FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor


 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 04-16-2008, 02:29 AM
"Travis Willard"
 
Default

With ABS changing from cvsup to rsync, we either need to move rsync to
core, or abs to extra.

I vote rsync to core.

Anyone opposed? If all are OK with it, I'll move it to core tomorrow.
 
Old 04-16-2008, 02:32 AM
"Dan McGee"
 
Default

On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 9:29 PM, Travis Willard <travis@archlinux.org> wrote:
> With ABS changing from cvsup to rsync, we either need to move rsync to
> core, or abs to extra.
>
> I vote rsync to core.
>
> Anyone opposed? If all are OK with it, I'll move it to core tomorrow.

Fine with it, as long as you move csup out too (extra for now, maybe
community/unsupported down the road?).

-Dan
 
Old 04-16-2008, 04:35 AM
eliott
 
Default

On 4/15/08, Dan McGee <dpmcgee@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 9:29 PM, Travis Willard <travis@archlinux.org> wrote:
> > With ABS changing from cvsup to rsync, we either need to move rsync to
> > core, or abs to extra.
> >
> > I vote rsync to core.
> >
> > Anyone opposed? If all are OK with it, I'll move it to core tomorrow.
>
>
> Fine with it, as long as you move csup out too (extra for now, maybe
> community/unsupported down the road?).

My opinion would be move abs to extra, along with rsync.
It is only that though, an opinion. I guess I don't have strong
feelings about it.
 
Old 04-16-2008, 05:57 AM
Tom K
 
Default

eliott wrote:

On 4/15/08, Dan McGee <dpmcgee@gmail.com> wrote:

On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 9:29 PM, Travis Willard <travis@archlinux.org> wrote:
> With ABS changing from cvsup to rsync, we either need to move rsync to
> core, or abs to extra.
>
> I vote rsync to core.
>
> Anyone opposed? If all are OK with it, I'll move it to core tomorrow.


Fine with it, as long as you move csup out too (extra for now, maybe
community/unsupported down the road?).


My opinion would be move abs to extra, along with rsync.
It is only that though, an opinion. I guess I don't have strong
feelings about it.


Core is "stuff you need to get your base system up and running", right?
So I'd vote for abs to extra as well.


T.
 
Old 04-16-2008, 07:21 AM
Simo Leone
 
Default

On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 09:35:34PM -0700, eliott wrote:
> > Fine with it, as long as you move csup out too (extra for now, maybe
> > community/unsupported down the road?).
>
> My opinion would be move abs to extra, along with rsync.
> It is only that though, an opinion. I guess I don't have strong
> feelings about it.
>
I agree, it doesn't really fit in that "must have" category. But like
eliott, I'm surprisingly indifferent.

-S
 
Old 04-16-2008, 08:16 AM
"Aaron Griffin"
 
Default

On Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 2:21 AM, Simo Leone <simo@archlinux.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 09:35:34PM -0700, eliott wrote:
> > > Fine with it, as long as you move csup out too (extra for now, maybe
> > > community/unsupported down the road?).
> >
> > My opinion would be move abs to extra, along with rsync.
> > It is only that though, an opinion. I guess I don't have strong
> > feelings about it.
> >
> I agree, it doesn't really fit in that "must have" category. But like
> eliott, I'm surprisingly indifferent.

Agreed. ABS is not system critical. Hell, even devtools and namcap are in extra.
 
Old 04-16-2008, 11:41 AM
"Travis Willard"
 
Default

On Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 4:16 AM, Aaron Griffin <aaronmgriffin@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 2:21 AM, Simo Leone <simo@archlinux.org> wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 09:35:34PM -0700, eliott wrote:
> > > > Fine with it, as long as you move csup out too (extra for now, maybe
> > > > community/unsupported down the road?).
> > >
> > > My opinion would be move abs to extra, along with rsync.
> > > It is only that though, an opinion. I guess I don't have strong
> > > feelings about it.
> > >
> > I agree, it doesn't really fit in that "must have" category. But like
> > eliott, I'm surprisingly indifferent.
>
> Agreed. ABS is not system critical. Hell, even devtools and namcap are in extra.

Hm - fair enough. :P I guess I'll still be moving package around, but
not in the order I originally expected. :P
 
Old 04-16-2008, 12:38 PM
Stefan Bader
 
Default

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.Hi all,

Daniel Mack (thae author of the caiaq) driver had sent another patch
request (only to me) which went unnoticed during the las couple of days.
The patches again only affect the caiaq driver and are quite small.
Can I apply them and push the lum repo?

Stefan
 
Old 04-16-2008, 01:40 PM
Tim Gardner
 
Default

Stefan Bader wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Daniel Mack (thae author of the caiaq) driver had sent another patch
> request (only to me) which went unnoticed during the las couple of days.
> The patches again only affect the caiaq driver and are quite small.
> Can I apply them and push the lum repo?
>
> Stefan
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject:
> Re: [ALSA] request for kernel patch
> From:
> Daniel Mack <daniel@caiaq.de>
> Date:
> Wed, 16 Apr 2008 12:43:59 +0200
> To:
> Stefan Bader <stefan.bader@canonical.com>
>
> To:
> Stefan Bader <stefan.bader@canonical.com>
>
>
>
> Hi,
>
>
>
> On 10.04.2008, at 14:24, Daniel Mack wrote:
>
>> Hi, On 08.04.2008, at 23:06, Stefan Bader wrote:
>>> I have applied that patch to linux-ubuntu-modules.
>> Great, thanks. Could you take those two as well, please?
>> http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.alsa.devel/52496
>> http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.alsa.devel/52513
>
>
> Just curious because I didn't get any feedback - are those taken?
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Daniel
>
>
>
Stefan - they look reasonable and correct. Have they also been submitted
upstream? Please commit them to LUM.

--
Tim Gardner tim.gardner@ubuntu.com


--
kernel-team mailing list
kernel-team@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/kernel-team
 
Old 04-16-2008, 02:23 PM
"Dan McGee"
 
Default

On Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 6:41 AM, Travis Willard <travis@archlinux.org> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 4:16 AM, Aaron Griffin <aaronmgriffin@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 2:21 AM, Simo Leone <simo@archlinux.org> wrote:
> > > On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 09:35:34PM -0700, eliott wrote:
> > > > > Fine with it, as long as you move csup out too (extra for now, maybe
> > > > > community/unsupported down the road?).
> > > >
> > > > My opinion would be move abs to extra, along with rsync.
> > > > It is only that though, an opinion. I guess I don't have strong
> > > > feelings about it.
> > > >
> > > I agree, it doesn't really fit in that "must have" category. But like
> > > eliott, I'm surprisingly indifferent.
> >
> > Agreed. ABS is not system critical. Hell, even devtools and namcap are in extra.
>
> Hm - fair enough. :P I guess I'll still be moving package around, but
> not in the order I originally expected. :P

Pretty indifferent here as well, I guess I just remembered some talk
way back of core being system critical stuff, but *also* being a
completely self-contained way to build an Arch system from scratch. I
thought that was a big reason why we would want to keep it there.

Luckily with SVN we can move this package back and forth without
hassle, except for Travis going crazy.

-Dan
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 10:57 AM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org