Hello,
I'm a bit new to Debian but just wanted to add my $0.02 to this discussion,
since it's something that I personally find very interesting.
Firstly, I think the question should be, "which users would be targeted by a
rolling release?" I don't think there are many people out who have the need
(Ccing -devel@, since I have been asked about that by others)
On 03/05/11 at 01:16 +0200, Rene Engelhard wrote:
> tag 624997 - wheezy
> thanks
>
> On Mon, May 02, 2011 at 02:39:43PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> > Source: writerperfect
> > Version: 0.8.0-3
> > Severity: serious
> > Tags: wheezy
Julien was also working on it at the same time, so I'm adding him to CC as well.
On 03/05/2011 05:22, Matteo F. Vescovi wrote:
> Hi!
>
> On 02/05/2011 20:54, phantomjinx wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Someone with the handle 'mfv' came into the gtkpod irc channel wondering
>> about gtkpod dependencies as he
On Sat, 30 Apr 2011, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> Yes, absolutely. I'd even dare to say that having something like PPA for
> Debian is a priority. It would be yet another way to enable people to
> experiment with big changes in Debian, showing their value, with minimum
> impact on the work of others
On 30 April 2011 20:56, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> Some FAQ on this topic:
>
> Q: Why don't you use Launchpad's PPA?
> A: Last time I looked into it (together with some Launchpad engineers at
> past UDS), the PPA module was too tightly integrated with other
> Launchpad parts to be deployable
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Hi,
Le 02/05/2011 16:46, Amaya a écrit :
> Patrick Strasser wrote:
>> If d.devel.general is the wrong group, I beg you all pardon and would
>> be thankful for naming a proper group.
>
> I'm inclined to believe that discussing propper BTS handling
Hi,
On Mon, May 02, 2011 at 11:18:45PM +0200, Amaya wrote:
> Mehdi Dogguy wrote:
> > Well, both do use libpoppler5… which is a PDF rendering library.
>
> I knew it! :)
> I guess I missed it (wonder how on earth...)
Because you looked at okular first.
okular uses libpoppler-qt4-3 which depend
Lucas Nussbaum writes:
> [ Note that my position is based on the assumption that we have a share
> of DDs interested in rolling similar to the share of DDs interested in
> stable releases. Unfortunately, it's very difficult to know where we
> stand regarding this. ]
I'm very dubious. To take on
Hi,
On Mon, May 02, 2011 at 07:20:12PM +0200, Patrick Strasser wrote:
> Hello!
>
> I want to report a bug, which occurs in two packages (okular, xpdf)
> exactly the same way. It's a problem with rendering PDFs.
> What would be the right way:
> * File two bugs and refer to each other in a addition
Hi!
On 02/05/2011 20:54, phantomjinx wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Someone with the handle 'mfv' came into the gtkpod irc channel wondering
> about gtkpod dependencies as he was packaging it for debian.
It was me :-) Sorry if I didn't wait long enough for your direct reply.
> I have already produced an ubun
Mehdi Dogguy wrote:
> Well, both do use libpoppler5… which is a PDF rendering library.
I knew it! :)
I guess I missed it (wonder how on earth...)
--
.''`. Hate's no fun if you keep it to yourself
: :' : -- The life of David Gale
`. `'
`-Proudly running Debian GNU/Linu
On 05/02/2011 10:46 PM, Amaya wrote:
Patrick Strasser wrote:
I want to report a bug, which occurs in two packages (okular, xpdf)
exactly the same way. It's a problem with rendering PDFs.
Thanks for spotting this bug. Your contribution to Debian is
appreciated.
What would be the right way:
*
Patrick Strasser wrote:
> I want to report a bug, which occurs in two packages (okular, xpdf)
> exactly the same way. It's a problem with rendering PDFs.
Thanks for spotting this bug. Your contribution to Debian is
appreciated.
> What would be the right way:
> * File two bugs and refer to each ot
Hello!
I want to report a bug, which occurs in two packages (okular, xpdf)
exactly the same way. It's a problem with rendering PDFs.
What would be the right way:
* File two bugs and refer to each other in a additional message
* File one bug and refer to the second package
* Something different
If
On Mon, 02 May 2011 19:54:14 +0100, phantomjinx wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Someone with the handle 'mfv' came into the gtkpod irc channel wondering
> about gtkpod dependencies as he was packaging it for debian.
I put him in CC.
David
--
. ''`. Debian developer | http://wiki.debian.org/DavidPaleino
Le lundi 02 mai 2011 à 19:31 +0200, Goswin von Brederlow a écrit :
> To those users that want newer software my next question would be "What
> software?". My feeling there is that it is only some software, allways
> the same software and used for the same use case: KDE / Gnome /
> Multimedia stuff
Hi,
Someone with the handle 'mfv' came into the gtkpod irc channel wondering
about gtkpod dependencies as he was packaging it for debian.
I have already produced an ubuntu ppa for the 2.0.1-beta so thought the
debian directory would be useful.
Please find attached.
(Not registered so please cc
On Mon, May 02, 2011 at 06:09:17PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> > It's not that non-self-hosting archs should be treated differently from
> > self-hosted archs, but that they should be treated the *same* including the
> > requirement that multiarch directories be reserved for packages of th
>> > 'rolling' is a statement by the project that we consider 'testing'
>> > (renamed to 'rolling')
>> Why the heck do we start by renaming testing? This will seriously
>> disrupt service for anyone for DAYS. There are just too many places
>> tools are using "testing" hardcoded. Too many users havi
Andreas Barth wrote:
> We could e.g. create an copy of testing at the time, so that the betas
> will work for 3 weeks or so. Perhaps we should take an hour or so
> during debconf and see where we arrive?
There is a spec for doing so, which aj mostly developed, at
http://cut.debian.net/snapshots/i
On Monday, May 02, 2011 12:26:05 PM Jan Hauke Rahm wrote:
> On Mon, May 02, 2011 at 11:48:27AM -0400, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> > On Monday, May 02, 2011 07:31:31 AM Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> > ...
> >
> > > How we deal with freezes is the hard point in this discussion. I'm
> > > personnally in favor
* Scott Kitterman (deb...@kitterman.com) [110502 19:32]:
> If one could do something like:
>
> wb gb libieee1284 mod-wsgi nflog-bindings zinnia . ia64 . !caballero
good idea. I'll consider how to do that.
Andi
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject o
On Saturday, April 30, 2011 07:36:38 PM Andreas Barth wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have a problem I need to solve in perl within wanna-build:
>
> Sometimes we have a few packages we don't want to build on a certain
> buildds. Sometimes this is because this package needs lots of ram. Or
> it takes quite lon
Pierre Habouzit writes:
> On Mon, May 02, 2011 at 01:31:31PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Since I already sent too many mails in the 'rolling' discussion, I
>> decided to send one more. Here is an attempt at a summary of what was
>> said so far. It might not be complete, it's proba
* Jan Hauke Rahm (j...@debian.org) [110502 19:22]:
> On Mon, May 02, 2011 at 07:16:47PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > > I guess I'm misunderstanding you here, so please help me out. If a
> > > package is being worked on in different PPAs regarding different
> > > problems (thinking of serializing
* Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt (h...@ftwca.de) [110502 09:12]:
> Pierre Habouzit writes:
> > - PPA should focus on:
> > * co-installability when endurable;
> > * documented and working rollback to unstable (IOW downgrading a
> > package to unstable when co-installability is not pos
* Joey Hess (jo...@debian.org) [110501 22:36]:
> The problem with the moving target is that it means that d-i betas begin
> to be broken as time goes on after their release, starting with the
> smallest boot images and moving up to the netinst images.
We could e.g. create an copy of testing at the
On Mon, May 02, 2011 at 07:16:47PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> * Jan Hauke Rahm (j...@debian.org) [110502 18:34]:
> > On Sun, May 01, 2011 at 06:34:02PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > > * Raphael Hertzog (hert...@debian.org) [110501 18:23]:
> > > > - APT entry to add (i.e. URL of the PPA so that
* Jan Hauke Rahm (j...@debian.org) [110502 18:34]:
> On Sun, May 01, 2011 at 06:34:02PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > * Raphael Hertzog (hert...@debian.org) [110501 18:23]:
> > > - APT entry to add (i.e. URL of the PPA so that the buildd can fetch
> > > build-dependencies not satisfiable in the
Roger Leigh writes:
> I just wanted to add that if you would like more statistics reporting
> for this purpose, I'll be happy to add that to sbuild. Currently we
> only really report build time and disc space. If you want additional
> data such as number of cores used, memory/swap usage and oth
Ingo Jürgensmann writes:
> On Sun, 1 May 2011 01:36:38 +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
>
>> Sometimes we have a few packages we don't want to build on a certain
>> buildds. Sometimes this is because this package needs lots of ram. Or
>> it takes quite long and would waste the parallel building a mac
On Mon, May 02, 2011 at 06:44:11PM +0200, Martin Wuertele wrote:
> * Jan Hauke Rahm [2011-05-02 18:31]:
>
> > On Mon, May 02, 2011 at 06:27:02PM +0200, Martin Wuertele wrote:
> > > * Jan Hauke Rahm [2011-05-02 18:23]:
> > >
> > > > Not that I don't understand your asking for reasons but... does
On Mon, May 02, 2011 at 06:42:58PM +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> Well I don't want to be convinced or not convinced, you misunderstood
> why I'm asking that. I'm asking because I want to evaluate if rolling is
> the sole answer we can bring to these people.
Oh no, not at all, I apologize if that
* Jan Hauke Rahm [2011-05-02 18:31]:
> On Mon, May 02, 2011 at 06:27:02PM +0200, Martin Wuertele wrote:
> > * Jan Hauke Rahm [2011-05-02 18:23]:
> >
> > > Not that I don't understand your asking for reasons but... doesn't look
> > > having a large user base look somehow appealing to you? I thin
On Mon, May 02, 2011 at 05:36:34PM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> On Sun, May 01, 2011 at 11:00:58PM +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> > > First of all I think you should concede that the exercise you're asking
> > > us to do cannot be done as easily as you did yours.
> > I don't concede that. I'
On Mon, May 02, 2011 at 06:27:02PM +0200, Martin Wuertele wrote:
> * Jan Hauke Rahm [2011-05-02 18:23]:
>
> > Not that I don't understand your asking for reasons but... doesn't look
> > having a large user base look somehow appealing to you? I think many DDs
> > care for such since working on Deb
On Sun, May 01, 2011 at 06:34:02PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> * Raphael Hertzog (hert...@debian.org) [110501 18:23]:
> > - APT entry to add (i.e. URL of the PPA so that the buildd can fetch
> > build-dependencies not satisfiable in the target suite)
>
> Why not just use one location - shouldn
* Jan Hauke Rahm [2011-05-02 18:23]:
> Not that I don't understand your asking for reasons but... doesn't look
> having a large user base look somehow appealing to you? I think many DDs
> care for such since working on Debian brings more fun if someone's
> actually using it.
Why do you believe t
On Mon, May 02, 2011 at 11:48:27AM -0400, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> On Monday, May 02, 2011 07:31:31 AM Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> ...
> > How we deal with freezes is the hard point in this discussion. I'm
> > personnally in favor of the "freeze rolling for 3 months, then fork
> > frozen and unfreeze r
On Mon, May 02, 2011 at 02:42:05PM +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> On Mon, May 02, 2011 at 01:31:31PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Since I already sent too many mails in the 'rolling' discussion, I
> > decided to send one more. Here is an attempt at a summary of what was
> > said
Steve Langasek writes:
> On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 06:48:22PM +0200, Julian Andres Klode wrote:
>> > "We might some day later change the way apt works for upgrades" is not an
>> > argument for adding a pre-dependency now.
>
>> But that we do want to prevent a broken APT -- when using the common
>>
Steve Langasek writes:
> On Sun, Apr 24, 2011 at 10:46:40PM +0100, Wookey wrote:
>> I expect the multiarch paths to replace the 'traditional
>> cross-compiling' paths in due course for all target architectures,
>> including ones that aren't Debian-suported (i.e currently
>> mingw-whatever-you-cal
On Monday, May 02, 2011 07:31:31 AM Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
...
> How we deal with freezes is the hard point in this discussion. I'm
> personnally in favor of the "freeze rolling for 3 months, then fork
> frozen and unfreeze rolling" plan, though it has some problems too
> (it is not clear whether th
On Sun, May 01, 2011 at 10:43:18PM +0200, Carsten Hey wrote:
> Testing also has just little protection against severe breakage if it is
> frozen and updates need to go through rarely used suites. An example
> illustrates this quite well:
Thanks for this example Carsten. However, one example is no
Stefano Zacchiroli, 2011-04-30 12:56:15 +0200 :
[...]
> What we lack for that to become a reality is "just" the code. Marc and
> Tollef had set up a nice proposal [1] for GSoC this year and were
> willing to mentor it, but unfortunately no student has shown up. If
> there are people willing to co
On Sun, May 01, 2011 at 11:00:58PM +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> > First of all I think you should concede that the exercise you're asking
> > us to do cannot be done as easily as you did yours.
> I don't concede that. I've read your mail, and to sum up you say:
(Note that the "concede" was on a
Holger Levsen wrote:
> Do you think a piuparts / policy workshop (or something) is useful at
> DebConf11?
Please! There's never "too much" chocolate, cheese or QA in Debconf :)
--
.''`. Hate's no fun if you keep it to yourself
: :' : -- The life of David Gale
`. `'
`-P
George Danchev wrote:
> On Friday 29 April 2011 11:46:30 Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> > - rename 'testing' to 'rolling' to make it clear that it's usable as
> > a rolling release
>
> It is also possible that a 'rename' brings no more value, but a
> confusion to the users for unpredictable amount of t
I too believe PPA for Debian is a "must have", I personally was
thinking of making my own repository where I would "store" packages
before having them pushed into Debian, even if it was for
experimental.
Putting packages on Ubuntu PPA just doesn't feel right, thus I fully
support this idea and wou
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Debian VoIP Team
X-Debbugs-CC: debian-devel@lists.debian.org
Package name: python-starpy
Version : 1.0.0a13
Upstream Author : Michael C. Fletcher
URL : http://www.vrplumber.com/programming/starpy/
License : New BS
* Lucas Nussbaum [2011-05-02 09:20 +0200]:
> On 02/05/11 at 08:19 +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> > Also note that testing as is has not enough security support, and
> > read Carsten very good example of the PAM issues. How would CUT or
> > rolling address those?
>
> The PAM issue outlines how spli
* Pierre Habouzit [2011-05-02 08:08 +0200]:
> On Mon, May 02, 2011 at 01:56:14AM +0200, Carsten Hey wrote:
> > * Pierre Habouzit [2011-05-01 23:17 +0200]:
> > > The problem is, you need to entry points, one for testing as we know it,
> > > one for rolling.
> >
> > Actually, we need two entry points
On Mon, May 02, 2011 at 02:40:21PM +0200, Abou Al Montacir wrote:
> On Mon, 2011-05-02 at 13:31 +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
>
> > Benefits for Debian:
> >
> > * Attract users who think that testing is only a development
> > branch, and want newer software than what one finds in stable.
> >
On Mon, May 02, 2011 at 01:31:31PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Since I already sent too many mails in the 'rolling' discussion, I
> decided to send one more. Here is an attempt at a summary of what was
> said so far. It might not be complete, it's probably a bit biased, but I
> hope th
On Mon, 2011-05-02 at 13:31 +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> Benefits for Debian:
>
> * Attract users who think that testing is only a development
> branch, and want newer software than what one finds in stable.
> Those users are likely to be rather advanced users (free
> software dev
I've been using Gmail and thought you might like to try it out. Here's an
invitation to create an account.
You're Invited to Gmail!
priti kashyap has invited you to open a Gmail account.
Gmail is Google's free email service, built on the idea that email can be
intuitive, efficient, and fun. G
Lucas Nussbaum, le Mon 02 May 2011 13:31:31 +0200, a écrit :
> How we deal with freezes is the hard point in this discussion. I'm
> personnally in favor of the "freeze rolling for 3 months, then fork
> frozen and unfreeze rolling" plan, though it has some problems too
> (it is not clear whether the
Hi,
Since I already sent too many mails in the 'rolling' discussion, I
decided to send one more. Here is an attempt at a summary of what was
said so far. It might not be complete, it's probably a bit biased, but I
hope that it's still better than nothing. When replying, please try to
focus on sp
* Lucas Nussbaum [2011-05-02 11:32]:
> How much of that would apply if we renamed testing to rolling (because
> it reinforces the PR message), but kept a symlink from testing to
> rolling?
If you want that you need a GR as it overrides a delegate decision.
And I predict I'm not the only one wh
On 02/05/11 at 10:31 +0200, Martin Zobel-Helas wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Sun May 01, 2011 at 21:53:58 +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> > On 01/05/11 at 20:51 +0200, Martin Zobel-Helas wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > On Sun May 01, 2011 at 20:02:51 +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> > > > 2. determine who is i
On 02/05/11 at 10:12 +0200, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> Hi
>
> Picking one piece that really leaves me "WTF?" out of this
> way-too-long-thread. Happens to be a post by Lucas, but could be anyone
> else too.
>
> > 'rolling' is a statement by the project that we consider 'testing'
> > (renamed to 'roll
On Sun, 1 May 2011, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> weren't there. But as a matter of fact, chances are that those people
> wouldn't have been able to be Debian Developers today if it weren't
> for the GR.
As I was the very first to apply under the GR (not in the first batch of
accepts though) I just
Hi,
On Sun May 01, 2011 at 21:53:58 +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> On 01/05/11 at 20:51 +0200, Martin Zobel-Helas wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Sun May 01, 2011 at 20:02:51 +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> > > 2. determine who is in support of each action plan, through a GR or a
> > > poll.
> >
> >
Hi
Picking one piece that really leaves me "WTF?" out of this
way-too-long-thread. Happens to be a post by Lucas, but could be anyone
else too.
> 'rolling' is a statement by the project that we consider 'testing'
> (renamed to 'rolling')
Why the heck do we start by renaming testing? This will se
Le dimanche 01 mai 2011 à 14:08 +0100, Roger Leigh a écrit :
> This is something I can understand to an extent. Having a single
> service providing access to the NSS databases would offer some
> advantages. Unfortunately, I've only ever heard bad things about
> nscd. If we could move to having
On 02/05/11 at 09:30 +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> On Mon, May 02, 2011 at 09:20:29AM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> > Yes, it's mostly "PR bullshit", and I don't expect it to significantly
> > change Debian development processes. However, communication is necessary
> > if we want to attract new
On Mon, May 02, 2011 at 09:20:29AM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> Yes, it's mostly "PR bullshit", and I don't expect it to significantly
> change Debian development processes. However, communication is necessary
> if we want to attract new users. What might change is more attention
> from developer
* Pierre Habouzit [110501 22:09]:
> Who are they? Unlike this constant handwaving, I've shared my experience
> (on #-devel), I'll repeat it here: at work we've like 10 Debian users,
> some with stable, the other with unstable. Why? Because we're
> developpers and if our software targets old stuff
On 02/05/11 at 08:19 +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> On Mon, May 02, 2011 at 12:10:42AM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> > On 01/05/11 at 23:46 +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> > > > Benefits for Debian:
> > > > - attract users who think that testing is only a development branch, and
> > > > want ne
On Mon, May 02, 2011 at 09:13:31AM +0200, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote:
> Hai!
>
> Pierre Habouzit writes:
> > On Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 12:28:06PM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> >> Size is just one ingredient. There are plenty of other ways to diminish
> >> barrier to deploy big changes in Deb
Heya,
Raphael Hertzog writes:
> I understand members of the release team feel particularly responsible to
> do various release-critical tasks that should have been done by the
> maintainers but haven't (for various reasons). And I guess that's the
> reason of your remark.
>
> But that's not scala
Hai!
Pierre Habouzit writes:
> On Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 12:28:06PM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
>> Size is just one ingredient. There are plenty of other ways to diminish
>> barrier to deploy big changes in Debian: wider commit access rights,
>> larger VCS repositories, more liberal NMUs, etc.
On 05/02/2011 12:10 AM, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> On 01/05/11 at 23:46 +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
>>> Benefits for Debian:
>>> - attract users who think that testing is only a development branch, and
>>> want newer software than what one finds in stable. Those users are
>>> likely to be rather
73 matches
Mail list logo
