On Sun, 26 Sep 2010 13:32:49 -0700
Alec Warner wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 26, 2010 at 1:26 PM, Mike Frysinger
> wrote:
> > because he's a stupid nub
> > -mike
NO U
>
> Is that pronounced 'nub' or 'noob' ?
>
> Man I should really go to SCALE next year :X
We got the official invite from the organiz
On Sun, Sep 26, 2010 at 1:26 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Sunday, September 26, 2010 12:57:42 Petteri Räty wrote:
>> On 09/26/2010 07:30 PM, Joshua Saddler wrote:
>> > On Sun, 26 Sep 2010 08:37:35 -0400 Jacob Godserv wrote:
>> >> On Mon, 20 Sep 2010 14:32:49 -0400 Mike Frysinger wrote:
>> >>> ma
On Sunday, September 26, 2010 12:57:42 Petteri Räty wrote:
> On 09/26/2010 07:30 PM, Joshua Saddler wrote:
> > On Sun, 26 Sep 2010 08:37:35 -0400 Jacob Godserv wrote:
> >> On Mon, 20 Sep 2010 14:32:49 -0400 Mike Frysinger wrote:
> >>> man, fix your line length. what a nub you are.
> >>
> >> Or ad
On 09/26/2010 07:30 PM, Joshua Saddler wrote:
> On Sun, 26 Sep 2010 08:37:35 -0400
> Jacob Godserv wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 20 Sep 2010 14:32:49 -0400
>> Mike Frysinger wrote:
>>
>>> man, fix your line length. what a nub you are.
>>
>> Or adjust your mail client. Then you could save yourself the nam
On Sun, 26 Sep 2010 08:37:35 -0400
Jacob Godserv wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Sep 2010 14:32:49 -0400
> Mike Frysinger wrote:
>
> > man, fix your line length. what a nub you are.
>
> Or adjust your mail client. Then you could save yourself the name
> calling, which changes the mood of the mailing list
On Sun, Sep 26, 2010 at 6:07 PM, Jacob Godserv wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Sep 2010 14:32:49 -0400
> Mike Frysinger wrote:
>
>> man, fix your line length. what a nub you are.
>
> Or adjust your mail client. Then you could save yourself the name
> calling, which changes the mood of the mailing list and c
On Mon, 20 Sep 2010 14:32:49 -0400
Mike Frysinger wrote:
> man, fix your line length. what a nub you are.
Or adjust your mail client. Then you could save yourself the name
calling, which changes the mood of the mailing list and causes issues
for more people than just your target.
--
Jacob
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 09/20/2010 02:32 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Monday, September 20, 2010 13:49:08 Joshua Saddler wrote:
>> Wrong. It will. The GDP--that's effectively just me--will already have to
>> rewrite every single one of hundreds of pages of documentation
Eray Aslan wrote:
On 20.09.2010 16:37, Richard Freeman wrote:
One argument I've heard against newnet is that you can't bring
individual interfaces up and down.
openrc[newnet] used to have problems with ppp interfaces. I do not know
if it is still the case but there are some open bugs
Tobias Klausmann dixit (2010-09-20, 20:34):
> On Mon, 20 Sep 2010, Benedikt Böhm wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 20, 2010, Tobias Klausmann wrote:
> > > who runs servers: DHCP is uncommon there, WLAN is very unusual,
> > > as a result, they would not only have to switch the way they
> > > configure their
Hi!
On Mon, 20 Sep 2010, Benedikt Böhm wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 20, 2010, Tobias Klausmann wrote:
> > who runs servers: DHCP is uncommon there, WLAN is very unusual,
> > as a result, they would not only have to switch the way they
> > configure their nets (people don't like that kind of stuff if the
On Monday, September 20, 2010 13:49:08 Joshua Saddler wrote:
> Wrong. It will. The GDP--that's effectively just me--will already have to
> rewrite every single one of hundreds of pages of documentation to allow
> for the new syntax and way of doing things present in the "oldnet"
> behavior of OpenR
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Mon, 20 Sep 2010 06:46:21 -0400
"Anthony G. Basile" wrote:
> Why can't we keep both? There are strong advantages/disadvantages
> either way and there are users invested in both new/oldnet. I know
> this is more work on doc writers, but I don't t
On Sunday, September 19, 2010 20:27:50 William Hubbs wrote:
> I suppose one question I need to ask is the oldnet vs newnet question.
> The git repository defaults to building and installing the newnet
> option, and we make oldnet the default in the ebuild.
>
> People migrating from stable will kno
On 20.09.2010 16:37, Richard Freeman wrote:
> One argument I've heard against newnet is that you can't bring
> individual interfaces up and down.
openrc[newnet] used to have problems with ppp interfaces. I do not know
if it is still the case but there are some open bugs on bugzilla.g.o
regarding
On 09/20/2010 07:06 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
> I guess quite a good solution for now might be enabling newnet through
> an USE flag, being masked in the profile by default. That would satisfy
> the oldnet compatibility requirement for users, while the small group
> preferring newnet could still bene
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Mon, 20 Sep 2010 06:46:21 -0400
"Anthony G. Basile" wrote:
> Why can't we keep both? There are strong advantages/disadvantages
> either way and there are users invested in both new/oldnet. I know
> this is more work on doc writers, but I don't t
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 09/19/2010 09:22 PM, William Hubbs wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 06:05:46AM +0530, Nirbheek Chauhan wrote:
>> On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 5:57 AM, William Hubbs
wrote:
>>> I suppose one question I need to ask is the oldnet vs newnet question.
>>> T
On 09/20/2010 11:10 AM, Benedikt Böhm wrote:
> the same is true for everyone who already runs newnet (like me). in
> fact, i do not even use the newnet conf.d stuff, but rather take
> advantage of support for /etc/ifup.eth* in /etc/init.d/network. that
> way i can configure the networking with ipro
On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 10:29 AM, Tobias Klausmann wrote:
> Hi!
>
> On Mon, 20 Sep 2010, Michał Górny wrote:
>> William Hubbs wrote:
>> > What about newnet. Should we keep it at all? If we do, should we put
>> > it behind a use flag which would be off by default?
>>
>> I insist on keeping it as
Hi!
On Mon, 20 Sep 2010, Michał Górny wrote:
> William Hubbs wrote:
> > What about newnet. Should we keep it at all? If we do, should we put
> > it behind a use flag which would be off by default?
>
> I insist on keeping it as I use it myself. The new approach seems more
> desktop-targeted to
On Sun, 19 Sep 2010 19:27:50 -0500
William Hubbs wrote:
> I suppose one question I need to ask is the oldnet vs newnet question.
> The git repository defaults to building and installing the newnet
> option, and we make oldnet the default in the ebuild.
>
> People migrating from stable will know t
On Sun, 19 Sep 2010 19:27:50 -0500
William Hubbs wrote:
> What about newnet. Should we keep it at all? If we do, should we put
> it behind a use flag which would be off by default?
I insist on keeping it as I use it myself. The new approach seems more
desktop-targeted to me. The network script
On Sunday, September 19, 2010 21:22:06 William Hubbs wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 06:05:46AM +0530, Nirbheek Chauhan wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 5:57 AM, William Hubbs wrote:
> > > I suppose one question I need to ask is the oldnet vs newnet question.
> > > The git repository defaults to
On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 06:05:46AM +0530, Nirbheek Chauhan wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 5:57 AM, William Hubbs wrote:
> > I suppose one question I need to ask is the oldnet vs newnet question.
> > The git repository defaults to building and installing the newnet
> > option, and we make oldnet
On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 5:57 AM, William Hubbs wrote:
> I suppose one question I need to ask is the oldnet vs newnet question.
> The git repository defaults to building and installing the newnet
> option, and we make oldnet the default in the ebuild.
>
> People migrating from stable will know the
All,
looking at the tracker, I see that only two bugs remain which block
stabilization of openrc:
http://bugs.gentoo.org/213988
http://bugs.gentoo.org/302116
What does everyone think? Are there any other bugs we should fix before
targeting a release for stabilization?
I suppose one question
27 matches
Mail list logo
