Re: Re: Re: [gentoo-core] crap use flags in the profiles

Grant Goodyear posted <20050831161516.GJ18440 <at> bmb24.uth.tmc.edu>,
excerpted below,  on Wed, 31 Aug 2005 11:15:16 -0500:

> Stephen P. Becker wrote: [Wed Aug 31 2005, 08:18:53AM CDT]
>> We don't "live with that problem on MIPS" because it doesn't exist.  If 
>> something doesn't work in one spot, we dont' stable keyword it...simple 
>> as that.  Also keep in mind that for some stuff, we don't have to test 
>> on both.  For example, we have no supported little endian machines that 
>> are capable of running X, therefore, we don't care about testing X 
>> there.  See how it works?
> 
> So, the basic suggestion is that x86 and amd64 would both use the same
> keyword, but that for cases such as valgrind pre-3.0, which didn't work
> at all on amd64, then those package are profile-masked, and there's 
> separate amd64 and x86 profiles (as there are now) to handle those
> distinctions?

Thanks!...  Now that's something concrete enough to wrap my brain around,
which is exactly what I was asking for.  Consider the "magic" explained.
Like so much "magic", there's a perfectly good explanation, once you grasp
the concept!  =8^)

I still don't necessarily think it's the best solution for a problem that
seems decently solved as it is (not that my opinion really counts anyway,
as just a user, not one of the many actually doing the work), but at
least I have a clue about how it can be done, now, something I was lacking
the "Eureka moment" necessary to grasp, previously. =8^)  Now I can at
least intelligently follow the debate.

--

-- 

Re: merge amd64 & x86 arches? (was: crap use flags in the profiles)

On 31/8/2005 9:18:53, Stephen P. Becker (geoman <at> gentoo.org) wrote:

> Keep in mind that the *stable* trees of x86 and amd64 are actually 
> pretty close to the same versions anyway, I just ran gmsoft's imlate 
> script for amd64 vs. x86 keywords:

hmm; missed a biggie - sys-devel/gcc which is stable for amd64 at 3.4.4-r1 and stable for x86 on 3.3.5.20050130-r1.

The only way I can think of to deal with amd64/x86 differences other than via an arch keyword is to use masking
in profiles.  i.e. to mark both versions stable and mask the unwanted version in 'packages'.  The downside
is that what would have been a testing version is now masked by the profile, and profile masking is a much
stronger statement than simply keywording ~.

Is there a way to deal with this sort of thing in profiles, without masking? 

--

-- 
gentoo-dev <at> gentoo.org mailing list

Re: Re: Player, Stage, Gazebo eBuilds

On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 21:43:31 +0100
Ciaran McCreesh <ciaranm <at> gentoo.org> wrote:

> | Is it possible for me to mantain the packages?
> 
> We don't (or at least shouldn't...) give out CVS to people just for a
> few ebuilds. If you contribute a lot of high quality stuff then
> someone may offer to mentor you.

There is no fidonet stuff in the portage tree. I can write ebuilds for
that. To get fidonet system worked user needs mailer, tosser, reader.
Those programms in logic can not be added to existent categories. So I
want to add four new categoies to portage tree:
ftn-mailer, ftn-tosser, ftn-reader, ftn-stuff.

But I'm not sure if I submit these ebuilds to bugzilla somebody wants
to commit them to cvs.

So do I have  chance to become gentoo developer and get access to
CVS? And does somebody want to mentor me?

-- 
Cheers! 
 Дмитрий Лукашин 
--

-- 
gentoo-dev <at> gentoo.org mailing list

Election results

Thanks to the 148 people who voted.  I think that's slightly less than a
50% turnout, but it's still not too shabby.

The new Gentoo Council is:

seemant
vapier
agriffis
solar 
azarah
Swift
Koon

The master ballot is attached, and confirmation e-mails to those who
voted will follow shortly.

-g2boojum-
--

-- 
Grant Goodyear	
Gentoo Developer
g2boojum <at> gentoo.org
http://www.gentoo.org/~g2boojum
GPG Fingerprint: D706 9802 1663 DEF5 81B0  9573 A6DC 7152 E0F6 5B76

--------- confirmation 294d ---------
Stuart
bonsaikitten
kugelfang
mcummings Koon seemant lcars tigger Weeve KingTaco azarah jaervosz Plasmaroo spb SwifT agriffis vapier

Re: [gentoo-core] Election results

On Thu, 2005-01-09 at 07:09 -0500, Grant Goodyear wrote:
> Thanks to the 148 people who voted.  I think that's slightly less than a
> 50% turnout, but it's still not too shabby.
> 
> The new Gentoo Council is:
> 
> seemant
> vapier
> agriffis
> solar 
> azarah
> Swift
> Koon

As your friendly election official, I confirm that this result is valid
(ie consistent with the master ballot).

Congratulations to our new council! Now lets get to work!

-- 
Olivier Crête
tester <at> gentoo.org
Gentoo Developer
x86 Security Liaison

--

-- 
gentoo-dev <at> gentoo.org mailing list

Re: Election results

Grant Goodyear wrote:
> Thanks to the 148 people who voted.  I think that's slightly less than a
> 50% turnout, but it's still not too shabby.
> 
> The new Gentoo Council is:
> 
> seemant
> vapier
> agriffis
> solar 
> azarah
> Swift
> Koon

As one of the election officials, I confirm that the above mentioned
members are indeed the top 7 and my verification of the votes tallies
with Grant's original count.

Congrats to the new council members!

Regards,

--

-- 
Shyam Mani | <fox2mike <at> gentoo.org>
docs-team  | http://gdp.gentoo.org
GPG Key    | 0xFDD0E345

Re: Election results

On Thu, 1 Sep 2005 07:20:03 -0500 Grant Goodyear <g2boojum <at> gentoo.org>
wrote:
| Thanks to the 148 people who voted.  I think that's slightly less
| than a 50% turnout, but it's still not too shabby.

Since we all know fine well that no-one understands the condorcet
voting system... Here're the pretty pictures you've all been waiting
for:

http://dev.gentoo.org/~ciaranm/docs/council-2005-vote-distribution.txt

Some of the graphs are rather, er, amusing.

--

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh : Gentoo Developer (Vim, Shell tools, Fluxbox, Cron)
Mail            : ciaranm at gentoo.org
Web             : http://dev.gentoo.org/~ciaranm

council meetings

Dear all,
  First, congratulations!  Now get to work!  *Grin*

We needed to have the new metastructure plan someplace easy to find, so
I created glep 39 for it.  It's probably worth re-reading, just to make
sure you know what's now on your plate.  The big item is that there
needs to be a public meeting by the end of the month, and I'm sure that
there is at least one GLEP (if not several) that needs to be voted upon.
I got burnt out running the managers' meetings, so I'm afraid that I'm
not volunteering to run these.  It's not a difficult job, though, and I
would just suggest rotating the meeting chairperson job among the
council members.  Some possibly useful suggestions: (a) Put the current
topic of discussion in /topic, (b) Put the easy stuff early in the
agenda, so that at least something gets accomplished, (c) it's okay to 
politely tell people that the discussion is diverging from the topic at
hand (I probably should have done so more often), and (d) meetings
should really have a fixed ending time as well as a fixed starting time.
Although I don't want to run the meetings, I'm certainly willing to help
if needed.

I have high hopes for this new Council, but of course it's up to you
folks to make of it what you will.  Personally, I expect great things.

Best,
g2boojum
--

-- 
Grant Goodyear	
Gentoo Developer
g2boojum <at> gentoo.org
http://www.gentoo.org/~g2boojum

Re: council meetings

Grant Goodyear wrote: [Thu Sep 01 2005, 11:50:56AM CDT]
> We needed to have the new metastructure plan someplace easy to find, so
> I created glep 39 for it.  

It's in CVS, but it may be a bit before it shows up on www.g.o.  

-g2boojum-
--

-- 
Grant Goodyear	
Gentoo Developer
g2boojum <at> gentoo.org
http://www.gentoo.org/~g2boojum
GPG Fingerprint: D706 9802 1663 DEF5 81B0  9573 A6DC 7152 E0F6 5B76

Re: combining x86 and amd64

Grant Goodyear wrote:
> The recent discussion about having a "real" x86 arch team and combining
> the x86 and amd64 keywords was both interesting and provocative.  Of
> course, this is the sort of thing that the GLEP system was meant for.
> Now that we have a new council that (I hope) will be active in approving
> or rejecting GLEPs, perhaps someone should be writing a GLEP about
> combining x86 and amd64?

Are you volunteering? :P

-- 
Andrew Gaffney                            http://dev.gentoo.org/~agaffney/
Gentoo Linux Developer                                   Installer Project

--

-- 
gentoo-dev <at> gentoo.org mailing list