gmane.linux.gentoo.devel

Re: Gentoo Council 2008/2009 - RESULTS

Luca Barbato — 2008-07-06T00:58:42

Thank you for the trust =)

Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in dev-scheme/drscheme:drscheme-4.0.2.ebuild

Robin H. Johnson — 2008-07-05T23:23:52

... ... You missed updating ChangeLog. Can we maybe add this as a check to repoman? It breaks packages.g.o briefly when it happens, because packages.g.o tries hard to find a changelog entry for every addition.

Re: Gentoo Council 2008/2009 - RESULTS

Mark Loeser — 2008-07-05T23:20:20

Łukasz Damentko gentoo.org> said: Thanks everyone.

Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in dev-lang/perl: ChangeLogperl-5.8.8-r5.ebuild perl-5.8.8-r4.ebuild perl-5.8.8-r2.ebuildperl-5.8.8-r3.ebuild

Robin H. Johnson — 2008-07-05T23:09:55

Wormo: Your editor broke the UTF8 in the ChangeLog. Please use echangelog or fix your editor. On Sat, Jul 05, 2008 at 11:01:33PM +0000, Stephanie J. Lockwood-Childs (wormo) wrote: ...

Re: Gentoo Council 2008/2009 - RESULTS

Donnie Berkholz — 2008-07-05T21:41:30

Looks like a mandate for the preexisting council. Thanks to everyone for your confidence in us! Welcome to our new members (halcy0n and dertobi123), and I look forward to making us more effective over the next year. -- Thanks, Donnie Donnie Berkholz Developer, Gentoo Linux Blog: http://dberkholz.wordpress.com

Re: Gentoo Council 2008/2009 - RESULTS

Petteri Räty — 2008-07-05T21:16:08

Łukasz Damentko kirjoitti: Thanks to everyone who voted. Regards, Petteri

Re: [2 GLEPs] metadata improvements

Tiziano Müller — 2008-07-05T09:26:43

http://dev.gentoo.org/~dev-zero/glep/glep-new_metadata_elements.html Well, I'd like to point out that this GLEP does not propose any changes to how herds and teams should be organized. For that I've written this: http://dev.gentoo.org/~dev-zero/glep/glep-team.html In the current metastructure you (the gnomies) don't form one team which maintains the packages in the 3 herds gnome{,-mm,-office} but it's rather 3 teams (implicitly defined by the corresponding herds). I know this sounds really nitpicking. Now, to get the things done we have two possibilities: i) do the changes to metadata.xml, herds.xml and create teams.xml (if the council approves the GLEP once completed) and then adjust our metastructure to what the XML schemas (DTD or XSD) describe or ii) change our metastructure to allow teams to be explicitly defined and describe the relationship between devs, teams, herds and projects properly and then change the XML schemas to match the organizational structure.

Re: Re: [2 GLEPs] metadata improvements

Tiziano Müller — 2008-07-05T09:26:29

http://dev.gentoo.org/~dev-zero/glep/glep-new_metadata_elements.html Sure, will do.

Re: [2 GLEPs] metadata improvements

Rémi Cardona — 2008-07-05T08:01:01

The Gnome Team has 3 herds : gnome, gnome-mm and gnome-office. While officially we (us gnomies) are all maintainers of all 3 herds, having 3 herds makes for better housekeeping. And who knows, we could add one or two more herds once this GLEP is approved. Cheers, Rémi

new virtual/texi2dvi

Ulrich Mueller — 2008-07-05T07:52:04

Hi, sys-apps/texinfo installs scripts texi2dvi, texi2pdf etc. which are not functional because the necessary dependencies on TeX are missing. Therefore aballier and myself propose to introduce a new-style virtual which will pull in the necessary dependencies: - texi2dvi script -> sys-apps/texinfo - working TeX installation -> virtual/latex-base - texinfo.tex -> dev-texlive/texlive-texinfo, or one of the monolithic TeX packages See bug 230473 [1] for more details. If there are no major objections, I'll add the new virtual next week. Ulrich [1] https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=230473

Re: Re: [2 GLEPs] metadata improvements

Robin H. Johnson — 2008-07-04T20:18:19

Clarify the GLEP to mention this please? 'gentoo:dev' isn't directly validable. It states element 'dev' in the XML namespace of 'gentoo'. That's why I think that the the project attribute variation would be more suitable, and also really easy for other projects to handle. When they are adding their own metadata.xml files, they can use an XSL transform to add the explicit "project='gentoo'" for their own metadata.xml files.

Re: Re: [2 GLEPs] metadata improvements

Robin H. Johnson — 2008-07-04T20:15:47

Sure. In other places where DTD->XSD migrations have been done, there ARE still changes made to the DTD for new elements/attributes etc.

Re: RFC: 0-day bump requests

Tiziano Müller — 2008-07-04T20:05:25

-> GLEP 46, already approved. Need XSD to implement it properly (see my other comment on).

Re: [2 GLEPs] metadata improvements

Tiziano Müller — 2008-07-04T20:03:10

Very good point, thanks. But the changes of GLEP 46 can't be validated without allowing the "status" attribute for the toplevel maintainer. But I guess we could do it as long as it's documented (and commented) correctly.

Kernel 2.6.25

Christian Faulhammer — 2008-07-04T20:02:48

Hi, above series is going stable soon, so please check that the packages you maintain have a stable version that is ok with .25. If not, file a stabilisation request and make it block bug 230285. Thanks. V-Li

Re: [2 GLEPs] metadata improvements

Tiziano Müller — 2008-07-04T19:58:21

I'd see the herd element as kind of tag which could be used to search for packages (given the corresponding tools). That's another good solution. The possibility I mentioned is rather suitable for others wanting to extend our metadata.xml format (and still be able to validate the content of gentoo:dev against our list of devs).

Re: [2 GLEPs] metadata improvements

Robin H. Johnson — 2008-07-04T19:47:23

1. With the addition of cpp, why do we still need elements? 2. "dev-zero". That's not possible to validate sanely. The following would be better: moodev With the default value of the 'project' attribute being 'gentoo'.

Re: [2 GLEPs] metadata improvements

Robin H. Johnson — 2008-07-04T19:44:48

Don't remove the DTD DOCTYPE line. Leave it there. Let simple tools be able to use the DTD to validate the well-formedness, then upgrade to the XSD to check the actual semantics of the file.

Re: RFC: 0-day bump requests

Robin H. Johnson — 2008-07-04T18:30:56

If used, what about including and reviving the project that scraped Freshmeat and other spots looking for new releases automatically?

Re: [2 GLEPs] metadata improvements

Rémi Cardona — 2008-07-04T17:24:45

+1 on the first GLEP. The second GLEP seems like a much better way of doing things, so +1 as well, but I am no xml expert :) Cheers, Rémi

Re: RFC: 0-day bump requests

Jeroen Roovers — 2008-07-04T17:12:39

On Fri, 04 Jul 2008 00:26:13 +0100 "Tony \"Chainsaw\" Vroon" gentoo.org> wrote: Its' half an idea, in my opinion. We need a process, not just a tag in a file. The tag in the file would tell us how a bug should perhaps be treated, and metadata.xml is an excellent place to concentrate such information, but to tell a bug wrangler (or anyone else) to "do nothing for X units of time" isn't going to work. As for what the tag might tell us, I think leaving bugs on hold for a few days is not the right approach - users (as well as, say, fellow developers and upstreams) shouldn't have to "artificially" wait to make their release announcements and bug wranglers shouldn't be expected to keep these bugs on their own lists in some artificial sense - it just means more work for everyone and more delay in communications between users and developers. I am currently thinking of making a very broad division between bump requests for more or less "independent" packages on the one hand, and packages that (clearly) b