-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hello everyone,
Here, with this email, i propose (after a brief discussion on irc with
gensteaf)an alternative or at least a new model to address a few issues
with our maintainers needs and the inclusion of new packages into the
tree. Probably an alte
On Thu, 27 Jul 2006 22:19:14 -0400
Luis Francisco Araujo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The users explicitly compromise to (just to make it clear): [1,2,3,4]
People who participate in open projects like Gentoo come and go. What
happens if/when the proxy maintainer decides to leave? Who will take
ca
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Thomas Cort wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Jul 2006 22:19:14 -0400
> Luis Francisco Araujo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> The users explicitly compromise to (just to make it clear): [1,2,3,4]
>
> People who participate in open projects like Gentoo come and go.
On Thu, 27 Jul 2006 22:19:14 -0400 Luis Francisco Araujo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> the developers could let all these three points at the hands of the
> user wanting to get the ebuild included into the tree.
[...]
> The user has to compromise to take care of those previous commented
> three
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Robert Cernansky wrote:
> Oh, if I can speak for me as a user I'll not like it. One of the major
> advantage of Gentoo is easy maintenace (not mindless, but easy if you
> know what you are doing) thanks to portage system. Another is
> availability of l
Robert Cernansky wrote:
> If I have some application that is not included in portage why
> I decide to make an ebuild? Because I hope that then it will be
> accepted and included to portage, so maintained by developers (big
> thanks for this). If I have to take care of package + ebuild +
> dependen
On Fri, 28 Jul 2006 14:26:31 -0400 Luis Francisco Araujo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Robert Cernansky wrote:
> > Oh, if I can speak for me as a user I'll not like it. One of the
> > major advantage of Gentoo is easy maintenace (not mindless, but
> > easy if you know what you are doing) thanks to
On Fri, 28 Jul 2006 11:51:46 -0700 Donnie Berkholz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Robert Cernansky wrote:
> > If I have some application that is not included in portage why
> > I decide to make an ebuild? Because I hope that then it will be
> > accepted and included to portage, so maintained by deve
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Robert Cernansky wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Jul 2006 11:51:46 -0700 Donnie Berkholz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Robert Cernansky wrote:
>>> If I have some application that is not included in portage why
>>> I decide to make an ebuild? Because I hope that
On Fri, Jul 28, 2006 at 21:27:31 +0200, Robert Cernansky wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Jul 2006 14:26:31 -0400 Luis Francisco Araujo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> > Robert Cernansky wrote:
> > > Oh, if I can speak for me as a user I'll not like it. One of the
> > > major advantage of Gentoo is easy mai
On Fri, 28 Jul 2006 15:26:37 -0400 Luis Francisco Araujo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> An ebuild offer several advantages even for tiny packages.
If it is self-maintained ebuild, it depends on complexity of
it. Currently I have one application outside the portage tree and
I found out to easier/
On Fri, 28 Jul 2006 21:49:02 +0200 Alexandre Buisse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 28, 2006 at 21:27:31 +0200, Robert Cernansky wrote:
>
> > I just understand it so, that if a user submits a new ebuild he has to
> > in fact maintain it. So overall maintenance time required by his
> > op
On Fri, 2006-07-28 at 22:09 +0200, Robert Cernansky wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Jul 2006 21:49:02 +0200 Alexandre Buisse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Jul 28, 2006 at 21:27:31 +0200, Robert Cernansky wrote:
> >
> > > I just understand it so, that if a user submits a new ebuild he has to
> > >
On Fri, 2006-07-28 at 11:51 -0700, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> Robert Cernansky wrote:
> > If I have some application that is not included in portage why
> > I decide to make an ebuild? Because I hope that then it will be
> > accepted and included to portage, so maintained by developers (big
> > thank
On Saturday 29 July 2006 02:19, Alastair Tse wrote:
> On Fri, 2006-07-28 at 11:51 -0700, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> > Robert Cernansky wrote:
> > > If I have some application that is not included in portage why
> > > I decide to make an ebuild? Because I hope that then it will be
> > > accepted and i
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Bruno wrote:
>
> Through proxy-dev I may contribute ebuild for a few packages and maintain
> them
> over the time period I have use for them. E.g. drivers as long as I have
> given hardware (in use).
That is great!
>
> What would be useful is to
On Friday 28 July 2006 20:51, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> Robert Cernansky wrote:
> > If I have some application that is not included in portage why
> > I decide to make an ebuild? Because I hope that then it will be
> > accepted and included to portage, so maintained by developers (big
> > thanks for
On Sun, 2006-07-30 at 15:50 +0200, Paul de Vrieze wrote:
> On Friday 28 July 2006 20:51, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> > Robert Cernansky wrote:
> > > If I have some application that is not included in portage why
> > > I decide to make an ebuild? Because I hope that then it will be
> > > accepted and i
18 matches
Mail list logo
