Re: [gentoo-dev] One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for January 22

Ulrich Mueller wrote: > > On Thu, 22 Jan 2009, Tobias Scherbaum wrote: > > >> - PMS, bug #250077: Do we need to get involved in this? (-dev) > > > We haven't been asked to get involved, therefore we don't need to. > > > w

Re: [gentoo-dev] One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for January 22

> On Thu, 22 Jan 2009, Tobias Scherbaum wrote: >> - PMS, bug #250077: Do we need to get involved in this? (-dev) > We haven't been asked to get involved, therefore we don't need to.

Re: [gentoo-dev] One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for January 22

On 18:23 Thu 22 Jan , Tobias Scherbaum wrote: > Donnie Berkholz wrote: > > Discuss on-list before meeting > > --- > > - Council meta stuff (-council) > > - Can the size change? Minimum? Maximum? > > - Should we have 2-year staggered terms? > > I'm in fav

Re: [gentoo-dev] One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for January 22

On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 09:28:31 -0800 Donnie Berkholz wrote: > > Only if you're guaranteed bash 3.1 on boxes that do metadata > > generation. Which means it won't work for overlays. > > I'm not an expert on metadata generation, so please tell me if I'm > wrong here. Most if not all overlays don't sh

Re: [gentoo-dev] One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for January 22

On 17:02 Thu 22 Jan , Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 08:56:23 -0800 > Donnie Berkholz wrote: > > Can this be fixed by adding bash dependencies to things using new > > features? As long as we keep them out of the build path of bash, > > things ought to work. > > Only if you're g

Re: [gentoo-dev] One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for January 22

Donnie Berkholz wrote: > Discuss on-list before meeting > --- > - Council meta stuff (-council) > - Can the size change? Minimum? Maximum? > - Should we have 2-year staggered terms? I'm in favor of a fixed size of council members, I'd like to see at least 5

Re: [gentoo-dev] One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for January 22

On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 5:02 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > Only if you're guaranteed bash 3.1 on boxes that do metadata > generation. Which means it won't work for overlays. Come to think of it... This is yet another reason GLEP 55 is necessary. -- Ciaran McCreesh

Re: [gentoo-dev] One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for January 22

On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 08:56:23 -0800 Donnie Berkholz wrote: > Can this be fixed by adding bash dependencies to things using new > features? As long as we keep them out of the build path of bash, > things ought to work. Only if you're guaranteed bash 3.1 on boxes that do metadata generation. Which

Re: [gentoo-dev] One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for January 22

On 16:11 Thu 22 Jan , Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Wed, 21 Jan 2009 22:10:29 -0600 > Jeremy Olexa wrote: > > I think the spec should just be upgraded because it isn't exactly > > obvious to the casual dev what is a 3.0 feature vs 3.1, etc. We > > already have 3.1 features in the tree, I'm not

Re: [gentoo-dev] One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for January 22

On Wed, 21 Jan 2009 16:02:29 -0800 Donnie Berkholz wrote: > - PMS, bug #250077: Do we need to get involved in this? (-dev) The question for this one, really, is whether people are happy having such a vaguely specified utility whose behaviour keeps changing in ways that break existing idioms. If t

Re: [gentoo-dev] One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for January 22

On Wed, 21 Jan 2009 22:10:29 -0600 Jeremy Olexa wrote: > I think the spec should just be upgraded because it isn't exactly > obvious to the casual dev what is a 3.0 feature vs 3.1, etc. We > already have 3.1 features in the tree, I'm not sure where the red > tape is here. The problem is, if the

Re: [gentoo-dev] One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for January 22

Donnie Berkholz wrote: On 21:28 Wed 21 Jan , Jeremy Olexa wrote: Can we get a consensus on bash version in the tree? this thread[1] is unresolved. I understand that the PMS draft is not set in stone (or something), but please...let's progress and update the spec[2]. I feel that this mak

Re: [gentoo-dev] One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for January 22

On 21:28 Wed 21 Jan , Jeremy Olexa wrote: > Can we get a consensus on bash version in the tree? this thread[1] is > unresolved. I understand that the PMS draft is not set in stone (or > something), but please...let's progress and update the spec[2]. I feel > that this makes it hard for ot

Re: [gentoo-dev] One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for January 22

Donnie Berkholz wrote: 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 t

Re: [gentoo-dev] One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for January 22

On 15:35 Wed 21 Jan , Donnie Berkholz wrote: > 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

[gentoo-dev] One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for January 22

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