Re: moving (old-)master.debian.org to a (new-)master.debian.org
Hi, On Tue Feb 05, 2013 at 19:40:37 +0100, Martin Zobel-Helas wrote: > Before we start losing data (we already lost one disk), DSA is moving > master's services to a new machine. The new machine is already setup, > but not all the data has been moved. DSA will do a final copy of the > data (YES, we do copy your $HOME) on the 2013-FEB-17 starting at 10:00Z > (UTC). The move of master.debian.org is finished now. If you experience any problems with the new master.debian.org, please contact debian-ad...@lists.debian.org. Best Regards, Martin -- Martin Zobel-Helas Debian System Administrator Debian & GNU/Linux Developer Debian Listmaster http://about.me/zobel Debian Webmaster GPG Fingerprint: 6B18 5642 8E41 EC89 3D5D BDBB 53B1 AC6D B11B 627B signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: REJECTed B-U packages (was Re: RFC declarative built-using field generation)
Thorsten Glaser (17/02/2013): > So please brainstorm on a fix. In the meantime, dear fellow > buildd admins, please do run apt-get dist-upgrade (following > an apt-get update if you don’t persist those) in *all* of your > buildd chroots frequently and handle those REJECTs caused by > Built-Using by give-back on the package in question (after > upgrading the chroot). In the meantime, dear Thorsten Glaser, please do figure out that mailing debian-devel@ is *not* the way to reach buildd admins. KiBi. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: REJECTed B-U packages (was Re: RFC declarative built-using field generation)
Cyril Brulebois dixit: >In the meantime, dear Thorsten Glaser, please do figure out that >mailing debian-devel@ is *not* the way to reach buildd admins. I know, and it wasn’t the goal of that mail. I already contacted those in question once. bye, //mirabilos -- „nein: BerliOS und Sourceforge sind Plattformen für Projekte, github ist eine Plattform für Einzelkämpfer“ -- dieses Zitat ist ein Beweis dafür, daß auch ein blindes Huhn mal ein Korn findet, bzw. – in diesem Fall – Recht haben kann -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/pine.bsm.4.64l.1302171424020.5...@herc.mirbsd.org
Re: RFC declarative built-using field generation
On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 12:41:26AM +0100, Matthias Klose wrote: > Am 10.02.2013 23:31, schrieb Philipp Kern: > > On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 03:01:21PM +0100, Matthias Klose wrote: > >> But it is ok to insist on using the exact binary version for > >> build-depending on source packages when it's not needed? This only seems > >> to be driven by the current dak implementation. > > That doesn't make sense to me. Where did somebody require this? > https://lists.debian.org/debian-gcc/2013/01/msg00012.html > https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2013/01/msg00711.html > maybe it's a coincidence, however creduce was formerly rejected for not having > a Built-Using attribute, and gcj-4.8, gnat-4.7 and gnat-4.8 are still in NEW. Both links talk of Built-Using not Build-Depends. See above for what you wrote. ;-) Kind regards Philipp Kern signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Q: license change for code component in RFCs
Hi, I've found the document that RFC copyright policy was changed in 2008, so I want to share a bit about it. RFC document itself is still non-DFSG-free one, but the **code** in RFC after 2008-11-10 can be used under BSD-3-clause license as RFC 5378. So, we can include _some code_ that was removed to make package suitable to main. see http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info/ Maybe http://wiki.debian.org/NonFreeIETFDocuments should be updated, too. And I wonder is there someone who have already asked them to release code component in RFCs before RFC5378 under permissive license ago? I want to include more MIBs to net-snmp. # code = "code components" in RFC, not document itself see http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info/Code-Components-List-4-23-09.txt and http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/copyright.html "ABNF definitions, XML Schemas, XML DTDs, XML RelaxNG definitions, tables of values, MIBs, PIBs, ASN.1, and classical programming source code" -- Regards, Hideki Yamane henrich @ debian.or.jp/org http://wiki.debian.org/HidekiYamane -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20130218081442.e82d62d12e05edf8e5223...@debian.or.jp
Re: RFC declarative built-using field generation
Am 17.02.2013 20:41, schrieb Philipp Kern: > On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 12:41:26AM +0100, Matthias Klose wrote: >> Am 10.02.2013 23:31, schrieb Philipp Kern: >>> On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 03:01:21PM +0100, Matthias Klose wrote: But it is ok to insist on using the exact binary version for build-depending on source packages when it's not needed? This only seems to be driven by the current dak implementation. >>> That doesn't make sense to me. Where did somebody require this? >> https://lists.debian.org/debian-gcc/2013/01/msg00012.html >> https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2013/01/msg00711.html maybe it's a >> coincidence, however creduce was formerly rejected for not having a >> Built-Using attribute, and gcj-4.8, gnat-4.7 and gnat-4.8 are still in >> NEW. > > Both links talk of Built-Using not Build-Depends. See above for what you > wrote. ;-) Sorry, I would like to share your amusement. So please explain. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/512166a6.6020...@debian.org
Re: openjdk maintenance for wheezy and squeeze
Hi! Matthias Klose writes: > - Afaik openjdk-7 for kfreebsd does build on kfreebsd (according to Damien) >with the kfreebsd kernel from wheezy. So maybe some commitment could be >found to upgrade and maintain the kernels before wheezy is released? Actually as far as I could narrow it down it was the squeeze/buildd schroot/sbuild combination that is not able to build openjdk-7 on kfreebsd while it worked fine for me using only schroot/sbuild from wheezy. I tried narrowing down further but went out of ideas and round-trip-time for trying things out was somewhat a show-stopper. If Damien has different/additional results I'm happy to try on that again but I guess it would be somewhat hard to get a change in for wheezy and it *should* work once wheezy is released (I'll try that again as soon as I can -- but then I'm somewhat bussy right now and wheezy RC bugs have priority). Regards Christoph -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/877gm6ryno@mitoraj.siccegge.de
