On 05/09/2012 06:36 PM, Greg KH wrote:
> On Wed, May 09, 2012 at 08:51:37PM +0200, Fabio Erculiani wrote:
>> I foresee a new udev fork then.
>
> Please feel free to do so, the code has been open since the first day I
> created it.
>
> Remember, forks are good, there's nothing wrong with them, I s
On Sat, Nov 17, 2012 at 11:02:19PM -0800, Alec Warner wrote:
> 1) systemd-udev will require systemd. Stated by the systemd
> maintainers themselves as a thing they want to do in the future. Some
> users don't want to use systemd. We could go into detail as to why;
> but I think that is not as impor
On Sat, Nov 17, 2012 at 11:52 PM, Greg KH wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 02:05:39AM -0500, Walter Dnes wrote:
>> On Sat, Nov 17, 2012 at 07:29:22PM -0800, Greg KH wrote
>>
>> > But, along those lines, what is the goal of the fork? What are you
>> > trying to attempt to do with a fork of udev th
On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 02:05:39AM -0500, Walter Dnes wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 17, 2012 at 07:29:22PM -0800, Greg KH wrote
>
> > But, along those lines, what is the goal of the fork? What are you
> > trying to attempt to do with a fork of udev that could not be
> > accomplished by:
> > - getting pa
On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 1:25 AM, Matt Turner wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 17, 2012 at 11:05 PM, Walter Dnes wrote:
>>> As I posted elsewhere, working on a project based on "hate" only lasts
>>> so long. I should know, that's the reason I started udev in the first
>>> place over 9 years ago.
>>
>> The
On Sat, Nov 17, 2012 at 11:05 PM, Walter Dnes wrote:
>> As I posted elsewhere, working on a project based on "hate" only lasts
>> so long. I should know, that's the reason I started udev in the first
>> place over 9 years ago.
>
> The Xfree86 people generated a lot of hate, just like Sievers an
On 17/11/2012 23:05, Doug Goldstein wrote:
> Diego I'm going to have to call you out here. You've so far in this
> thread claimed you were the reason behind the "eudev" project and now
> claim you're behind OpenRC. Sounds like bragging to me.
Please don't put words in my mouth. I'm not behind any
On Sat, Nov 17, 2012 at 07:29:22PM -0800, Greg KH wrote
> But, along those lines, what is the goal of the fork? What are you
> trying to attempt to do with a fork of udev that could not be
> accomplished by:
> - getting patches approved upstream
> or:
> - keeping a simple set of patches outsi
On Sat, Nov 17, 2012 at 11:59 PM, Diego Elio Pettenò
wrote:
> On 17/11/2012 21:52, Joshua Kinard wrote:
>> It's human nature to wake up one day and exclaim, "I will develop X!", and
>> then go off and do so without any formal planning or even a rough idea of
>> how to start. Sometimes it works, a
On Sat, Nov 17, 2012 at 10:49 PM, Greg KH wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 12:35:22AM -0500, Richard Yao wrote:
>> On 11/18/2012 12:19 AM, Greg KH wrote:
>> > On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 12:00:52AM -0500, Richard Yao wrote:
>> >>> I'm genuinely interested in your goals, in detail, otherwise I would
>>
On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 12:49 AM, Greg KH wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 12:35:22AM -0500, Richard Yao wrote:
>> On 11/18/2012 12:19 AM, Greg KH wrote:
>> > On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 12:00:52AM -0500, Richard Yao wrote:
>> >>> I'm genuinely interested in your goals, in detail, otherwise I would
>>
On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 12:35:22AM -0500, Richard Yao wrote:
> On 11/18/2012 12:19 AM, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 12:00:52AM -0500, Richard Yao wrote:
> >>> I'm genuinely interested in your goals, in detail, otherwise I would
> >>> not have asked about them. Perhaps I am totally wr
On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 12:18 AM, Samuli Suominen wrote:
> On 18/11/12 07:47, Doug Goldstein (cardoe) wrote:
>>
>> cardoe 12/11/18 05:47:02
>>
>>Modified: nvidia-driver.eclass
>>Log:
>>Update to support a new legacy series
>>
>> Revision ChangesPath
>> 1.16
On 18/11/12 07:47, Doug Goldstein (cardoe) wrote:
cardoe 12/11/18 05:47:02
Modified: nvidia-driver.eclass
Log:
Update to support a new legacy series
Revision ChangesPath
1.16 eclass/nvidia-driver.eclass
file :
http://sources.gentoo.org/viewvc.cgi
On 17/11/2012 21:52, Joshua Kinard wrote:
> It's human nature to wake up one day and exclaim, "I will develop X!", and
> then go off and do so without any formal planning or even a rough idea of
> how to start. Sometimes it works, and sometimes it doesn't. Sometimes, you
> just roll dice. That's
On 11/18/2012 12:20 AM, Diego Elio Pettenò wrote:
> I appreciate your enthusiasm, but you're going quite a tad overboard,
> and looks like your concept of development is "I'm not sure of what I'm
> doing, but I'm doing it anyway".
It's human nature to wake up one day and exclaim, "I will develop X
On 11/18/2012 12:35 AM, Greg KH wrote:
> So, I'll say this again, why is this project getting the copyright of
> the Gentoo Foundation? Is it an "official" project of Gentoo in some
> manner?
One developer who asked to join our project as we are in the process of
getting started thought he would
On 11/18/2012 12:19 AM, Greg KH wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 12:00:52AM -0500, Richard Yao wrote:
>>> I'm genuinely interested in your goals, in detail, otherwise I would
>>> not have asked about them. Perhaps I am totally wrong and your fork
>>> makes sense, perhaps, to me, not. But without
On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 12:13:37AM -0500, Richard Yao wrote:
> We do not need to justify the need for our project before it is
> announced or even after it is announced. It is free to conflict with
> RedHat's systemd project. If we find next year that we can reconcile
> with Kay Sievers and Lennart
On 17/11/2012 21:26, Richard Yao wrote:
> Arguably, the fact that others forced our hand before we were ready lead
> to the widespread attention. With that said, responses to Gentoo have
> always been mixed, but I have seen far more positive responses than
> negative responses and I am quite happy
On 11/18/2012 12:20 AM, Diego Elio Pettenò wrote:
> But you've made Gentoo the laughing stock of the Linux world over the
> past couple of days, and now you come up with this? Please get a clue,
> please.
Arguably, the fact that others forced our hand before we were ready lead
to the widespread at
On 17/11/2012 21:13, Richard Yao wrote:
> I would appreciate it if people would avoid harassing others that decide
> to develop things different than what they want to use. Read GLEP 0039:
And I would appreciate if you'd avoid making us look like a bunch of
wannabes, by using buzzwords like "water
On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 12:00:52AM -0500, Richard Yao wrote:
> > I'm genuinely interested in your goals, in detail, otherwise I would
> > not have asked about them. Perhaps I am totally wrong and your fork
> > makes sense, perhaps, to me, not. But without knowing such goals,
> > there's no way th
On 11/18/2012 12:05 AM, Diego Elio Pettenò wrote:
> On 17/11/2012 21:00, Richard Yao wrote:
>> I am afraid that I have to disappoint you. If we were using the
>> waterfall model, I could outline some very nice long term goals for you,
>> but we are doing AGILE development, so long term goals have n
On Sat, Nov 17, 2012 at 11:06:38PM -0500, Richard Yao wrote:
> On 11/17/2012 10:39 PM, Greg KH wrote:
> > Anyway, I now see a _very_ dangerous commit in the "Copyright" branch
> > that better not get merged into the tree, as it's wrong, and illegal
> > under all countries that follow the "normal" b
On 17/11/2012 21:00, Richard Yao wrote:
> I am afraid that I have to disappoint you. If we were using the
> waterfall model, I could outline some very nice long term goals for you,
> but we are doing AGILE development, so long term goals have not been
> well defined.
Can I step in and just as you
On 11/17/2012 11:35 PM, Greg KH wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 17, 2012 at 11:25:11PM -0500, Richard Yao wrote:
>> On 11/17/2012 11:19 PM, Greg KH wrote:
>>> On Sat, Nov 17, 2012 at 11:02:00PM -0500, Richard Yao wrote:
On 11/17/2012 10:29 PM, Greg KH wrote:
> I see an "entertaining" fork of udev on
On Sat, Nov 17, 2012 at 11:26:41PM -0500, Richard Yao wrote:
>
> Thanks for clarifying that. It will be fixed before it goes into HEAD.
I recommend deleting the branch and starting over, having that commit
floating around like that could cause trouble.
thanks,
greg k-h
On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 04:28:00AM +, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 17, 2012 at 11:06:38PM -0500, Richard Yao wrote:
> > On 11/17/2012 10:39 PM, Greg KH wrote:
> > > Anyway, I now see a _very_ dangerous commit in the "Copyright" branch
> > > that better not get merged into the tree, as
On 11/17/2012 11:28 PM, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 17, 2012 at 11:06:38PM -0500, Richard Yao wrote:
>> On 11/17/2012 10:39 PM, Greg KH wrote:
>>> Anyway, I now see a _very_ dangerous commit in the "Copyright" branch
>>> that better not get merged into the tree, as it's wrong, and illegal
On Sat, Nov 17, 2012 at 11:25:11PM -0500, Richard Yao wrote:
> On 11/17/2012 11:19 PM, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Sat, Nov 17, 2012 at 11:02:00PM -0500, Richard Yao wrote:
> >> On 11/17/2012 10:29 PM, Greg KH wrote:
> >>> I see an "entertaining" fork of udev on github at the moment (-ng,
> >>> really?
On 11/17/2012 11:28 PM, Greg KH wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 17, 2012 at 11:06:38PM -0500, Richard Yao wrote:
>> On 11/17/2012 10:39 PM, Greg KH wrote:
>>> Anyway, I now see a _very_ dangerous commit in the "Copyright" branch
>>> that better not get merged into the tree, as it's wrong, and illegal
>>> unde
On Sat, Nov 17, 2012 at 11:06:38PM -0500, Richard Yao wrote:
> On 11/17/2012 10:39 PM, Greg KH wrote:
> > Anyway, I now see a _very_ dangerous commit in the "Copyright" branch
> > that better not get merged into the tree, as it's wrong, and illegal
> > under all countries that follow the "normal" b
On 11/17/2012 11:19 PM, Greg KH wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 17, 2012 at 11:02:00PM -0500, Richard Yao wrote:
>> On 11/17/2012 10:29 PM, Greg KH wrote:
>>> I see an "entertaining" fork of udev on github at the moment (-ng,
>>> really? What happens when someone wants to fork that, -ng-ng? Be a bit
>>> mor
On Sat, Nov 17, 2012 at 11:06:38PM -0500, Richard Yao wrote:
> On 11/17/2012 10:39 PM, Greg KH wrote:
> > Anyway, I now see a _very_ dangerous commit in the "Copyright" branch
> > that better not get merged into the tree, as it's wrong, and illegal
> > under all countries that follow the "normal" b
On Sat, Nov 17, 2012 at 11:02:00PM -0500, Richard Yao wrote:
> On 11/17/2012 10:29 PM, Greg KH wrote:
> > I see an "entertaining" fork of udev on github at the moment (-ng,
> > really? What happens when someone wants to fork that, -ng-ng? Be a bit
> > more original in your naming please, good thi
On 11/17/2012 10:39 PM, Greg KH wrote:
> Anyway, I now see a _very_ dangerous commit in the "Copyright" branch
> that better not get merged into the tree, as it's wrong, and illegal
> under all countries that follow the "normal" body of Copyright Law. It
> should be removed right now before someon
On 11/17/2012 10:29 PM, Greg KH wrote:
> I see an "entertaining" fork of udev on github at the moment (-ng,
> really? What happens when someone wants to fork that, -ng-ng? Be a bit
> more original in your naming please, good thing I never trademarked
> "udev" all those years ago, maybe I still sh
On Sat, Nov 17, 2012 at 07:29:22PM -0800, Greg KH wrote:
> I see an "entertaining" fork of udev on github at the moment (-ng,
> really? What happens when someone wants to fork that, -ng-ng? Be a bit
> more original in your naming please, good thing I never trademarked
> "udev" all those years ago
On Sat, Nov 17, 2012 at 08:02:07PM +0100, Fabian Groffen wrote:
> Handling separate /usr support
> ==
> WilliamH requested approval for two methods to support separate /usr
> systems[2]. The discussion is closely related to recent opinons on udev, such
> as e.g. [1], be
I've just done a major update of mirrorselect. While the actual
functioning code did not change significantly it has been chunked up,
moved
short list of changes:
-- fix the make.conf move. now dual location capable
-- now py3 compatible. (3.1 restricted, due to differences, failures)
2.
On Sat, 17 Nov 2012 11:58:48 -0500
Mike Gilbert wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 1:44 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
> > This is much more complex than the previous version.
> >
>
> The inline comments and debug-print statements are helpful.
>
> Do we have a way to test this with various combinations
On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 1:44 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
> This is much more complex than the previous version.
>
The inline comments and debug-print statements are helpful.
Do we have a way to test this with various combinations of
PYTHON_COMPAT, PYTHON_TARGETS, eselect python, and USE_PYTHON?
I h
43 matches
Mail list logo
