On Thursday 13 July 2006 18:53, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Jul 2006 14:55:57 +0200 Paul de Vrieze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> wrote:
> | The dev manual is *wrong*.
>
> No, the devmanual reflects what's actually being done, rather than an
> impractical definition that was written years ago that
On Thu, 13 Jul 2006 14:55:57 +0200 Paul de Vrieze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| The dev manual is *wrong*.
No, the devmanual reflects what's actually being done, rather than an
impractical definition that was written years ago that no longer
matches the development model.
--
Ciaran McCreesh
Mail
On Thursday 15 June 2006 02:54, Dan Meltzer wrote:
> According to the devmanual [1]
> "A herd is a collection of developers who maintain a collection of
> related packages"
>
> are you sure you are using the correct term?
>
> [1]
> http://devmanual.gentoo.org/general-concepts/herds-and-projects/in
On Thursday 15 June 2006 07:57, Harald van Dijk wrote:
> So games implies "managed by the games team" sometimes but
> not always? Meaning if the maintainer is "games team + X", then "games
> team" must be explicitly listed as a maintainer in metadata.xml ?
>
> If so, sorry, misunderstood you, and th
On Thu, 2006-06-15 at 19:18 +0100, Stuart Herbert wrote:
> Hi Kevin,
>
> On 6/15/06, Kevin F. Quinn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I read the "should" as
> > implying that all new packages must have it, and packages existing
> > before the introduction of metadata should get it as and when
> > mai
Hi Kevin,
On 6/15/06, Kevin F. Quinn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I read the "should" as
implying that all new packages must have it, and packages existing
before the introduction of metadata should get it as and when
maintainer gets around to it (i.e. at least on the next bump).
Chris's argumen
On Thu, 15 Jun 2006 15:07:36 +0100
"Stuart Herbert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 6/14/06, Chris Gianelloni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/metastructure/herds/#doc_chap4
> >
> > Specifically the listing for the herd tag.
> >
> > Just because people are doing things
On 6/14/06, Chris Gianelloni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/metastructure/herds/#doc_chap4
Specifically the listing for the herd tag.
Just because people are doing things *wrong* doesn't mean that there
isn't a defined manner in which things should be done.
From the
On Wed, Jun 14, 2006 at 05:13:48PM -0400, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> On Wed, 2006-06-14 at 15:54 +0200, Harald van Dijk wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 14, 2006 at 09:13:34AM -0400, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> > > > A great example of this are web-based applications. The web-apps
> > > > project
> > > > does
On Wed, 14 Jun 2006 20:54:21 -0400 "Dan Meltzer"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| According to the devmanual [1]
| "A herd is a collection of developers who maintain a collection of
| related packages"
|
| are you sure you are using the correct term?
Ah, yes, we're back to the old "what is a herd?" t
On Wed, 14 Jun 2006 20:54:21 -0400
"Dan Meltzer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> According to the devmanual [1]
> "A herd is a collection of developers who maintain a collection of
> related packages"
>
> are you sure you are using the correct term?
He's right. The devmanual is not authoritative.
-
Dan Meltzer wrote:
> According to the devmanual [1]
> "A herd is a collection of developers who maintain a collection of
> related packages"
>
> are you sure you are using the correct term?
>
> [1]
> http://devmanual.gentoo.org/general-concepts/herds-and-projects/index.html
I guess it needs to g
On 6/14/06, Chris Gianelloni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Wed, 2006-06-14 at 22:34 +0200, Jakub Moc wrote:
> > It's not irrelevant; you're just not reading it properly. You might
> > notice that metadata.xml contains tags other than , like, say,
> > . In the example that sparked this, is games
On Wed, 2006-06-14 at 17:25 -0400, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> On Wed, 2006-06-14 at 14:47 -0400, Ned Ludd wrote:
> > On Wed, 2006-06-14 at 09:13 -0400, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> >
> > > Just because the maintaining *project* doesn't
> > > want it doesn't mean it doesn't belong to that herd.
> >
>
On Wed, 2006-06-14 at 22:34 +0200, Jakub Moc wrote:
> > It's not irrelevant; you're just not reading it properly. You might
> > notice that metadata.xml contains tags other than , like, say,
> > . In the example that sparked this, is games and
> > the individual dev who maintains it. Simple enoug
On Wed, 2006-06-14 at 20:15 +0100, Stuart Herbert wrote:
> Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> > Here's another example of it done correctly. If you add a game to the
> > tree, the herd should be listed as games. Period. Even if you are
> > going to be the sole maintainer of the package, games should be t
On Wed, 2006-06-14 at 14:47 -0400, Ned Ludd wrote:
> On Wed, 2006-06-14 at 09:13 -0400, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
>
> > Just because the maintaining *project* doesn't
> > want it doesn't mean it doesn't belong to that herd.
>
> This is incorrect and you should not encourage people to add pkgs to
>
On Wed, 2006-06-14 at 20:21 +0200, Jakub Moc wrote:
> Sure... so, perhaps you have some suggestion how I can read assign bugs
> otherwise than using the metadata.xml; perhaps I could learn to read
> minds of the developers who dump irrelevant stuff into metadata.xml and
> expect someone to know wha
On Wed, 2006-06-14 at 20:01 +0200, Jakub Moc wrote:
> Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> > Again, you are confusing herds and projects.
> >
> > Here's another example of it done correctly. If you add a game to the
> > tree, the herd should be listed as games. Period. Even if you are
> > going to be the
On Wed, 2006-06-14 at 15:56 +0200, Henrik Brix Andersen wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 14, 2006 at 09:18:57AM -0400, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> > I would have *no problem* with an opt-in system. Instead of using
> > "InOverlay" (which is a poor choice anyway... which overlay?) as some
> > sort of tag, instea
On Wed, 2006-06-14 at 15:54 +0200, Harald van Dijk wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 14, 2006 at 09:13:34AM -0400, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> > > A great example of this are web-based applications. The web-apps project
> > > does not own all the web-based packages in the Portage tree. There are
> > > many
> >
On Wed, 14 Jun 2006 22:34:55 +0200
Jakub Moc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Please, go through the tree and see at least so many metadata.xml
> files as I have seen, before claiming something that simply doesn't
> reflect current practice. There are many ebuilds with no
> tag and only. Are you cla
Stephen Bennett wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Jun 2006 20:21:42 +0200
> Jakub Moc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Sure... so, perhaps you have some suggestion how I can read assign
>> bugs otherwise than using the metadata.xml; perhaps I could learn to
>> read minds of the developers who dump irrelevant stu
Chris Gianelloni wrote:
Here's another example of it done correctly. If you add a game to the
tree, the herd should be listed as games. Period. Even if you are
going to be the sole maintainer of the package, games should be the
herd. Why? Because it is a game, silly.
There _is_ no requirem
On Wed, 2006-06-14 at 09:13 -0400, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> Just because the maintaining *project* doesn't
> want it doesn't mean it doesn't belong to that herd.
This is incorrect and you should not encourage people to add pkgs to
a herd unless they get permission from that herd. If a herd does
On Wed, 14 Jun 2006 20:21:42 +0200
Jakub Moc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Sure... so, perhaps you have some suggestion how I can read assign
> bugs otherwise than using the metadata.xml; perhaps I could learn to
> read minds of the developers who dump irrelevant stuff into
> metadata.xml and expec
Stephen Bennett wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Jun 2006 20:01:04 +0200
> Jakub Moc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> This new terminology plain sucks. If you are sticking games into
>> in metadata.xml, you are just confusing me and other people
>> who are assigning bugs.
>
> It's not new. If it confuses you
On Wed, 14 Jun 2006 20:01:04 +0200
Jakub Moc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This new terminology plain sucks. If you are sticking games into
> in metadata.xml, you are just confusing me and other people
> who are assigning bugs.
It's not new. If it confuses you, perhaps you should learn the
termi
Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> Again, you are confusing herds and projects.
>
> Here's another example of it done correctly. If you add a game to the
> tree, the herd should be listed as games. Period. Even if you are
> going to be the sole maintainer of the package, games should be the
> herd. Why
Henrik Brix Andersen wrote:
On Wed, Jun 14, 2006 at 09:18:57AM -0400, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
I would have *no problem* with an opt-in system. Instead of using
"InOverlay" (which is a poor choice anyway... which overlay?) as some
sort of tag, instead, assign the package to the project which ma
On Wed, Jun 14, 2006 at 09:18:57AM -0400, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> I would have *no problem* with an opt-in system. Instead of using
> "InOverlay" (which is a poor choice anyway... which overlay?) as some
> sort of tag, instead, assign the package to the project which maintains
> the herd the pac
On Wed, Jun 14, 2006 at 09:13:34AM -0400, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> > A great example of this are web-based applications. The web-apps project
> > does not own all the web-based packages in the Portage tree. There are many
> > such packages in the tree that are managed by developers that are not
On Wed, 2006-06-14 at 08:38 +0200, Kevin F. Quinn wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Jun 2006 23:19:51 +0100
> Stuart Herbert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> > Hash: SHA1
> >
> > Michael Cummings wrote:
> > | Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> > |>> Using your example, if it will *n
On Tue, 2006-06-13 at 23:52 +0100, Stuart Herbert wrote:
> Packages are grouped into herds, which are managed by projects. If a
> package doesn't belong to a herd, then it doesn't belong to the project, and
> other developers are free to take ownership of the package and include it
> into the tree
On 6/13/06, Peter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
As an example, there is a kernel source build I've been playing with. I
know, from the kernel team, it will never, repeat NEVER, get onto the
portage tree. they want no part of it.
My guess is that alternative kernels are probably the strongest
argum
On Tue, 13 Jun 2006 23:19:51 +0100
Stuart Herbert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Michael Cummings wrote:
> | Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> |>> Using your example, if it will *never* make it into the tree,
> then what |>> is it doing on *.gentoo.org in
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi Chris,
Chris Gianelloni wrote:
| What we *are* arguing against is having something in a
| non-project-specific overlay, that is not maintained by the project in
| question, and has *specifically* been rejected by the project in
| question. This s
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Michael Cummings wrote:
| Chris Gianelloni wrote:
|>> Using your example, if it will *never* make it into the tree, then what
|>> is it doing on *.gentoo.org infrastructure?
|
| OK, I'll speak up. I plan on using overlay.gentoo.org for the perl team
|
On Tue, 2006-06-13 at 15:14 -0400, Michael Cummings wrote:
> Just my two cents. Not sure about sunrise, but I'm all behind the overlays.
*sigh*
I have *never* argued that teams should not be able to run their own
project-specific overlays. You are the perl team. You are more than
welcome to run
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> Using your example, if it will *never* make it into the tree, then what
> is it doing on *.gentoo.org infrastructure?
OK, I'll speak up. I plan on using overlay.gentoo.org for the perl team
overlay repository. dev-perl alone
Grant Goodyear wrote:
> Over the years we've had a fairly consistent stream of suggestions that
> we should open up the e-build maintaining process to users instead of
> just devs. The main arguments against it are the security issues and an
> expectation that it would add to developer workloads.
On Tue, 2006-06-13 at 13:29 -0400, Peter wrote:
> As an example, there is a kernel source build I've been playing with. I
> know, from the kernel team, it will never, repeat NEVER, get onto the
> portage tree. they want no part of it. However, the bug is widely
> followed, and if Sunrise were to be
On Tue, Jun 13, 2006 at 01:29:55PM -0400, Peter wrote:
[snip]
> This kernel source will not cause Armageddon to arrive, cause smoke to
> issue from your power supply, nor interfere with other ebuilds.
That's funny. Did you just claim that a sys-kernel/*-sources ebuild
with the patch-sets listed b
On Tue, 13 Jun 2006 10:06:56 -0700, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> Henrik Brix Andersen wrote:
>> As I've said all along - I do not have any problems with Project
>> Sunrise. I have a problem with it being an official project hosted on
>> *.gentoo.org, as I fear most users will think "hey, it's official
44 matches
Mail list logo
