From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([69.77.167.62] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1JkDFj-0004zA-I6 for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Fri, 11 Apr 2008 07:00:52 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 59647E07D3; Fri, 11 Apr 2008 07:00:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail.isohunt.com (b01.ext.isohunt.com [208.71.112.51]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 419B3E07D3 for ; Fri, 11 Apr 2008 07:00:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 29675 invoked from network); 11 Apr 2008 07:00:49 -0000 Received: from S010600022af11287.vc.shawcable.net (HELO curie.orbis-terrarum.net) (24.84.179.214) (smtp-auth username robbat2@isohunt.com, mechanism login) by mail.isohunt.com (qpsmtpd/0.33-dev on beta01) with (AES256-SHA encrypted) ESMTPSA; Fri, 11 Apr 2008 07:00:49 +0000 Received: (qmail 9587 invoked by uid 10000); 11 Apr 2008 00:00:44 -0700 Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2008 00:00:44 -0700 From: "Robin H. Johnson" To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 27 Message-ID: <20080411070044.GP6177@curie-int.orbis-terrarum.net> References: <47FE7A18.1020207@gentoo.org> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="DRfr/2Y1Zz/5r+Kb" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <47FE7A18.1020207@gentoo.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.16 (2007-06-09) X-Archives-Salt: fa9310f9-7666-4029-8e72-2c2a087839c1 X-Archives-Hash: fa322dd8cbc8109279307fd585f734e6 --DRfr/2Y1Zz/5r+Kb Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 04:35:36PM -0400, Doug Goldstein wrote: > How does everyone feel about the proposed layout and syntaxes of GLEP 27? > Do we want to revisit this GLEP with an updated GLEP or status quo? > http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/glep/glep-0027.html I'm strongly in favour of moving forward with it. Way back in the past of Gentoo, a stab was made at keeping a single static file, but nobody bothered with it, since it wasn't in the gentoo-x86 tree. For GLEP27, I believe there was a SoC some years ago implementing it, I don't know what became of that code. My specific interest in it is for having a sane UID/GIDs that are identical between a set of machines, regardless of the order packages are emerged in. --=20 Robin Hugh Johnson Gentoo Linux Developer & Infra Guy E-Mail : robbat2@gentoo.org GnuPG FP : 11AC BA4F 4778 E3F6 E4ED F38E B27B 944E 3488 4E85 --DRfr/2Y1Zz/5r+Kb Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.8 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Robbat2 @ Orbis-Terrarum Networks - The text below is a digital signature. If it doesn't make any sense to you, ignore it. iEYEARECAAYFAkf/DJsACgkQPpIsIjIzwiy9OwCg1jWulMEhFYfKFZypPw/kVynD MswAoJ/AACc0DeqZErVgvoxpr4b7LwKA =FoM9 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --DRfr/2Y1Zz/5r+Kb-- -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list