Le Mar 23 Août 2005 03:37, Goswin von Brederlow a écrit :
> > In the end the decision to apply this benchmark will be manual and
> > arbitrary; it's not like a precise way to measure it really
> > matters. As stated elsewhere, at present, nobody except i386 comes
> > even close to 98%.
>
> I see an
Thanks Goswin, this is what I thought.
Now I need someone help me with EVMS steps.
How to make a snapshot and rollback.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hi,
* Goswin von Brederlow ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050823 03:32]:
> On the other hand I feel that a port with even 80% of all packages
> available can be very very usefull. Even a port without any X can be
> usefull if that lack of software is intentional and not just inability
> to build something.
* Peter Samuelson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050823 00:18]:
> [John Hasler]
> > Make it 98% of the packages buildable on the accepted port with the
> > highest build percentage.
>
> That's not fair either, unless you require all packages to be autobuilt
> (which is a thread we don't need to duplicate no
On Mon, Aug 22, 2005 at 06:59:52AM -0500, John Hasler wrote:
> Andreas Jochens writes:
> Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > - must have successfully compiled 98% of the archive's source (excluding
> > arch-specific packages)
> Andreas Jochens writes:
> > It is not possible to build 98% of the unmodified
On Tue, Aug 23, 2005 at 12:40:18AM -0400, Joe Smith wrote:
> Actually perhaps software should be built outside of clean chroots. Why?
> Because if there is a possibility that a dirty chroot will cause the package
> to
> fail, there is a bug in some peice of software. It could prevent a user from
Roger Leigh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Andreas Jochens in particular did a lot of hard work in fixing most of
> the GCC 4.0 failures and regressions over the last year while porting
> for amd64. The fact that many maintainers have not yet applied, or at
> least carefully reviewed and applied a
Ok, I know just about nothing about this.
I currently have 2.6 kernel, hotplug, and udev.
If I replace hotplug with coldplug, everything should still work barring
unexpected bugs?
(Once the archive is updated of course, so that udev does not require
hotplug, and coldplug is actually included)
Gunnar Wolf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Thomas Bushnell BSG dijo [Sat, Aug 20, 2005 at 02:20:45PM -0700]:
>> > For several reasons, one being that the BSD folks use CVS extensively, it's
>> > part of how the ports system (and upgrades) work.
>>
>> How does their extensive use of it explain why
Matthew Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sun, Aug 21, 2005 at 07:01:37PM -0700, Daniel Burrows wrote:
>> On Saturday 20 August 2005 02:20 pm, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>> > How does their extensive use of it explain why they would reimplement
>> > it?
>>
>> Is there anyone who's used CV
Daniel Burrows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Saturday 20 August 2005 02:20 pm, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>> How does their extensive use of it explain why they would reimplement
>> it?
>
> Is there anyone who's used CVS extensively and HASN'T thought about
> reimplementing it?
Sure. Me, f
By the way, i386 does not make the cut according to the vancouver
prospect due to the number of buildds required. So are we left with 0
archs in etch? :) That will certainly speed up the release.
LOL.
Release NOW! Release now, damnit!
I think it will be our fastest and smoothest release ever.
Actually perhaps software should be built outside of clean chroots. Why?
Because if there is a possibility that a dirty chroot will cause the package
to fail, there is a bug in some peice of software. It could prevent a user
from recompiling on his own system, which thusly defeats the point of h
Sven Luther wrote:
> All packages should be built by official debian buildds anyway, not on
> developper machines with random cruft and unsecure packages installed, or
even
> possibly experimental or home-modified stuff.
Actually, it's better yet if the packages are built on developer machines
i
"[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hi,
>
> I am using debian linux and i want to make a system snapshot using LVM
> or EVMS.
> Now i am having running system with one partition (/dev/hda1 of 30GB,
> ~7GB used) and i can't modify or delete existing data.
> I want to take the snapshot
On Tue, Aug 23, 2005 at 02:46:47AM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> I would think that a weekly mozilla/galeon cvs snapshot upload could
> fall into the 'too long' category.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ wget -O -
'http://cvs.debian.org/srcdep/Packages-arch-specific?cvsroot=dak&rev=HEAD' |
grep mozil
"[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hi,
>
> I have installed lvm2 on debian and trying to run:
> pvcreate /dev/snap
> (when /dev/snap is a loopback file)
> and get an error "Device /dev/snap not found".
>
> My exact steps:
> 1) dd if=/dev/urandom of=/dev/snap bs=4096 count=1310702 (l
Peter Samuelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [John Hasler]
>> Make it 98% of the packages buildable on the accepted port with the
>> highest build percentage.
>
> That's not fair either, unless you require all packages to be autobuilt
> (which is a thread we don't need to duplicate now). There h
Andreas Jochens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 05-Aug-21 03:58, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
>> - must have successfully compiled 98% of the archive's source (excluding
>> arch-specific packages)
>
> It is not possible to build 98% of the unmodified source packages from
> the 'unstable' distributio
On Mon, 2005-08-22 at 23:18 +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Aug 22, Ben Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Which conf files blow things up? The reason I ask is, if it's an init
> Just about all of them. Almost all files in the package are conffiles.
>
> > script, it should be written to
On Mon, Aug 22, 2005 at 03:34:16PM +0200, Martin Pitt wrote:
> W. Borgert [2005-08-22 14:37 +0200]:
> > Quoting Matthew Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > > I used to think that too. I took a wander through queue/reject on merkel.
> > > I don't think that any more. I'm curious as to how Ubuntu is g
Riku Voipio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sun, Aug 21, 2005 at 10:54:43PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
>> * Peter 'p2' De Schrijver ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050821 22:39]:
>> > > - must have a working, tested installer
>
>> > Trivial. debootstrap does that.
>
>> How do you boot the system to ru
Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, Aug 23, 2005 at 12:04:11AM +0200, Peter 'p2' De Schrijver wrote:
>> On Tue, Aug 23, 2005 at 12:00:07AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
>> > On Mon, Aug 22, 2005 at 01:53:37PM +0200, Peter 'p2' De Schrijver wrote:
>> > > > Claiming "nobody sane wi
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
> The number of buildds required to keep up with the
> volume of uploaded packages must not be greater than two.
> There must be that many buildds, in addition there must also be a redundant
> buildd.
This means 2 or 3?
Greetings
Bernd
--
To UNSUBSCR
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
> It may be possible to compare the dependencies of each package across
> architectures to detect this - not at upload time, but asynchronously.
> (Developers do plenty of other such archive-wide tests now and report
> back through the BTS, debian-devel etc
Hi Wouter!
Wouter Verhelst [2005-08-23 1:26 +0200]:
> On Mon, Aug 22, 2005 at 04:08:37PM +0200, Martin Pitt wrote:
> > Hamish Moffatt [2005-08-22 23:47 +1000]:
> > > There is the possibility that developer builds get extra features
> > > enabled due to other installed libraries etc. This could be
Riku Voipio wrote:
> Machines and archs. On mips/mipsel/arm we have the situation that we
> support d-i on some legacy dead-end systems, while there is a pile new
> embedded systems on same arch. If you are working on the embedded side,
> it feels silly to maintain installer for machines you are n
On Mon, Aug 22, 2005 at 11:51:26AM +0200, Peter 'p2' De Schrijver wrote:
> > I don't agree with that interpretation of "arch-specific", and neither
> > do the maintainers of the Packages-arch-specific list AFAICT, so please
> > stop trying to use creative interpretations of people's words to torpe
On Mon, Aug 22, 2005 at 04:08:37PM +0200, Martin Pitt wrote:
> Hamish Moffatt [2005-08-22 23:47 +1000]:
> > There is the possibility that developer builds get extra features
> > enabled due to other installed libraries etc. This could be checked for
> > by analysing the packages files for different
On Mon, Aug 22, 2005 at 04:45:28PM +0200, Olaf van der Spek wrote:
> On 8/22/05, Manoj Srivastava va, manoj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The end goal is not just to have packages built on the
> > buildd -- and important goal for Debian, certainly, but not the only
> > one we have. As promoters
(From my blog, with the hope that it will be useful.)
(#100) How coldplug works
Today I installed the coldplug package[0] on my system and verified
that not only it works, but it's also quite fast:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~#time /etc/init.d/coldplug start
Starting hotplug subsystem: pci usb pnp ide ie
On Mon, Aug 22, 2005 at 04:08:47PM +0200, W. Borgert wrote:
> Quoting Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > There is the possibility that developer builds get extra features
> > enabled due to other installed libraries etc. This could be checked for
> > by analysing the packages files for differe
On Tue, Aug 23, 2005 at 12:04:11AM +0200, Peter 'p2' De Schrijver wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 23, 2005 at 12:00:07AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 22, 2005 at 01:53:37PM +0200, Peter 'p2' De Schrijver wrote:
> > > > Claiming "nobody sane will ever use that" means someone who's actually
> >
On Tue, Aug 23, 2005 at 12:00:07AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 22, 2005 at 01:53:37PM +0200, Peter 'p2' De Schrijver wrote:
> > > Claiming "nobody sane will ever use that" means someone who's actually
> > > interested in using said software, even if it's slow is left out in the
> >
On Mon, Aug 22, 2005 at 01:53:37PM +0200, Peter 'p2' De Schrijver wrote:
> > Claiming "nobody sane will ever use that" means someone who's actually
> > interested in using said software, even if it's slow is left out in the
> > cold. That's silly.
>
> The user can always ask to build it or provide
"Peter 'p2' De Schrijver" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
I think you misunderstood me here. The limit is a upper limit, not a
lower limit.
Perhaps i'm wrong but let me pull up the original message. ...
- the release architecture must have N+1 buildds where N is
On Mon, Aug 22, 2005 at 06:22:11PM +, W. Borgert wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 22, 2005 at 07:29:31PM +0200, Adrian von Bidder wrote:
> > really matters: can we (the Debian project) maintain the port? Thus I
> > propose we only limit on the number of developers: are there people who
> > are willing
[Adrian von Bidder]
> Why not have a per-port blacklist (maintained by the port
> maintainers, not the package maintainers) of packages that are not
> suitable for a port
They do.
> and just put up a section in the release notes (or wherever) on why
> such-and-such packages are not available.
T
On Mon, Aug 22, 2005 at 10:32:31AM -0500, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
> Sven Luther dijo [Mon, Aug 22, 2005 at 12:52:06PM +0200]:
> > > What about packages built on developer machines, but using the same
> > > software as on the official debian buildds? I mean using sbuild in a
> > > dedicated chroot. I s
[John Hasler]
> Make it 98% of the packages buildable on the accepted port with the
> highest build percentage.
That's not fair either, unless you require all packages to be autobuilt
(which is a thread we don't need to duplicate now). There have always
been a significant number of packages whic
On 8/22/05, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 22, 2005 at 11:44:05AM +0200, Olaf van der Spek wrote:
> > On 8/22/05, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > In particular, we invariably run into arch-specific problems every time
> > > a new version of a toolchain packa
On Aug 22, Ben Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Which conf files blow things up? The reason I ask is, if it's an init
Just about all of them. Almost all files in the package are conffiles.
> script, it should be written to exit if the appropriate binary isn't
> found.
The appropriate binar
On Mon, 2005-08-22 at 21:41 +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Aug 22, Ben Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > The (still not uploaded) coldplug package conflicts+depends+provides
> > > hotplug.
> > Aren't you missing "replaces"?
> Yes, what I actually meant was "conflicts+replaces+provides"
On Mon, Aug 22, 2005 at 11:44:05AM +0200, Olaf van der Spek wrote:
> On 8/22/05, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > In particular, we invariably run into arch-specific problems every time
> > a new version of a toolchain package is uploaded to unstable. Some may
> > remember that the ne
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you write:
>The problem is not requiring a redundant buildd, the problem is
>the arbitrary limit on the amount of 'buildd machines' of 2.
Sparc currently has only one working buildd, which is having trouble
keeping up. At least one offer of an additional buildd was
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Olaf van der Spek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 8/22/05, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> In particular, we invariably run into arch-specific problems every time
>> a new version of a toolchain package is uploaded to unstable. Some may
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
"W. Borgert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Maybe we would need one more buildd for i386 and one or two buildds
> for 'all', which does not have a buildd, AFAIK.
You could just have the i386 buildd generate arch-all. It just needs
to run 'sbuild -A'.
On Aug 22, Ben Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The (still not uploaded) coldplug package conflicts+depends+provides
> > hotplug.
> Aren't you missing "replaces"?
Yes, what I actually meant was "conflicts+replaces+provides".
My original question still stands:
> Is there anything else I ca
On Mon, 2005-08-22 at 01:32 +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> The (still not uploaded) coldplug package conflicts+depends+provides
> hotplug. The issue is that since all the important parts of hotplug are
> conffiles they are not deleted when the package is removed, and this
> is bad (as in "the system
On Mon, Aug 22, 2005 at 07:29:31PM +0200, Adrian von Bidder wrote:
> really matters: can we (the Debian project) maintain the port? Thus I
> propose we only limit on the number of developers: are there people who
> are willing and competent to maintain kernel, boot loader, platform
> specific
On 8/22/05, Martin Pitt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi Olaf!
Hi, ;->
> > With a (far) better privilege system you could avoid running most if
> > not all code as root, but that's another topic.
>
> No, you can't. The naming (whether you call it root or whatever) is
> insignificant. You can't w
On Monday 22 August 2005 11.25, Peter 'p2' De Schrijver wrote:
[ the 'must have a working installer' requirement ]
> > > Trivial. debootstrap does that.
> >
> > Debootstrap is not an installer, in very much the same way that tar
> > isn't, either.
>
> They both are. They can install debian, so it
Hi Olaf!
Olaf van der Spek [2005-08-22 19:28 +0200]:
> > If we're starting to worry about what kind of damage a DD can do to the
> > world by providing some bogus uploads, let's just not. Any DD can cause
> > code to be executed as root on a potentially very big number of machines
> > world wide
On Monday 22 August 2005 12.17, Andreas Jochens wrote:
> On 05-Aug-22 11:48, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > * Andreas Jochens ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050822 11:36]:
> > > If not, what does the 98% rule really mean?
> >
> > "Your port needs to be able to and does build the vast majority of the
> > archive b
On Monday 22 August 2005 12.58, Marc Haber wrote:
> I can imagine that for archs with less than 50 machines reporting to
> popcon it could be possible to have some kind of registration
> mechanism.
Uh, please don't add huge technical overhead for corner cases that will
rarely happen, if ever. I
On 8/22/05, Adrian von Bidder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Monday 22 August 2005 16.08, W. Borgert wrote:
> [...]
> > This is a really nice idea: A DD with a strange sense of humour
> > could
> [...]
>
> If we're starting to worry about what kind of damage a DD can do to the
> world by providin
On Monday 22 August 2005 16.08, W. Borgert wrote:
[...]
> This is a really nice idea: A DD with a strange sense of humour
> could
[...]
If we're starting to worry about what kind of damage a DD can do to the
world by providing some bogus uploads, let's just not. Any DD can cause
code to be exe
also sprach David Nusinow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005.08.22.1728 +0200]:
> > debian-changelog-mode automatically increments the version numbers for
> > me, including the epoch, so it is no burden -- even the poor vi using
> > sods can just do cut and paste
>
> dch -i
Ssssh. Don't expect Manoj to us
Hi,
> > How do you boot to a system to run debian-installer when there is no
> > bios or bootloader on the system yet?
> Just take a look at the existing Debian ports, and you see that it's ok
> to use a bios that's part of the hardware.
Eh, that was not what I asked. My point was, that there i
* Gunnar Wolf ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050822 18:01]:
> Huh? Would an off-the-shelf old 1.5GHz P4 lag behind a top-of-the-line
> m68k or ARM?
If you manage to put enough ram in the current arm: Definitly yes. Last
time when I was about to buy me a new machine, the only reason why I
didn't buy an arm-m
Hello,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I have installed lvm2 on debian and trying to run:
> pvcreate /dev/snap
> (when /dev/snap is a loopback file)
> and get an error "Device /dev/snap not found".
While technically this is a problem for the debian-users mailing list, I
will try to help:
> My exact
On Mon, Aug 22, 2005 at 10:15:12AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> debian-changelog-mode automatically increments the version numbers for
> me, including the epoch, so it is no burden -- even the poor vi using
> sods can just do cut and paste
dch -i
- David Nusinow
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email t
On Mon, Aug 22, 2005 at 12:22:47AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> There was discussion in Vancouver about requiring ports to have an
> "upstream" kernel maintainer, FSO "upstream"; perhaps we should be
> considering requiring there to be a glibc/gcc/binutils upstream for each
> port, so that we don
Jonas Smedegaard dijo [Sun, Aug 21, 2005 at 07:28:55PM +0200]:
> > We also came to the conclusion that some of the requirements proposed in
> > Vancouver would make sense as initial requirements -- requirements that
> > a port would need to fulfill in order to be allowed on the mirror
> > network -
Hi,
I have installed lvm2 on debian and trying to run:
pvcreate /dev/snap
(when /dev/snap is a loopback file)
and get an error "Device /dev/snap not found".
My exact steps:
1) dd if=/dev/urandom of=/dev/snap bs=4096 count=1310702 (lopback file
5GB)
2) mkfs.ext3 /dev/snap
3) pvcreate /dev/snap
Wh
Sven Luther dijo [Mon, Aug 22, 2005 at 12:52:06PM +0200]:
> > What about packages built on developer machines, but using the same
> > software as on the official debian buildds? I mean using sbuild in a
> > dedicated chroot. I sometimes do that for my packages when buildd are
> > lagging or when
* Olaf van der Spek ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050822 17:01]:
> On 8/22/05, Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > * Olaf van der Spek ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050822 12:35]:
> > > On 8/22/05, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > In particular, we invariably run into arch-specific problems
On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 23:29:51 +0200, Petter Reinholdtsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
said:
> [Wouter Verhelst]
>> b) the three beforementioned teams could already refuse to
>> support a port anyhow, simply by not doing the work.
> This is not really a valid argument. If a team in debian refuses to
> ac
On Mon, 22 Aug 2005 10:13:23 +0200, Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Scripsit Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> On Sun, Aug 21, 2005 at 05:31:34PM -0600, Bob Proulx wrote:
>>> An example where an epoc would be needed would be if 0.7.3.3 was
>>> uploaded as 7.3.3 instead. The epo
On 8/22/05, Manoj Srivastava va, manoj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The end goal is not just to have packages built on the
> buildd -- and important goal for Debian, certainly, but not the only
> one we have. As promoters of free software, we also are committed to
> have packages build for our
On 8/22/05, Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Really? The maintainer can still embed "rm -rf /" in the postinst either
> way. We need to be able to trust developers.
>
> Similarly, sponsored packages should be rebuilt because the project
> hasn't decided to official trust those contribut
On 8/22/05, Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> * Olaf van der Spek ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050822 12:35]:
> > On 8/22/05, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > In particular, we invariably run into arch-specific problems every time
> > > a new version of a toolchain package is upload
Hi!
Manoj Srivastava [2005-08-22 7:58 -0500]:
> The end goal is not just to have packages built on the
> buildd -- and important goal for Debian, certainly, but not the only
> one we have. As promoters of free software, we also are committed to
> have packages build for our users, in a
Daniel Stone wrote:
> vim! emacs!
And my cats looked out to see who was calling them... :)
--
.''`. Follow the white Rabbit - Ranty (and Lewis Carroll)
: :' :
`. `'Proudly running Debian GNU/Linux (Sid 2.6.11 Ext3)
`- www.amayita.com www.malapecora.com www.ch
> It would be cool, for sure, but it still has to be done. And as Christian
> noted, the bottleneck is mostly on the developper side here. I mean that
> there is more translator waiting for their translations to get integrated
> than developpers waiting for a given translator to update his work.
Quoting Olaf van der Spek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Indeed. Why would those checks be done client-side instead of
> server-side anyway?
To prevent overload from the buildds. But maybe Martin Pitt is
right, and we should just do it like Ubuntu (source-only uploads)
and invent measures, if the need re
On Mon, 22 Aug 2005 11:27:33 +0200, Jonas Smedegaard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Also, as Manoj[1] and others have pointed out, sponsors are
> _expected_ to recompile packages they sign, but I believe it is not
> part of policy.
Which policy?
> So I ask again: Is this an intended (and
Am Sonntag, 21. August 2005 03.58 schrieb Wouter Verhelst:
> Hi all,
Good morning
Most of the time I only read on this list and so I've done with this
discussion. But sometimes I dare to write something and suggest somthing ;-)
(see below).
> Initial:
> - must be publically available to buy
On 8/22/05, W. Borgert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Source-only uploads (with mandatory, signed build- and test-logs)
> would have the advantage of not having to upload large binaries.
> I have DSL - upload is ca. eight times slower than download here.
You'd prefer 33k6, where upload and download
On 8/22/05, Manoj Srivastava va, manoj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Aug 2005 14:37:10 +0200, W Borgert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> > Quoting Matthew Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >> I used to think that too. I took a wander through queue/reject on
> >> merkel. I don't think that any
On Mon, Aug 22, 2005 at 12:52:06PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 22, 2005 at 11:51:55AM +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> > Sven Luther a écrit :
> > >All packages should be built by official debian buildds anyway, not on
> > >developper machines with random cruft and unsecure packages insta
Quoting Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> There is the possibility that developer builds get extra features
> enabled due to other installed libraries etc. This could be checked for
> by analysing the packages files for different architectures or similar.
This is a really nice idea: A DD with
Hi!
Hamish Moffatt [2005-08-22 23:47 +1000]:
> On Mon, Aug 22, 2005 at 03:31:40PM +0200, Martin Pitt wrote:
> > Please let's not try to solve the problem of sloppy maintainers with a
> > (wrong) technical solution. If a maintainer doesn't care for his
> > packages, he can screw up a binary upload
On Mon, 22 Aug 2005 14:37:10 +0200, W Borgert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Quoting Matthew Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> I used to think that too. I took a wander through queue/reject on
>> merkel. I don't think that any more. I'm curious as to how Ubuntu
>> is going to sustain source-only upl
On Mon, Aug 22, 2005 at 10:29:44AM +0100, David Pashley wrote:
> On Aug 21, 2005 at 14:30, Pierre Habouzit praised the llamas by saying:
> > Package: wnpp
> > Severity: wishlist
> > Owner: Pierre Habouzit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> >
> > * Package name: ldapscripts
> > Version : 1.2
Quoting "Roberto C. Sanchez" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Because the "user" is (99% chance) an admin.
We should use debtags for this kind of information, IMHO.
> Because the "user" may not want extraneous or extra Perl modules
> installed on his system. If you are building a production box, you may
>
Hi!
W. Borgert [2005-08-22 14:37 +0200]:
> Quoting Matthew Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > I used to think that too. I took a wander through queue/reject on merkel.
> > I don't think that any more. I'm curious as to how Ubuntu is going to
> > sustain source-only uploads, honestly.
>
> Mandatory
Hi,
I am using debian linux and i want to make a system snapshot using LVM
or EVMS.
Now i am having running system with one partition (/dev/hda1 of 30GB,
~7GB used) and i can't modify or delete existing data.
I want to take the snapshot (one or more) in some point, save it
locally and rollback if
On Mon, Aug 22, 2005 at 03:31:40PM +0200, Martin Pitt wrote:
> Please let's not try to solve the problem of sloppy maintainers with a
> (wrong) technical solution. If a maintainer doesn't care for his
> packages, he can screw up a binary upload as well (or even worse than)
> a source upload. If a D
Hi Matthew!
Matthew Palmer [2005-08-22 22:22 +1000]:
> On Mon, Aug 22, 2005 at 10:45:58AM +0200, W. Borgert wrote:
> > Quoting Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > > All packages should be built by official debian buildds anyway, not on
> > > developper machines with random cruft and unsecure pack
On Mon, 22 Aug 2005 11:51:55 +0200, Aurelien Jarno <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Sven Luther a écrit :
>> All packages should be built by official debian buildds anyway, not
>> on developper machines with random cruft and unsecure packages
>> installed, or even possibly experimental or home-modifie
Re: Stefano Zacchiroli in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Since the announcemente is still missing, could you please give some
> references to the blog postings you were referring to?
http://kitenet.net/~joey/blog/entry/bts_blockers_support-2005-08-12-15-43.html
Christoph
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www
Quoting Matthew Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I used to think that too. I took a wander through queue/reject on merkel.
> I don't think that any more. I'm curious as to how Ubuntu is going to
> sustain source-only uploads, honestly.
Mandatory, signed build and test logs? I've no idea...
Cheers
On Mon, Aug 22, 2005 at 10:45:58AM +0200, W. Borgert wrote:
> Quoting Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > All packages should be built by official debian buildds anyway, not on
> > developper machines with random cruft and unsecure packages installed, or
> > even
> > possibly experimental or home-
Andreas Jochens writes:
Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> - must have successfully compiled 98% of the archive's source (excluding
> arch-specific packages)
Andreas Jochens writes:
> It is not possible to build 98% of the unmodified source packages from
> the 'unstable' distribution. This is true for an
> Uh, no. Just to name one example: tell me, are you absolutely and 100%
> sure no user will ever try to use a gecko-based browser on an older
> architecture? And yes, if you want to support that, that means you have
> to build mozilla
>
> There _are_ lightweight gecko-based browsers, you know.
>
Quoting Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Mon, 22 Aug 2005, W. Borgert wrote:
> > I don't really get this sentence, could you please re-word?
>
> The current set of DDs will do unverified source uploads immediately if
> given half a chance. Unverified binary uploads are rather
On Mon, 22 Aug 2005, Thijs Kinkhorst wrote:
> they would complement eachother, then why are the vast majority of their
> tests present in both programs? I'll just talk about lintian below, but
Vast majority isn't the complete set, and new tests are usually written for
lintian and not linda. I hav
Quoting Thijs Kinkhorst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I dislike this idea: it is way overengineered. For starters I don't
> understand why you would want to run both lintian and linda, since those
I really don't care whether one has to run either lintian or linda
or both. That's an implementation detail
On Mon, 22 Aug 2005, W. Borgert wrote:
> Quoting Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > At doing stupid things, you mean :-( Our demographics do not allow
> > source-only uploads unfortunately.
>
> I don't really get this sentence, could you please re-word?
The current set of DDs
1 - 100 of 152 matches
Mail list logo
