Hi,
my current plans are now as follows: Submit maint-only bug reports
regarding "a" vs. "an" for the following "words", including a reference
to this thread in the mailing list archive:
> ACPI
> Adlib
> AX.25
> EsounD
> FLTK
> FPU
> FTP
> IETF
> IMAP
> Internet
> IP
> IPv4
> IPv6
> IR
> IrDA
> I
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.
>
> please please please...for anything which can be localized (especiall
On Wed, Mar 16, 2005 at 04:37:13PM -0500, Roberto C. Sanchez wrote:
> >For example both public debian m68k machines are located on the same window
> >sill at the Univ. of Duesseldorf. IMHO not the best place to position
> >important infrastructure.
> I agree. A sturdy table, or even a shelf or se
On Wed, Mar 16, 2005 at 07:49:23PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Joel Aelwyn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > If you really want this fixed, I suggest finding someone who is well versed
> > in both network security issues and Internet protocol fundamentals (not
> > just TCP or even just IP,
On Thu, 17 Mar 2005, Karsten Merker wrote:
Some, maybe. Are there lots of people running servers on m68k and arm?
^^^
Perhaps not on m68k, but at least I do on sparc and mipsel, and I doubt
that I am the only one.
Well, at least the Debian projec
* Aurélien Jarno [Mon, 14 Mar 2005 14:38:01 +0100]:
> Another example, I have uploaded lineakd yesterday, it is already built
> on all arches, except arm and ia64 [2]. In that case, I consider ia64 as
> a slow arch.
ia64 and hppa seem to have had some kind of trouble this week, but I
see in
* Tollef Fog Heen [Wed, 16 Mar 2005 16:15:01 +0100]:
> * Wouter Verhelst
> | In practice, the fact that wanna-build runs on ftp-master means it gets
> | updated right after the Debian Installer (the one that sends you the
> | ACCEPTED or REJECTED mails, not the other one that'll be used for Sarge
On Wed, Mar 16, 2005 at 07:50:13PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Joel Aelwyn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > * SCC systems have buildds.
> >
> > * Buildds must be network accessible.
> >
> > * The first rule of securing a machine exposed to the wilds is "Deny by
> > default, allow by n
On Wed, Mar 16, 2005 at 07:32:37PM -0500, Ben Collins wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 16, 2005 at 06:11:39PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> > Ben Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > The requirement sucks, lets leave it at that. If the machine dies, I can
> > > have two to replace it within a d
Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, 16 Mar 2005, Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote:
>> The patches for BDB 4.2.52 are freely available from Sleepycat. They are
>> required to be in place if you want a stable BDB 4.2.52 distribution. I
>> would be very surprised if the packa
Bernd Eckenfels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
> > getting things back. The point of the N+1 rule, as I understand it,
> > is to give a different kind of redundancy, so that we don't have to
> > wait a day or two.
>
> How many current debian services are
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
> getting things back. The point of the N+1 rule, as I understand it,
> is to give a different kind of redundancy, so that we don't have to
> wait a day or two.
How many current debian services are hosted that way?
Greetings
Bernd
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, e
Auric is down, because it is a only a U60. I attempted to move some drives
around, and I did put them in the wrong place.
The delay in getting it fixed is, as I said, getting a response from James
to move the new machine there. No reason to fix auric if I can just
replace it.
Stop chasing red her
Hi Roland,
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 04:04:45PM +0100, Roland Mas wrote:
> Steve Langasek, 2005-03-13 20:45:09 -0800 :
> > It's also not clear how much benefit there is from doing stable
> > releases for all of these architectures, because they aren't
> > necessarily useful to the communities surro
лл£¡ÊÕµ½£¡
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Ben Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Stop chasing red herrings, and just get back to work. Sparc has always
> been and always will be a maintained architecture.
Actually, work right now consists of answering paniced emails from my
students worried about their test on Friday, and waiting for
Joel Aelwyn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> * SCC systems have buildds.
>
> * Buildds must be network accessible.
>
> * The first rule of securing a machine exposed to the wilds is "Deny by
> default, allow by need".
Exactly which firewalling are the existing buildds doing? (I'm asking
for inf
Joel Aelwyn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> If you really want this fixed, I suggest finding someone who is well versed
> in both network security issues and Internet protocol fundamentals (not
> just TCP or even just IP, but all the other lovely beasties out there) and
> convincing them it's worth
On Wed, Mar 16, 2005 at 03:13:16PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes:
>
> > On Mar 16, Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > One of the conditions for SCC is "fully functioning Unix, including
> > > DNS and firewall support." What spec
On Wed, Mar 16, 2005 at 06:11:39PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Ben Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > The requirement sucks, lets leave it at that. If the machine dies, I can
> > have two to replace it within a day or two.
> >
> > The point being, there's no reason to have two sepe
On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 21:58:55 -0800, Marc Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 05:30:50AM +0100, Jonas Gall wrote:
> > On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 14:04:40 -0800, Marc Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Apparently you missed the flamage when Mozilla's maintainer went insane
> >
On Wed, Mar 16, 2005 at 11:12:29AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>
> To be in SCC, under the proposal we're all discussing, an arch must
> have build 50% of the archive, not counting arch-specific packages.
>
> The Debian Hurd project has another category that should be excluded
> because the
Ben Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Ok, I can guarantee that it never dies. The hardrives are raid 5
> configuration, and the power supplies are redundant, and if any of the
> three cpu/mem boards goes bad, I can just remove it and let the other two
> (4x cpu's and 4gigs ram) run. Then there
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
> A lot of work has been done in webmin for this. Web interfaces are
> generally preferred in this century :-)
and gkdebconf, base-config or configure-debian.
However the neaness of debian is mostly due to its classical unix design.
And this is somewhat
On Wed, 16 Mar 2005, Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote:
> The patches for BDB 4.2.52 are freely available from Sleepycat. They are
> required to be in place if you want a stable BDB 4.2.52 distribution. I
> would be very surprised if the package maintainer hadn't already included
> the patches in their b
On Wed, Mar 16, 2005 at 05:11:47PM +0100, Toni Mueller wrote:
>
> Hi Steve,
>
> On Wed, 16.03.2005 at 15:23:42 +, Steve McIntyre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > I wrote:
> > >Btw, why, or how, do other projects with much fewer users and also much
> > >fewer developers, manage to release for
I demand that Adrian Bunk may or may not have written...
> On Thu, Mar 17, 2005 at 12:29:28AM +, Darren Salt wrote:
>> I demand that Adrian Bunk may or may not have written...
>> [snip]
>>> And without testing, all these transition problems wouldn't exist.
>> And without testing, there are tho
On Wed, Mar 16, 2005 at 04:31:19PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Ben Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 08:44:49PM -0800, Blars Blarson wrote:
> > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you write:
> > > >I have an e3500 to replace both auric and vore (and the raid),
Torsten Landschoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Some issues to consider for the 2.1 to 2.2 process:
>>
>> 1) OpenLDAP 2.1 generally used BDB 4.1. OpenLDAP 2.2 should only be used
>> with BDB 4.2.52+patches when using bdb or hdb as the backend (Ignore the
>> documentation with OpenLDAP 2.2.23
On Thu, Mar 17, 2005 at 01:26:17AM +0100, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
> No Debian tool depends on s/32/64/ or s/$/64/. As for me, I type "ppc"
> instead of "powerpc" very often, even though I should know better by now.
Likewise. This would seem to be a case of "once may be regarded as a
misfortune,
Ben Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The requirement sucks, lets leave it at that. If the machine dies, I can
> have two to replace it within a day or two.
>
> The point being, there's no reason to have two seperate machines when one
> can do the job. As long as it keeps up, then there shoul
On Thu, Mar 17, 2005 at 12:28:55PM +1100, Evan Cox wrote:
> My suggestion has come from frustration in trying to maintain Debian Sarge
> from the CLI. I am very use to some sort of system control center, for
> common tasks such as iptables, network connection/configuration, configuring
> hardw
On Thu, 2005-03-17 at 01:07 +, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> On Thu, 2005-03-17 at 01:57 +0100, Andreas Jochens wrote:
>
> > On 05-Mar-17 00:10, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> > > No, I would just prefer consistency. You've deliberately chosen an
> > > architecture name that's jarringly differen
Hi Guys,
I hope this is the right area to send this email. My apologies if I am
wrong. If so, please forward to the appropriate area.
I have fiddles with Linux distro's for approx 3 years, and found Debian 3
months ago. I adore it, and will be using debian from now on.
I would like to off
On Thu, Mar 17, 2005 at 12:29:28AM +, Darren Salt wrote:
> I demand that Adrian Bunk may or may not have written...
>
> [snip]
> > And without testing, all these transition problems wouldn't exist.
>
> And without testing, there are those who currently use testing who'd use
> stable instead,
On Thu, Mar 17, 2005 at 01:07:05AM +, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> On Thu, 2005-03-17 at 01:57 +0100, Andreas Jochens wrote:
>
> > On 05-Mar-17 00:10, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> > > No, I would just prefer consistency. You've deliberately chosen an
> > > architecture name that's jarringly d
* Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote:
[...]
> You do *not* want to run OpenLDAP against BDB 4.3. Releasing Debian
> with its OpenLDAP compiled against BDB 4.3 would be a serious
> mistake.
You forgot to explain _why_ OpenLDAP compiled against BDB 4.3 should
be a serious mistake.
Norbert
--
To UNSUBSCRI
Scott James Remnant wrote:
>On Thu, 2005-03-17 at 01:57 +0100, Andreas Jochens wrote:
>>
>> The decision to use the name 'ppc64' is based on the LSB and it is
>> consistent with the decision of all other distributions I know of.
>>
>But it isn't consistent with Debian's previous decision on the
Hey Steve,
Steve Langasek wrote:
>On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 11:41:59AM +, Steve McIntyre wrote:
>
>> >- the release architecture must have N+1 buildds where N is the number
>> > required to keep up with the volume of uploaded packages
>
>> >- the value of N above must not be > 2
>
>> When you s
On 05-Mar-17 00:10, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> No, I would just prefer consistency. You've deliberately chosen an
> architecture name that's jarringly different from your 32-bit variant;
> that's a rather bold thing to do, and I think you need to justify that.
The decision to use the name 'ppc6
Ben Collins wrote:
>On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 08:44:49PM -0800, Blars Blarson wrote:
>> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you write:
>> >I have an e3500 to replace both auric and vore (and the raid), but I
>> >haven't gotten an ok from James to do so yet.
>>
>> That would cut the number of sparc buildd
Thomas wrote:
>Tollef Fog Heen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Most of the teams here work by the principle of «submit working
>> patches and be useful». I don't think having a formalised process to
>> join the CD-image team (randomly chosen) is very useful.
>
>BTW, I hope to be able to make a we
On Thu, 2005-03-17 at 01:57 +0100, Andreas Jochens wrote:
> On 05-Mar-17 00:10, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> > No, I would just prefer consistency. You've deliberately chosen an
> > architecture name that's jarringly different from your 32-bit variant;
> > that's a rather bold thing to do, and I
I demand that Marc Haber may or may not have written...
> On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 14:02:20 +0100, Frank Küster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>> luna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> We all have seen this proposal for "dropping architecture" and a lot of
>>> us are crying because their favourite pet archi
I demand that Adrian Bunk may or may not have written...
[snip]
> And without testing, all these transition problems wouldn't exist.
And without testing, there are those who currently use testing who'd use
stable instead, or possibly go elsewhere.
(I'm currently using testing. Updating an instal
On Wed, Mar 16, 2005 at 11:07:56AM -0500, Stephen Frost wrote:
> * Kyle McMartin ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 16, 2005 at 03:06:19PM +, Rob Taylor wrote:
> > > Yes, that makes total sense. Would there likely be major objections to
> > > this?
> > >
> >
> > Even less (likely zero)
Hi, Karsten Merker wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 16, 2005 at 02:02:09PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
>
>> For that matter, it would probably make sense to drop 2.4 kernels fully
>> in the not so far future.
>
> I would like to strongly advise against that - 2.6 does not even work
> properly on several i386
Hi, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> You've deliberately chosen an
> architecture name that's jarringly different from your 32-bit variant;
> that's a rather bold thing to do, and I think you need to justify that.
>
He did, didn't he? LSB conformity, for one. No Debian precedent for
appending "64" to
Ben Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 08:44:49PM -0800, Blars Blarson wrote:
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you write:
> > >I have an e3500 to replace both auric and vore (and the raid), but I
> > >haven't gotten an ok from James to do so yet.
> >
> > That would cu
Hi, Ola Lundqvist wrote:
> Hello
>
> On Wed, Mar 16, 2005 at 03:27:27PM +0100, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
>> Hi, Rob Taylor wrote:
>>
>> > Do you think it might be better have a trusted builder keyring, with
>> > strict rules on what makes a trusted builder (it seems rather a
>> > different set of
On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 08:44:49PM -0800, Blars Blarson wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you write:
> >I have an e3500 to replace both auric and vore (and the raid), but I
> >haven't gotten an ok from James to do so yet.
>
> That would cut the number of sparc buildds down to one, when two a
Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> It seems what makes Thomas suspicous is that of all current ports of
> Debian (Linux, *BSD, GNU/Hurd), the only one that might be affected is
> GNU/Hurd - this requirement is therefore either void for all current
> Debian ports or it was meant specifica
On Thu, Mar 17, 2005 at 12:24:00AM +0100, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Mar 17, Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > > One of the conditions for SCC is "fully functioning Unix, including
> > > > DNS and firewall support." What specifically is intended by "firewall
> > > > support"?
Hi, David Schmitt wrote:
> Collecting tidbits of
> information concerning the various packages rotting in NEW and making that
> information public.
A list of packages-in-NEW is available on the Web, including binary
package names, bugs closed, et al.
Nothing more can be done by the average bored
On Thu, 2005-03-17 at 00:31 +0100, Andreas Jochens wrote:
> On 05-Mar-16 22:24, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> > > So you would add 'powerpc64' support to dpkg if the port changes its
> > > package name accordingly?
> > >
> > Yes, that'd be applied to the 1.13 branch straight away.
> >
> > > Howe
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
* Package name: coils
Version : no version
Upstream Author : Rob Russell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://www.russell.embl.de/cgi-bin/coils-svr.pl
* License : GPL
Description : [Biology] prediction of coiled coil seconda
On 05-Mar-16 22:24, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> > So you would add 'powerpc64' support to dpkg if the port changes its
> > package name accordingly?
> >
> Yes, that'd be applied to the 1.13 branch straight away.
>
> > However, I still do not understand why you and/or the Project Leader
> > wan
On Wed, 2005-03-16 at 09:20 -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> Due to a scheduling conflict with our regular meeting date of April
> 19, the Board elected to meet on April 12 instead. The time will be
> the same as always, 19:00 UTC.
>
> Please note: this will be a different *local* time for people in
On Wed, Mar 16, 2005 at 07:51:16PM +0100, David Schmitt wrote:
> On Wednesday 16 March 2005 18:12, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > I already sent two mails [1,2] where I expressed my opinion that dumping
> > testing might be an option since it's the main reason for the underlying
> > problems that seem to c
On Wed, 2005-03-16 at 23:59 +0100, Andreas Jochens wrote:
> On 05-Mar-17 09:46, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> > Have we any proper way of doing multiarch setups ? The "proper" way to
> > do ppc64 is to have both archs libs and 32 bits userland for most
> > things, as ppc64 native code is slightly
On Wed, 2005-03-16 at 23:59 +0100, Andreas Jochens wrote:
> On 05-Mar-17 09:46, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> > Have we any proper way of doing multiarch setups ? The "proper" way to
> > do ppc64 is to have both archs libs and 32 bits userland for most
> > things, as ppc64 native code is slightly
On Wed, 2005-03-16 at 22:24 +, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> On Wed, 2005-03-16 at 23:14 +0100, Andreas Jochens wrote:
>
> > On 05-Mar-16 22:01, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2005-03-16 at 22:48 +0100, Andreas Jochens wrote:
> > >
> > > My concern is the same as that of the Project
On Mar 17, Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > One of the conditions for SCC is "fully functioning Unix, including
> > > DNS and firewall support." What specifically is intended by "firewall
> > > support"?
> > I think that simple ACLs are the bare minimum.
> Ok, can you point
> However, I still do not understand why you and/or the Project Leader
> want to override the decision of the porters and choose a different name
> than the LSB specifies. I am not saying that Debian should always follow
> the LSB blindly, but I cannot see a good reason for deviating from the
>
On 05-Mar-17 09:46, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> Have we any proper way of doing multiarch setups ? The "proper" way to
> do ppc64 is to have both archs libs and 32 bits userland for most
> things, as ppc64 native code is slightly slower.
Detailed measurements of 32 bit vs. 64 bit code for diff
> Anyway, the biarch approach will also need a 'dpkg' which supports
> separate 64-bit ppc64 packages in the end.
>
> What are your concerns? Do you refuse to support a native 64-bit
> powerpc64/ppc64 port? Or do you want a different name for it?
I think there is not real point in doing so, or
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes:
> On Mar 16, Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > One of the conditions for SCC is "fully functioning Unix, including
> > DNS and firewall support." What specifically is intended by "firewall
> > support"?
> I think that simple ACLs are
On Mar 16, Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> One of the conditions for SCC is "fully functioning Unix, including
> DNS and firewall support." What specifically is intended by "firewall
> support"?
I think that simple ACLs are the bare minimum.
> Those who felt this necessary, ca
On Wed, 2005-03-16 at 20:27 +0100, Andreas Jochens wrote:
> Hello,
>
> This is a call for help from the 'ppc64' porters.
>
> On 05-Mar-14 16:14, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
> > Also, as with the amd64 port, there is disagreement about the name.
> > While ppc64 would be nicer and in line with the LSB
On Wed, Mar 16, 2005 at 10:00:15AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> > Either you trust me as a person or you trust some kind of software snippet,
> > aka gpg key.
> I don't know who you are. The snippet tells me who you are.
even with that snippet you don't know me. You just know, that there
On Wed, Mar 16, 2005 at 10:24:04PM +, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> Because it's a 64-bit version of an already supported architecture.
> Having "ppc" and "ppc64" would be fine, as would having "powerpc" and
> "powerpc64". Having "powerpc" and "ppc64" is inconsistent.
and deviating from an alr
On 05-Mar-16 22:01, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> On Wed, 2005-03-16 at 22:48 +0100, Andreas Jochens wrote:
>
> > On 05-Mar-16 21:16, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2005-03-16 at 20:27 +0100, Andreas Jochens wrote:
> > >
> > > > This is a call for help from the 'ppc64' porters.
> > > >
On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 17:19:31 +0100, Thiemo Seufer uttered
> AFAIR it wasn't fixed but dropped, nobody seemed to care about
> sun4c any more.
>
You need to check your assertions better. Joshua Kwan has done a hell
of a lot of work with sparc{32,64} recently. Anyway, sun4c is not the
only sparc32 su
On Wed, 2005-03-16 at 23:14 +0100, Andreas Jochens wrote:
> On 05-Mar-16 22:01, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> > On Wed, 2005-03-16 at 22:48 +0100, Andreas Jochens wrote:
> >
> > My concern is the same as that of the Project Leader, that the existing
> > powerpc port is called "powerpc" -- and that
Hi Quanah,
On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 01:07:29PM -0800, Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote:
> I currently maintain Stanford University's directory service, which is
> based on OpenLDAP. I also am a member of the OpenLDAP core team, and I
> hold down another job with Symas Corporation doing a variety of ta
On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 05:04:26PM -0800, Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote:
> >> The first. Basically upstream changes the database format quite often.
> >> I am even not entirely sure if the database format stays compatible in
> >> the 2.1 or 2.2 line but I'd expect it to. The 2.2.23 Debian packages
> >>
On 05-Mar-16 21:16, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> On Wed, 2005-03-16 at 20:27 +0100, Andreas Jochens wrote:
>
> > This is a call for help from the 'ppc64' porters.
> >
> Which group? According to Sven Luther's e-mail to debian-devel there
> are currently two competing efforts for this port.
The
On Wed, 2005-03-16 at 22:48 +0100, Andreas Jochens wrote:
> On 05-Mar-16 21:16, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> > On Wed, 2005-03-16 at 20:27 +0100, Andreas Jochens wrote:
> >
> > > This is a call for help from the 'ppc64' porters.
> > >
> > Which group? According to Sven Luther's e-mail to debia
Ingo Juergensmann wrote:
On Wed, Mar 16, 2005 at 12:20:34AM -0800, Blars Blarson wrote:
If we are going to require redundancy, I think we should do it better
and add:
- at least two buildd administrators
*nod*
- systems located in at least two different facilities (different
cities and backbone
El mar, 15-03-2005 a las 19:53 -0500, Joey Hess escribiÃ:
> Marc Haber wrote:
> > The architectures you plan to release have a working installer,
> > anaconda, for years. d-i was developed to allow release of all
> > architectures. You are dropping that requirement, flushing all d-i
> > efforts dow
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Decklin Foster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* Package name: python-beautifulsoup
Version : 1.2+cvs20041017
Upstream Author : Leonard Richardson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://www.crummy.com/software/BeautifulSoup/
* License : P
Adam Borowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb:
> On Wed, 16 Mar 2005, Frank Küster wrote:
>> Miros/law Baran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb:
>> > The font is included in the tetex-base package, along with other Type1
>> > GUST-sponsored fonts (Antykwa Toru?ska etc.) - I think such a package
>> > will be
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Decklin Foster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* Package name: python-mpdclient
Version : 0.10.0
Upstream Author : Nick Welch
* URL : http://www.musicpd.org/py-libmpdclient.shtml
* License : LGPL
Description : Python interface
Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I presume the following is true (but different teams are different, so
> that's what I'm looking for, what is different) for the teams you are
> speaking of:
>
> 1) Anyone can join the mailing list and participate in the
>discussions;
> 2) Anyon
Hello,
This is a call for help from the 'ppc64' porters.
On 05-Mar-14 16:14, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
> Also, as with the amd64 port, there is disagreement about the name.
> While ppc64 would be nicer and in line with the LSB, our current
> PowerPC port is called powerpc and therefore it would ma
On Wed, 2005-03-16 at 20:27 +0100, Andreas Jochens wrote:
> This is a call for help from the 'ppc64' porters.
>
Which group? According to Sven Luther's e-mail to debian-devel there
are currently two competing efforts for this port.
Scott
--
Have you ever, ever felt like this?
Had strange thin
On Wed, Mar 16, 2005 at 06:39:11PM +0100, Christian Perrier wrote:
> > slang should, I hope, be a fairly small change; OTOH, we seem to still have
> > conflicting slang1 and slang1a-utf8 packages in the archive (conflicting
> > -dev packages at least), so it would certainly be nice to wrap this up
Le Mer 16 Mars 2005 21:36, Ron Johnson a Ãcrit :
> On Wed, 2005-03-16 at 21:18 +0100, Ola Lundqvist wrote:
> > Hello
> >
> > On Fri, Feb 25, 2005 at 07:45:47PM -0600, Ron Johnson wrote:
> > > On Sat, 2005-02-26 at 00:53 +0100, Santiago Vila wrote:
> > > > Hello.
> > > >
> > > > I have several repor
Scripsit Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 09:56:03PM +, Henning Makholm wrote:
>>An IRREGULAR architecture either does not make releases, or release
>>according to a schedule that does not match the REGULAR one. (One
>>possible instance of this is "we'll tr
On Wed, 2005-03-16 at 21:18 +0100, Ola Lundqvist wrote:
> Hello
>
> On Fri, Feb 25, 2005 at 07:45:47PM -0600, Ron Johnson wrote:
> > On Sat, 2005-02-26 at 00:53 +0100, Santiago Vila wrote:
> > > Hello.
> > >
> > > I have several reports saying procmail does not support mbox folders
> > > larger t
Hello
On Fri, Feb 25, 2005 at 07:45:47PM -0600, Ron Johnson wrote:
> On Sat, 2005-02-26 at 00:53 +0100, Santiago Vila wrote:
> > Hello.
> >
> > I have several reports saying procmail does not support mbox folders
> > larger than 2GB. Questions:
>
> OT here, but WTF are people smoking, to have 2G
John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Thomas Bushnell BSG writes:
> > The Debian Hurd project has another category that should be excluded
> > because they are kernel-specific. (The current list on the web page is
> > update, makedev, ld.so, modconf, modutils, netbase, pcmcia-cs, procps,
> >
On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 04:35:24PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
...
> Now one major question is: are these chosen by self-perpetuating work,
> or are they chosen by the DPL, or by someone else? Does the DPL have
> the power (where the Constitution doesn't say otherwise) to appo
Thomas Bushnell BSG writes:
> The Debian Hurd project has another category that should be excluded
> because they are kernel-specific. (The current list on the web page is
> update, makedev, ld.so, modconf, modutils, netbase, pcmcia-cs, procps,
> ppp, pppconfig, setserial.
Pppconfig is not kernel
Andreas Barth wrote:
* Matthew Palmer ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050313 01:05]:
On Sat, Mar 12, 2005 at 03:12:12PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
Er, packages *do* eventually get built; they just don't get built in any
kind of FIFO order.
Er, no.
Hi,
Thomas Bushnell BSG:
> I was speaking specifically of porter uploads; my discussion is about
> the specific case of s390 complaining that they can't do their porting
> work (which includes simply compiling packages) because the w-b admins
> won't add whatever buildd. My point is that porters
Eric Dorland wrote:
An arguably more secure approach would be to use a cryptographic smart
card in a usb key form factor with OpenSC. Unfortunately integration
with ssh and gpg is lacking at this point, but I hope to be able to do
something about that post-sarge (ssh has support but doesn't compile
On Wed, Mar 16, 2005 at 12:09:08PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Ola Lundqvist wrote:
> >>- the release architecture must have N+1 buildds where N is the number
> >> required to keep up with the volume of uploaded packages
> >Sane.
> >>- the value of N above must not be > 2
> >Testing related. I do
Matthias Urlichs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hi, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>
> > The Developer's Reference contains the procedures for binary NMUs.
>
> The BinNMU procedure covers the "a binary was built incorrectly and I can
> fix it without touching the source" situation. Third-level Debian
Hello
On Wed, Mar 16, 2005 at 03:27:27PM +0100, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
> Hi, Rob Taylor wrote:
>
> > Do you think it might be better have a trusted builder keyring, with
> > strict rules on what makes a trusted builder (it seems rather a
> > different set of issues to that addressed by the DD cr
1 - 100 of 228 matches
Mail list logo
