[gentoo-dev] New public relations lead: dberkholz

2008-01-19 Thread Donnie Berkholz
Hi all, I've just talked to Christel, who was the public relations [1] lead, and we've agreed that because of changing priorities and time, I'll take over her duties as PR lead. If you have any comments about this, please email our mail alias, [EMAIL PROTECTED] You may commence blaming me for

Re: [gentoo-dev] Concerns about WIPE_TMP change

2008-01-19 Thread Roy Marples
On Sat, 2008-01-19 at 02:48 +0100, Stefan de Konink wrote: > In my opinion WIPE_TMP should be in the same state > as RC_PARALLEL_STARTUP. That's a fair point. Luckily, the all the Gentoo init scripts that all my computers use are now at the stage where we could easily flick parallel startup on by

Re: [gentoo-dev] Concerns about WIPE_TMP change

2008-01-19 Thread Richard Freeman
Mark Loeser wrote: Should an elog statement been put into the ebuild...maybe. I leave that up to the maintainer to decide what is important enough to be logged, and they clearly thought this wasn't in this case. I think that this would probably warrant an elog. Sure, anybody who knows the "

[gentoo-dev] GLEP 46: Allow upstream tags in metadata.xml

2008-01-19 Thread Tiziano Müller
Current state: "Deferred" Wanted state: "Accepted/Implemented" (at least by me) Open questions from last discussion (March 2006): - Is it possible/should it be possible to have more than one entry? - Is recording an upstream-status (active/inactive) a good idea? Possibilities: An element

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 46: Allow upstream tags in metadata.xml

2008-01-19 Thread Santiago M. Mola
On Jan 19, 2008 2:07 PM, Tiziano Müller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Current state: "Deferred" > Wanted state: "Accepted/Implemented" (at least by me) The GLEP should be updated. "Motivation" section does not seem to justify the changes. IMO Meatoo [1] (and its hipothetical rewrite using Doapsp

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 46: Allow upstream tags in metadata.xml

2008-01-19 Thread Mark Loeser
Tiziano Müller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > > Current state: "Deferred" > Wanted state: "Accepted/Implemented" (at least by me) Yea, this sounds like a good thing from reading over the GLEP, unless I'm missing some glaring problems with it. > Open questions from last discussion (March 2006): > -

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 46: Allow upstream tags in metadata.xml

2008-01-19 Thread Alistair Bush
Tiziano Müller wrote: Current state: "Deferred" Wanted state: "Accepted/Implemented" (at least by me) Open questions from last discussion (March 2006): - Is it possible/should it be possible to have more than one entry? Yes - Is recording an upstream-status (active/inact

[gentoo-dev] Re: GLEP 46: Allow upstream tags in metadata.xml

2008-01-19 Thread Tiziano Müller
Santiago M. Mola wrote: > On Jan 19, 2008 2:07 PM, Tiziano Müller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> Current state: "Deferred" >> Wanted state: "Accepted/Implemented" (at least by me) > > The GLEP should be updated. "Motivation" section does not seem to > justify the changes. IMO Meatoo [1] (and i

[gentoo-dev] Re: GLEP 46: Allow upstream tags in metadata.xml

2008-01-19 Thread Tiziano Müller
Alistair Bush wrote: > > > Tiziano Müller wrote: >> Current state: "Deferred" >> Wanted state: "Accepted/Implemented" (at least by me) >> >> Open questions from last discussion (March 2006): >> - Is it possible/should it be possible to have more than one >> entry? > > Yes > >> - Is recordi

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: GLEP 46: Allow upstream tags in metadata.xml

2008-01-19 Thread Santiago M. Mola
On Jan 19, 2008 4:13 PM, Tiziano Müller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Possibilities: > >> An element: {active/inactive} > > > > Status of what? seeing you have proposed a upstream-status and a > > maintainer status. what else is there left to status :P > There will be a tag within the , n

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 46: Allow upstream tags in metadata.xml

2008-01-19 Thread Denis Dupeyron
On Jan 19, 2008 2:07 PM, Tiziano Müller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Your oppinion? Would this be the right time to discuss about moving other variables to metadata.xml ? How about HOMEPAGE, DESCRIPTION and LICENSE ? Those hardly change and if they ever do we can restrict them to specific versions

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 46: Allow upstream tags in metadata.xml

2008-01-19 Thread Santiago M. Mola
On Jan 19, 2008 4:24 PM, Denis Dupeyron <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Jan 19, 2008 2:07 PM, Tiziano Müller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Your oppinion? > > Would this be the right time to discuss about moving other variables > to metadata.xml ? How about HOMEPAGE, DESCRIPTION and LICENSE ? Those

[gentoo-dev] Ebuild quiz and staff quiz updated to reflect mailing list changes

2008-01-19 Thread Petteri Räty
Regards, Petteri [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~/proj-en/devrel/quiz $ cvs diff Index: ebuild-quiz.txt === RCS file: /var/cvsroot/gentoo/xml/htdocs/proj/en/devrel/quiz/ebuild-quiz.txt,v retrieving revision 1.8 diff -u -r1.8 ebuild-quiz.txt --- eb

[gentoo-dev] Re: GLEP 46: Allow upstream tags in metadata.xml

2008-01-19 Thread Tiziano Müller
Denis Dupeyron wrote: > On Jan 19, 2008 2:07 PM, Tiziano Müller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Your oppinion? > > Would this be the right time to discuss about moving other variables > to metadata.xml ? How about HOMEPAGE, DESCRIPTION and LICENSE ? Those I'd rather like to see it in a new thread s

[gentoo-dev] list masked for removal

2008-01-19 Thread Stefan Schweizer
# Stefan Schweizer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (19 Jan 2008) # Project abandoned. Masked for removal, bug 206105 sys-apps/list -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

[gentoo-dev] Re: GLEP 46: Allow upstream tags in metadata.xml

2008-01-19 Thread Tiziano Müller
Mark Loeser wrote: > Tiziano Müller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: >> >> Current state: "Deferred" >> Wanted state: "Accepted/Implemented" (at least by me) > > Yea, this sounds like a good thing from reading over the GLEP, unless > I'm missing some glaring problems with it. > >> Open questions from

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Upcoming Infra maintenance/downtimes: anon{cvs,svn,git}, archives, bouncer, overlays

2008-01-19 Thread Petteri Räty
Robin H. Johnson kirjoitti: On Fri, Jan 18, 2008 at 06:41:44PM +0100, Christian Faulhammer wrote: 2. Trac doesn't scale well enough, as users of the existing overlay machine have noted performance problems before. Being replaced with ViewVC and as yet undecided which Wiki application. Am I rig

[gentoo-dev] Last rites: dev-java/jsx

2008-01-19 Thread Petteri Räty
+# Petteri Räty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (19 Jan 2008) +# Commercial application for which the devs don't have +# licenses. Lagging behind in versions. If you want to +# see this maintained contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] for paying +# us a license. Otherwise in junkyard after 30 days. +dev-java/jsx + Regar

Re: [gentoo-dev] list masked for removal

2008-01-19 Thread fire-eyes
Stefan Schweizer wrote: # Stefan Schweizer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (19 Jan 2008) # Project abandoned. Masked for removal, bug 206105 sys-apps/list Phew I thought this meant the gentoo-dev list was masked for removal -- Hey I just woke up, it's funny!! -- Fieldy -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mai

[gentoo-dev] rgb file specification

2008-01-19 Thread Ferris McCormick
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 This is random musing based based on perhaps my own problems. I need a local color.file to see well what I have going on, and current xorg ignores that. Thus, at every build, there is in oscolor.c a "constant" I must change from 1 to 0. This is fru

[gentoo-dev] Re: rgb file specification

2008-01-19 Thread Steve Long
Ferris McCormick wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > This is random musing based based on perhaps my own problems. > I need a local color.file to see well what I have going on, and > current xorg ignores that. Thus, at every build, there is in > oscolor.c a "constant"

Re: [gentoo-dev] rgb file specification

2008-01-19 Thread Harald van Dijk
On Sat, Jan 19, 2008 at 05:43:18PM +, Ferris McCormick wrote: > This is random musing based based on perhaps my own problems. > I need a local color.file to see well what I have going on, and > current xorg ignores that. Thus, at every build, there is in > oscolor.c a "constant" I must chang

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 46: Allow upstream tags in metadata.xml

2008-01-19 Thread Ciaran McCreesh
On Sat, 19 Jan 2008 16:24:53 +0100 "Denis Dupeyron" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Jan 19, 2008 2:07 PM, Tiziano Müller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Your oppinion? > > Would this be the right time to discuss about moving other variables > to metadata.xml ? How about HOMEPAGE, DESCRIPTION and LI

Re: [gentoo-dev] Concerns about WIPE_TMP change

2008-01-19 Thread Mike Frysinger
On Saturday 19 January 2008, Roy Marples wrote: > On Sat, 2008-01-19 at 02:48 +0100, Stefan de Konink wrote: > > In my opinion WIPE_TMP should be in the same state > > as RC_PARALLEL_STARTUP. > > That's a fair point. how ? these two options are not related in the slightest. -mike signature.asc

Re: [gentoo-dev] Upcoming Infra maintenance/downtimes: anon{cvs,svn,git}, archives, bouncer, overlays

2008-01-19 Thread Alon Bar-Lev
On 1/19/08, Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > using https:// to secure your data here is the wrong way to go. if you have a > man-in-the-middle attacking you, they can do a lot more than inject crap into > your syncs, some of which you wouldnt even notice. for the topic at hand, > this

Re: [gentoo-dev] Upcoming Infra maintenance/downtimes: anon{cvs,svn,git}, archives, bouncer, overlays

2008-01-19 Thread Mike Frysinger
On Friday 18 January 2008, Robin H. Johnson wrote: > On Sat, Jan 19, 2008 at 12:26:44AM +0200, Alon Bar-Lev wrote: > > On 1/18/08, Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Thursday 17 January 2008, Robin H. Johnson wrote: > > > > anonvcs.gentoo.org: anoncvs, anonsvn, anongit > > > > - Ano

Re: [gentoo-dev] Upcoming Infra maintenance/downtimes: anon{cvs,svn,git}, archives, bouncer, overlays

2008-01-19 Thread Fabian Groffen
On 19-01-2008 15:50:09 -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote: > i'm not suggesting you *not* provide the proper svn:// and git:// ones. i'd > always use those myself when possible (as performance is a ton better as ive > seen many times). i'm suggesting we provide both and tell people to use > svn:// an

Re: [gentoo-dev] Concerns about WIPE_TMP change

2008-01-19 Thread Stefan de Konink
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 Mike Frysinger schreef: > On Saturday 19 January 2008, Roy Marples wrote: >> On Sat, 2008-01-19 at 02:48 +0100, Stefan de Konink wrote: >>> In my opinion WIPE_TMP should be in the same state >>> as RC_PARALLEL_STARTUP. >> That's a fair point. > > ho

Re: [gentoo-dev] Concerns about WIPE_TMP change

2008-01-19 Thread Mike Frysinger
On Saturday 19 January 2008, Stefan de Konink wrote: > Mike Frysinger schreef: > > On Saturday 19 January 2008, Roy Marples wrote: > >> On Sat, 2008-01-19 at 02:48 +0100, Stefan de Konink wrote: > >>> In my opinion WIPE_TMP should be in the same state > >>> as RC_PARALLEL_STARTUP. > >> > >> That's

Re: [gentoo-dev] Concerns about WIPE_TMP change

2008-01-19 Thread Stefan de Konink
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 Mike Frysinger schreef: > i can add an elog, but the arguments for not turning it on by default are far > from convincing Please, only do this, and I'll stop about this subject. :) So something like *beep*beep*beep* /tmp will now by default cleane

[gentoo-dev] Re: Concerns about WIPE_TMP change

2008-01-19 Thread Duncan
Richard Freeman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted [EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Sat, 19 Jan 2008 07:55:53 -0500: > I think that this would probably warrant an elog. Sure, anybody who > knows the "correct" way to admin unix doesn't put anything important in > /tmp - but educating our users befo

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Concerns about WIPE_TMP change [offtopic]

2008-01-19 Thread Stefan de Konink
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 Duncan schreef: > Richard Freeman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted [EMAIL PROTECTED], > excerpted below, on Sat, 19 Jan 2008 07:55:53 -0500: > > Obscure? It's the directory name (says another with both /tmp and /var/ > tmp on tmpfs). ...very offtopic bu

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Concerns about WIPE_TMP change

2008-01-19 Thread Olivier Galibert
On Sat, Jan 19, 2008 at 10:18:35PM +, Duncan wrote: > Richard Freeman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted [EMAIL PROTECTED], > excerpted below, on Sat, 19 Jan 2008 07:55:53 -0500: > > > I think that this would probably warrant an elog. Sure, anybody who > > knows the "correct" way to admin unix doesn

[gentoo-dev] Re: Concerns about WIPE_TMP change

2008-01-19 Thread Ryan Hill
Olivier Galibert wrote: Tmp has never meant "erase at restart", because restarts are often not predictable. Tmp has sometimes meant things like "erased after a week", or "erased when space gets low", but never "erased after restart" which is just unusable. >> POSIX wrote: /tmp A directory

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Concerns about WIPE_TMP change [offtopic]

2008-01-19 Thread Alec Warner
On 1/19/08, Stefan de Konink <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA512 > > Duncan schreef: > > Richard Freeman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted [EMAIL PROTECTED], > > excerpted below, on Sat, 19 Jan 2008 07:55:53 -0500: > > > > Obscure? It's the directory name (says

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Concerns about WIPE_TMP change [offtopic]

2008-01-19 Thread Stefan de Konink
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 Alec Warner schreef: >> But who compiles firefox? :) Probably everyone that noticed that the segmentation faults coming from the precompiled versions are annoying? Stefan -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.7 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Us

[gentoo-dev] Re: Concerns about WIPE_TMP change [offtopic]

2008-01-19 Thread Duncan
Stefan de Konink <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted [EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Sun, 20 Jan 2008 00:17:55 +0100: > ...very offtopic but how are you all compiling stuff like firefox on a > ram disk. Or is 8GB of ram very cheap suddenly? Well, tmpfs is swap-backed if necessary. That's one of i

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Concerns about WIPE_TMP change

2008-01-19 Thread Mike Frysinger
On Saturday 19 January 2008, Olivier Galibert wrote: > On Sat, Jan 19, 2008 at 10:18:35PM +, Duncan wrote: > > Richard Freeman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted [EMAIL PROTECTED], > > > I think that this would probably warrant an elog. Sure, anybody who > > > knows the "correct" way to admin unix doe