Vancouver meeting - clarifications

Hello, world, please allow me as a member of the release team to share my view of the issue as I have been invited to the vancouver meeting as well. The contents of Steve's message were meant as a proposal, not as a definite decision and of course any input from you, whether as maintainers, as po

Re: Questions for the DPL candidates

On Tue, 15 Mar 2005, Anthony Towns wrote: if you want a technical discussion instead of a political one it helps to ...not have it on a Debian mailing list. :-/ Quoting from http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/ Development of Debian Discussion about technical development topics. You sho

Re: status of buildds?

On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 11:37:31PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: > > >The s390 porting team can perfectly well do what the hurd-i386 porting > > >team does: build them themselves. I mean, umm, you don't have to be > > >hooked into w-b to upload packages. > > Why are some architectures refused

Re: Bits (Nybbles?) from the Vancouver release team meeting

* Julien BLACHE (I'm not an employee of canonical, but I am a Ubuntu developer, FTR.) | How could we know ? We know nothing about Ubuntu, nothing about | Canonical, nothing about the goals, nothing about how everything was | done to begin with, nothing about who works or doesn't work there. Tha

Re: status of buildds?

Marc Haber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >The s390 porting team can perfectly well do what the hurd-i386 porting > >team does: build them themselves. I mean, umm, you don't have to be > >hooked into w-b to upload packages. > > Why are some architectures refused the same service that others get?

Re: [RFC] OpenLDAP automatic upgrade

> ad b) where is that .ldif file to be saved? For small directories not an > issue (take /var/backups or something). For big directories it should be > on a different disk than /var/lib/ldap with enough space to get sensible > performance. I think that people who are running large directories shou

Re: status of buildds?

On 14 Mar 2005 22:51:23 -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Ingo Juergensmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> As Bastian Blank said yesterday on IRC, w-b admins are idly refusing to add >> a new buildd for s390 to the ACLs. So, blame neuro and/or elmo, not s390... > >The s390 por

Re: Bits (Nybbles?) from the Vancouver release team meeting

Hi, Matthew Garrett wrote: >> As I understand it, SCC *binaries* get their own domain / mirrors / >> everything, but the *source* shall be shared with the main archive. > > Uh. Not if you want to distribute any GPLed material. So we ask our mirrors to please pull the source if they pull any $ARC

Re: Bits (Nybbles?) from the Vancouver release team meeting

On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 10:32:57AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote: > On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 12:23:12AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote: > > On Sun, Mar 13, 2005 at 11:21:29PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: > > > Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > On Sun, Mar 13, 2005 at 10:47:15PM -0800,

Re: Supporting tier-2 (was Re: COUNT(buildd) IN (2,3))

On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 11:48:53 +1100, Matthew Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >I've seen no hesitation inducting new AMs, and I got solicited to be part of >the security team a couple of years ago which suggests that they're not >particularly picky about who they let in . A couple of years ago, we

Re: Bits (Nybbles?) from the Vancouver release team meeting

On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 07:32:12AM +0100, Marc Haber wrote: > On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 22:51:40 +0100, Sven Luther > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 08:04:53PM +0100, Marc Haber wrote: > >> On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 19:11:01 +0100, Sven Luther > >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> >Well,

Re: Bits (Nybbles?) from the Vancouver release team meeting

On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 10:45:45 +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: >Once you get over giggling at the phrasing (or maybe that's just me), >there're a few answers. The ones that come to my mind are: > > (a) Just build against testing/stable instead of unstable; when etch >happens, fix up any remaining pro

Re: Bits (Nybbles?) from the Vancouver release team meeting

On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 15:52:22 -0500, David Nusinow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Sarge was already very late before Ubuntu existed. Our mirror network was >already strained before Ubuntu existed. Our release team was struggling to get >sarge out before Ubuntu existed. Our security team was already und

Re: Key management using a USB key

Hi, sean finney wrote: > - create a source package gnupg2 exists > - gnupg2 *only* produces package(s?) for the peripheral binar(y|ies) a binary for gnupg2 exists too, with a warning that it's not for public consumption > - when gnupg releases an official version 2, james uploads a new gnupg >

Re: status of buildds?

Ingo Juergensmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 08:43:40PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: > > > For s390 and sparc, it appears that only one machine is in place > > building these archs. > > As Bastian Blank said yesterday on IRC, w-b admins are idly refusing to add >

Re: Bits (Nybbles?) from the Vancouver release team meeting

Hi, Matthew Palmer wrote: >> However, I consider an update whose $ARCH binaries are released a week >> later not to be a problem. > > I think a lot of users would consider it a problem. Imagine, would you be > happy with a highly visible public announcement of every vulnerability > against your

Re: Bits (Nybbles?) from the Vancouver release team meeting

On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 08:50:04 +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > From the announcement: > >--- >Architectures that are no longer being considered for stable releases >are not going to be left out in the cold. The SCC infrastructure is >intended as a long-term option for these other architectures, and t

Re: status of buildds?

On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 08:43:40PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: > For s390 and sparc, it appears that only one machine is in place > building these archs. As Bastian Blank said yesterday on IRC, w-b admins are idly refusing to add a new buildd for s390 to the ACLs. So, blame neuro and/or elm

Re: Bits (Nybbles?) from the Vancouver release team meeting

On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 11:46:51 +1100, Matthew Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >I think a lot of users would consider it a problem. Imagine, would you be >happy with a highly visible public announcement of every vulnerability >against your servers, a week before you got the fix? If the alternative

Re: Another load of typos

Hi, > > The rule I am following is that "a" vs. "an" is decided by pronounciation > > only - i.e., it's "an eff ey kju", but "a FAT file system". After all, > > that's how the exact letters are most easily read (without expanding > > acronyms or such). > > Your rule is correct: it is determined b

Re: Bits (Nybbles?) from the Vancouver release team meeting

On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 22:51:40 +0100, Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 08:04:53PM +0100, Marc Haber wrote: >> On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 19:11:01 +0100, Sven Luther >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >Well, it just calls for smarther mirroring tricks. >> >> Do not expect mirror

Bug#299582: ITP: imgtex -- provides yet another math-on-the-web solution

Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist Owner: Atsuhito KOHDA <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * Package name: imgtex Version : 0.20050123 Upstream Author : Koji Nakamaru <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * URL : (in japanese) * License

Re: Another load of typos

Florian Zumbiehl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > The rule I am following is that "a" vs. "an" is decided by pronounciation > only - i.e., it's "an eff ey kju", but "a FAT file system". After all, > that's how the exact letters are most easily read (without expanding > acronyms or such). Your rule i

Re: Another load of typos

Hi, > > To verify that what I think to be incorrect really is, here is the list > > of "words" I've found to be used with "a" but which I think should be > > used with "an": > > > > FAQ > > Would you mind giving a reference to a manual of style or something > about these? I always only use "an"

Re: automake/autoconf in build-dependencies

Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > This only works because dpkg-buildpackage calls the clean target before > doing anything, BTW. And all things Debian follow its lead (i.e. pbuilder, > the buildds, sbuild, cvs-buildpackage, etc all either use dpkg-buildpackage > or do thin

Re: Another load of typos

On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 12:00:30AM -0500, Joey Hess wrote: > Florian Zumbiehl wrote: > > - Might it be reasonable to not check for duplicates before sending the > > reports? I'm using a relatively recent Packages file from unstable - > > and checking whether it is a duplicate probably is much e

Re: Another load of typos

Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Would you mind giving a reference to a manual of style or something > about these? I always only use "an" before an acronym if the expansion > of the acronym would need an "an" in front. "An FAQ" sounds wrong to my > ears. It depends on how you expand it.

Re: OASIS -- Our Membership and their IP Policy?

* Mark Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-03-14 12:25]: > >I'm asking because of Lawrence Rosen's ``A Call to Action in > >OASIS'', which I saw in today's LWN [1]. Apparently OASIS is > > >There are a lot of big names [2] at the end of the post, not > >including our DPL. Unfortunately I was not c

Re: Another load of typos

Florian Zumbiehl wrote: > - Might it be reasonable to not check for duplicates before sending the > reports? I'm using a relatively recent Packages file from unstable - > and checking whether it is a duplicate probably is much easier for the > maintainer than it is for me (they should know it

Re: Proposal to remove archs (comments by Ben Collins on sparc)

forwarding this message to where the discussion is taking place. * Ben Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-03-14 21:05]: > I'm not subscribed to debian-boot, so I'll preface this with that fact > that I have not read any of the discussion so far, so excuse a rehash. > > Simply take this in. I'm not

Re: mplayer 1.0pre6a-4 for i386 and PowerPC and sparc

On Tue, 2005-03-15 at 00:56 +0100, Sven Luther wrote: > Well, there are two issues here, one is why mplayer is not in debian. > Supposedly it was because the legal situation was not clear and that made it > dangerous and maybe illegal for us to distribute it. I wonder why ubuntu does > not have thi

Another load of typos

Hi, now that the problems with my last bunch of bug reports on mostly "its" vs. "it's" mistakes some months ago seem to be solved, I've found another load of typos of the "a" vs. "an" flavor, about 110 in total. Now my questions are as follows: - Anything I should do differently when reporting t

status of buildds?

http://buildd.debian.org/stats/graph-week-big.png For the past week, mipsel has been chugging mightily and made huge progress. But s390 has slipped worse and worse, with only a single machine building packages. Meanwhile, arm made a brief, but valiant attempt, but has been plummeting, and is no

Re: is xprint still used by mozilla, etc?

On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 14:04:40 -0800, Marc Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, Mar 11, 2005 at 11:59:37AM +1100, Drew Parsons wrote: > > Finn-Arne Johansen wrote: > > > I removed the xprint dependencies in debian-edu, cause it does not work > > > out of the box, and it's confusing. Printing u

Re: Bits (Nybbles?) from the Vancouver release team meeting

Hi Dann, On Sun, Mar 13, 2005 at 11:51:30PM -0700, dann frazier wrote: > > - the release architecture must be publicly available to buy new > I'd like to see if we can clarify this text. I can see some of the > problems this requirement would solve, such as guaranteed availability > of replacem

Re: Bits (Nybbles?) from the Vancouver release team meeting

Anthony Towns writes: > If there was an arch that was five times more popular than powerpc, > and no one was able to just donate boxes, I'd expect we'd buy > some. We'd already need to have /some/, just to have built the > packages that people are downloading. Oh, right, of course! I was just s

Re: Bits (Nybbles?) from the Vancouver release team meeting

Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: Anthony Towns writes: Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: Ok, I think I understand. Suppose that we have an arch that does have enough download share, and meets every requirement but the existence of sufficient buildds to keep up and developer machines, and that only because har

Re: Bits (Nybbles?) from the Vancouver release team meeting

Anthony Towns wrote: [snip] > >The "stabilise" is the missing part in the proposal. Stabilization and > >security would need to be done outside Debian. > > From the announcement: > > --- > Architectures that are no longer being considered for stable releases > are not going to be left out in the

Re: Bits (Nybbles?) from the Vancouver release team meeting

Hamish Moffatt wrote: > On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 02:41:35PM +0100, Frank Küster wrote: > > Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb: > > > On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 01:33:16PM +0100, Thiemo Seufer wrote: > > >> For anyone who uses Debian as base of a commercial solution it is a > > >> requirement. G

Re: SCC proposal (was: Re: Questions for the DPL candidates)

On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 07:51:05PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote: > On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 08:14:47PM -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 07:02:05PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote: > > > Really, I don't really understand all the difficulty of running > > > apt-get -b source, or pbui

Re: SCC proposal (was: Re: Questions for the DPL candidates)

On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 08:14:47PM -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 07:02:05PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote: > > Really, I don't really understand all the difficulty of running > > apt-get -b source, or pbuilder, or some such for n+1 archs as opposed > > to just n. With a lit

Re: Questions for the DPL candidates

cobaco (aka Bart Cornelis) wrote: That's why it's posted on the lists now -- it never too late to get input into something in Debian; even after we've committed to something, we can almost always change our minds. er, saying "we've committed to this" really comes across as a 'fait a compli' to a l

Re: Bits (Nybbles?) from the Vancouver release team meeting

Anthony Towns writes: > Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: > > Ok, I think I understand. Suppose that we have an arch that does have > > enough download share, and meets every requirement but the existence > > of sufficient buildds to keep up and developer machines, and that only > > because hardware ha

Re: Bits (Nybbles?) from the Vancouver release team meeting

Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: Ok, I think I understand. Suppose that we have an arch that does have enough download share, and meets every requirement but the existence of sufficient buildds to keep up and developer machines, and that only because hardware hasn't come available. Who's downloading it,

Re: Bits (Nybbles?) from the Vancouver release team meeting

Daniel Jacobowitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > The only differentiating requirement for scc, as opposed to the other > "part of Debian" architectures, seems to be download share. That won't > suddenly change. You are incorrect, and my example remains, and I'm wondering how the procedure would w

Re: Bits (Nybbles?) from the Vancouver release team meeting

On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 05:12:31PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: > Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > How can they be, since they will be off in another archive? You can't > > > decide now to put an arch in scc and at the same time say you won't > > > know whether it's in tier

Re: SCC proposal (was: Re: Questions for the DPL candidates)

On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 07:02:05PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote: > Really, I don't really understand all the difficulty of running > apt-get -b source, or pbuilder, or some such for n+1 archs as opposed > to just n. With a little use of ssh keys, the whole thing should be > completely automated. And

Re: [RFC] OpenLDAP automatic upgrade

hi torsten, much of what you're trying to do touches a similar vein to a project i'm currently working on[1]. while unfortunately i haven't built in any support for ldap (only mysql/pgsql), the topics, concepts, and practices are directly relevant to your situation and i'd recommend reading throu

Re: Bits (Nybbles?) from the Vancouver release team meeting

Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > How can they be, since they will be off in another archive? You can't > > decide now to put an arch in scc and at the same time say you won't > > know whether it's in tier1 or tier2 until etch is close to release. > > Please re-read the proposal. N

Re: Bits (Nybbles?) from the Vancouver release team meeting

On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 04:38:35PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: > Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > The inclusion of ia64 in the release count is a projection, based on > > where I believe things are today. Nothing the release team is doing > > ensures that ia64 is going to be a

Re: SCC proposal (was: Re: Questions for the DPL candidates)

On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 10:02:37AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > >And the result of this discussion is what leaves me with great concern. > >Specifically, the proposal: > > 1) Provides no way for an arch to produce a stable release after the > >initial set of archs have produced theirs; > > Ha

Re: Bits (Nybbles?) from the Vancouver release team meeting

On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 06:53:14PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote: > On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 11:46:51AM +1100, Matthew Palmer wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 04:27:50PM +0100, Matthias Urlichs wrote: > > > If I had to think of a rationale for it, the only one I could think of > > > would be "the arch

Re: Bits (Nybbles?) from the Vancouver release team meeting

Matthew Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 02:14:52PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: > > "Brian M. Carlson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > > This is a problem. No one will fix the portability bugs that plague, for > > > example, sparc (memory alignment SIGBUS) wi

Re: Bits (Nybbles?) from the Vancouver release team meeting

On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 02:14:52PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: > "Brian M. Carlson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > This is a problem. No one will fix the portability bugs that plague, for > > example, sparc (memory alignment SIGBUS) without them being severity > > serious. > > Can the po

Re: Bits (Nybbles?) from the Vancouver release team meeting

On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 11:46:51AM +1100, Matthew Palmer wrote: > On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 04:27:50PM +0100, Matthias Urlichs wrote: > > If I had to think of a rationale for it, the only one I could think of > > would be "the architecture needs to be fast enough not to block security > > updates". >

Re: Call for help / release criteria (was: Re: Bits (Nybbles?) from the Vancouver release team meeting)

On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 08:49:31PM +0100, Julien BLACHE wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > David Schmitt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >> > - First of all, we should take the details as a starting point for > >> > discussion, not as a decision that has made. Neverthe

Re: Bits (Nybbles?) from the Vancouver release team meeting

On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 01:14:30AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote: > On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 06:10:30PM -0500, Andres Salomon wrote: > > Yes, I would like to reiterate that coordination between Martin Pitt, the > > Ubuntu kernel team, and the Debian kernel team has been an invaluable > > resource for De

Re: Bits (Nybbles?) from the Vancouver release team meeting

On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 02:44:52PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote: > Notice that one of the main arch having problem some time back was arm, and > the buildd where maintained by who ? elmo. Which, considering he was one of the people who signed off on the proposal, makes me think that the problem can't

Re: Supporting tier-2 (was Re: COUNT(buildd) IN (2,3))

On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 07:26:58PM +0100, Marc Haber wrote: > On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 13:18:54 -0500, David Nusinow > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 05:57:05PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote: > >> Reasonable security support requires some degree of cooperation with the > >> current

Re: Bits (Nybbles?) from the Vancouver release team meeting

On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 04:27:50PM +0100, Matthias Urlichs wrote: > Hi, Hamish Moffatt wrote: > > > especially given the requirement that you need <= 2 buildds. > > I consider that requirement to be not warranted, and indeed unjustified. > > If I had to think of a rationale for it, the only one

Re: Bits (Nybbles?) from the Vancouver release team meeting

On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 01:14:30 +0100, Sven Luther wrote: > On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 06:10:30PM -0500, Andres Salomon wrote: >> On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 09:42:20 -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote: >> [...] >> > >> > - Both in public[0] and in private, Martin Pitt (acting in an Ubuntu role) >> > and others fro

Re: Bits (Nybbles?) from the Vancouver release team meeting

On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 03:57:40PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote: > On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 10:06:35AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote: > > > I have no objection to releasing security updates for the 4 "main" archs > > with announcements, and the rest as soon as they're compiled (which > > should be just

Re: Bits (Nybbles?) from the Vancouver release team meeting

Alastair McKinstry wrote: The question is: how do you release a SCC arch, if at all? AFAIK, the terminology is FCC/SCC for mirror split, and "release-arch" and "non-release-arch" for which arches get released as stable. So the question is "how do you release a non-release arch?" Once you get ove

Re: Bits (Nybbles?) from the Vancouver release team meeting

On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 03:15:34PM +0100, Tollef Fog Heen wrote: > * Thiemo Seufer > > | For anyone who uses Debian as base of a commercial solution it is a > | requirement. Grabing some random unstable snapshot is a non-starter. > > You do realise this is exactly what Ubuntu is doing? (Grab ?r

Re: Bits (Nybbles?) from the Vancouver release team meeting

On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 02:24:47PM +0100, Aur?lien Jarno wrote: > Hamish Moffatt a ?crit : > >I see it as more a practical consideration. If you can't buy the > >hardware new then you will have trouble keeping up with a growing unstable, > >especially given the requirement that you need <= 2 buildd

Re: Bits (Nybbles?) from the Vancouver release team meeting

Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > The inclusion of ia64 in the release count is a projection, based on > where I believe things are today. Nothing the release team is doing > ensures that ia64 is going to be a viable port, a year from now when > we're trying to release etch; and nothin

[RFC] OpenLDAP automatic upgrade

Hi there, As you might have noticed or not we are working on getting OpenLDAP 2.2 into unstable. The packages are mostly working fine (as available in experimental) but what is missing is a really tested upgrade path from OpenLDAP 2.0 (in stable) and 2.1 (in testing, unstable). My proposal how i

Re: Sarge release (Re: Bits (Nybbles?) from the Vancouver release team meeting)

On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 09:12:42PM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: > On Tue, 15 Mar 2005, Sven Luther wrote: > > Where are the minutes of the discussion, where are detailed explanation of > > the > > problems trying to be sovled ? Where is a call to alternative solution ? > > Where > >

Re: Bits (Nybbles?) from the Vancouver release team meeting

On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 08:47:08AM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote: > On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 02:41:35PM +0100, Frank K?ster wrote: > > Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb: > > > On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 01:33:16PM +0100, Thiemo Seufer wrote: > > >> For anyone who uses Debian as base of a commerc

Re: Bits (Nybbles?) from the Vancouver release team meeting

On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 06:10:30PM -0500, Andres Salomon wrote: > On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 09:42:20 -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote: > [...] > > > > - Both in public[0] and in private, Martin Pitt (acting in an Ubuntu role) > > and others from the Ubuntu community have been collaborating with the > > D

Re: Bits (Nybbles?) from the Vancouver release team meeting

Mark Brown wrote: On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 08:50:04AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: What that actually means is that when porters want to stabilise, they'll be able to simply stop autobuilding unstable, fix any remaining problems that are a major concern, and request a snapshot be done. That'll resu

Re: Bits (Nybbles?) from the Vancouver release team meeting

On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 07:19:32PM +0100, Julien BLACHE wrote: > I hereby ask the people involved in this proposal to step down > immediately from their positions in the Project. You've violated a > couple of rules already, and you've violated the spirit of this > Project. You're going to purge a

Re: Bits (Nybbles?) from the Vancouver release team meeting

On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 03:57:40PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote: > Hi John, > > On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 10:06:35AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 10:52:29AM -0500, Stephen Gran wrote: > > > Let me try to be clear. I am not necessarily in favor of dropping > > > arches. I a

Re: Key management using a USB key

hi, On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 02:19:46PM +0100, Erik Schanze wrote: > Your fingers lie on a bloody wound. ;-) > > There was ITP #187548 for newpg, but was closed last summer. aha. > Please reopen it and make a package for newpg to make KMail-Users happy. > If you have not enough time, would you s

Re: Sarge release (Re: Bits (Nybbles?) from the Vancouver release team meeting)

On Tue, 15 Mar 2005, Sven Luther wrote: > Where are the minutes of the discussion, where are detailed explanation of the > problems trying to be sovled ? Where is a call to alternative solution ? Where > is a call for help from the arch porters for security and infrastructure > issues ? Given that

Re: Bits (Nybbles?) from the Vancouver release team meeting

On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 12:45:14AM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 10:20:00PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote: > > But you would notice all this just the same if the signing where automated, > > don't you ? > > Possibly; however, it wouldn't buy us much (signing successful build >

Re: Bits (Nybbles?) from the Vancouver release team meeting

On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 11:42:10PM +0100, Julien BLACHE wrote: > Scott James Remnant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > There's no particular reason for Ubuntu developers to try and impose > > Canonical's agenda on Debian; we have our own distro for (and because we > > have) our own agenda. > > How c

Re: mplayer 1.0pre6a-4 for i386 and PowerPC and sparc

On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 02:30:03PM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote: > On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 11:02:40PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote: > > > Ok, so why doesn't mplayer get's accepted in debian now ? > > I have no idea, nor is it my responsibility to know. I can only say that > your claims so far are al

Re: Bits (Nybbles?) from the Vancouver release team meeting

Joey Hess wrote: Steve Langasek wrote: Considered that ftbfs bugs for scc architectures are not going to be RC any more, Right, they'll be important instead of serious, the traditional severity for FTBFS on non-RC archs Somewhere else in this vast thread, someone suggested that they be serious and

Re: Bits (Nybbles?) from the Vancouver release team meeting

On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 17:03:46 -0600, John Goerzen wrote: [...] > There is no longer going to be any such thing as a standard Debian > installation. Each box, and each snapshot, could have different > versions of important packages -- everything from glibc to KDE or Gnome. > The user experience will

Re: Bits (Nybbles?) from the Vancouver release team meeting

On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 11:38:29PM +0100, Julien BLACHE wrote: > And keeping IA64 in the loop is just another joke from the release > team. It'd be interesting to find out, but I bet more m68ks were sold > than IA64 last year. Which of these two architectures are you more likely to be able to run

Re: SCC proposal (was: Re: Questions for the DPL candidates)

Anthony Towns writes: > Halting unstable autobuilding, fixing remaining bugs in an > arch-specific freeze, then making a snapshot allows you to produce a > release. It may or may not correspond with Debian stable. I am of the opinion that the testing distribution has been a great help in releasi

SCC proposal (was: Re: Questions for the DPL candidates)

John Goerzen wrote: -vote dropped from Cc's, subject changed. Please, can we take some care over these things? And the result of this discussion is what leaves me with great concern. Specifically, the proposal: 1) Provides no way for an arch to produce a stable release after the initial set

Re: Sarge release (Re: Bits (Nybbles?) from the Vancouver release team meeting)

On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 07:44:03PM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: > On Mon, 14 Mar 2005, Sven Luther wrote: > > Yes, but the utherly arrogant and despreciating way in how this announcement > > Chill out. It was a RFC, and it was labelled as such. It may not be perfect, > and obviously i

Re: automake/autoconf in build-dependencies

Hi, > >The current practice and trend is going the other way, > >but I strongly recommend for using autoconf/automake in build scripts. > > Does cdbs do it right? I've actually not looked into how cdbs handles things, so I cannot comment on it. regards, junichi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE,

Re: Bits (Nybbles?) from the Vancouver release team meeting

Hi John, On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 10:06:35AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote: > On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 10:52:29AM -0500, Stephen Gran wrote: > > Let me try to be clear. I am not necessarily in favor of dropping > > arches. I am opposed to having portability issues make new releases > > drag on forever

Re: Release sarge now, or discuss etch issues? (was: Bits (Nybbles?) from the Vancouver release team meeting)

On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 05:32:44PM -0500, Joey Hess wrote: > Frank Küster wrote: > > I do not understand why the Nybbles team mixed their good news about > > sarge with their foreseeably controversial plans or proposal for etch. > > I fear that we will have a huge, long flamewar. And many competen

Re: Bits (Nybbles?) from the Vancouver release team meeting

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 David Nusinow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> That's very Ubuntu-centric. What about the others ? I'm not >> specifically speaking of Ubuntu here. You can add Project Scud to the >> list, if you'd like. > > Got a more specific example or are you just go

Re: Bits (Nybbles?) from the Vancouver release team meeting

On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 19:19:32 +0100, Julien BLACHE wrote: [...] > > You'll figure out that the timing for this new policy is absolutely > perfect; we're a week away from the voting period for the new DPL > term. The current DPL can't (and won't, obviously) do anything about > it, and the candidate

Re: Questions for the DPL candidates

On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 08:35:26AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > Matthew Garrett wrote: > >Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Andreas Schuldei (DPL candidate) > >> Angus Lees (DPL candidate) > >> Branden Robinson (DPL candidate) > >> Jonathan Walther (DPL candidate) > >Little advance pu

Re: Questions for the DPL candidates

On Monday 14 March 2005 23:35, Anthony Towns wrote: > Matthew Garrett wrote: > > Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Andreas Schuldei (DPL candidate) > >> Angus Lees (DPL candidate) > >> Branden Robinson (DPL candidate) > >> Jonathan Walther (DPL candidate) > > > > Little advance pub

Re: Bits (Nybbles?) from the Vancouver release team meeting

On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 10:20:00PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote: > But you would notice all this just the same if the signing where automated, > don't you ? Possibly; however, it wouldn't buy us much (signing successful build logs currently takes me 10 seconds for the first log, and less than a second

Re: Bits (Nybbles?) from the Vancouver release team meeting

On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 11:38:29PM +0100, Julien BLACHE wrote: > >> Sure that's good. It stops to be that good when they're obviously > >> trying hard to impose their employer's agenda on the Project. > > > > Sarge was already very late before Ubuntu existed. Our mirror network was > > already stra

Re: debconf5 CFP reminder and update

[ d-d CC-ed since this may be of interest for other lazy and last minute DDs like me :-] On Wed, Mar 09, 2005 at 04:29:48PM +0100, Andreas Schuldei wrote: > The period to submit papers for debconf5 will expire March 15th > 2005, 23h59 UTC, so you have a few days left to think up a good > talk to

Re: Bits (Nybbles?) from the Vancouver release team meeting

On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 09:42:20 -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote: [...] > > - Both in public[0] and in private, Martin Pitt (acting in an Ubuntu role) > and others from the Ubuntu community have been collaborating with the > Debian security team on patches for a wide range of vulnerabilities > Yes,

Re: Bits (Nybbles?) from the Vancouver release team meeting

Steve Langasek wrote: > Colin mentioned the possibility of adding an "Architecture:" field > instead. That seems better than an etch-ignore tag anyway, for what you > want to achieve here. Indeed, that sounds exactly like what I was thinking of. -- see shy jo signature.asc Description: Digita

Re: Offer to take over the shadow package (passwd and login binary packages)

On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 11:20:15PM +0100, Norbert Tretkowski wrote: >* Marc Wilson wrote: >>On Sun, Mar 13, 2005 at 10:31:36AM +0100, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote: >>>* Christian Perrier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >>> Since July 2004, I've got no news from Karl and any further attempt to get in touch w

Re: Bits (Nybbles?) from the Vancouver release team meeting

On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 16:45:10 +0100, Sven Luther wrote: > On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 10:16:19AM -0500, David Nusinow wrote: [...] >> >> What about the *massive* issues with releasing d-i due to syncing on all >> arch's? What about the various arch-specific kernel issues that have popped >> up > > T

Re: Bits (Nybbles?) from the Vancouver release team meeting

On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 08:50:04AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > What that actually means is that when porters want to stabilise, they'll > be able to simply stop autobuilding unstable, fix any remaining problems > that are a major concern, and request a snapshot be done. That'll result ... >

Re: Questions for the DPL candidates

Anthony Towns wrote: > Really, I think this is a necessary consequence of having small meetings > of the relevant people; the alternatives are to invite everyone -- which > is more or less the same as just having the discussion on the lists, > which has its own problems that I hope have adequa

  1   2   3   4   5   6   >