Thanks for your input on this, really made it look by 200% better from
what we have so far on this list and gives a much better point of view
to judge from.
Kumba++
Greetz
-Jokey
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
On Wednesday 09 January 2008, Kumba wrote:
> Well, I guess it's something that's been needing to be faced for some time
> now, as difficult as it is to do. Regardless of the accusations and
> counter-accusations flying around in this thread, I'll just go ahead and
> state the fact that yes, we are
Luca Barbato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Here is a list of interesting questions: "Are we fine?" "What are we
> going to do?"
>
> Please project leaders try to reply in short.
>
> About the stuff I'm involved:
web-apps
>
> Are we fine?
webapps is more or less fine. We have several people in t
Luca Barbato wrote:
> Here is a list of interesting questions: "Are we fine?" "What are we
> going to do?"
Documentation
(Note: I'm not the project lead, but neysx isn't on the list, nor does
he send status updates, so I hope he and the rest of the project won't mind.
> Are we fine?
Sure, why n
Well, I guess it's something that's been needing to be faced for some time now,
as difficult as it is to do. Regardless of the accusations and
counter-accusations flying around in this thread, I'll just go ahead and state
the fact that yes, we are a "slacker arch".
Why? Because there's jus
Luca Barbato wrote:
Here is a list of interesting questions: "Are we fine?" "What are we
going to do?"
Please project leaders try to reply in short.
[ wxWidgets ] (i'm not the lead but i don't think leio will mind)
Done:
We got 2.8 into the tree (yay). After a few bug reports that were
mo
Mike Frysinger kirjoitti:
i'd argue pretty vehemently against removing openssh from any default official
Gentoo install. ssh is defacto standard for loginning into any other
machines. it should be on all Gentoo desktops/severs/etc...
specialized/embedded/whatever are certainly free to cull
On Mon, 2008-01-07 at 22:31 +0100, Luca Barbato wrote:
> Here is a list of interesting questions: "Are we fine?" "What are we
> going to do?"
>
> Please project leaders try to reply in short.
tools-portage:
Are we fine? The short answer is no. We need more developers.
Unfortunately, real life
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Luca Barbato a écrit :
> Here is a list of interesting questions: "Are we fine?" "What are we
> going to do?"
>
> Please project leaders try to reply in short.
>
Ok, technically I'm not security lead, but since I and rbu almost
completely handled th
On Wednesday 09 January 2008, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> On Wed, 2008-01-09 at 16:26 -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > that's fair. i'd also add that forcing the value into conf.d/clock
> > forces a reliance on openrc and prevents alternative init packages
> > (which we've seen people use). i know
On Wed, 2008-01-09 at 23:27 +0100, Jan Kundrát wrote:
> and you signed it as a "Gentoo Developer Relations Lead".
Umm... because that's her .sig?
Wow. I'm really surprised that this concept is foreign to people. Are
you saying that you need beer from the pub because of your signature?
Are you s
I'm adding Developer Relations to this email and will be filing a formal
complaint against you. Have a good day.
lol.
--
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
On Wed, 2008-01-09 at 16:42 -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > Indeed. We ended up having to get perl into the stage1 because of
> > exactly these problems. It sucks. I'd love to be able to remove perl
> > (and anything else not necessarily required) out of the base system set.
> > If they're requ
Chrissy Fullam wrote:
> I appreciate your opinion and your right to have such an opinion, however, I
> have a hard time understanding your reason for said opinion. I would expect
> any person to be able to say 'enough' and 'lets take this elsewhere.'
Perhaps he feels in such a way because your mai
On Wed, 2008-01-09 at 22:42 +0100, Fabian Groffen wrote:
> On 09-01-2008 13:03:13 -0800, Chrissy Fullam wrote:
> > You have a negative history with wolf31o2, and the details of which quite
> > frankly should be kept off this mailing list. His negative experiences
> > throughout all of 2007 with Con
Mike Frysinger wrote:
>> Well, openssh has always been questionable. Sure, *I* think it should
>> be on any Gentoo system I'd want to touch, but it really isn't necessary
>> for a lot of people. Moving this to, say, the "server" profiles only
>> would be acceptable to me, but then again, so is le
> Fabian Groffen wrote:
> On 09-01-2008 13:03:13 -0800, Chrissy Fullam wrote:
> > You have a negative history with wolf31o2, and the details of which
> > quite frankly should be kept off this mailing list. ...
> > Let's take this discussion elsewhere.
>
> IMHO, you have a very big conflict of int
On Wed, 2008-01-09 at 16:26 -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> that's fair. i'd also add that forcing the value into conf.d/clock
> forces a reliance on openrc and prevents alternative init packages
> (which we've seen people use). i know debian uses /etc/localtime, any
> one know what other distro c
On Wednesday 09 January 2008, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> On Wed, 2008-01-09 at 15:51 -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > > Anyway, as having a complete dependency tree is almost impossible
> > > because of that, I have an alternative proposal: reducing the size of
> > > the system package set. Right n
On 09-01-2008 13:03:13 -0800, Chrissy Fullam wrote:
> You have a negative history with wolf31o2, and the details of which quite
> frankly should be kept off this mailing list. His negative experiences
> throughout all of 2007 with Conflict Resolution and consequently Developer
> Relations justify a
Hi out there,
as I was told on bugzilla, I am taking this here.
I do not know if this was proposed earlier, but I noticed, that
USE="sqlite" seems to just pull in any dev-db/sqlite, which in many
cases does not really mean any, like
DEPEND="sqlite? dev-db/sqlite"
would do, but something like
DEPE
Chris Gianelloni wrote:
>> What are we going to do:
>
> GWN: no clue, looks like nothing
Well I hope there is somebody willing to at least try to get a minimal
gwn as new year kickoff out even just by summarizing this thread ^^;
> RelEng: work on catalyst/genkernel, no further plans
I'm lookin
On Thursday 03 January 2008, Wulf C. Krueger wrote:
> On Thursday, 03. January 2008 11:18:19 Richard Brown wrote:
> > While this thread remains highly entertaining, I'm sure as a past
> > gentoo developer Roy remembers that we don't generally use gentoo-dev
> > to bug fix poorly written makefiles,
On Thursday 03 January 2008, Roy Marples wrote:
> On Thu, 2008-01-03 at 16:24 +, Roy Marples wrote:
> > On Thu, 2008-01-03 at 10:50 -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > > it also means a deprecation notice needs to be added here and
> > > everywhere else that has changed. perhaps create a small sc
On Thursday 03 January 2008, Roy Marples wrote:
> On Thu, 2008-01-03 at 10:49 -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > while is_older_than is negotiable, removing KV_* is not. those are
> > pretty tight utility functions which duplication in $random-packages will
> > only lead to problems (especially cons
Petteri Räty wrote:
> Well having it open source doesn't mean automatically ppc support but
> there are people working on it.
I'm quite aware about it I followed the improvement on this side since a
while even if I hadn't the time to try myself building it on ppc yet.
lu
--
Luca Barbato
Gentoo
On Wed, 2008-01-09 at 15:51 -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > Anyway, as having a complete dependency tree is almost impossible
> > because of that, I have an alternative proposal: reducing the size of
> > the system package set. Right now system contains stuff like ncurses,
> > readline, zlib, aut
> Correct, you did not. What I find absolutely *damning* is the fact that
> as soon as any arches *were* mentioned, everybody was talking about the
> same one. It's rather funny that everybody seems to have the exact same
> impression of what architecture might be a slacker and would be affected
> > > Ferris McCormick wrote:
> > > they get to devrel because you ensured there would be no one to
> > > catch them --- you are the one who wanted to kill off the
> > > proctors, after all.
> >
> > Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> > ...and the finger-pointing starts... Bravo!
>
> Ferris McCormick wro
On Wed, 2008-01-09 at 20:45 +0100, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> >> a) Drop all keywords but those of mips. Leaves mips and, more
> >> importantly, its users with a vulnerable and unmaintained set of
> >> packages.
> >
> > ...and break the tree spectacularly, causing huge a
On Monday 07 January 2008, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
> I already ranted about the fact that the dependency tree of our ebuilds
> is vastly incomplete, as many lack dependency on zlib; trying to get
> this fixed was impossible, as Donnie and other insisted that as zlib was
> in system, we sho
My mail server died over the holidays and i ended up losing a lot of
mail, so if you've tried to contact me in the past 2 weeks or so, you'll
have to send again.
Deedra
--
Deedra Waters - Gentoo accessibility and amd64 -
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Gentoo linux: http://www.gentoo.org
--
gentoo-dev@lis
Luca Barbato kirjoitti:
Petteri Räty wrote:
- Get the remaining Generation 1 stuff out of the tree (not much left)
- Start using virtuals more
- Eclass cleanup and new make our setup even more automatic
any plan/idea about icedtea? as a ppc user I'd love too see it in
portage ^^;
lu
Well h
On Wed, 2008-01-09 at 18:56 +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 20:50:38 +0200
> Petteri Räty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > So you just ignore for example my post about CIA activity for the
> > mips team?
>
> That falls into the highly misleading category.
Yes, hard numbers are a
On Mon, 2008-01-07 at 22:31 +0100, Luca Barbato wrote:
> Here is a list of interesting questions: "Are we fine?" "What are we
> going to do?"
>
> Please project leaders try to reply in short.
>
> About the stuff I'm involved:
>
> Are we fine?
GWN: The GWN is currently in a permanent state of hi
On Wed, 2008-01-09 at 20:50 +0200, Petteri Räty wrote:
> Ciaran McCreesh kirjoitti:
> > On Tue, 08 Jan 2008 18:59:29 -0800
> > Chris Gianelloni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> The issue that was raised is that certain arch teams are incapable of
> >> keeping up with the minimal workload they alread
On Wed, 2008-01-09 at 18:45 +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Wed, 9 Jan 2008 19:29:53 +0100
> "Wulf C. Krueger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Wednesday, 09. January 2008 19:16:24 Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > > > So what happens if a flaw is discovered in KDE 3.5.5 that allows
> > > > root acces
On Wed, 2008-01-09 at 18:11 +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Wed, 9 Jan 2008 10:07:31 -0800
> "Alec Warner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Actually if they dump kde-3.5.5 and anything depending on it, then
> > they don't break the tree and everyone is happy, no?
>
> Everyone except the users, wh
On Wed, 2008-01-09 at 18:56 +0100, Jan Kundrát wrote:
> Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> > I have foo 1.0, which is mips. There is foo 2.0, which is stable
> > everywhere else. The foo 1.0 ebuild does not conform to current ebuild
> > standards. I want to commit changes to foo 2.0, and repoman won't al
On Wed, 2008-01-09 at 11:51 -0800, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> On Wed, 2008-01-09 at 14:00 +, Ferris McCormick wrote:
> > they get to devrel because you ensured there would be no one to catch
> > them --- you are the one who wanted to kill off the proctors, after
> > all.
>
> ...and the finger-
On Saturday 05 January 2008, Petteri Räty wrote:
> Petteri Räty kirjoitti:
> > Current devmanual suggest to not use line lengths over 80 characters.
> > http://devmanual.gentoo.org/ebuild-writing/file-format/index.html
> >
> > I wrote a repoman check that checks that the value doesn't go over 80.
>
В Срд, 09/01/2008 в 13:13 +0100, Fernando J. Pereda пишет:
> Why taking it against arch teams? How is that different from "certain
> maintainer not taking care of a bug that holds stabilization of certain
> package by some time measured in months" ? I'll tell you my answer: 'no
> difference at all'
On Wed, 2008-01-09 at 15:11 +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> Heck, most of the repoman messages people are moaning about are caused
> by developers doing exactly this.
No, most of the ones we're complaining about have nothing to do with
KEYWORDS, at all, and everything to do with changes to policy
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> And why does repoman do that?
>
> Oh. Yeah. Because people with an attitude like yours think that the
> correct way to fix a repoman message is to start nuking arch keywords,
> ignoring what it does to the rest of the tree.
Dropping keywords works perfectly to have repoma
On Wed, 2008-01-09 at 14:44 +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > We want the Council to do something about this issue. You can deny
> > the issue all that you want or try to deflect conversation from the
> > actual issue, but your opinion isn't very important to the much of
> > the current developer p
On Wed, 2008-01-09 at 09:25 -0500, Caleb Tennis wrote:
> I never even mentioned any specific arch in my original request, nor
> did I call any developer out. So please, nobody needs to take this
> personally.
Correct, you did not. What I find absolutely *damning* is the fact that
as soon as any
On Wed, 2008-01-09 at 14:00 +, Ferris McCormick wrote:
> they get to devrel because you ensured there would be no one to catch
> them --- you are the one who wanted to kill off the proctors, after
> all.
...and the finger-pointing starts... Bravo!
I never have been able to figure out what the
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
a) Drop all keywords but those of mips. Leaves mips and, more
importantly, its users with a vulnerable and unmaintained set of
packages.
...and break the tree spectacularly, causing huge amounts of pain for
your fellow developers when they encounter horrible repoman ou
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Ciaran McCreesh a écrit :
> On Wed, 9 Jan 2008 20:06:00 +0100
> "Wulf C. Krueger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Wednesday, 09. January 2008 19:45:38 Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> Then the one particular part of 3.5.5 that's affected gets fixed
>
> KDE 4.0.0 will be released on January, 11th 2008, and if things keep
> going like they do now we might be able to put all the stuff into
> ~arch on the release day.
> I'm going to mail about this again in -core soon.
Unless you mean hard masked, I do object. The code base has too many issues
an
Ferris McCormick wrote:
> With all due respect, for some reason we don't have Proctors anymore to
> enforce
> the CoC.
The perception is that they aren't/weren't _exactly_ needed as they are,
either because nobody wants the secret policy feeling or because self
regulation is working almost nicely
Wulf C. Krueger wrote:
> On Tuesday, 08. January 2008 22:44:17 Chrissy Fullam wrote:
>> 'bodies' would be needed to enforce CoC on #gentoo-dev
>
> I don't really see any need for moderation on #gentoo-dev. We've managed
> quite nicely without big brothers watching us so far and I think we
> sho
Petteri Räty wrote:
>
> - Get the remaining Generation 1 stuff out of the tree (not much left)
> - Start using virtuals more
> - Eclass cleanup and new make our setup even more automatic
any plan/idea about icedtea? as a ppc user I'd love too see it in
portage ^^;
lu
--
Luca Barbato
Gentoo Co
On Wednesday 09 January 2008 18:16:24 Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 17:27:52 +
>
> Roy Marples <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Wed, 2008-01-09 at 17:01 +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > > 3.5.5 was good enough to be keyworded stable at one point. Thus, it
> > > can't be *that*
On Wed, 9 Jan 2008 20:06:00 +0100
"Wulf C. Krueger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wednesday, 09. January 2008 19:45:38 Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > > > Then the one particular part of 3.5.5 that's affected gets fixed
> > > > and priority keyworded.
> > > So you suggest that mips keeps doing nothing
On Wednesday, 09. January 2008 19:45:38 Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > > Then the one particular part of 3.5.5 that's affected gets fixed
> > > and priority keyworded.
> > So you suggest that mips keeps doing nothing and expect others to
> > work *more* in exchange for that?
> Well, most users will sim
On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 20:50:38 +0200
Petteri Räty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So you just ignore for example my post about CIA activity for the
> mips team?
That falls into the highly misleading category.
--
Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
First off to get the apology out of the way. Me being a user of both
seahorse and gnupg, I wasn't fully aware of the mess going on in between
the two. So in that regard I do apologize to Alon Bar-Lev ( alonbl ).
Things are not so cut and dry, and I could see where one might have the
need for eselec
Ciaran McCreesh kirjoitti:
On Tue, 08 Jan 2008 18:59:29 -0800
Chris Gianelloni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The issue that was raised is that certain arch teams are incapable of
keeping up with the minimal workload they already have and what should
be done about it.
The issue was raised, with ab
On Wed, 9 Jan 2008 19:29:53 +0100
"Wulf C. Krueger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wednesday, 09. January 2008 19:16:24 Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > > So what happens if a flaw is discovered in KDE 3.5.5 that allows
> > > root access?
> > Then the one particular part of 3.5.5 that's affected gets fi
On Wednesday, 09. January 2008 19:16:24 Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > So what happens if a flaw is discovered in KDE 3.5.5 that allows root
> > access?
> Then the one particular part of 3.5.5 that's affected gets fixed and
> priority keyworded.
So you suggest that mips keeps doing nothing and expect
On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 17:27:52 +
Roy Marples <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 2008-01-09 at 17:01 +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > 3.5.5 was good enough to be keyworded stable at one point. Thus, it
> > can't be *that* bad.
>
> So what happens if a flaw is discovered in KDE 3.5.5 that allow
On Wed, 9 Jan 2008 10:07:31 -0800
"Alec Warner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Actually if they dump kde-3.5.5 and anything depending on it, then
> they don't break the tree and everyone is happy, no?
Everyone except the users, who end up with pages and pages of horrible
Portage output...
--
Ciara
On 1/9/08, Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 17:49:40 +0100
> "Wulf C. Krueger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >> What's the proper fix for when keyword requests stagnate in
> > >> bugzilla?
> > > That depends upon whether the keyword request is important.
> >
> > Let
Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> I have foo 1.0, which is mips. There is foo 2.0, which is stable
> everywhere else. The foo 1.0 ebuild does not conform to current ebuild
> standards. I want to commit changes to foo 2.0, and repoman won't allow
> me due to problems in foo 1.0, but I don't want to WASTE
On Wed, 2008-01-09 at 17:01 +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> 3.5.5 was good enough to be keyworded stable at one point. Thus, it
> can't be *that* bad.
So what happens if a flaw is discovered in KDE 3.5.5 that allows root
access?
In your world you allow mips users to trivially install now flawed a
Hello Ciaran!
(On a totally unrelated side-note - how do you pronounce your name?)
Let's take a real world example: KDE 3.5.5 is old, buggy and has
some important issues which won't be fixed anymore.
Yet it's the most proven version on mips.
Yes.
...and break the tree spectacularly, causin
On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 12:11:47 -0500
Richard Freeman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If an ebuild meets the time criteria above and there are no technical
> issues preventing stabilization, then the maintainer MAY choose to
> delete an older version even if it is the most recent stable version
> for a
On Wed, Jan 09, 2008 at 12:11:47PM -0500, Richard Freeman wrote:
> snip
Simply put: No, thank you.
- ferdy
--
Fernando J. Pereda Garcimartín
20BB BDC3 761A 4781 E6ED ED0B 0A48 5B0C 60BD 28D4
pgp1hrJcbpI1X.pgp
Description: PGP signature
I wanted to take this thread in a slightly different direction so that
the council has a little more to work with tomorrow. Obviously there
are multiple opinions on whether a problem currently exists - and the
council will need to decide on this. If no problem currently exists
they will likel
On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 17:49:40 +0100
"Wulf C. Krueger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> What's the proper fix for when keyword requests stagnate in
> >> bugzilla?
> > That depends upon whether the keyword request is important.
>
> Let's take a real world example: KDE 3.5.5 is old, buggy and has
> som
Hello Ciaran!
What's the proper fix for when keyword requests stagnate in
bugzilla?
That depends upon whether the keyword request is important.
Let's take a real world example: KDE 3.5.5 is old, buggy and has some
important issues which won't be fixed anymore.
At first, this wasn't too im
> Ferris McCormick wrote:
> With all due respect, for some reason we don't have Proctors
> anymore to enforce the CoC. Thus, things we would expect the
> proctors to catch and handle under CoC get sent to devrel
> instead. All I am doing is wondering out loud (now that CoC
> is coming alive a
- KDE 3 & KDE 4
- KDE-related stuff
Are we fine?
All in all, we're doing acceptably well, I'd say. In some areas, we're
doing really well.
I've recently mentored two new recruits, namely Ingmar "Ingmar"
Vanhassel and Bo "zlin" Andresen who will hopefully soon become new
members of the
On Wed, 9 Jan 2008 10:36:13 -0500 (EST)
"Caleb Tennis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The issue was raised, with absolutely no proof or justification, and
> > every previous time said issue has been raised it's turned out to be
> > somewhere between highly misleading and utter bollocks.
>
> Let's
> The issue was raised, with absolutely no proof or justification, and
> every previous time said issue has been raised it's turned out to be
> somewhere between highly misleading and utter bollocks.
Let's assume that you are right, and that dropping keywords is not a proper
thing to
do.
What's
> I'd imagine most of them are staying well clear of it because they've
> already seen this discussion a dozen times before and know that it's
> just the usual malcontents going around making largely bogus claims and
> backing them up with lots of thinly veiled mips bashing rather than
> anything r
On Wed, Jan 09, 2008 at 09:25:11AM -0500, Caleb Tennis wrote:
> > Why taking it against arch teams? How is that different from
> > "certain maintainer not taking care of a bug that holds
> > stabilization of certain package by some time measured in months" ?
> > I'll tell you my answer: 'no differe
On Wed, 9 Jan 2008 06:58:40 -0800
"Alec Warner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think the argument here is that developers control ebuilds. If a
> given ebuild is causing 'trouble' for a maintainer it is within their
> control to remove the ebuild. Just as if a given package is causing
> the maint
On 1/8/08, Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 8 Jan 2008 18:44:22 -0800
> "Alec Warner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Uh... So where do the original problems come from? Are you saying
> > > that packages mysteriously start breaking on their own because
> > > no-one's maintainin
For the ppc64 project
Are we fine?
- The induction of the PS3 has helped us a lot. We have more users than
before. Great variance skill-wise amongst those users but interest
level is high. We need more folks on the dev team but otherwise we're
as healthy as we've ever been.
- Just put a
On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 04:11:58 +0100
Matthias Langer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Really, this discussion is completely pointless unless some mips
> users/developers join in - or aren't there any at all?
I'd imagine most of them are staying well clear of it because they've
already seen this discussi
On Tue, 08 Jan 2008 18:59:29 -0800
Chris Gianelloni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The issue that was raised is that certain arch teams are incapable of
> keeping up with the minimal workload they already have and what should
> be done about it.
The issue was raised, with absolutely no proof or just
On Wed, 9 Jan 2008 15:37:47 +0100
Christian Faulhammer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Christian Faulhammer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > A quick check [...]
>
> Hereby you have proven that you are not interested about
> real arguments...some people have tried to gather facts and you pick
> those that m
Hi,
Christian Faulhammer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> A quick check [...]
Hereby you have proven that you are not interested about
real arguments...some people have tried to gather facts and you pick
those that maybe have a weak reasoning or come from people you know how
to upset. Congratulations.
Hi,
CCing gentoo-lisp mailing list.
Luca Barbato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Please project leaders try to reply in short.
Though Emacs project (subproject of Lisp) has no official leader, I
speak up as senior dev. :)
> Are we fine?
XEmacs:
I cannot tell much, but graaff seems to have closed mos
> Why taking it against arch teams? How is that different from "certain
> maintainer not taking care of a bug that holds stabilization of certain
> package by some time measured in months" ? I'll tell you my answer: 'no
> difference at all'.
You are right, there's not much difference. However, I
On Mon, 07 Jan 2008 22:31:54 +0100
Luca Barbato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Here is a list of interesting questions: "Are we fine?" "What are we
> going to do?"
>
> Please project leaders try to reply in short.
xfce (has no lead, it's angelos, welp or me) - we are good, few ~minor
bugs, everyth
I can't respond to the following in proper form, because it came in
during a 4 hour window when the mail server was bouncing all my
[EMAIL PROTECTED] email (my server didn't like the list server move,
so I changed server, too).
Anyway, Chris Gianelloni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote at Tue, 08 Jan 2008
On Jan 9, 2008 1:12 PM, Petteri Räty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Recruiters
>
> >
> > About the stuff I'm involved:
> >
> > Are we fine?
>
> If Calchan agrees, we are fine.
I'm taking care of recruits as fast as I can. I figure any time I
spend for the recruiters project is worth a lot more than
On Thu, Jan 03, 2008 at 08:02:39AM -0500, Caleb Tennis wrote:
> > If you have something you'd wish for us to chat about, maybe even
> > vote on, let us know ! Simply reply to this e-mail for the whole
> > Gentoo dev list to see.
>
> I would like to request the council discuss, though not necessar
Luca Barbato kirjoitti:
Please project leaders try to reply in short.
Recruiters
About the stuff I'm involved:
Are we fine?
If Calchan agrees, we are fine.
What are we going to do:
Keep going as usual.
Regards,
Petteri
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Luca Barbato kirjoitti:
Here is a list of interesting questions: "Are we fine?" "What are we
going to do?"
Java
Please project leaders try to reply in short.
Are we fine?
Quite okay. Slowly recruiting new people and doing the usual
maintenance. Could always use more active people of cour
Luca Barbato wrote:
Please project leaders try to reply in short.
The following is for the Gentoo WM project.
Are we fine?
We should be. The next answer should indicate where we can use some
improvement. As for the GNUstep packages, I'm not too sure what the
status is, but bugzilla doesn't r
On Tue, 08 Jan 2008 15:26:04 +0100, Rémi Cardona <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Pierre-Yves Rofes a écrit :
>> On Tue, January 8, 2008 1:29 pm, Denis Dupeyron wrote:
>>> So please give a warm welcome to Jean-Noël as a new Gentoo developer.
>>>
>>
>> Yay for the french conspiracy growing yet again :)
On 07-01-2008 22:31:54 +0100, Luca Barbato wrote:
> Here is a list of interesting questions: "Are we fine?" "What are we
> going to do?"
GNUstep
> Are we fine?
I'd say thanks to voyageur (much kudos to the guy) GNUstep is back where
it should be within Gentoo and up-to-date. Eclass changes, pac
This is your one-day friendly reminder ! The monthly Gentoo Council
meeting is tomorrow in #gentoo-council on irc.freenode.net. See the
channel topic for the exact time (but it's probably 2000 UTC).
If you're supposed to show up, please show up. If you're not supposed
to show up, then show up a
97 matches
Mail list logo
