[gentoo-dev] QA issue: No stable skype in Tree

[gentoo-dev] QA issue: No stable skype in Tree

[Gustavo Felisberto]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1706 bytes --]

A little background info: Right now there are three versions of
net-im/skype in the tree:

1 - the 1.2 series (with a stable version)
2- the 1.3 series also with a stable version
3- the 1.4 series with a ~/hardmask version

Also the skype license states that we cannot mirror it's files (this
will be need later)

The 1.4 series will have a version released soon that skype wants to
become the standard stable version, it has many new features and better
audio quality.

I as Gentoo Dev and Skype Betatester was informed that starting on June
19th Skype will no longer provide downloads for the 1.2 and 1.3 version,
and that means that 1.4 will be released some time before. For Gentoo
that means that starting from the 19th users on the stable profile will
not be able to install skype as no files will be available from upstream.

So the thing is, as soon as Skype releases the 1.4 stable version I'm
going to have it in tree and we need to have it tested ASAP on the
stable profile. My thing is with the time between, we will have 5 days
tops or users will not be able to install.

Suggestions:
1- in the 19th remove skype < 1.4 from the tree
2- Make < 1.4 ebuilds "empty" and leave them on the tree and ewarn the
users to use the unstable skype


The first option will trigger portage errors and prompt users to open
bugs until we have a stable 1.4, the second gives us a chance to explain
the issue.

Any alternatives?

-- 
Gustavo Felisberto
(HumpBack)
Web: http://dev.gentoo.org/~humpback
Blog: http://blog.felisberto.net/
------------
It's most certainly GNU/Linux, not Linux. Read more at
http://www.gnu.org/gnu/why-gnu-linux.html .
-------------



[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] QA issue: No stable skype in Tree

[Vlastimil Babka]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Gustavo Felisberto wrote:
> Any alternatives?

Drop it from stable completely, possibly package.mask or move to
overlay. Why should this closed-source rootkit be in stable?

- --
Vlastimil Babka (Caster)
Gentoo/Java
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFGcB4ztbrAj05h3oQRAoVMAKCg9kpnE0wPRI5SCNOh00n2eVXC5ACdE+8B
v1PFWyt5iFbKcdlP8Eq+V1s=
=UGYh
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] QA issue: No stable skype in Tree

[Steev Klimaszewski]

Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> Gustavo Felisberto wrote:
>> Any alternatives?
> 
> Drop it from stable completely, possibly package.mask or move to
> overlay. Why should this closed-source rootkit be in stable?
> 
Said the java dev....


Personally, I'd say if upstream doesn't provide downloads, nothing we
can do, and yeah, suggest to users to try the unstable version until
such a time that it could become stable...
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] QA issue: No stable skype in Tree

[Petteri Räty]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 348 bytes --]

Steev Klimaszewski kirjoitti:
> Vlastimil Babka wrote:
>> Gustavo Felisberto wrote:
>>> Any alternatives?
>> Drop it from stable completely, possibly package.mask or move to
>> overlay. Why should this closed-source rootkit be in stable?
>>
> Said the java dev....
> 
> 

We all use OpenJDK nowadays, don't we :)

Regards,
Petteri


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 252 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] QA issue: No stable skype in Tree

[Marijn Schouten (hkBst)]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> Gustavo Felisberto wrote:
>> Any alternatives?
> 
> Drop it from stable completely, possibly package.mask or move to
> overlay. Why should this closed-source rootkit be in stable?

++

Marijn
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.4 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFGcEklp/VmCx0OL2wRAhxUAKC0MbhuIU5OCtuW9BX72x+AxHEi9ACgov62
I3y4Lqxb6OfulRntvUVIYFQ=
=bRUk
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] QA issue: No stable skype in Tree

[Abhay Kedia]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 375 bytes --]

On Wednesday 13 Jun 2007 10:11:24 pm Vlastimil Babka wrote:
>
> Drop it from stable completely, possibly package.mask or move to
> overlay. Why should this closed-source rootkit be in stable?
>
If closed source is the criteria of getting dropped from stable status or 
tree, than are we dropping netscape-flash, vmware and NVIDIA etc. as well?

-- 
Regards,
Abhay

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] QA issue: No stable skype in Tree

[Luca Barbato]

Abhay Kedia wrote:
> On Wednesday 13 Jun 2007 10:11:24 pm Vlastimil Babka wrote:
>> Drop it from stable completely, possibly package.mask or move to
>> overlay. Why should this closed-source rootkit be in stable?
>>
> If closed source is the criteria of getting dropped from stable status or 
> tree, than are we dropping netscape-flash, vmware and NVIDIA etc. as well?
> 
NO NO NO.

The criteria are:

- if you cannot fix it
- if you cannot workaround it

mask it till you can do something.

being closed source reduces the possibility to workaround the problems
not to mention fix them properly.

lu - cinelerra is opensource, but quite hard to handle, guess what
happened...

-- 

Luca Barbato

Gentoo/linux Gentoo/PPC
http://dev.gentoo.org/~lu_zero
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] QA issue: No stable skype in Tree

[Vlastimil Babka]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Abhay Kedia wrote:
> On Wednesday 13 Jun 2007 10:11:24 pm Vlastimil Babka wrote:
>> Drop it from stable completely, possibly package.mask or move to
>> overlay. Why should this closed-source rootkit be in stable?
>>
> If closed source is the criteria of getting dropped from stable status or 
> tree, than are we dropping netscape-flash, vmware and NVIDIA etc. as well?
> 

Nah it's not the only criteria, the focus is on the "rootkit" :) part [1]

Also, ion3 was IIRC removed recently also for upstream trying to force
new versions against our stable policy. And that was opensource.
But maybe Skype is not so pressing to upgrade, just doesn't provide
distfiles anymore. Then maybe we don't have to obey, but still it's
really questionable if it should be marked stable at all.

And yeah I'm a Java dev but at least Java is now open (I admit that the
stable VM's in tree are not, yet) and I don't see that coming for Skype.
Also Java (and your examples of closed source stuff) are not infamous
for the bad stuff mentioned above.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skype#Criticisms [2]
[2] Oh noes I cited wikipedia, unreliable source of arbitrary information.

- --
Vlastimil Babka (Caster)
Gentoo/Java
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFGcFKStbrAj05h3oQRArJMAJ9dAajoI7l1tde7/FvKzrubw0TCmgCfYrNj
dCiD3UU7fiGY0YRFox/KXfw=
=96ut
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] QA issue: No stable skype in Tree

[Kent Fredric]

On 6/14/07, Vlastimil Babka <caster@gentoo.org> wrote:
> Also, ion3 was IIRC removed recently also for upstream trying to force
> new versions against our stable policy. And that was opensource.

[U] x11-wm/ion3
     Available versions:  (~)20060326 (~)20061223 (~)20070318-r2 (~)20070506-r1
{doc ion3-voidupstreamsupport-truetype unicode xinerama}

*waves finger at humourously* didn't even eix? .. or do i need to
sync again on this slow connection to witness insanity of pain :(

> But maybe Skype is not so pressing to upgrade, just doesn't provide
> distfiles anymore. Then maybe we don't have to obey, but still it's
> really questionable if it should be marked stable at all.
>
> And yeah I'm a Java dev but at least Java is now open (I admit that the
> stable VM's in tree are not, yet) and I don't see that coming for Skype.
> Also Java (and your examples of closed source stuff) are not infamous
> for the bad stuff mentioned above.
>
> [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skype#Criticisms [2][3]
> [2] Oh noes I cited wikipedia, unreliable source of arbitrary information.

[3] Oh noes, you cited ( essentially ) open-source arbitrary information :P



> - --
> Vlastimil Babka (Caster)
> Gentoo/Java
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
>
> iD8DBQFGcFKStbrAj05h3oQRArJMAJ9dAajoI7l1tde7/FvKzrubw0TCmgCfYrNj
> dCiD3UU7fiGY0YRFox/KXfw=
> =96ut
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> --
> gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
>
>


-- 
Kent
ruby -e '[1, 2, 4, 7, 0, 9, 5, 8, 3, 10, 11, 6, 12, 13].each{|x|
print "enNOSPicAMreil kdrtf@gma.com"[(2*x)..(2*x+1)]}'
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] QA issue: No stable skype in Tree

[Vlastimil Babka]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Kent Fredric wrote:
> On 6/14/07, Vlastimil Babka <caster@gentoo.org> wrote:
>> Also, ion3 was IIRC removed recently also for upstream trying to force
>> new versions against our stable policy. And that was opensource.
> 
> [U] x11-wm/ion3
>     Available versions:  (~)20060326 (~)20061223 (~)20070318-r2
> (~)20070506-r1
> {doc ion3-voidupstreamsupport-truetype unicode xinerama}
> 
> *waves finger at humourously* didn't even eix? .. or do i need to
> sync again on this slow connection to witness insanity of pain :(

Yes you need to sync :)
http://sources.gentoo.org/viewcvs.py/gentoo-x86/x11-wm/ion3/ChangeLog?hideattic=0&rev=1.56&view=log
- --
Vlastimil Babka (Caster)
Gentoo/Java
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFGcFcWtbrAj05h3oQRAhipAJ93T+PRRsN5Zdu6r+h22Ywgn1OGsACghlX9
1eB5gqvrc1n5Il3KLJH4bjQ=
=NAPB
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] QA issue: No stable skype in Tree

[Abhay Kedia]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1252 bytes --]

On Thursday 14 Jun 2007 1:54:51 am Vlastimil Babka wrote:
>
> But maybe Skype is not so pressing to upgrade, just doesn't provide
> distfiles anymore. Then maybe we don't have to obey, but still it's
> really questionable if it should be marked stable at all.
>
Then don't mark it stable but dropping it from the tree altogether? That is 
taking it a bit too far imho.

>
> And yeah I'm a Java dev but at least Java is now open (I admit that the
> stable VM's in tree are not, yet) and I don't see that coming for Skype.
> Also Java (and your examples of closed source stuff) are not infamous
> for the bad stuff mentioned above.
>
Has any one done the same kind of analysis on all the closed source 
applications we have in tree? If we take an alternate view on the wikipedia 
link then it can be said that it is just an attempt for spreading FUD while 
trying to pimp Open Source alternatives?

Don't get me wrong...I love open source and that is one of the reasons why I 
have been using GNU/Linux for many years but acting paranoid and dropping 
popular packages from tree is not something, I as a common user, would like 
to see. This is the only reason I am poking my nose in the workings of devs.

-- 
Regards,
Abhay

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] QA issue: No stable skype in Tree

[Kent Fredric]

On 6/14/07, Abhay Kedia <abhay.ilugd@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thursday 14 Jun 2007 1:54:51 am Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> >
> > But maybe Skype is not so pressing to upgrade, just doesn't provide
> > distfiles anymore. Then maybe we don't have to obey, but still it's
> > really questionable if it should be marked stable at all.
> >
> Then don't mark it stable but dropping it from the tree altogether? That is
> taking it a bit too far imho.
>
> >
> > And yeah I'm a Java dev but at least Java is now open (I admit that the
> > stable VM's in tree are not, yet) and I don't see that coming for Skype.
> > Also Java (and your examples of closed source stuff) are not infamous
> > for the bad stuff mentioned above.
> >
> Has any one done the same kind of analysis on all the closed source
> applications we have in tree? If we take an alternate view on the wikipedia
> link then it can be said that it is just an attempt for spreading FUD while
> trying to pimp Open Source alternatives?
>
> Don't get me wrong...I love open source and that is one of the reasons why I
> have been using GNU/Linux for many years but acting paranoid and dropping
> popular packages from tree is not something, I as a common user, would like
> to see. This is the only reason I am poking my nose in the workings of devs.
>

Indeed, if you were to drop all non-opensource _games_ from the tree
you'd loose most, if not all of your popular mainstream games, and
we'd have become another debian ;), and one of the big 'gotchas' i've
loathed about debian for many years is their "zomg!..its not 'free'!..
extradite it to the abyss!" , and thus for many years MP3 support and
many other applications were just the same as red hat, ... either
broken, limited functionality due to 'freeness' , or downright missing
altogether. ( anyone remember the pre-sun-java-in-debian days? )

I love free software as much as the next guy, but sometimes  you want
to use something non-free, regardless of status, and regardless of how
much it sucks ;)

*ducks*

Gentoo is about choices, one of those choices is the choice to install
closed-source software, or software with well documented evils, the
best thing we can do is warn users what they're getting themselves
into and let them make an informed decision IMO.



-- 
Kent
ruby -e '[1, 2, 4, 7, 0, 9, 5, 8, 3, 10, 11, 6, 12, 13].each{|x|
print "enNOSPicAMreil kdrtf@gma.com"[(2*x)..(2*x+1)]}'
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

[gentoo-dev] Keeping closed source pkgs (Was: Re: QA issue: No stable skype in Tree)

[Steve Long]

Kent Fredric wrote:
> Gentoo is about choices, one of those choices is the choice to install
> closed-source software, or software with well documented evils, the
> best thing we can do is warn users what they're getting themselves
> into and let them make an informed decision IMO.
> 
Sure, so why is ion3 gone again? That was good software, with total source
availability. Consistency matters if Gentoo is to be taken seriously imo.

As for having to run skype, VOIP services are now typically of sufficient
quality that users are not forced to use it.

If skype are arbitrarily forcing the distro to upgrade to their schedule in
such an inconvenient manner, how will they carry on in the future? It seems
to me Gentoo has even more to lose from allowing this bad behaviour on the
part of upstream. Marking it unstable seems the best option, since a user
would have to make a concerted effort to install what may well be a
backdoor, for all we know.

My 2p.


-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Keeping closed source pkgs (Was: Re: QA issue: No stable skype in Tree)

[Philip Webb]

070614 Steve Long wrote:
> why is ion3 gone again?
> That was good software, with total source availability.

Licensing.  Look in the archive for the gruesome details.

-- 
========================,,============================================
SUPPORT     ___________//___,  Philip Webb : purslow@chass.utoronto.ca
ELECTRIC   /] [] [] [] [] []|  Centre for Urban & Community Studies
TRANSIT    `-O----------O---'  University of Toronto
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] QA issue: No stable skype in Tree

[Luca Barbato]

Abhay Kedia wrote:
> Don't get me wrong...I love open source and that is one of the reasons why I 
> have been using GNU/Linux for many years but acting paranoid and dropping 
> popular packages from tree is not something, I as a common user, would like 
> to see. This is the only reason I am poking my nose in the workings of devs.

If is broken we need to fix it, if is unfixable we HAVE to drop/p.mask it.

lu

-- 

Luca Barbato

Gentoo/linux Gentoo/PPC
http://dev.gentoo.org/~lu_zero
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] QA issue: No stable skype in Tree

[Abhay Kedia]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 516 bytes --]

On Thursday 14 Jun 2007 8:18:27 pm Luca Barbato wrote:
>
> If is broken we need to fix it, if is unfixable we HAVE to drop/p.mask it.
>
...but then that remains true for open source programs as well. XMMS is a 
wonderful example of the same. I saw alsaplayer going out and then in again 
for the same reason. Why pin point on the "closed source" thing?

Also, is Skype really becoming unfixable? I see only 3 open bugs in my search 
on bugzilla, none of which are security related.

-- 
Regards,
Abhay

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] QA issue: No stable skype in Tree

[Doug Goldstein]

Abhay Kedia wrote:
> On Thursday 14 Jun 2007 8:18:27 pm Luca Barbato wrote:
>   
>> If is broken we need to fix it, if is unfixable we HAVE to drop/p.mask it.
>>
>>     
> ...but then that remains true for open source programs as well. XMMS is a 
> wonderful example of the same. I saw alsaplayer going out and then in again 
> for the same reason. Why pin point on the "closed source" thing?
>
> Also, is Skype really becoming unfixable? I see only 3 open bugs in my search 
> on bugzilla, none of which are security related.
>
>   
Please ensure you read the entire thread to get a grasp on the issues at
hand before replying.
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] QA issue: No stable skype in Tree

[Abhay Kedia]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 471 bytes --]

On Friday 15 Jun 2007 3:15:28 am Doug Goldstein wrote:
>
> Please ensure you read the entire thread to get a grasp on the issues at
> hand before replying.
>
I am involved in this thread since its very beginning but looks like I am not 
being able to understand the problems. Would you please be kind enough to 
enumerate the issues discussed in this thread that warrant complete removal 
of Skype (rather than masking it) from the tree?

-- 
Regards,
Abhay

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] QA issue: No stable skype in Tree

[Jan Kundrát]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1073 bytes --]

Abhay Kedia wrote:
> I am involved in this thread since its very beginning but looks like I am not 
> being able to understand the problems. Would you please be kind enough to 
> enumerate the issues discussed in this thread that warrant complete removal 
> of Skype (rather than masking it) from the tree?

We have a policy that ebuilds should be in the tree for at least 30 days
before we mark them stable. Skype uses funny license that forbids us to
mirror the "installer file". Skype wants to remove that older file from
their mirrors in less than 30 days after they release a new version.

Current Gentoo "stable" would be unistallable. New version can't be
marked as stable because it won't have been properly tested yet.

Users will see that stuff that used to work for them is broken now.
That's a regression that could have been avoided if Skype wasn't marked
stable.

It could be interesting to evaluate a new rule "fetch/mirror restricted
package can't be marked stable" :).

Cheers,
-jkt

-- 
cd /local/pub && more beer > /dev/mouth


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 252 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] QA issue: No stable skype in Tree

[Vlastimil Babka]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Jan Kundrát wrote:
> Abhay Kedia wrote:
>> I am involved in this thread since its very beginning but looks like I am not 
>> being able to understand the problems. Would you please be kind enough to 
>> enumerate the issues discussed in this thread that warrant complete removal 
>> of Skype (rather than masking it) from the tree?
> 
> We have a policy that ebuilds should be in the tree for at least 30 days
> before we mark them stable. Skype uses funny license that forbids us to
> mirror the "installer file". Skype wants to remove that older file from
> their mirrors in less than 30 days after they release a new version.
> 
> Current Gentoo "stable" would be unistallable. New version can't be
> marked as stable because it won't have been properly tested yet.
> 
> Users will see that stuff that used to work for them is broken now.
> That's a regression that could have been avoided if Skype wasn't marked
> stable.
> 
> It could be interesting to evaluate a new rule "fetch/mirror restricted
> package can't be marked stable" :).

I believe common sense and per-package experience is better than such
general rules :)

- --
Vlastimil Babka (Caster)
Gentoo/Java
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFGco4HtbrAj05h3oQRAi+rAJ92CyJ80p8JXWpIM1mJCnMrCFSXQQCgn6Ej
JSWpRQFMvCCL6LM3MR9FEjQ=
=sc5A
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] QA issue: No stable skype in Tree

[Richard Freeman]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 722 bytes --]

Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> Jan Kundrát wrote:
>>
>> It could be interesting to evaluate a new rule "fetch/mirror restricted
>> package can't be marked stable" :).
> 
> I believe common sense and per-package experience is better than such
> general rules :)
> 

Agreed, although I think most people would agree with the principle 
being alluded to.  I don't think many people had issues with making 
users fetch their java files, as they generally had stable URLs and were 
hosted for a long time.  The real issue is with software where old 
versions are completely deprecated a day after something newer is 
available.  Many games fall into this zone, and as a result they rarely 
become stable packages.


[-- Attachment #2: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature --]
[-- Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature, Size: 3875 bytes --]

[gentoo-dev] Re: QA issue: No stable skype in Tree

[Steve Long]

Richard Freeman wrote:
> Agreed, although I think most people would agree with the principle
> being alluded to.  I don't think many people had issues with making
> users fetch their java files, as they generally had stable URLs and were
> hosted for a long time.  The real issue is with software where old
> versions are completely deprecated a day after something newer is
> available.  Many games fall into this zone, and as a result they rarely
> become stable packages.
>
Good point; it seems to me to imply that this isn't in fact a QA issue, but
a license one. In which case, it comes down to: if a provider wants their
software in Gentoo, they either accept it will be forever unstable, or
forget about their nonsensical license terms.

As usual, this is only my opinion. I believe skype in fact make money from
their software being in Gentoo? I really cannot understand why there is
more sympathy for their position and so little for the ion3 author (apart
from his insane mail to arch of course ;) who afaict hasn't made a lot from
his work, apart from the odd paypal donation, which many users want to
keep. Or is it that Skype are a big company so we have to kowtow? /me is
well-confused.

(This is not for games, where practical consideration means updates are
needed quickly, and are thus usually kept in ~ as noted. Although, using
one of tuomov's ideas could change that too.. teh sigh.)


-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: QA issue: No stable skype in Tree

[Chris Gianelloni]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1842 bytes --]

On Sun, 2007-06-17 at 20:05 +0100, Steve Long wrote:
> keep. Or is it that Skype are a big company so we have to kowtow? /me is
> well-confused.

It has nothing to do with money or the company, and everything to do
with the number of people using it.  While ion3 is uncommonly used,
skype is much more popular.  Also, the only real "problem" here is
actually our own policy.  There's nothing keeping the new skype from
being added to the tree, whereas the new licensing for ion3 makes it
pretty much impossible, masked or not.

> (This is not for games, where practical consideration means updates are
> needed quickly, and are thus usually kept in ~ as noted. Although, using
> one of tuomov's ideas could change that too.. teh sigh.)

In this case, I would put skype on par with games like eternal lands or
other multiplayer-only games that need quick updates.  Yes, older skype
is still usable for people that have it installed, but for new users,
they'll need a newer version.

Also, remember that stabilization is *supposed* to be about the
stabilization of the *ebuild* and not the *package* itself.  Sure, we
also use the stability of the package to determine if we want to
stabilize an ebuild, but in the case of binary-only closed-source
packages, there's nothing we can do if something is broken, anyway, so
its stabilization status doesn't matter nearly as much.  If the ebuild
works fine, the package can be stable (or not) and there's nothing we
can do about the actual quality of the package.  Having a working and
usable package, in this case, is more important than some policy which
is really designed for open source software.

-- 
Chris Gianelloni
Release Engineering Strategic Lead
Alpha/AMD64/x86 Architecture Teams
Games Developer/Council Member/Foundation Trustee
Gentoo Foundation

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

[gentoo-dev] Determining ebuild stability and the 30 day suggestion (was: QA issue: No stable skype in Tree)

[Mart Raudsepp]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1165 bytes --]

Hey,

On E, 2007-06-18 at 11:34 -0700, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> Also, remember that stabilization is *supposed* to be about the
> stabilization of the *ebuild* and not the *package* itself. 

This sentence made me personally start looking at the policy in a
different way as far as stabilization and waiting for a set amount of
days is concerned.

Does this mean that, when for example there are pure bug fix releases in
GNOME packages with no ebuild changes whatsoever, then we can consider,
without hesitation so much, to ask stabilization of these much sooner
than 30 days? Or the new version just has updated translations, which is
cool too (unless it's a very long building package) to get into the
hands of our world-wide users earlier with no practical chance of
breakage.

Right now it is a rare exception to ask stabilization earlier than 30
days, but should we do that more often for cases like I made an example
of (upstream following a strict bug-fixes/translations only rule as well
for the versions in question)?


-- 
Mart Raudsepp
Gentoo Developer
Mail: leio@gentoo.org
Weblog: http://planet.gentoo.org/developers/leio

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Determining ebuild stability and the 30 day suggestion

[Luis Francisco Araujo]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Mart Raudsepp wrote:
> Hey,
> 
> On E, 2007-06-18 at 11:34 -0700, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
>> Also, remember that stabilization is *supposed* to be about the
>> stabilization of the *ebuild* and not the *package* itself. 
> 
> This sentence made me personally start looking at the policy in a
> different way as far as stabilization and waiting for a set amount of
> days is concerned.
> 
> Does this mean that, when for example there are pure bug fix releases in
> GNOME packages with no ebuild changes whatsoever, then we can consider,
> without hesitation so much, to ask stabilization of these much sooner
> than 30 days? Or the new version just has updated translations, which is
> cool too (unless it's a very long building package) to get into the
> hands of our world-wide users earlier with no practical chance of
> breakage.
> 
> Right now it is a rare exception to ask stabilization earlier than 30
> days, but should we do that more often for cases like I made an example
> of (upstream following a strict bug-fixes/translations only rule as well
> for the versions in question)?
> 
> 

I use to ask for stabilization of the new version of a package
immediately if it is supposed to fix an *important* security problem in
the package, so that way we spread as soon as possible the new fix to
our users.

Not sure if this is documented somewhere as an exception to the 30 days
rule, but i have not had problems so far and the stabilization teams
have been willing to help me in such a cases.

Regards,

- --

Luis F. Araujo "araujo at gentoo.org"
Gentoo Linux

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.4 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFGd15QaTNpke9pJcURAiIeAJ9IP9To0xwSU86eWyjOO+N6WQCQjwCeIXxG
+wFGE1phct8Dtzg/0P33+Dk=
=tcgj
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Determining ebuild stability and the 30 day suggestion

[Sune Kloppenborg Jeppesen]

On Tuesday 19 June 2007 06:40, Luis Francisco Araujo wrote:
> I use to ask for stabilization of the new version of a package
> immediately if it is supposed to fix an *important* security problem in
> the package, so that way we spread as soon as possible the new fix to
> our users.
>
> Not sure if this is documented somewhere as an exception to the 30 days
> rule, but i have not had problems so far and the stabilization teams
> have been willing to help me in such a cases.

We (the security team) ask for stabilization sooner than 30 days according to 
our policy¹. AFAIR it has only resulted in a few glitches now and then. When 
they happen they should be assigned to us to fix any regression.

¹ http://www.gentoo.org/security/en/vulnerability-policy.xml
-- 
Sune Kloppenborg Jeppesen
Gentoo Linux Security Team
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Determining ebuild stability and the 30 day suggestion (was: QA issue: No stable skype in Tree)

[Chris Gianelloni]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2847 bytes --]

On Tue, 2007-06-19 at 05:32 +0300, Mart Raudsepp wrote:
> Hey,
> 
> On E, 2007-06-18 at 11:34 -0700, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> > Also, remember that stabilization is *supposed* to be about the
> > stabilization of the *ebuild* and not the *package* itself. 
> 
> This sentence made me personally start looking at the policy in a
> different way as far as stabilization and waiting for a set amount of
> days is concerned.
> 
> Does this mean that, when for example there are pure bug fix releases in
> GNOME packages with no ebuild changes whatsoever, then we can consider,
> without hesitation so much, to ask stabilization of these much sooner
> than 30 days? Or the new version just has updated translations, which is
> cool too (unless it's a very long building package) to get into the
> hands of our world-wide users earlier with no practical chance of
> breakage.

Honestly, yes.  It means exactly that.  If you, as the maintainer, feel
that it can go stable sooner, then ask for it.  Just remember that in
the end, it is you that is responsible for the package and to your
users, so use your best judgement.  I wouldn't recommend this for a
large number of packages, but, as you said, if it were a few updated
translations or something else that is fairly trivial, I see no real
reason to wait some predetermined amount of time for what is really no
more than a simple data change.

> Right now it is a rare exception to ask stabilization earlier than 30
> days, but should we do that more often for cases like I made an example
> of (upstream following a strict bug-fixes/translations only rule as well
> for the versions in question)?

Again, it is really up to you, as the maintainer.  I have asked for
stabilization of packages in the past very quickly if the changes were
quite minor.  There have been a couple cases where the only change from
upstream was applying the patches we were already applying in the tree
to the official release and pushing out a new tarball.  Think of it like
this.  You have foo-0.4.1 in the tree.  You find a couple bugs, patch
them up, and send them to upstream.  You make foo-0.4.1-r1 with your
patches, and it eventually becomes stable.  Now, upstream makes
foo-0.4.2, which is just your patches applied to 0.4.1 and the version
number bumped.  How much additional testing do you think that this
needs?  After all, the code is the same (minus the version stamp... ;p)
so there's nothing new to test.

This is why the discretion is left up to the maintainer.  We expect the
maintainer to be aware of things like this and act accordingly, using
their own judgement and (un)common sense.

-- 
Chris Gianelloni
Release Engineering Strategic Lead
Alpha/AMD64/x86 Architecture Teams
Games Developer/Council Member/Foundation Trustee
Gentoo Foundation

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] QA issue: No stable skype in Tree

[Daniel Gryniewicz]

On Wed, 2007-06-13 at 17:36 +0100, Gustavo Felisberto wrote:
> A little background info: Right now there are three versions of
> net-im/skype in the tree:
> 
> 1 - the 1.2 series (with a stable version)
> 2- the 1.3 series also with a stable version
> 3- the 1.4 series with a ~/hardmask version
> 
> Also the skype license states that we cannot mirror it's files (this
> will be need later)
> 
> The 1.4 series will have a version released soon that skype wants to
> become the standard stable version, it has many new features and better
> audio quality.
> 
<snip>
> Suggestions:
> 1- in the 19th remove skype < 1.4 from the tree
> 2- Make < 1.4 ebuilds "empty" and leave them on the tree and ewarn the
> users to use the unstable skype
> 
> 
> The first option will trigger portage errors and prompt users to open
> bugs until we have a stable 1.4, the second gives us a chance to explain
> the issue.
> 
> Any alternatives?
> 

3. Mask < 1.4 on the 19th with a descriptive message.  That should have
the effect of 1 and 2, without breaking anything necessarily?

Sounds like we have a lose-lose situation here, and the best we can do
is make it not horrible.

Daniel

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] QA issue: No stable skype in Tree

[George Shapovalov]

Wednesday, 13. June 2007, Daniel Gryniewicz Ви написали:
> > The first option will trigger portage errors and prompt users to open
> > bugs until we have a stable 1.4, the second gives us a chance to explain
> > the issue.
> >
> > Any alternatives?
>
> 3. Mask < 1.4 on the 19th with a descriptive message.  That should have
> the effect of 1 and 2, without breaking anything necessarily?
I'd say mask < 1. as soon as anything 1.4 hits the tree (even p-masekd). This 
way we warn users but also give them a chance to save a local copy of their 
favorite version. *We* cannot mirror sources, but as I understand, nothing 
prohibits end users from saving their stuff locally. Is this right?

Yes, this would be against any policy we have, but then the whole situation is 
kind of against anything that was ever considered when policies were 
developed..

George
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] QA issue: No stable skype in Tree

[Vlastimil Babka]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

George Shapovalov wrote:
> Wednesday, 13. June 2007, Daniel Gryniewicz Ви написали:
>>> The first option will trigger portage errors and prompt users to open
>>> bugs until we have a stable 1.4, the second gives us a chance to explain
>>> the issue.
>>>
>>> Any alternatives?
>> 3. Mask < 1.4 on the 19th with a descriptive message.  That should have
>> the effect of 1 and 2, without breaking anything necessarily?
> I'd say mask < 1. as soon as anything 1.4 hits the tree (even p-masekd). This 
> way we warn users but also give them a chance to save a local copy of their 
> favorite version. *We* cannot mirror sources, but as I understand, nothing 
> prohibits end users from saving their stuff locally. Is this right?

This will show warnings about "all versions masked or removed" for
stable users that already installed <1.4 version before, and cause
confusion.

Maybe you could (either when final 1.4 hits ~arch or on 19th) change the
RESTRICT="mirror" to RESTRICT="fetch" in <1.4 and explain the situation
in pkg_nofetch() via einfo, telling users they either find the distfile
themselves (might have it on another computer, or get from a friend or
just maybe have luck with google) or use the ~arch 1.4. This won't
affect users that already have <1.4 installed, or just have the distfile.
- --
Vlastimil Babka (Caster)
Gentoo/Java
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFGcDdAtbrAj05h3oQRAilcAJ0flzyZXqhYVpNyD8287fbyEBdzrACgikyT
lP540mMlV8t/zcFq6Ixkh6o=
=qKJI
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] QA issue: No stable skype in Tree

[Jean-Marc Hengen]

Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> Maybe you could (either when final 1.4 hits ~arch or on 19th) change the
> RESTRICT="mirror" to RESTRICT="fetch" in <1.4 and explain the situation
> in pkg_nofetch() via einfo, telling users they either find the distfile
> themselves (might have it on another computer, or get from a friend or
> just maybe have luck with google) or use the ~arch 1.4. This won't
> affect users that already have <1.4 installed, or just have the distfile.

As a current user of skype, I like that idea.

Greetings,
Jean-Marc Hengen
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] QA issue: No stable skype in Tree

[Josh Sled]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 423 bytes --]


Gustavo Felisberto <humpback@gentoo.org> writes:

> Any alternatives?

Ask Skype/upstream to change their behavior?  For either the installer
mirroring or historical-version removal date.

If they're going through the trouble of producing a linux version, they
probably understand how distros work, and may be sympathetic.

-- 
...jsled
http://asynchronous.org/ - a=jsled; b=asynchronous.org; echo ${a}@${b}

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 188 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] QA issue: No stable skype in Tree

[_JusSx_]

On Wed, Jun 13, 2007 at 05:36:22PM +0100, Gustavo Felisberto wrote:
> A little background info: Right now there are three versions of
> net-im/skype in the tree:
> 
> 1 - the 1.2 series (with a stable version)
> 2- the 1.3 series also with a stable version
> 3- the 1.4 series with a ~/hardmask version
> 
> Also the skype license states that we cannot mirror it's files (this
> will be need later)
> 
> The 1.4 series will have a version released soon that skype wants to
> become the standard stable version, it has many new features and better
> audio quality.
> 
> I as Gentoo Dev and Skype Betatester was informed that starting on June
> 19th Skype will no longer provide downloads for the 1.2 and 1.3 version,
> and that means that 1.4 will be released some time before. For Gentoo
> that means that starting from the 19th users on the stable profile will
> not be able to install skype as no files will be available from upstream.
> 
> So the thing is, as soon as Skype releases the 1.4 stable version I'm
> going to have it in tree and we need to have it tested ASAP on the
> stable profile. My thing is with the time between, we will have 5 days
> tops or users will not be able to install.
> 
> Suggestions:
> 1- in the 19th remove skype < 1.4 from the tree
> 2- Make < 1.4 ebuilds "empty" and leave them on the tree and ewarn the
> users to use the unstable skype
> 
> 
> The first option will trigger portage errors and prompt users to open
> bugs until we have a stable 1.4, the second gives us a chance to explain
> the issue.
> 
> Any alternatives?
> 
> -- 
> Gustavo Felisberto
> (HumpBack)
> Web: http://dev.gentoo.org/~humpback
> Blog: http://blog.felisberto.net/
> ------------
> It's most certainly GNU/Linux, not Linux. Read more at
> http://www.gnu.org/gnu/why-gnu-linux.html .
> -------------
> 
> 
Let's remove it from portage. why should we use it? I run it for a bit I
can say it's awful... it is closed-source, is not it? so I think it's
better not to install it...



-- 
Linux is only free if your time has no value

Please avoid sending me Word or PowerPoint attachments.
See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] QA issue: No stable skype in Tree

[Josh Saddler]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2234 bytes --]

_JusSx_ wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 13, 2007 at 05:36:22PM +0100, Gustavo Felisberto wrote:
>> A little background info: Right now there are three versions of
>> net-im/skype in the tree:
>>
>> 1 - the 1.2 series (with a stable version)
>> 2- the 1.3 series also with a stable version
>> 3- the 1.4 series with a ~/hardmask version
>>
>> Also the skype license states that we cannot mirror it's files (this
>> will be need later)
>>
>> The 1.4 series will have a version released soon that skype wants to
>> become the standard stable version, it has many new features and bette=
r
>> audio quality.
>>
>> I as Gentoo Dev and Skype Betatester was informed that starting on Jun=
e
>> 19th Skype will no longer provide downloads for the 1.2 and 1.3 versio=
n,
>> and that means that 1.4 will be released some time before. For Gentoo
>> that means that starting from the 19th users on the stable profile wil=
l
>> not be able to install skype as no files will be available from upstre=
am.
>>
>> So the thing is, as soon as Skype releases the 1.4 stable version I'm
>> going to have it in tree and we need to have it tested ASAP on the
>> stable profile. My thing is with the time between, we will have 5 days=

>> tops or users will not be able to install.
>>
>> Suggestions:
>> 1- in the 19th remove skype < 1.4 from the tree
>> 2- Make < 1.4 ebuilds "empty" and leave them on the tree and ewarn the=

>> users to use the unstable skype
>>
>>
>> The first option will trigger portage errors and prompt users to open
>> bugs until we have a stable 1.4, the second gives us a chance to expla=
in
>> the issue.
>>
>> Any alternatives?
>>
>> --=20
>> Gustavo Felisberto
>> (HumpBack)
>> Web: http://dev.gentoo.org/~humpback
>> Blog: http://blog.felisberto.net/
>> ------------
>> It's most certainly GNU/Linux, not Linux. Read more at
>> http://www.gnu.org/gnu/why-gnu-linux.html .
>> -------------
>>
>>
> Let's remove it from portage. why should we use it? I run it for a bit =
I
> can say it's awful... it is closed-source, is not it? so I think it's
> better not to install it...

As we've established earlier, being closed-source is not sufficient
reason for removing any program from Portage; you should have read the
rest of the thread.



[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

[gentoo-dev] Re: QA issue: No stable skype in Tree

[Steve Long]

Josh Saddler wrote:
> As we've established earlier, being closed-source is not sufficient
> reason for removing any program from Portage; you should have read the
> rest of the thread.

No but fascist license conditions are; you should have read the ion3
discussion.

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

[gentoo-dev] Re: QA issue: No stable skype in Tree

[Duncan]

Steve Long <slong@rathaus.eclipse.co.uk> posted
f540sd$m5a$2@sea.gmane.org, excerpted below, on  Sun, 17 Jun 2007 20:08:13
+0100:

> Josh Saddler wrote:
>> As we've established earlier, being closed-source is not sufficient
>> reason for removing any program from Portage; you should have read the
>> rest of the thread.
> 
> No but fascist license conditions are; you should have read the ion3
> discussion.

Personal feelings about fascist licenses aside (sig says it well enough), 
it seems to me the resolution is pretty much settled, so there's little 
more to discuss.

1) Given the current situation, permanent unstable would seem the best 
possible Gentoo could do.  How could one sanely argue for stable?

2) Someone mentioned actually, you know, /asking/ them!  <g>  We'll never 
know if they'll change until we do.

3) Beyond that, it would seem to be up to the package maintainer.  If he 
wishes to ask, and gets a positive response, great.  If not, well, is it 
worth it to him to continue dealing with it in the tree as permanently 
unstable?  There doesn't seem to be any huge Gentoo policy conflict in it 
remaining in the tree as long as there's a maintainer wishing to do the 
dirty work on it, as long as /is/ clearly permanently unstable.  If 
upstream won't work with us, well, I guess users have yet another use for 
package.keywords, if they wish to continue using it.  The Gentoo policy 
should be clear enough (and can be made clearer with appropriate ewarn or 
the like messages, if necessary).

4) Another alternative would be to remove it from the tree, but maintain 
it in the official VoIP overlay.  Again, if they maintainer wishes, I 
don't see a policy preventing that, either.

5) Again, beyond the permanent unstable if it /does/ remain in the tree, 
it's primarily up to the maintainer.  Thus, if they don't wish to handle 
it, they can drop it, and if no one else does either, well, it'll be out 
of the tree /and/ official overlay.  Someone could then put in in an 
unofficial overlay, or possibly it could go in Sunrise or other 
supervised user contributed overlay.*

So at this point it's pretty much up to the maintainer.  Why are the rest 
of us still discussing it?
___
* Did the discussion on a sunset overlay or the equivalent ever go 
anywhere, or did that get merged into sunrise, or... ?

-- 
Duncan - List replies preferred.   No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you use the program, he is your master."  Richard Stallman

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: QA issue: No stable skype in Tree

[Chris Gianelloni]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 839 bytes --]

On Mon, 2007-06-18 at 08:58 +0000, Duncan wrote:
> So at this point it's pretty much up to the maintainer.  Why are the rest 
> of us still discussing it?

Because, like everything else, too many people on this list have to get
in the last word.

Also, there's nothing in our policy that really keeps skype from going
stable, as I see it.  It doesn't *have* to remain in testing, it would
just end up more convenient for the maintainer that way, and if he
decides to go that route, I fully support it, even though it does mean
dropping stable KEYWORDS on a package in the tree (which *is* against
policy and I suspect the reason this discussion was started).

-- 
Chris Gianelloni
Release Engineering Strategic Lead
Alpha/AMD64/x86 Architecture Teams
Games Developer/Council Member/Foundation Trustee
Gentoo Foundation

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

[gentoo-dev] Re: QA issue: No stable skype in Tree

[Duncan]

Chris Gianelloni <wolf31o2@gentoo.org> posted
1182192651.14981.43.camel@workbox.quova.com, excerpted below, on  Mon, 18
Jun 2007 11:50:51 -0700:

> On Mon, 2007-06-18 at 08:58 +0000, Duncan wrote:
>> So at this point it's pretty much up to the maintainer.  Why are the
>> rest of us still discussing it?
> 
> Because, like everything else, too many people on this list have to get
> in the last word.
> 
> Also, there's nothing in our policy that really keeps skype from going
> stable, as I see it.  It doesn't *have* to remain in testing, it would
> just end up more convenient for the maintainer that way, and if he
> decides to go that route, I fully support it, even though it does mean
> dropping stable KEYWORDS on a package in the tree (which *is* against
> policy and I suspect the reason this discussion was started).

Voice of clarity and reason.  Thanks.  =8^)

-- 
Duncan - List replies preferred.   No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you use the program, he is your master."  Richard Stallman

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] QA issue: No stable skype in Tree

[Stephen Bennett]

On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 16:06:32 +0200
_JusSx_ <jussx0@yahoo.it> wrote:

> Let's remove it from portage. why should we use it? I run it for a
> bit I can say it's awful... it is closed-source, is not it? so I
> think it's better not to install it...

Not everyone sees that as a reason not to use a potentially useful
piece of software. We're not debian.
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

[gentoo-dev] Re: QA issue: No stable skype in Tree

[Steve Long]

Stephen Bennett wrote:
> Not everyone sees that as a reason not to use a potentially useful
> piece of software. We're not debian.

Could you clarify whether this is indeed a Gentoo QA issue, or in fact a
licensing issue? If the latter case, this discussion should prob'y go to
the new -project ml if and when, or indeed the user forums.

As for potentially useful, so was Internet Explorer, last time I looked at
what you could do with its Object Model. I still ain't voting to bring it
to Gentoo.. ;)


-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: QA issue: No stable skype in Tree

[Steev Klimaszewski]

Steve Long wrote:
> Stephen Bennett wrote:
>> Not everyone sees that as a reason not to use a potentially useful
>> piece of software. We're not debian.
> 
> Could you clarify whether this is indeed a Gentoo QA issue, or in fact a
> licensing issue? If the latter case, this discussion should prob'y go to
> the new -project ml if and when, or indeed the user forums.
> 
> As for potentially useful, so was Internet Explorer, last time I looked at
> what you could do with its Object Model. I still ain't voting to bring it
> to Gentoo.. ;)
> 
> 
It is neither a QA nor license issue, its an issue of the download being 
unavailable.  Please read the full thread.
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: QA issue: No stable skype in Tree

[Steev Klimaszewski]

Steev Klimaszewski wrote:
> Steve Long wrote:
>> Stephen Bennett wrote:
>>> Not everyone sees that as a reason not to use a potentially useful
>>> piece of software. We're not debian.
>>
>> Could you clarify whether this is indeed a Gentoo QA issue, or in fact a
>> licensing issue? If the latter case, this discussion should prob'y go to
>> the new -project ml if and when, or indeed the user forums.
>>
>> As for potentially useful, so was Internet Explorer, last time I 
>> looked at
>> what you could do with its Object Model. I still ain't voting to bring it
>> to Gentoo.. ;)
>>
>>
> It is neither a QA nor license issue, its an issue of the download being 
> unavailable.  Please read the full thread.
And to reply to myself - its a licensing issue since we cannot mirror 
the distfile.  However, I hardly find that "facist" - my own opinion, 
others vary of course - the main issue is simply that the download won't 
be available - if you even throw out the licensing issue of not 
mirroring, have you tried to install 2006.0 lately? (Yes, I know 2007.0 
is out) - you can't even do a 2006.0 install if you use the portage and 
stage3 tarballs from the cd because those distfiles are no longer 
available.
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

[gentoo-dev] Re: Re: QA issue: No stable skype in Tree

[Steve Long]

Steev Klimaszewski wrote:
>> It is neither a QA nor license issue, its an issue of the download being
>> unavailable.  Please read the full thread.
> And to reply to myself - its a licensing issue since we cannot mirror
> the distfile.
Er thanks for that ;)

> However, I hardly find that "facist" - my own opinion, 
> others vary of course - the main issue is simply that the download won't
> be available - if you even throw out the licensing issue of not
> mirroring, have you tried to install 2006.0 lately? (Yes, I know 2007.0
> is out) - you can't even do a 2006.0 install if you use the portage and
> stage3 tarballs from the cd because those distfiles are no longer
> available.

Sorry while your opinion on the license seems relevant, the rest seems not
so to me. If you want to get into the whole discussion about keeping old
ebuilds, the forums have been after that for ages. The standard reply is
download them from cvs, which isn't hard if you need 'em for enterprise
(the installed ones are kept in vdb in any case.) I don't see why Gentoo
should be supporting old *install media* as opposed to the tree of software
which people should have updated to.


-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: QA issue: No stable skype in Tree

[Chris Gianelloni]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1666 bytes --]

On Mon, 2007-06-18 at 06:01 +0100, Steve Long wrote:
> Stephen Bennett wrote:
> > Not everyone sees that as a reason not to use a potentially useful
> > piece of software. We're not debian.
> 
> Could you clarify whether this is indeed a Gentoo QA issue, or in fact a
> licensing issue? If the latter case, this discussion should prob'y go to
> the new -project ml if and when, or indeed the user forums.

The "problem" with skype is really a problem with our policy.  The
policy is really designed for open source software which we can actually
"fix" when we find a problem.  With the closed-source stuff, our policy
should be a bit more lax since we're at the mercy of the upstream.
Also, remember that our policy says that 30 days is *suggested* before
stabilization.  The maintainer has the authority to ask for
stabilization sooner, even the same day the package is put into the
tree, if there is sufficient reason for doing so.

> As for potentially useful, so was Internet Explorer, last time I looked at
> what you could do with its Object Model. I still ain't voting to bring it
> to Gentoo.. ;)

Please refrain from these kinds of "arguments" that have no technical
bearing.  Internet Explorer doesn't even *run* on Gentoo.  If it did, it
would likely be in the tree since quite a few people would likely use
it, even if just for testing.  I know that if I were able to test things
on IE from Linux without having to fire up VMware that I would be quite
happy.

-- 
Chris Gianelloni
Release Engineering Strategic Lead
Alpha/AMD64/x86 Architecture Teams
Games Developer/Council Member/Foundation Trustee
Gentoo Foundation

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: QA issue: No stable skype in Tree

[Wernfried Haas]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 793 bytes --]

On Mon, Jun 18, 2007 at 11:39:26AM -0700, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> Internet Explorer doesn't even *run* on Gentoo.  If it did, it
> would likely be in the tree since quite a few people would likely use
> it, even if just for testing.  I know that if I were able to test things
> on IE from Linux without having to fire up VMware that I would be quite
> happy.

Haven't tried it, nor do i care about IE, but i ran into that a while ago:
http://www.tatanka.com.br/ies4linux/page/Main_Page

cheers,
	Wernfried

PS: No, i'm not posting this for the sake of proving IE works on
Gentoo, just as information for people who may need it.

-- 
Wernfried Haas (amne) - amne (at) gentoo.org
Gentoo Forums - http://forums.gentoo.org
forum-mods (at) gentoo.org
#gentoo-forums (freenode)

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: QA issue: No stable skype in Tree

[Daniel Ostrow]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 910 bytes --]

On Mon, 2007-06-18 at 21:11 +0200, Wernfried Haas wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 18, 2007 at 11:39:26AM -0700, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> > Internet Explorer doesn't even *run* on Gentoo.  If it did, it
> > would likely be in the tree since quite a few people would likely use
> > it, even if just for testing.  I know that if I were able to test things
> > on IE from Linux without having to fire up VMware that I would be quite
> > happy.
> 
> Haven't tried it, nor do i care about IE, but i ran into that a while ago:
> http://www.tatanka.com.br/ies4linux/page/Main_Page
> 
> cheers,
> 	Wernfried
> 
> PS: No, i'm not posting this for the sake of proving IE works on
> Gentoo, just as information for people who may need it.

Funny as it may be, and 100% off topic, so yes this is just noise, I use
ie6 under wine via ies4linux every day...and yes...it makes me feel very
very very dirty.

--Dan

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

[gentoo-dev] Re: Re: QA issue: No stable skype in Tree

[Steve Long]

Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> On Mon, 2007-06-18 at 06:01 +0100, Steve Long wrote:
>> Stephen Bennett wrote:
>> > Not everyone sees that as a reason not to use a potentially useful
>> > piece of software. We're not debian.
>> 
>> Could you clarify whether this is indeed a Gentoo QA issue, or in fact a
>> licensing issue? If the latter case, this discussion should prob'y go to
>> the new -project ml if and when, or indeed the user forums.
> 
> The "problem" with skype is really a problem with our policy.  The
> policy is really designed for open source software which we can actually
> "fix" when we find a problem.
Yeah and that's kinda the whole argument against closed-source. I fail to
see how that's the problem of a Free software distro? Further, if it's a
policy issue, why are you guys continuing the thread? Oh I see, when it's
stuff *you* care about, it's development. Cool.

> With the closed-source stuff, our policy 
> should be a bit more lax since we're at the mercy of the upstream.
Er what? Some of us don't wish to be "at the mercy of" anyone, especially
not some corporation nicking VOIP. That's why we use GNU software.

> Also, remember that our policy says that 30 days is *suggested* before
> stabilization.  The maintainer has the authority to ask for
> stabilization sooner, even the same day the package is put into the
> tree, if there is sufficient reason for doing so.
>
Whatever; the point is y'all were much more vicious about someone offering
all the code under the GPL.. Honestly, this whole email makes me wonder why
you work in FOSS. tuomov only wanted to be sure updates were issued
promptly. What exactly is the technical difference?

>> As for potentially useful, so was Internet Explorer, last time I looked
>> at what you could do with its Object Model. I still ain't voting to bring
>> it to Gentoo.. ;)
> 
> Please refrain from these kinds of "arguments" that have no technical
> bearing.  Internet Explorer doesn't even *run* on Gentoo.  If it did, it
> would likely be in the tree since quite a few people would likely use
> it, even if just for testing.  I know that if I were able to test things
> on IE from Linux without having to fire up VMware that I would be quite
> happy.
> 
Er let's not get into it. Use WINE or a dual-boot, or VMware, or xen or
whatever you want. (It was a joke, hence the wink. Call the proctors..
whoops!)

/me wanders off mumbling about hypocrisy, and thinking about !anarchy in
#bash..

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: QA issue: No stable skype in Tree

[Chris Gianelloni]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2930 bytes --]

On Mon, 2007-06-18 at 23:49 +0100, Steve Long wrote:
> >> Could you clarify whether this is indeed a Gentoo QA issue, or in fact a
> >> licensing issue? If the latter case, this discussion should prob'y go to
> >> the new -project ml if and when, or indeed the user forums.
> > 
> > The "problem" with skype is really a problem with our policy.  The
> > policy is really designed for open source software which we can actually
> > "fix" when we find a problem.
> Yeah and that's kinda the whole argument against closed-source. I fail to
> see how that's the problem of a Free software distro? Further, if it's a
> policy issue, why are you guys continuing the thread? Oh I see, when it's
> stuff *you* care about, it's development. Cool.

Alright.  I've had about enough of your constant and pointless bashing
of everything that we do.  Seriously.  Grow up.

Take a step back and come back after you've decided to actually be
*useful* or don't come back, at all.  I could really care less which you
choose at this point because your constant pot shots at us make the rest
of your comments completely worthless and tainted.

As for policy, nobody said that policy discussions aren't sometimes
technical.  There also is *not* another list for this currently, so
there's nowhere else to go with it, especially considering that current
policy does state for Gentoo developers to ask these sort of questions
on this list.  As for whether or not to continue this discussion or not,
this _is_ *our* list.  We can do with it as we please.  If the Gentoo
developers as a whole decided to dedicate this list to pink ponies, we
can.  As I see it, this is still a discussion on how to work around the
policies in place with a *TECHNICAL SOLUTION* for this package, which
falls in line perfectly with this list.

> Er what? Some of us don't wish to be "at the mercy of" anyone, especially
> not some corporation nicking VOIP. That's why we use GNU software.

No, it is why *you* use *free* software.

Nobody is forcing you to install it, either, so your point is moot.  It
is being offered for the people that *do* want it.  Also, I dare you to
look at how much software on your system is *not* GNU.  Oh crap!
Portage isn't GNU!  It must be evil!!!11one1!!

Seriously.  Please take a few moments to think about what you're writing
before doing so.  Maybe if you had said something about FSF-approved or
OSI-approved, but GNU?  We aren't Debian.  Less than 1/25th of the
software on my system is GNU.  Less than 1/25th.  How those
megalomaniacs can possibly even imply that we owe them recognition on
every Linux system is beyond me.  I'm just waiting for the annual "You
should change your name to Gentoo GNU/Linux" email.  ;]

-- 
Chris Gianelloni
Release Engineering Strategic Lead
Alpha/AMD64/x86 Architecture Teams
Games Developer/Council Member/Foundation Trustee
Gentoo Foundation

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: QA issue: No stable skype in Tree

[Andrew Gaffney]

Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> If the Gentoo developers as a whole decided to dedicate this list to
> pink ponies, we can.

Are pretty purple ponies acceptable as well?

-- 
Andrew Gaffney                                 http://dev.gentoo.org/~agaffney/
Gentoo Linux Developer             Catalyst/Installer + x86 release coordinator
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

[gentoo-dev] Re: Pony Colour Schemes [was: QA issue: No stable skype in Tree]

[Ryan Hill]

Andrew Gaffney wrote:
> Chris Gianelloni wrote:
>> If the Gentoo developers as a whole decided to dedicate this list to
>> pink ponies, we can.
> 
> Are pretty purple ponies acceptable as well?

As *everybody* knows, purple ponies aren't pretty.




Well, maybe a little bit.


-- 
dirtyepic                 salesman said this vacuum's guaranteed
 gentoo org          it could suck an ancient virus from the sea
  9B81 6C9F E791 83BB 3AB3  5B2D E625 A073 8379 37E8 (0x837937E8)

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Pony Colour Schemes [was: QA issue: No stable skype in Tree]

[Josh Saddler]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 441 bytes --]

Ryan Hill wrote:
> Andrew Gaffney wrote:
>> Chris Gianelloni wrote:
>>> If the Gentoo developers as a whole decided to dedicate this list to
>>> pink ponies, we can.
>> Are pretty purple ponies acceptable as well?
> 
> As *everybody* knows, purple ponies aren't pretty.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, maybe a little bit.
> 
> 

I bet you had the whole set of My Little Pony as a kid, didn't you!

Um, not that I know what that is.


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Pony Colour Schemes [was: QA issue: No stable skype in Tree]

[Kent Fredric]

On 6/19/07, Ryan Hill <dirtyepic@gentoo.org> wrote:
> Andrew Gaffney wrote:
> > Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> >> If the Gentoo developers as a whole decided to dedicate this list to
> >> pink ponies, we can.
> >
> > Are pretty purple ponies acceptable as well?
>
> As *everybody* knows, purple ponies aren't pretty.
>
>
>
>
> Well, maybe a little bit.
>

OMG PONIES!!!!111SHIFT



Sorry.  Couldn't help myself.

*hums* I see a red door and i want to paint it blaaaapink...

*twitch*

-- 
Kent
ruby -e '[1, 2, 4, 7, 0, 9, 5, 8, 3, 10, 11, 6, 12, 13].each{|x|
print "enNOSPicAMreil kdrtf@gma.com"[(2*x)..(2*x+1)]}'
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

[gentoo-dev] Re: Re: Re: QA issue: No stable skype in Tree

[Steve Long]

Chris Gianelloni wrote:

> On Mon, 2007-06-18 at 23:49 +0100, Steve Long wrote:
> Alright.  I've had about enough of your constant and pointless bashing
> of everything that we do.  Seriously.  Grow up.
> 
> Take a step back and come back after you've decided to actually be
> *useful* or don't come back, at all.  I could really care less which you
> choose at this point because your constant pot shots at us make the rest
> of your comments completely worthless and tainted.
>
Er actually, I was taking pot shots at you specifically, wrt your recent
outburst against the proctors, which for a Council member just seemed
insane, and further for ignoring the technical similarity between the
situation with this, and the new ion3 license.

In that case, tuomov was insisting that releases be updated promptly, as is
the case with games and is the case with Skype. ion3 has never been in
stable, so never caused this "QA issue" but it was exactly the same demand
from the license-holder.

I have no issue with the vast majority of Gentoo devs, who seem like a
really cool, hard-working bunch, and produce a great distro.

You, sir, however, need to take a break after the work on the new release,
as your recent outbursts seem indicative of burn-out, imo.

> As for policy, nobody said that policy discussions aren't sometimes
> technical.  There also is *not* another list for this currently, so
> there's nowhere else to go with it, especially considering that current
> policy does state for Gentoo developers to ask these sort of questions
> on this list.  As for whether or not to continue this discussion or not,
> this _is_ *our* list.  We can do with it as we please.  If the Gentoo
> developers as a whole decided to dedicate this list to pink ponies, we
> can.  As I see it, this is still a discussion on how to work around the
> policies in place with a *TECHNICAL SOLUTION* for this package, which
> falls in line perfectly with this list.
> 
Er do what you want with your list, just please stop being so rude and then
getting so sensitive about what users say. You set the tone.

>> Er what? Some of us don't wish to be "at the mercy of" anyone, especially
>> not some corporation nicking VOIP. That's why we use GNU software.
> 
> No, it is why *you* use *free* software.
> 
No I meant GNU, or Free with a capital F. Or are you going to tell me what I
mean as well as ignore my actual point (which was that this is the same
technical issue, with the same technical solution.)

> Nobody is forcing you to install it, either, so your point is moot.  It
> is being offered for the people that *do* want it.  Also, I dare you to
> look at how much software on your system is *not* GNU.  Oh crap!
> Portage isn't GNU!  It must be evil!!!11one1!!
>
Er, you do know what GPL stands for don't you?

> Seriously.  Please take a few moments to think about what you're writing
> before doing so.  Maybe if you had said something about FSF-approved or
> OSI-approved, but GNU?  We aren't Debian.
Jeez, someone needs to find out who runs gnu.org (aka the FSF.) Don't you
wish you sometimes stopped for a minute before hitting send? Didn't we at
one point agree that reply-to munging doesn't help? Seriously, mate, I am
not your enemy.

> Less than 1/25th of the 
> software on my system is GNU.  Less than 1/25th.  How those
> megalomaniacs can possibly even imply that we owe them recognition on
> every Linux system is beyond me.  I'm just waiting for the annual "You
> should change your name to Gentoo GNU/Linux" email.  ;]
> 
Dream on: I have better things to do with my time, so I am now ignoring this
whole thread, as I have had to ignore several recently. If you wish to
email me off-list, feel free, or chat to me in #friendly-coders or pm
whenever you like - my nick is igli.

Thanks for the good work you do for Gentoo; please, consider a fortnight
off.

<Ignore Thread on> Please flame off-list.


-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: QA issue: No stable skype in Tree

[Seemant Kulleen]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 294 bytes --]

On Mon, 2007-06-18 at 23:49 +0100, Steve Long wrote:
> Oh I see, when it's
> stuff *you* care about, it's development. Cool.

That's sort of the point, isn't it?  Developers are here mostly to
scratch their own respective itches -- so, by necessity, we talk about
stuff we care about.


[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: QA issue: No stable skype in Tree

[Abhay Kedia]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 715 bytes --]

On Tuesday 19 Jun 2007 4:19:49 am Steve Long wrote:
>
> Er what? Some of us don't wish to be "at the mercy of" anyone, especially
> not some corporation nicking VOIP. That's why we use GNU software.
>
I don't understand this attitude. Do you really have to bash everything that 
you do not use? Do you have any experience of using VOIP software in Linux 
and how frustrating the situation is? Do you realise that nothing except 
Skype works in even half decent manner? Here is a latest blog entry by one of 
the Amarok developers and his quest with VOIP applications
http://apachelog.blogspot.com/2007/06/voip-screw-it.html

Now go and flame him for not using "GNU software".


-- 
Regards,
Abhay

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: QA issue: No stable skype in Tree

[Kent Fredric]

On 6/19/07, Steve Long <slong@rathaus.eclipse.co.uk> wrote:
> Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> > On Mon, 2007-06-18 at 06:01 +0100, Steve Long wrote:
> >> Stephen Bennett wrote:
> >> > Not everyone sees that as a reason not to use a potentially useful
> >> > piece of software. We're not debian.
> >>
> >> Could you clarify whether this is indeed a Gentoo QA issue, or in fact a
> >> licensing issue? If the latter case, this discussion should prob'y go to
> >> the new -project ml if and when, or indeed the user forums.
> >
> > The "problem" with skype is really a problem with our policy.  The
> > policy is really designed for open source software which we can actually
> > "fix" when we find a problem.
> Yeah and that's kinda the whole argument against closed-source. I fail to
> see how that's the problem of a Free software distro? Further, if it's a
> policy issue, why are you guys continuing the thread? Oh I see, when it's
> stuff *you* care about, it's development. Cool.

I'll try not respond directly to the trollish like statement, and will
try to keep my response as non-troll-like as possible ( i might
fail..but if so, its because of my earlier defilement I underwent when
I voluntarily  installed  IE in linux/wine :( )  I think its fine to
discuss such issues as long we are calm and rational about it. Half
the discussion is to as whether or not this is a policy problem, and
not purely a technical one, as afaik, theres no ML dedicated to
discussing which ML something should be on :)

Lets try the similarities between say, SunJava and Skype, both having
alternatives ( ie: blackdown ), ( im talking about the JVM here, which
to the best of my knowledge is not yet OSS ).

Both are restricted by upstream in licensing that wont permit us to
host the files ourself.

To the best of my knowledge, neither Java or Skype have any source
available that we can fix ourselves.

The discussion question is, if java for some reason of insanity, were
to release a new version, which gentoo deemed 'unstable', and then a
week later prohibit all downloads of prior versions, what would we
do?.

The fact is, that regardless of 'policy', people want Java, and many
servers using Java may be utilizing software which they had to pay
for, in their JVM. ( And you guys have all seen how cross-version
friendly java stuff can be right? 1.4->1.5 gave me good times... )
And it would be senseless for us to say 'hmm... java's not OSS free,
lets take it out of gentoo altogether, considering that until now, it
had been quite satisfactory in portage.

I'm probably as much an OpenSource / FreeSoftware advocate as the rest
of this ML ( I had a friend order me a Chë Stallman T' from literally
the other side of the world ), and windows & Microsoft  drive me nuts,
but as painful as it is for me to say this, I believe if there was a
non-opensource static Linux-native build of internet explorer, and
Microsofts licensing permitted it, that there would be one day an
ebuild in portage for it ( it would probably be permanently hard
masked tho, under 'this is suspicious enemy software' which would
require you to set SELL_MY_SOUL="YES" in make.conf ), because fact of
the matter is, people without windows still need that evil little tyke
to test websites so that the lesser informed greater percentage of the
population ( ~80% ) who still use it to surf won't run screaming from
your site and never return.

<gentoo-project-esque-content>
IMO, Gentoo is in the middle of the grey lands between "only use
opensource" , and "you corporate weenie". While Gentoo does actively
encourage opensource software, it still permits you to be the one who
wears the pants, the one to make the decision, making Gentoo your own
project, not some elitist dev's extremist ideals, and this opens up
the user base, and helps produce a migration path by giving the user
something they're familiar with, like, and use, while we create
something better and progressively coax them into using it, and thus
further spreading the good opensource futher than it otherwise would.
</g-p-e-c>

*whimpers* i think that is all... nobody torch me please :)






>
> > With the closed-source stuff, our policy
> > should be a bit more lax since we're at the mercy of the upstream.
> Er what? Some of us don't wish to be "at the mercy of" anyone, especially
> not some corporation nicking VOIP. That's why we use GNU software.
>
> > Also, remember that our policy says that 30 days is *suggested* before
> > stabilization.  The maintainer has the authority to ask for
> > stabilization sooner, even the same day the package is put into the
> > tree, if there is sufficient reason for doing so.
> >
> Whatever; the point is y'all were much more vicious about someone offering
> all the code under the GPL.. Honestly, this whole email makes me wonder why
> you work in FOSS. tuomov only wanted to be sure updates were issued
> promptly. What exactly is the technical difference?
>
> >> As for potentially useful, so was Internet Explorer, last time I looked
> >> at what you could do with its Object Model. I still ain't voting to bring
> >> it to Gentoo.. ;)
> >
> > Please refrain from these kinds of "arguments" that have no technical
> > bearing.  Internet Explorer doesn't even *run* on Gentoo.  If it did, it
> > would likely be in the tree since quite a few people would likely use
> > it, even if just for testing.  I know that if I were able to test things
> > on IE from Linux without having to fire up VMware that I would be quite
> > happy.
> >
> Er let's not get into it. Use WINE or a dual-boot, or VMware, or xen or
> whatever you want. (It was a joke, hence the wink. Call the proctors..
> whoops!)
>
> /me wanders off mumbling about hypocrisy, and thinking about !anarchy in
> #bash..
>
> --
> gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
>
>


-- 
Kent
ruby -e '[1, 2, 4, 7, 0, 9, 5, 8, 3, 10, 11, 6, 12, 13].each{|x|
print "enNOSPicAMreil kdrtf@gma.com"[(2*x)..(2*x+1)]}'
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: QA issue: No stable skype in Tree

[Vlastimil Babka]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Steve Long wrote:
> As for potentially useful, so was Internet Explorer, last time I looked at
> what you could do with its Object Model. I still ain't voting to bring it
> to Gentoo.. ;)

Looks like you lost your vote :)

# ChangeLog for app-emulation/ies4linux

*ies4linux-2.0.5 (21 Jun 2007)

  21 Jun 2007; Jurek Bartuszek <jurek@gentoo.org>
  +ies4linux-2.0.5.ebuild:
  Initial version (closing bug #143798), credit goes Mathieu Bonnet
  <mathieu.bonnet@riverside-idealism.org> for providing the ebuilds.
- --
Vlastimil Babka (Caster)
Gentoo/Java
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFGev2/tbrAj05h3oQRAvBeAJ95RW2XbmVLHYTQHSvoEl91THr4yACdE7aX
3H6Xsw407WrZc//h9Pq7n2g=
=uXox
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list