Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: news item for upower

On 04/06/2014 06:11, Samuli Suominen wrote: > As in, don't you think I've considered, as a active GLEP 42 user, if there > was a need for one this time? I weighted my options for 3 months before > acting, and people actually agreed with me it wasn't necessary at this > time. I'm really suprised abo

Re: [gentoo-dev] Packages up for grabs

On 06/04/2014 12:44 PM, Jesus Rivero (Neurogeek) wrote: > Due to a mix of "not currently using them", "not much time available" > and "Upstreams has a completely different concept of packaging", the > following packages have been marked maintainer-needed and are up for grabs: > > net-libs/ptlib >

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: news item for upower

Ben Kohler wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 11:24 AM, Samuli Suominen > wrote: > > > Wrong. I'm always using the -t (--tree) flag with Portage and I > would > have seen upower being the culprit immediately, > and second command would have been `eix u

[gentoo-dev] Packages up for grabs

Due to a mix of "not currently using them", "not much time available" and "Upstreams has a completely different concept of packaging", the following packages have been marked maintainer-needed and are up for grabs: net-libs/ptlib net-libs/opal net-voip/ekiga app-admin/chef app-admin/chef-expander

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: news item for upower

On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 11:24 AM, Samuli Suominen wrote: > > > Wrong. I'm always using the -t (--tree) flag with Portage and I would > have seen upower being the culprit immediately, > and second command would have been `eix upower` to see available > versions, at which point I would have seen >

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: news item for upower

On 04/06/14 19:21, Duncan wrote: > Rich Freeman posted on Wed, 04 Jun 2014 07:41:23 -0400 as excerpted: > >> On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 4:24 PM, Alan McKinnon >> wrote: >>> Yes, it *is* a simple matter of running one easy command. Portage does >>> that for you with trivial ease. But portage doesn't t

[gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: news item for upower

Rich Freeman posted on Wed, 04 Jun 2014 07:41:23 -0400 as excerpted: > On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 4:24 PM, Alan McKinnon > wrote: >> >> Yes, it *is* a simple matter of running one easy command. Portage does >> that for you with trivial ease. But portage doesn't tell you *which* is >> the one easy com

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: news item for upower

On Wed, 04 Jun 2014 07:29:17 +0300 Samuli Suominen wrote: > > On 04/06/14 07:11, Samuli Suominen wrote: > > I'm just expecting more from our users. I don't think the news items > > were ever designed for simplistic things like this. > > As in, GLEP 42 Critical News Item != Learning tool for und

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: news item for upower

On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 4:24 PM, Alan McKinnon wrote: > > Yes, it *is* a simple matter of running one easy command. Portage does > that for you with trivial ease. But portage doesn't tell you *which* is > the one easy command. > > A news item does that. That is the real challenge here. It isn't o

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: UPower upstream (git master) and 0.99 release -> No sys-power/pm-utils support anymore

On Tue, Jun 03, 2014 at 09:20:51PM -0400, Greg Woodbury wrote: > Then, they "steal" a general kernel command line parameter (debug) that > makes booting impossible in certain cases. (Linus had to put his foot > down on that one.) Almost your entire statement here is incorrect. Systemd still looks

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: news item for upower

On Wed, 04 Jun 2014 07:29:17 +0300 Samuli Suominen wrote: > On 04/06/14 07:11, Samuli Suominen wrote: > > I'm just expecting more from our users. I don't think the news items > > were ever designed for simplistic things like this. > > As in, GLEP 42 Critical News Item != Learning tool for unders