[gentoo-dev] regarding app-rox (attempt n. 2)

[gentoo-dev] regarding app-rox (attempt n. 2)

[Sergey Kuleshov]

Hello All!

I've already rose the question a few months ago, but then I haven't done 
anything about it. And because, I am not sure, what the formal 
procedures are now, I guess I'd be better off asking again :)

So to the point. There is a bug #51996 with a few (around 20) ebuilds 
for Rox Desktop. Author of those ebuilds told me, that more are coming 
soon. I guess it makes sense to make a category app-rox for those, 
rather than throw them to different categories.

P.S. I have been really busy with university work lately, but now I'll 
try to get back to active work for gentoo...

Regards,
-- 
Sergey Kuleshov    <svyatogor@gentoo.org>
Home Page: http://dev.gentoo.org/~sergey
Jabber: rohan@jabber.ru
ICQ: 158439855

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] regarding app-rox (attempt n. 2)

[Roman Gaufman]

Well, we have:

server portage # ls | egrep -i "base|extra"
gnome-base
gnome-extra
gnustep-base
kde-base
x11-base
xfce-base
xfce-extra

I suppose what you want then is rox-base and possibly rox-extra or
maybe rox-misc (like kde-misc).

On Thu, 25 Nov 2004 15:33:39 +0200, Sergey Kuleshov
<svyatogor@gentoo.org> wrote:
> Hello All!
> 
> I've already rose the question a few months ago, but then I haven't done
> anything about it. And because, I am not sure, what the formal
> procedures are now, I guess I'd be better off asking again :)
> 
> So to the point. There is a bug #51996 with a few (around 20) ebuilds
> for Rox Desktop. Author of those ebuilds told me, that more are coming
> soon. I guess it makes sense to make a category app-rox for those,
> rather than throw them to different categories.
> 
> P.S. I have been really busy with university work lately, but now I'll
> try to get back to active work for gentoo...
> 
> Regards,
> --
> Sergey Kuleshov    <svyatogor@gentoo.org>
> Home Page: http://dev.gentoo.org/~sergey
> Jabber: rohan@jabber.ru
> ICQ: 158439855
> 
> --
> gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
> 
>

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] regarding app-rox (attempt n. 2)

[Stefan Schweizer]

On Thu, 25 Nov 2004 09:02:54 -0500, Roman Gaufman <hackeron@gmail.com> wrote:
> I suppose what you want then is rox-base and possibly rox-extra or
> maybe rox-misc (like kde-misc).

That makes 3 categories for a little bit more than 20 apps.

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] regarding app-rox (attempt n. 2)

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 469 bytes --]

On Thu, 25 Nov 2004 09:02:54 -0500 Roman Gaufman <hackeron@gmail.com>
wrote:
| I suppose what you want then is rox-base and possibly rox-extra or
| maybe rox-misc (like kde-misc).

Overkill IMO. I think 20 to 50 packages per category was the magic range
I randomly made up last time someone asked about that...

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


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

Re: [gentoo-dev] regarding app-rox (attempt n. 2)

[HeinrichWendel]

On Thursday 25 November 2004 14:33, Sergey Kuleshov wrote:
> Hello All!
>
> I've already rose the question a few months ago, but then I haven't done
> anything about it. And because, I am not sure, what the formal
> procedures are now, I guess I'd be better off asking again :)
>
> So to the point. There is a bug #51996 with a few (around 20) ebuilds
> for Rox Desktop. Author of those ebuilds told me, that more are coming
> soon. I guess it makes sense to make a category app-rox for those,
> rather than throw them to different categories.
>
> P.S. I have been really busy with university work lately, but now I'll
> try to get back to active work for gentoo...

I currently maintain rox-filer. App-rox seems fine for me as category, because 
there are not too much ebuilds for more than one category.

>
> Regards,
mfg, heinrich

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] regarding app-rox (attempt n. 2)

[Roman Gaufman]

On Thu, 25 Nov 2004 15:05:22 +0100, Stefan Schweizer
<sschweizer@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Nov 2004 09:02:54 -0500, Roman Gaufman <hackeron@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I suppose what you want then is rox-base and possibly rox-extra or
> > maybe rox-misc (like kde-misc).
> 
> That makes 3 categories for a little bit more than 20 apps.
> 
Who said 3? -- I'm just saying take the common naming scheme. 1 will
be enough, another one can be added later.

gnustep-base # ls | wc -l
7

xfce-base # ls | wc -l
15

He said around 20 ebuilds so makes perfect sense to have a rox-base

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] regarding app-rox (attempt n. 2)

[Roman Gaufman]

Also, anyone noticed that app-gnustep is empty? (except for some empty
file .helps_clean_this_dir_on_2.0.50)

On Thu, 25 Nov 2004 10:07:42 -0500, Roman Gaufman <hackeron@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Nov 2004 15:05:22 +0100, Stefan Schweizer
> 
> 
> <sschweizer@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, 25 Nov 2004 09:02:54 -0500, Roman Gaufman <hackeron@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > I suppose what you want then is rox-base and possibly rox-extra or
> > > maybe rox-misc (like kde-misc).
> >
> > That makes 3 categories for a little bit more than 20 apps.
> > 
> Who said 3? -- I'm just saying take the common naming scheme. 1 will
> be enough, another one can be added later.
> 
> gnustep-base # ls | wc -l
> 7
> 
> xfce-base # ls | wc -l
> 15
> 
> He said around 20 ebuilds so makes perfect sense to have a rox-base
>

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] regarding app-rox (attempt n. 2)

[Armando Di Cianno]

On 2004-11-25 10:09:22 -0500 Roman Gaufman <hackeron@gmail.com> wrote:
> Also, anyone noticed that app-gnustep is empty? (except for some empty
> file .helps_clean_this_dir_on_2.0.50)

This directory has been removed from portage.  It was even tied to a 
pretty icky portage bug that I inadvertently uncovered when it was 
removed.  The dot-file was added to help portage clear out the 
directory.  Not sure why, but it looks like emerge sync'ng is now 
recreating the directory. :-\

__Armando Di Cianno




--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] regarding app-rox (attempt n. 2)

[Armando Di Cianno]

On 2004-11-25 10:09:22 -0500 Roman Gaufman <hackeron@gmail.com> wrote:
> Also, anyone noticed that app-gnustep is empty? (except for some empty
> file .helps_clean_this_dir_on_2.0.50)

This directory has been removed from portage.  It was even tied to a 
pretty icky portage bug that I inadvertently uncovered when it was 
removed.  The dot-file was added to help portage clear out the 
directory.  Not sure why, but it looks like emerge sync'ng is now 
recreating the directory. :-\

__Armando Di Cianno





--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list