sure you are using the correct term?
He's right. The devmanual is not authoritative.
-
Dan Meltzer wrote:
> According to the devmanual [1]
> "A herd is a collection of developers who maintain a collection of
> related packages"
>
> are you sure you are using the correct term?
>
> [1]
> http://devmanual.gentoo.org/general-concepts/herds-and-projects/index.html
I guess it needs to g
On 6/14/06, Chris Gianelloni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Wed, 2006-06-14 at 22:34 +0200, Jakub Moc wrote:
> > It's not irrelevant; you're just not reading it properly. You might
> > notice that metadata.xml contains tags other than , like, say,
> > . In the example that sparked this, is games
On Wed, 2006-06-14 at 17:04 -0400, Michael Cummings wrote:
> The gripe in this respect is that we have developers (who don't respond
> to emails, friendly or otherwise) that will dump packages into dev-perl,
> copy a metadata.xml from another pkg, and leave it as is - and since we
> (perl project f
On Wed, 2006-06-14 at 17:25 -0400, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> On Wed, 2006-06-14 at 14:47 -0400, Ned Ludd wrote:
> > On Wed, 2006-06-14 at 09:13 -0400, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> >
> > > Just because the maintaining *project* doesn't
> > > want it doesn't mean it doesn't belong to that herd.
> >
>
On Wed, 2006-06-14 at 22:34 +0200, Jakub Moc wrote:
> > It's not irrelevant; you're just not reading it properly. You might
> > notice that metadata.xml contains tags other than , like, say,
> > . In the example that sparked this, is games and
> > the individual dev who maintains it. Simple enoug
On Wed, 2006-06-14 at 20:15 +0100, Stuart Herbert wrote:
> Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> > Here's another example of it done correctly. If you add a game to the
> > tree, the herd should be listed as games. Period. Even if you are
> > going to be the sole maintainer of the package, games should be t
On Wed, 2006-06-14 at 14:47 -0400, Ned Ludd wrote:
> On Wed, 2006-06-14 at 09:13 -0400, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
>
> > Just because the maintaining *project* doesn't
> > want it doesn't mean it doesn't belong to that herd.
>
> This is incorrect and you should not encourage people to add pkgs to
>
On Wed, 2006-06-14 at 20:21 +0200, Jakub Moc wrote:
> Sure... so, perhaps you have some suggestion how I can read assign bugs
> otherwise than using the metadata.xml; perhaps I could learn to read
> minds of the developers who dump irrelevant stuff into metadata.xml and
> expect someone to know wha
On Wed, 2006-06-14 at 20:01 +0200, Jakub Moc wrote:
> Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> > Again, you are confusing herds and projects.
> >
> > Here's another example of it done correctly. If you add a game to the
> > tree, the herd should be listed as games. Period. Even if you are
> > going to be the
On Wed, 2006-06-14 at 15:56 +0200, Henrik Brix Andersen wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 14, 2006 at 09:18:57AM -0400, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> > I would have *no problem* with an opt-in system. Instead of using
> > "InOverlay" (which is a poor choice anyway... which overlay?) as some
> > sort of tag, instea
On Wed, 2006-06-14 at 15:54 +0200, Harald van Dijk wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 14, 2006 at 09:13:34AM -0400, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> > > A great example of this are web-based applications. The web-apps project
> > > does not own all the web-based packages in the Portage tree. There are
> > > many
> >
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
OK, when I get invoked by name, then I have to respond :) (obligatory
bah) Mind you, this conversation really deserves its own thread since my
comments stray far, far away from the sunset project (that's going to be
my project for retired ebuilds avail
On Wed, 14 Jun 2006 22:34:55 +0200
Jakub Moc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Please, go through the tree and see at least so many metadata.xml
> files as I have seen, before claiming something that simply doesn't
> reflect current practice. There are many ebuilds with no
> tag and only. Are you cla
Stephen Bennett wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Jun 2006 20:21:42 +0200
> Jakub Moc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Sure... so, perhaps you have some suggestion how I can read assign
>> bugs otherwise than using the metadata.xml; perhaps I could learn to
>> read minds of the developers who dump irrelevant stu
On Wed, 14 Jun 2006 19:47:42 +, Duncan wrote:
> Peter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted
> [EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Wed, 14
> Jun 2006 11:29:06 -0400:
>
>> The use.default file in default-linux is now empty. The one in base
>> gives you nothing to compare it against. Was there another
Peter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted
[EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Wed, 14
Jun 2006 11:29:06 -0400:
> The use.default file in default-linux is now empty. The one in base gives
> you nothing to compare it against. Was there another file you meant?
You don't /need/ another file to compare it
Chris Gianelloni wrote:
Here's another example of it done correctly. If you add a game to the
tree, the herd should be listed as games. Period. Even if you are
going to be the sole maintainer of the package, games should be the
herd. Why? Because it is a game, silly.
There _is_ no requirem
Chris Gianelloni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted
[EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Wed,
14 Jun 2006 09:34:16 -0400:
> Abusing loopholes in the rules doesn't make something "right".
Agreed. However, it then points out the need for a rules change.
>> Meanwhile, the Project Sunrise overlay /is/ a
On Wed, 2006-06-14 at 09:13 -0400, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> Just because the maintaining *project* doesn't
> want it doesn't mean it doesn't belong to that herd.
This is incorrect and you should not encourage people to add pkgs to
a herd unless they get permission from that herd. If a herd does
On Wed, 14 Jun 2006 20:21:42 +0200
Jakub Moc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Sure... so, perhaps you have some suggestion how I can read assign
> bugs otherwise than using the metadata.xml; perhaps I could learn to
> read minds of the developers who dump irrelevant stuff into
> metadata.xml and expec
Stephen Bennett wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Jun 2006 20:01:04 +0200
> Jakub Moc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> This new terminology plain sucks. If you are sticking games into
>> in metadata.xml, you are just confusing me and other people
>> who are assigning bugs.
>
> It's not new. If it confuses you
On Wed, 14 Jun 2006 20:01:04 +0200
Jakub Moc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This new terminology plain sucks. If you are sticking games into
> in metadata.xml, you are just confusing me and other people
> who are assigning bugs.
It's not new. If it confuses you, perhaps you should learn the
termi
Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> Again, you are confusing herds and projects.
>
> Here's another example of it done correctly. If you add a game to the
> tree, the herd should be listed as games. Period. Even if you are
> going to be the sole maintainer of the package, games should be the
> herd. Why
On Wednesday 14 June 2006 18:40, Alec Warner wrote:
> There is no comparison, use.defaults IS the file. Look at it.
>
[SNIP]
>
> and so on. If package is installed, the corresponding flag is turned on
> "automatically" hence autouse. This no longer occurs in 2.1.
Ah, now I get it. I didn't real
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Alec Warner wrote:
> Interested in
> figuring out what use flags were turned off? Check out
> /usr/portage/profiles/base/use.defaults and other use.defaults files
> that correspond to your profile.
It's probably easier to let portage do the work and
Peter wrote:
On Wed, 14 Jun 2006 10:59:12 -0400, Alec Warner wrote:
Bo Ørsted Andresen wrote:
On Wednesday 14 June 2006 14:42, Alec Warner wrote:
* autouse (use.defaults) has been deprecated by specifying USE_ORDER in
make.defaults. Users may still turn this back on by specifying
USE_ORD
On Wed, 14 Jun 2006 10:59:12 -0400, Alec Warner wrote:
> Bo Ørsted Andresen wrote:
>> On Wednesday 14 June 2006 14:42, Alec Warner wrote:
>>
>>>* autouse (use.defaults) has been deprecated by specifying USE_ORDER in
>>>make.defaults. Users may still turn this back on by specifying
>>>USE_ORDER="
Henrik Brix Andersen wrote:
On Wed, Jun 14, 2006 at 09:18:57AM -0400, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
I would have *no problem* with an opt-in system. Instead of using
"InOverlay" (which is a poor choice anyway... which overlay?) as some
sort of tag, instead, assign the package to the project which ma
Bo Ørsted Andresen wrote:
On Wednesday 14 June 2006 14:42, Alec Warner wrote:
* autouse (use.defaults) has been deprecated by specifying USE_ORDER in
make.defaults. Users may still turn this back on by specifying
USE_ORDER="env:pkg:conf:auto:defaults" in make.conf. Interested in
figuring out
On Wed, Jun 14, 2006 at 09:18:57AM -0400, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> I would have *no problem* with an opt-in system. Instead of using
> "InOverlay" (which is a poor choice anyway... which overlay?) as some
> sort of tag, instead, assign the package to the project which maintains
> the herd the pac
On Wed, Jun 14, 2006 at 09:13:34AM -0400, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> > A great example of this are web-based applications. The web-apps project
> > does not own all the web-based packages in the Portage tree. There are many
> > such packages in the tree that are managed by developers that are not
On Wed, 14 Jun 2006 09:13:34 -0400, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
big snip.
> Except I'm not arguing about abandoned packages. I'm arguing about things
> like kernel sources, that proponents of sunrise say should be in the
> overlay, even after the kernel team says that it should *never* go into
>
On Wed, 2006-06-14 at 10:09 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Jun 2006 08:52:37 + (UTC) "Duncan"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> | But as Stuart Herbert pointed out, a project can be self-authorized,
> | by the current rules. Project Sunrise therefore didn't /need/
> | permission to com
On Wed, 2006-06-14 at 08:52 +, Duncan wrote:
> But as Stuart Herbert pointed out, a project can be self-authorized, by
> the current rules. Project Sunrise therefore didn't /need/ permission to
> come into existence and set up its own overlay. The announcement here,
> while perhaps it /should/
On Wed, 2006-06-14 at 08:38 +0200, Kevin F. Quinn wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Jun 2006 23:19:51 +0100
> Stuart Herbert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> > Hash: SHA1
> >
> > Michael Cummings wrote:
> > | Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> > |>> Using your example, if it will *n
On Wednesday 14 June 2006 14:42, Alec Warner wrote:
> * autouse (use.defaults) has been deprecated by specifying USE_ORDER in
> make.defaults. Users may still turn this back on by specifying
> USE_ORDER="env:pkg:conf:auto:defaults" in make.conf. Interested in
> figuring out what use flags were tu
On Tue, 2006-06-13 at 23:52 +0100, Stuart Herbert wrote:
> Packages are grouped into herds, which are managed by projects. If a
> package doesn't belong to a herd, then it doesn't belong to the project, and
> other developers are free to take ownership of the package and include it
> into the tree
On Wed, Jun 14, 2006 at 09:42:48AM -0400, Alec Warner wrote:
> I have added a snippet to the release notes: [..]
Thank you.
cheers,
Wernfried
--
Wernfried Haas (amne) - amne at gentoo dot org
Gentoo Forums: http://forums.gentoo.org
IRC: #gentoo-forums on freenode - email: forum-mods at
I don't think this (the general idea) is a heretical thought, in fact it was
around for quite some time. See #1523 for example, which actually came out of
a similar thread back ?5? years ago.
(There were no GLEPs back then, for those of you who will wan't to go "why
this isn't it glepped?" :). T
Duncan wrote:
Peter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted
[EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Tue, 13
Jun 2006 12:57:08 -0400:
On Tue, 13 Jun 2006 18:08:03 +0200, Bo Ørsted Andresen wrote:
On Monday 12 June 2006 12:57, Bo Ørsted Andresen wrote:
On Monday 12 June 2006 12:42, Peter wrote:
All of
Sune Kloppenborg Jeppesen wrote:
app-text/wv2 is without an active maintainer and has an open security bug
#136759
https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=136759
Anyone willing to take care of this package in the future, please update
metadata/herd info and CC yourself on the bug.
This seem
app-text/wv2 is without an active maintainer and has an open security bug
#136759
https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=136759
Anyone willing to take care of this package in the future, please update
metadata/herd info and CC yourself on the bug.
--
Sune Kloppenborg Jeppesen (Jaervosz)
Gent
Jakub Moc wrote:
> Getting tired of this thread, really. Talk about too much ado for
> nothing. So, how about we stop wasting time, let people who are
> interested to do something do it, and the rest of us can focus on more
> important stuff than endless debates on mailing list and bothering
> Gent
Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted
[EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Wed, 14 Jun
2006 10:09:03 +0100:
> The rules call for a GLEP for any wide ranging change. And funnily
> enough, they do so to avoid exactly the kind of mess that Sunrise is.
Point valid.
--
Duncan - List replies
On Wed, 14 Jun 2006 08:52:37 + (UTC) "Duncan"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| But as Stuart Herbert pointed out, a project can be self-authorized,
| by the current rules. Project Sunrise therefore didn't /need/
| permission to come into existence and set up its own overlay. The
| announcement her
Chris Gianelloni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted
[EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Tue,
13 Jun 2006 09:38:42 -0400:
> You don't need to backup any of it. Everything under /usr/portage can
> be regained with an "emerge --sync" except distfiles, and those are
> redownloaded the next time you merge
On 6/13/06, Peter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
As an example, there is a kernel source build I've been playing with. I
know, from the kernel team, it will never, repeat NEVER, get onto the
portage tree. they want no part of it.
My guess is that alternative kernels are probably the strongest
argum
Chris Gianelloni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted
[EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Tue,
13 Jun 2006 17:32:38 -0400:
> What we *are* arguing against is having something in a
> non-project-specific overlay, that is not maintained by the project in
> question, and has *specifically* been rejected by
Peter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted
[EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Tue, 13
Jun 2006 12:57:08 -0400:
> On Tue, 13 Jun 2006 18:08:03 +0200, Bo Ørsted Andresen wrote:
>
>> On Monday 12 June 2006 12:57, Bo Ørsted Andresen wrote:
>>> On Monday 12 June 2006 12:42, Peter wrote:
>>> > All of a sudd
On Tue, 13 Jun 2006 16:17:57 -0400
Peter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It's no such proof. Anyone who rolls a kernel, takes the time to learn
> what it entails, understands what he/she is intending to do, knows the
> ramifications of those actions. Gentoo users, in particular, by
> virtue of the fa
64 matches
Mail list logo
