Re: [gentoo-dev] *DEVELOPMENT* mail list, right?

2007-04-10 Thread Robin H. Johnson
On Thu, Apr 05, 2007 at 07:03:45PM -0400, Michael Cummings wrote: > So, fellow devs, what's new with development? Over in the council, we've been doing some status updates of this similar nature, mainly so we all know where we are at (for all the core things that each of the council members are doi

[gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: extending project xml to have stuff that the project is working on and collect them as Gentoo current goals

2007-04-10 Thread Duncan
Petteri Räty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted [EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Tue, 10 Apr 2007 23:34:25 +0300: > As the recent thread showed there is a lot going on in Gentoo land > although it doesn't always seem so. I propose we extend project xml to > describe current stuff going on in the pr

Re: [gentoo-dev] Why don't you just ...

2007-04-10 Thread Luca Barbato
Christopher Sawtell wrote: > On Wednesday 11 April 2007 10:56:40 Benedikt Boehm wrote: >> ... don't care about an uber-vision or direction and just keep your >> friggin packages alive and working? > Indeed!! > > Doing an emerge --deep --update world last week b0rked updating about a > couple

Re: [gentoo-dev] Why don't you just ...

2007-04-10 Thread Alec Warner
Matthias Langer wrote: > > Well, I don't know what your problem really is about; I'm running x86, > and if something breaks on my system, it's mostly not because of broken > packages, but because I should have been informed about possible issues > that could have been caused by an upgrade, and how

Re: [gentoo-dev] Why don't you just ...

2007-04-10 Thread Matthias Langer
On Wed, 2007-04-11 at 13:26 +1200, Christopher Sawtell wrote: > On Wednesday 11 April 2007 10:56:40 Benedikt Boehm wrote: > > ... don't care about an uber-vision or direction and just keep your > > friggin packages alive and working? > Indeed!! > > Doing an emerge --deep --update world last we

Re: [gentoo-dev] Why don't you just ...

2007-04-10 Thread Andy Dalton
On 4/10/07, Christopher Sawtell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Evenutally I realized that the problem was gcc-4.1.2 had a supposedly executable file filled with zeros in its file-set. Masking gcc-4.1.2 and reverting to the 4.1.1 series has nearly got me going again.There is still one package which wo

Re: [gentoo-dev] Why don't you just ...

2007-04-10 Thread Christopher Sawtell
On Wednesday 11 April 2007 10:56:40 Benedikt Boehm wrote: > ... don't care about an uber-vision or direction and just keep your > friggin packages alive and working? Indeed!! Doing an emerge --deep --update world last week b0rked updating about a couple of dozen packages. Evenutally I realize

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] New metastructure proposal

2007-04-10 Thread Charlie Shepherd
On 10/04/07, Alexandre Buisse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Hi everyone, as everyone probably noticed, there is a current atmosphere of sinking ship, with quite a lot of people leaving and many agreeing that gentoo is no fun working on anymore. Before it's too late, I'd like to propose a big reform

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] New metastructure proposal

2007-04-10 Thread Marius Mauch
On Tue, 10 Apr 2007 21:32:49 +0200 Alexandre Buisse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [snip] > Please criticize this with everything constructive you > can think of. This idea of putting almost everything into its own repo/overlay will IMO end up in the same mess that several other distros have with to

[gentoo-dev] Why don't you just ...

2007-04-10 Thread Benedikt Boehm
... don't care about an uber-vision or direction and just keep your friggin packages alive and working? I'm so sick to hear people crying that noone is around to tell them what to do.. So here is my proposal: ABSTAIN! That's it for now :) -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

[gentoo-dev] Re: Re: base packages up for grabs

2007-04-10 Thread Steve Long
Raúl Porcel wrote: > Peter Weller wrote: >> On Sun, 08 Apr 2007 20:19:23 -0600 >> Ryan Hill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >>> Mike Frysinger wrote: working here is no longer fun >>> * HUGZ * >> >> Hoi! Giving hugs is a right reserved by me and me only! :P >> >> /me hugs Mike > > /me stabs

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: extending project xml to have stuff that the project is working on and collect them as Gentoo current goals

2007-04-10 Thread Stephen Bennett
On Tue, 10 Apr 2007 23:34:25 +0300 Petteri Räty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > As the recent thread showed there is a lot going on in Gentoo land > although it doesn't always seem so. I propose we extend project xml to > describe current stuff going on in the project in question and their > estimate

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: extending project xml to have stuff that the project is working on and collect them as Gentoo current goals

2007-04-10 Thread Marius Mauch
On Tue, 10 Apr 2007 23:34:25 +0300 Petteri Räty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > As the recent thread showed there is a lot going on in Gentoo land > although it doesn't always seem so. I propose we extend project xml to > describe current stuff going on in the project in question and their > estimate

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: doenvd vs. insinto /etc/env.d

2007-04-10 Thread Petteri Räty
Steve Long kirjoitti: > Doug Goldstein wrote: >>> Stupid question... what's the diff between doconfd and newconfd? >> Ha.. I remember now... Thanks robbat2 for kicking me in the head to jog >> my memory... >> > Care to share? ;) > man 5 ebuild. Use #gentoo-dev-help next time. Regards, Petteri

[gentoo-dev] Re: doenvd vs. insinto /etc/env.d

2007-04-10 Thread Steve Long
Doug Goldstein wrote: >> Stupid question... what's the diff between doconfd and newconfd? > > Ha.. I remember now... Thanks robbat2 for kicking me in the head to jog > my memory... > Care to share? ;) -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-core] [RFC] New metastructure proposal

2007-04-10 Thread Rémi Cardona
Alexandre Buisse a écrit : [snip] My experience is limited to the gnome packages and just based on those, your proposal is already not doable. Gnome deps on : - core glib/gtk packages, used by many other packages, including "server" packages, but "owned" by the gnome herd - dbus/hal, handled

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] New metastructure proposal

2007-04-10 Thread Petteri Räty
Chris Gianelloni kirjoitti: > On Tue, 2007-04-10 at 22:50 +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> it's just so easy to step on other >> ppls feet these days ;) > > I tend to agree that this is a problem, but only insofar as we've become > too territorial. Many times I see bugs filed with seemingly min

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: extending project xml to have stuff that the project is working on and collect them as Gentoo current goals

2007-04-10 Thread Petteri Räty
Bryan Østergaard kirjoitti: > On Tue, Apr 10, 2007 at 11:34:25PM +0300, Petteri R??ty wrote: >> As the recent thread showed there is a lot going on in Gentoo land >> although it doesn't always seem so. I propose we extend project xml to >> describe current stuff going on in the project in question

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] New metastructure proposal

2007-04-10 Thread Chris Gianelloni
On Tue, 2007-04-10 at 22:50 +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > it's just so easy to step on other > ppls feet these days ;) I tend to agree that this is a problem, but only insofar as we've become too territorial. Many times I see bugs filed with seemingly minor changes being asked for. A good ex

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: extending project xml to have stuff that the project is working on and collect them as Gentoo current goals

2007-04-10 Thread Mike Frysinger
On Tuesday 10 April 2007, Petteri Räty wrote: > I propose we extend project xml to describe current stuff going on in the > project in question and their estimated completion date. mmm good ... > Then we require this file to be updated monthly. ... not so good -mike pgpz8Qu87JVkL.pgp Descripti

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] New metastructure proposal

2007-04-10 Thread Joshua Jackson
Petteri Räty wrote: > Alexandre Buisse kirjoitti: > >> What I *want* to do is to make gentoo fun again. And I believe that >> decentralising and giving more autonomy to people will achieve exactly >> that, for reasons explained in the proposal. >> >> > > I am a project lead for two projects

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: extending project xml to have stuff that the project is working on and collect them as Gentoo current goals

2007-04-10 Thread Bryan Østergaard
On Tue, Apr 10, 2007 at 11:34:25PM +0300, Petteri R??ty wrote: > As the recent thread showed there is a lot going on in Gentoo land > although it doesn't always seem so. I propose we extend project xml to > describe current stuff going on in the project in question and their > estimated completion

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] New metastructure proposal

2007-04-10 Thread Petteri Räty
Alexandre Buisse kirjoitti: > > What I *want* to do is to make gentoo fun again. And I believe that > decentralising and giving more autonomy to people will achieve exactly > that, for reasons explained in the proposal. > I am a project lead for two projects and have no idea what kind of more au

[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-core] [RFC] New metastructure proposal

2007-04-10 Thread Alon Bar-Lev
On 4/10/07, Alexandre Buisse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Hi everyone, as everyone probably noticed, there is a current atmosphere of sinking ship, with quite a lot of people leaving and many agreeing that gentoo is no fun working on anymore. Before it's too late, I'd like to propose a big reforma

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: extending project xml to have stuff that the project is working on and collect them as Gentoo current goals

2007-04-10 Thread Petteri Räty
Chris Gianelloni kirjoitti: > On Tue, 2007-04-10 at 23:34 +0300, Petteri Räty wrote: >> Then we require this file to be updated >> monthly. What do you think? > > I think Release Engineering would kill you in our off time. This has > been brought up before, but some projects just don't have enou

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: extending project xml to have stuff that the project is working on and collect them as Gentoo current goals

2007-04-10 Thread Chris Gianelloni
On Tue, 2007-04-10 at 23:34 +0300, Petteri Räty wrote: > Then we require this file to be updated > monthly. What do you think? I think Release Engineering would kill you in our off time. This has been brought up before, but some projects just don't have enough going on to update on a regular cyc

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] New metastructure proposal

2007-04-10 Thread Alexandre Buisse
On Tue, Apr 10, 2007 at 22:32:20 +0200, Chris Gianelloni wrote: > On Tue, 2007-04-10 at 21:32 +0200, Alexandre Buisse wrote: > > work. Stage 4's were going in this direction, but they were too isolated > > and, as > > far as I know, they are dead now. > > Wow. I'm glad to see that yet another t

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: extending project xml to have stuff that the project is working on and collect them as Gentoo current goals

2007-04-10 Thread Carsten Lohrke
Thanks for the xml excerpt Pettery, but I'm still in the dark about what you speak at all. Carsten signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] New metastructure proposal

2007-04-10 Thread paul
Chris Gianelloni schrieb: > On Tue, 2007-04-10 at 21:32 +0200, Alexandre Buisse wrote: >> work. Stage 4's were going in this direction, but they were too isolated >> and, as >> far as I know, they are dead now. > > Wow. I'm glad to see that yet another thing I spend so much time > working on is

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: extending project xml to have stuff that the project is working on and collect them as Gentoo current goals

2007-04-10 Thread Petteri Räty
Mike Doty kirjoitti: > Petteri Räty wrote: >> As the recent thread showed there is a lot going on in Gentoo land >> although it doesn't always seem so. I propose we extend project xml to >> describe current stuff going on in the project in question and their >> estimated completion date. Then we re

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: extending project xml to have stuff that the project is working on and collect them as Gentoo current goals

2007-04-10 Thread Ned Ludd
On Tue, 2007-04-10 at 23:34 +0300, Petteri Räty wrote: > As the recent thread showed there is a lot going on in Gentoo land > although it doesn't always seem so. I propose we extend project xml to > describe current stuff going on in the project in question and their > estimated completion date. >

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: extending project xml to have stuff that the project is working on and collect them as Gentoo current goals

2007-04-10 Thread Mike Doty
Petteri Räty wrote: As the recent thread showed there is a lot going on in Gentoo land although it doesn't always seem so. I propose we extend project xml to describe current stuff going on in the project in question and their estimated completion date. Then we require this file to be updated mon

[gentoo-dev] RFC: extending project xml to have stuff that the project is working on and collect them as Gentoo current goals

2007-04-10 Thread Petteri Räty
As the recent thread showed there is a lot going on in Gentoo land although it doesn't always seem so. I propose we extend project xml to describe current stuff going on in the project in question and their estimated completion date. Then we require this file to be updated monthly. What do you thin

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] New metastructure proposal

2007-04-10 Thread Chris Gianelloni
On Tue, 2007-04-10 at 21:32 +0200, Alexandre Buisse wrote: > work. Stage 4's were going in this direction, but they were too isolated and, > as > far as I know, they are dead now. Wow. I'm glad to see that yet another thing I spend so much time working on is marginalized or otherwise discounted

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] New metastructure proposal

2007-04-10 Thread Petteri Räty
Alexandre Buisse kirjoitti: > Hi everyone, > > as everyone probably noticed, there is a current atmosphere of sinking ship, > with quite a lot of people leaving and many agreeing that gentoo is no fun > working on anymore. Before it's too late, I'd like to propose a big > reformation > that would

[gentoo-dev] [RFC] New metastructure proposal

2007-04-10 Thread Alexandre Buisse
Hi everyone, as everyone probably noticed, there is a current atmosphere of sinking ship, with quite a lot of people leaving and many agreeing that gentoo is no fun working on anymore. Before it's too late, I'd like to propose a big reformation that would help solve some of the issues we are curre

[gentoo-dev] Re: genlop-0.30.6 released

2007-04-10 Thread Markus Ullmann
Mike Frysinger schrieb: > doubt it'll be possible to convince the developers to merge here ... genlop > is > written in perl and qlop is written in C ... > -mike Maybe we can do this as another 99bottle ;) For those who don't know what it is about, look it up here ... http://99-bottles-of-beer.

Re: [gentoo-dev] genlop-0.30.6 released

2007-04-10 Thread Doug Goldstein
Michael Cummings wrote: > On Mon, Apr 09, 2007 at 10:43:58AM -0400, Michael Cummings wrote: > >> -t fixed (not in svn yet, but it was an easy thing to fix) >> >> trying to compile something that should take more than an hour on my box to >> make >> sure -c is fixed also. Sorry about the shoddy

Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for April

2007-04-10 Thread Paul de Vrieze
Seemant Kulleen wrote: On Thu, 2007-04-05 at 13:29 +0200, Denis Dupeyron wrote: Why not simply allow trustees to veto a council decision ? This does not give trustees enough power to be a second council, but would permit them to stop something that they believe will damage Gentoo. This is very l

Re: [gentoo-dev] genlop-0.30.6 released

2007-04-10 Thread Mike Frysinger
On Tuesday 10 April 2007, Andrej Kacian wrote: > Timothy Redaelli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Imho is a waste of time to maintain two projects which does the same > > things (genloop and qlop) > > Perhaps because each has features that the other doesn't (genlop's --date, > for example). because

Re: [gentoo-dev] genlop-0.30.6 released

2007-04-10 Thread Andrej Kacian
On Tue, 10 Apr 2007 14:28:52 +0200 Timothy Redaelli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Imho is a waste of time to maintain two projects which does the same > things (genloop and qlop) Perhaps because each has features that the other doesn't (genlop's --date, for example). Also, as long as involved peo

Re: [gentoo-dev] genlop-0.30.6 released

2007-04-10 Thread Michael Cummings
On Tue, Apr 10, 2007 at 02:28:52PM +0200, Timothy Redaelli wrote: > Imho is a waste of time to maintain two projects which does the same > things (genloop and qlop) gollee, we wouldn't want competing products, would we? I mean, imagine if someone tried writing a competitor for emerge?? :P This

Re: [gentoo-dev] genlop-0.30.6 released

2007-04-10 Thread Mike Frysinger
On Tuesday 10 April 2007, Timothy Redaelli wrote: > Imho is a waste of time to maintain two projects which does the same > things (genloop and qlop) doubt it'll be possible to convince the developers to merge here ... genlop is written in perl and qlop is written in C ... -mike pgpb0w0E2LgeK.pg

Re: [gentoo-dev] genlop-0.30.6 released

2007-04-10 Thread Timothy Redaelli
Michael Cummings ha scritto: > Been a while, upstream moved on in life but we continued to get interested > users > filing bugs, so > > genlop-0.30.6 went into the tree this morning. Primarily a bug fix release > based > on what was open in bugs.gentoo.org. Enjoy :) Imho is a waste of time

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: base packages up for grabs

2007-04-10 Thread Raúl Porcel
Peter Weller wrote: > On Sun, 08 Apr 2007 20:19:23 -0600 > Ryan Hill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Mike Frysinger wrote: >>> working here is no longer fun >> * HUGZ * >> >> >> > > Hoi! Giving hugs is a right reserved by me and me only! :P > > /me hugs Mike /me stabs welp -- gentoo-dev@gentoo

Re: [gentoo-dev] base packages up for grabs

2007-04-10 Thread Matthias Schwarzott
On Sonntag, 8. April 2007, Mike Frysinger wrote: > sys-power/nvram-wakeup VDR-Team can look at it. Matthias -- Matthias Schwarzott (zzam) -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list