On Saturday 24 March 2007, Christel Dahlskjaer wrote:
> It looks like our social contract doesn't prohibit Gentoo from being
> dependent upon a single sponsor or corporation. In the interests of
> keeping Gentoo run by the developers rather than any outside party, how
> about the following addition
On Sunday 25 March 2007, Jakub Moc wrote:
> Hmmm, I'm not sure how much of an regression this is. AFAICT bugzilla
> always required to prefix the search with ALL if you want to search for
> resolved bugs as well. There's even a note about this directly on the
> homepage, below the search box. :)
y
Mike Frysinger kirjoitti:
>
> isnt this what package mask is for ? and/or just put out a quick -r1 that
> reverts echangelog
> -mike
I did package.mask it, but not everyone syncs daily.
Regards,
Petteri
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Christel Dahlskjaer wrote:
> It looks like our social contract doesn't prohibit Gentoo from being
> dependent upon a single sponsor or corporation. In the interests of
> keeping Gentoo run by the developers rather than any outside party, how
> about the following addition to the Social Contract?
N
On Sun, 2007-03-25 at 04:54 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Saturday 24 March 2007, Christel Dahlskjaer wrote:
> > It looks like our social contract doesn't prohibit Gentoo from being
> > dependent upon a single sponsor or corporation. In the interests of
> > keeping Gentoo run by the developers
On Sunday 25 March 2007, Christel Dahlskjaer wrote:
> On Sun, 2007-03-25 at 04:54 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On Saturday 24 March 2007, Christel Dahlskjaer wrote:
> > > It looks like our social contract doesn't prohibit Gentoo from being
> > > dependent upon a single sponsor or corporation. I
On Saturday 24 March 2007, Matthias Langer wrote:
> In my opinion, any project that has reasonable potential to improve
> Gentoo as a whole
which doesnt apply here
-mike
pgpkZMxj5OVdW.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 10:40:51 -0400
Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Saturday 24 March 2007, Matthias Langer wrote:
> > In my opinion, any project that has reasonable potential to improve
> > Gentoo as a whole
>
> which doesnt apply here
Did you not say that finding alternatives to P
On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 09:37:04 +0200
"Denis Dupeyron" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 3/25/07, Alec Warner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Well I'm a native speaker [...]
>
> Yeah, right. May I remind you that you're a USian ?
>
> :o)
>
> Denis.
Hi,
May be a little OT, but just two of four ancie
On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 04:54:33 -0400
Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> i dont see why this is required ? ignoring the fact that the wording
> is way too vague to do anything but cause confusion and people to
> spout long winded rants, seems like useless nitpicking about an issue
> that doe
On Sunday 25 March 2007, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Saturday 24 March 2007, Matthias Langer wrote:
> > > In my opinion, any project that has reasonable potential to improve
> > > Gentoo as a whole
> >
> > which doesnt apply here
>
> Did you not say tha
On Sunday 25 March 2007, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > i dont see why this is required ? ignoring the fact that the wording
> > is way too vague to do anything but cause confusion and people to
> > spout long winded rants, seems like useless nitpicking abou
On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 11:00:00 -0400
Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sunday 25 March 2007, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > i dont see why this is required ? ignoring the fact that the
> > > wording is way too vague to do anything but cause co
On Sunday 25 March 2007, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 11:00:00 -0400
>
> Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Sunday 25 March 2007, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > > Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > i dont see why this is required ? ignoring the fact that th
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 11:00:00 -0400
> Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> On Sunday 25 March 2007, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>>
>>> Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
i dont see why this is required ? ignoring the fact that the
wo
Christel Dahlskjaer wrote: [Sun Mar 25 2007, 07:35:33AM CDT]
> Supposedly >80% of our stuff is hosted in one building, where would we
> find ourselves were this building to building to burn to the ground? Get
> flooded?
Looking through
http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/infrastructure/server-specs.xml
On Sun, 2007-03-25 at 09:27 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Sunday 25 March 2007, Christel Dahlskjaer wrote:
> > On Sun, 2007-03-25 at 04:54 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > > On Saturday 24 March 2007, Christel Dahlskjaer wrote:
> > > > It looks like our social contract doesn't prohibit Gentoo f
On Sunday 25 of March 2007 16:58:10 Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > Did you not say that finding alternatives to Portage is one of Gentoo's
> > priorities?
>
> no i did not, nor does that apply here
not to put anything in your mouth, but I am a little confused:
http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo
Dale wrote:
>
> As a lowly user, I agree. Gentoo should not put all its eggs in one basket.
>
Gentoo should use whichever basket could fit...
--
Luca Barbato
Gentoo/linux Gentoo/PPC
http://dev.gentoo.org/~lu_zero
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> Which of the following do you think is most likely to happen?
>
> * That Gentoo relicences everything under a proprietary licence
GPL-3 you mean?
> * That Gentoo colludes with Lucifer
Cough...
> * That Gentoo comes under pressure from a sponsor with an agenda
>
> Rem
Ryan Hill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted [EMAIL PROTECTED],
excerpted below, on Sat, 24 Mar 2007 12:40:28 -0600:
> Marius Mauch wrote:
>> "Kevin F. Quinn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>> Arguably no bug is invalid in the normal sense - if someone raises an
>>> issue, they have an issue, regardless
On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 17:35:21 +0200
Luca Barbato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Gentoo should use whichever basket could fit...
Just because there is a basket that can fit all our eggs should not
prevent us from looking, where possible, for other baskets that would
let us distribute them more evenly
On Sunday 25 March 2007, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> Which of the following do you think is most likely to happen?
and which of the following do you think is most likely to happen ?
* Ridiculous scenario #1
* Ridiculous scenario #2
* Spin of recent events to look like a conspiracy
obviously the las
Looks like a good job to me.
--
Best Regards,
Piotr Jaroszyński
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 15:27:11 + (UTC)
Duncan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Invalid (to me) implies a judgement of the work of the submitter,
> while NOTABUG (to me) implies more a simple variance of opinion,
> recognizing the other viewpoint as possibly valid (not invalid), but
> simply choosing
Piotr Jaroszyński wrote:
On Sunday 25 of March 2007 16:58:10 Mike Frysinger wrote:
Did you not say that finding alternatives to Portage is one of Gentoo's
priorities?
no i did not, nor does that apply here
not to put anything in your mouth, but I am a little confused:
http://article.gmane.org/
Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted
[EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Sun, 25 Mar 2007
15:46:36 +0100:
> On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 10:40:51 -0400
> Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Saturday 24 March 2007, Matthias Langer wrote:
>> > In my opinion, any project that has reasona
Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted
[EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Sun, 25 Mar
2007 11:16:13 -0400:
> well, while we're protecting Gentoo from hypothetical situations that
> dont exist now but could in the future, we should add a clause that bans
> collusion with Lucifer as that wou
On Sunday 25 of March 2007 17:54:24 Andrew Gaffney wrote:
> Support for an alternative package manager != language bindings for said
> package manager :P
heh, I just wanted a clarification of the Council standpoint in the matter of
finding alternatives to portage, which became quite vague after re
I'd like to ask what are the negative side-effects of adding such
paragraph. Are there any true negative side-effects to a specification
like that?
A different topic is the way the paragraph is written. If we don't
like how it is written, we can change it and problem solved.
To be honest, protec
On Sunday 25 March 2007, Piotr Jaroszyński wrote:
> On Sunday 25 of March 2007 17:54:24 Andrew Gaffney wrote:
> > Support for an alternative package manager != language bindings for said
> > package manager :P
>
> heh, I just wanted a clarification of the Council standpoint in the matter
> of findi
> I'd like to ask what are the negative side-effects of adding such
> paragraph. Are there any true negative side-effects to a specification
> like that?
>
> A different topic is the way the paragraph is written. If we don't
> like how it is written, we can change it and problem solved.
>
> To be h
On Sunday 25 March 2007, Ioannis Aslanidis wrote:
> I'd like to ask what are the negative side-effects of adding such
> paragraph. Are there any true negative side-effects to a specification
> like that?
>
> A different topic is the way the paragraph is written. If we don't
> like how it is written
On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 15:27:11 + (UTC)
Duncan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What do others think of NULL or VOID vs. NOTABUG vs. INVALID?
I'd object against NULL or VOID, they don't make much sense to me.
NOTABUG seems to be the best fit as it's very specific and doesn't
leave much room for in
> the werent the same question nor were they the same answer
They weren't the same, but the second answer was definitely wrong:
> > So is alternative package manager support something that's considered
> > important and a priority by the Council?
>
> yes
> > Did you not say that finding alternat
Piotr Jaroszy?ski wrote:
> Looks like a good job to me.
>
++
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
On 3/25/07, Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> To be honest, protecting ourselves from things that now seem
> improbable, isn't such a bad idea.
and where exactly do you stop ?
-mike
That's a good question, but I am not appropriate to answer to that yet. :)
--
Ioannis Aslanidis
Duncan wrote:
> A segment of an already minor segment (certainly currently, tho that
> /may/ eventually change), not likely to be something that can reasonably
> be characterized as benefiting Gentoo as a whole, at least in the near to
> medium term, and beyond that, well, things remain up for grab
Duncan wrote:
> As one who was offended when one of my first bugs got INVALIDated...
>
I know the feeling, mate :)
> NOTABUG would have been better. It may suffer some of the same issues,
> but is better, and at least here, wouldn't have the discouraging
> connotations due to the minor variation
Christel Dahlskjaer wrote:
> It looks like our social contract doesn't prohibit Gentoo from being
> dependent upon a single sponsor or corporation. In the interests of
> keeping Gentoo run by the developers rather than any outside party, how
> about the following addition to the Social Contract?
>
I'm planning to request the latest revision of gentoo-sources-2.6.20 go
stable on x86 and amd64 in 1-2 weeks from now. Other arches will
probably follow soon after.
There are still a few new bugs with external modules:
https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=163825
I've commented on every one o
Christel Dahlskjaer wrote:
It looks like our social contract doesn't prohibit Gentoo from being
dependent upon a single sponsor or corporation. In the interests of
keeping Gentoo run by the developers rather than any outside party, how
about the following addition to the Social Contract?
We will
Daniel Drake kirjoitti:
> I'm planning to request the latest revision of gentoo-sources-2.6.20 go
> stable on x86 and amd64 in 1-2 weeks from now. Other arches will
> probably follow soon after.
>
> There are still a few new bugs with external modules:
> https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=163
Daniel Drake wrote:
I'm planning to request the latest revision of gentoo-sources-2.6.20
go stable on x86 and amd64 in 1-2 weeks from now. Other arches will
probably follow soon after.
There are still a few new bugs with external modules:
https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=163825
I've c
On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 17:53:51 +0300
Rumen Yotov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> May be a little OT, but just two of four ancient-sayings:
> 1.Never accept things personaly (everyone is acting on his own
> motives); 2.Try not to make assumptions (just ask questions, till you
> get it). Clearly (from ab
Hi,
virtual/x11 has been deprecated for some time and now that all packages
that only use it have been removed it is time to mask and remove it. I
have put it in package.mask now - please fix your overlays in case you
still use virtual/x11 somewhere. It will be removed in 30 days as per
the u
Kevin F. Quinn wrote:
> I know I've seen many instances where the word INVALID has got
> peoples hackles up, [...] This is the same issue I have with
> "NOTABUG" - it's like saying, "you're wrong, shouldn't have raised
> the report", just perhaps not as in-your-face as INVALID.
Precisely. "NOT
On Sunday 25 March 2007, M. Edward (Ed) Borasky wrote:
> Christel Dahlskjaer wrote:
> > It looks like our social contract doesn't prohibit Gentoo from being
> > dependent upon a single sponsor or corporation. In the interests of
> > keeping Gentoo run by the developers rather than any outside party
On Saturday 24 March 2007, Christel Dahlskjaer wrote:
> It looks like our social contract doesn't prohibit Gentoo from being
> dependent upon a single sponsor or corporation. In the interests of
> keeping Gentoo run by the developers rather than any outside party, how
> about the following addition
Warwick Bruce Chapman wrote:
Will you be marking linux-headers-2.6.19 stable as well? I really think
http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=160381 needs some serious attention.
linux-headers isnt anything to do with me or the kernel herd. I can't
comment on when it will go stable.
Daniel
-
Petteri Räty wrote:
Is Alsa OK too? I remember Diego talking something about it being broken
when he as still around. Might be fixed since with 2.6.20.X though.
No known significant problems. I think we may have a single occurance of
a hda regression to take care of.
Daniel
--
gentoo-dev@ge
On 2007/03/25, Benno Schulenberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Precisely. "NOTABUG" sounds less harsh than "INVALID" (for some
> just a little, for others a lot), it is less likely to irk people,
> and it is also used elsewhere, so why not use it instead?
>
Not that i care that much, but imho
On Sun, 2007-03-25 at 16:47 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Saturday 24 March 2007, Christel Dahlskjaer wrote:
> > It looks like our social contract doesn't prohibit Gentoo from being
> > dependent upon a single sponsor or corporation. In the interests of
> > keeping Gentoo run by the developers
On Sunday 25 March 2007, Christel Dahlskjaer wrote:
> On Sun, 2007-03-25 at 16:47 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > i think this whole idea is a moot point anyways ... go visit the Gentoo
> > Foundation web site and see Chapter 2 Section 5
>
> And how exactly does this help us in the event of say th
On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 17:59:41 -0400
Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sunday 25 March 2007, Christel Dahlskjaer wrote:
> > On Sun, 2007-03-25 at 16:47 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > > i think this whole idea is a moot point anyways ... go visit the
> > > Gentoo Foundation web site and
> Duncan wrote:
>> A segment of an already minor segment (certainly currently, tho that
>> /may/ eventually change), not likely to be something that can reasonably
>> be characterized as benefiting Gentoo as a whole, at least in the near
>> to
>> medium term, and beyond that, well, things remain up
On Sunday 25 March 2007, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Sunday 25 March 2007, Christel Dahlskjaer wrote:
> > > On Sun, 2007-03-25 at 16:47 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > > > i think this whole idea is a moot point anyways ... go visit the
> > > > Gentoo
I commented this out of package.mask. x11-libs/fox-1.2.6-r2 still uses it.
Need to fix that up before masking it.
Michael Sterrett
-Mr. Bones.-
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sun, 25 Mar 2007, Stefan Schweizer wrote:
Hi,
virtual/x11 has been deprecated for some time and now that all packages that
o
The attached list notes all of the packages that were added or removed
from the tree, for the week ending 2007-03-25 23h59 UTC.
Removals:
app-portage/emool 2007-03-19 10:17:22 blubb
www-client/mozilla 2007-03-19 10:25:35 armin76
www-client/mozilla
Hi,
the following packages have been superseded by/merged into net-misc/nx,
the last ebuild in portage that used them (nxserver-freenx-0.5.0) was
removed 4 months ago:
net-misc/nxcomp
net-misc/nxesd
net-misc/nxproxy
net-misc/nxssh
net-misc/nx-x11
net-misc/nx-x11-bin
They are now package.masked,
"Michael Sterrett -Mr. Bones.-" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> napisał:
> I commented this out of package.mask. x11-libs/fox-1.2.6-r2 still uses it.
> Need to fix that up before masking it.
These not numerous packages still using virtual/x11 can be fixed after masking
it. Almost nobody uses them. Masking v
On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 03:45:38 +0200
arfrever <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Michael Sterrett -Mr. Bones.-" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> napisał:
> > I commented this out of package.mask. x11-libs/fox-1.2.6-r2 still
> > uses it. Need to fix that up before masking it.
>
> These not numerous packages still usi
> On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 03:45:38 +0200
> arfrever <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> "Michael Sterrett -Mr. Bones.-" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> napisał:
>> > I commented this out of package.mask. x11-libs/fox-1.2.6-r2 still
>> > uses it. Need to fix that up before masking it.
>>
>> These not numerous packages
On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 19:08:01 -0700 (PDT)
"Alec Warner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Breaking the tree, and thus end user systems, is not an acceptable
> > way of getting people to fix things. It doesn't make any difference
> > to developers who haven't fixed their packages, only to users.
>
> It
Michael Sterrett -Mr. Bones.- wrote:
> I commented this out of package.mask. x11-libs/fox-1.2.6-r2 still uses it.
> Need to fix that up before masking it.
It doesn't seem to build.
FXColorSelector.cpp: In member function 'long int
FX::FXColorSelector::onUpdAlphaText(FX::FXObject*, FX::FXSelector
Alec Warner wrote: [Sun Mar 25 2007, 09:08:01PM CDT]
> It's acceptable to me. I'd rather see us make progress than postpone
> changes for months while devs bicker about changes to be made. That would
> not be the case if say, people had the balls to just fix things in the
> tree. However we have
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> Well, if it's reached the "take drastic action" stage (which, let's
> face it, it has at this point), why not go and fix the tree? It's a
> better solution than breaking it, and anyone who moans now isn't going
> to get any sympathy from anyone.
I'm fixing it now. The br
On Mon, 2007-03-26 at 03:21 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> Well, if it's reached the "take drastic action" stage (which, let's
> face it, it has at this point), why not go and fix the tree? It's a
> better solution than breaking it, and anyone who moans now isn't going
> to get any sympathy from a
Ryan Hill wrote:
> Michael Sterrett -Mr. Bones.- wrote:
>> I commented this out of package.mask. x11-libs/fox-1.2.6-r2 still uses it.
>> Need to fix that up before masking it.
> I'll have a look.
Okay, x11-libs/fox-1.2.6-r3 was added to the tree which fixed the
virtual/x11 and GCC 4.1 compile i
Ryan Hill napsal(a):
> Ryan Hill wrote:
>> Michael Sterrett -Mr. Bones.- wrote:
>
>>> I commented this out of package.mask. x11-libs/fox-1.2.6-r2 still uses it.
>>> Need to fix that up before masking it.
>
>> I'll have a look.
>
> Okay, x11-libs/fox-1.2.6-r3 was added to the tree which fixed th
linux-headers isnt anything to do with me or the kernel herd. I can't
comment on when it will go stable.
k, my bad, who should I be speaking to about what I can do to get it sorted?
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
71 matches
Mail list logo
