Steve Greenland:
> > Hmm, it's ok for you to "misrepresent" other people's arguments, but not
> > the other way around, as follows:
Craig Sanders:
> > > so why do you have a problem with infrastructure (i.e. package pools in
> > > one form or another) which makes it easier to build a snapshot im
On Wed, Mar 15, 2000 at 08:41:01PM -0600, Steve Greenland wrote:
> On 15-Mar-00, 01:06 (CST), Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > DO NOT PUT WORDS IN MY MOUTH.
> >
> > your "argument" for want of a better term is obviously so poor that you
> > have no choice but to misrepresent mine to m
On 15-Mar-00, 01:06 (CST), Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> DO NOT PUT WORDS IN MY MOUTH.
>
> your "argument" for want of a better term is obviously so poor that you
> have no choice but to misrepresent mine to make your "points".
Hmm, it's ok for you to "misrepresent" other people's a
I am going to attempt to install Potato over a
28.8/56k modem. I have downloaded and 'burned' all 15
floppies needed for the basic system, and will install
that first. Then I will set up PPP, and fire up
dselect (apt method). I have already done this at
work (but on a T1->lan->proxy setup).
I
I'll believe it when I see a newly minted developer. It never should have
been closed in the first place, so therefore I see the fact that it HAD to
be opened as doubt-inspiring as to whether there will ever be a newly
minted developer. Until I see a working new-developers mechanism, I see
com
On Tue, Mar 14, 2000 at 11:29:42AM -0500, Jacob Kuntz wrote:
> the most commonly installed packages today, and i had to build them for a
> dozen machines because stable was too far behind.
That's your own fault! If you are that experienced that you can build
you own packages you probably should kno
Steve Greenland wrote:
> There is nothing stopping anyone from making snapshot releases of
> unstable. Mirror the archive. Burn a CD. Done. That's what a snapshot
> is.
As one of the many people who does not have cheap, fast, reliable
internet access, I would like to say that for me to mirror 650
On Wed, Mar 15, 2000 at 03:24:29AM -0700, John Galt wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Mar 2000, Ben Collins wrote:
>
>
> > First of all, you need to check your numbers. Last I checked there were
> > ~350 official developers in the keyring. Right, so this proves my point in
> > that we should encourage develop
[ ok I'll keep calm this time ]
Le Wed, Mar 15, 2000 at 09:03:18PM +1100, Craig Sanders écrivait:
> right. one of them for a package (spamdb) which doesn't even exist
> anymore so it's a bit difficult to see how it could be "release
> critical".
That's possible, but then it would be great if you
On Wed, Mar 15, 2000 at 11:18:49PM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 15, 2000 at 07:07:51AM -0500, Michael Stone wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 15, 2000 at 09:03:18PM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
> > > i haven't yet decided what to do about vtun. i'll probably get around
> > > to upgrading it to the
On Wed, Mar 15, 2000 at 07:07:51AM -0500, Michael Stone wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 15, 2000 at 09:03:18PM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
> > i haven't yet decided what to do about vtun. i'll probably get around
> > to upgrading it to the latest version one day, but i made a mistake
> > packaging it in the f
On Wed, Mar 15, 2000 at 09:03:18PM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 15, 2000 at 09:35:35AM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> > You have 3 RCB open against your packages (11, 25 and 21 days old),
>
> two of them for the same package (vtun). again, they hardly seem
> "release critical"
>
On Tue, 14 Mar 2000, Ben Collins wrote:
> First of all, you need to check your numbers. Last I checked there were
> ~350 official developers in the keyring. Right, so this proves my point in
> that we should encourage developers to put a priority on frozen and the
> next release cycle. And pleas
On Wed, Mar 15, 2000 at 09:35:35AM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> You have 3 RCB open against your packages (11, 25 and 21 days old),
right. one of them for a package (spamdb) which doesn't even exist
anymore so it's a bit difficult to see how it could be "release
critical".
two of them for
15.03.2000 pisze Craig Sanders ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
[cut]
Gentlemen,
I have seen ``South Park: The Movie'' and I like it -- in the cinema.
Not here. I don't like to see developers of my favourite Linux
distribution to behave in such a childish way. Would you kindly like to
get your toys and go t
On Wed, Mar 15, 2000 at 10:05:09AM +0100, Josip Rodin wrote:
> > > Security fixes have to be (and are) fixed in stable, too!
> > most are.
>
> IMNSHO *all* of them must be. It would be wrong to leave the users of stable
> `in the cold'. Those bugs that aren't fixed in stable are the worst
> releas
On Wed, Mar 15, 2000 at 09:35:35AM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> Le Wed, Mar 15, 2000 at 06:06:24PM +1100, Craig Sanders écrivait:
> > and fuck you too! how dare you fucking misrepresent my position and
> > twist what i said in such a reprehensible manner?
> >
> > if you don't fucking understand
On Wed, Mar 15, 2000 at 12:10:54PM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
> > > > Uh, which were the packages in question? Did you report it at the
> > > > time?
> > >
> > > no need, the holes were already well known - and fixed in unstable.
> >
> > Security fixes have to be (and are) fixed in stable, too!
Le Wed, Mar 15, 2000 at 06:06:24PM +1100, Craig Sanders écrivait:
> and fuck you too! how dare you fucking misrepresent my position and
> twist what i said in such a reprehensible manner?
>
> if you don't fucking understand what i'm saying then shut the fuck up.
Could you stop use those FUCKING w
On Wed, Mar 15, 2000 at 12:46:39AM +0200, Ari Makela wrote:
> John Lapeyre writes:
>
> >Maybe you find it easy. But you are relatively elite in debian
> > knowledge.
>
> I'm not a beginner. I even earn my living as an unix
> administrator. But I'm certainly not a unix guru.
>
> >I got a
On Tue, Mar 14, 2000 at 09:23:42PM -0600, Steve Greenland wrote:
> On 14-Mar-00, 18:58 (CST), Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > actually, it's really sad that you haven't learnt that closing down
> > 'unstable' is a disastrously bad idea. you've been with debian long
> > enough now to h
On 14-Mar-00, 18:58 (CST), Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> actually, it's really sad that you haven't learnt that closing down
> 'unstable' is a disastrously bad idea. you've been with debian long
> enough now to have learnt that.
How do you know? We've never tried it. You and others s
On Tue, Mar 14, 2000 at 05:43:38PM -0500, Michael Stone wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 14, 2000 at 05:27:26PM -0500, Ben Collins wrote:
> > > it doesn't distract me at all. i mostly ignore it these days as it is of
> > > little or no relevance to me.
> >
> > Safe to say, that is a really self-centered attit
On Tue, Mar 14, 2000 at 11:50:05PM +0100, Josip Rodin wrote:
> > > Uh, which were the packages in question? Did you report it at the
> > > time?
> >
> > no need, the holes were already well known - and fixed in unstable.
>
> Security fixes have to be (and are) fixed in stable, too!
most are.
cr
On Tue, Mar 14, 2000 at 05:27:26PM -0500, Ben Collins wrote:
> Well, it's really sad that you like to dredge up year old context for
> this thread to suit your mundane arguments, they have little context
> with what I was saying.
actually, it's really sad that you haven't learnt that closing down
John Lapeyre writes:
>Maybe you find it easy. But you are relatively elite in debian
> knowledge.
I'm not a beginner. I even earn my living as an unix
administrator. But I'm certainly not a unix guru.
>I got a notebook two months ago. The video, sound, and pcmcia are
> not supported by
On Tue, Mar 14, 2000 at 05:27:26PM -0500, Ben Collins wrote:
> > it doesn't distract me at all. i mostly ignore it these days as it is of
> > little or no relevance to me.
>
> Safe to say, that is a really self-centered attitude. One which I hope
> that most developers don't have. Not a very team
On Wed, Mar 15, 2000 at 09:18:00AM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
> > > this same empirical evidence has also proved that 'stable' is LESS
> > > stable and reliable and secure than 'unstable'. the few debian boxes
> > > which i know of that have been compromised were cracked BECAUSE they
> > > were st
On Tue, Mar 14, 2000 at 11:02:20PM +0100, Josip Rodin wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 15, 2000 at 08:42:07AM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
> > this same empirical evidence has also proved that 'stable' is LESS
> > stable and reliable and secure than 'unstable'. the few debian boxes
> > which i know of that have
Well, it's really sad that you like to dredge up year old context for this
thread to suit your mundane arguments, they have little context with what
I was saying.
> > > > resources on woody right now.
> > >
> > > speak for yourself. not everyone in debian has your priorities. more to
> > > the p
On Tue, Mar 14, 2000 at 11:02:20PM +0100, Josip Rodin wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 15, 2000 at 08:42:07AM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
> > this same empirical evidence has also proved that 'stable' is LESS
> > stable and reliable and secure than 'unstable'. the few debian boxes
> > which i know of that have
On Wed, Mar 15, 2000 at 08:42:07AM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
> this same empirical evidence has also proved that 'stable' is LESS
> stable and reliable and secure than 'unstable'. the few debian boxes
> which i know of that have been compromised were cracked BECAUSE they
> were still running stab
On Tue, Mar 14, 2000 at 09:02:50AM -0500, Ben Collins wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 14, 2000 at 10:01:15PM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 13, 2000 at 09:08:43AM -0500, Ben Collins wrote:
> > > We are knee deep in a release cycle. We should not be expending our
> > > resources on woody right now
> On Mon, Mar 13, 2000 at 11:02:04AM -0500, Mark Mealman wrote:
> > I really don't like unstable either, but I've pretty much abandoned the
> > stable tree as too behind the times back when slink was nearing freeze.
>
> Here's a serious question for you: which parts are too old on slink
> to per
Ari Makela ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Filip Van Raemdonck writes:
>
> > And if they have this new hardware, does it mean they should not be
> > able to run Debian then? If that's the case, better start rewriting
> > some documentation...
>
> What I ment was that it's quite easy to upgrade Slin
*Ari Makela wrote:
> Joey Hess writes:
> > Ari Makela wrote:
> > > series kernel or newer XFree86. Neither it's difficult to change the
> > > kernel on the rescue floppy if the provided kernel does not support
> > > hardware. If, Samba, for example, is not new enough, it's not
> > > difficult to fe
>>On Mon, Mar 13, 2000 at 11:02:04AM -0500, Mark
>>Mealman >wrote:
>> I really don't like unstable either, but I've
pretty >>much abandoned
>>the stable tree as too behind the times back when
>>slink was nearing
>>freeze.
>Here's a serious question for you: which parts are
too >old on slink
>to
On Tue, Mar 14, 2000 at 10:01:15PM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 13, 2000 at 09:08:43AM -0500, Ben Collins wrote:
> > > Woody should be running 2.3 or pre-2.4. That should have been among
> > > the first things to change.
> >
> > We are knee deep in a release cycle. We should not be exp
On Tue, Mar 14, 2000 at 01:44:09AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Another point is that to an extent. being outmoded means that
> fewer people use Debian; and, that implies that Debian no longer
> meets their goals. Not having released for nearly 18 months (that's 3
> generations in in
On Tuesday 14 March 2000, at 12 h 38, the keyboard of Paul Seelig
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Depends on the functions one needs. But i'd like to generalize a bit:
> the included *apps* are far too old. Stuff like teTeX,
Since the teTeX in slink works fine and the one is potato is broken (a b
On Tue, Mar 14, 2000 at 01:44:09AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Not having released for nearly 18 months [...]
Which eighteen months do you refer to here?
--
enJoy -*/\*- don't even try to pronounce my first name
From: Hamish Moffatt [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Mon, Mar 13, 2000 at 11:02:04AM -0500, Mark Mealman wrote:
> > I really don't like unstable either, but I've pretty much
> > abandoned the stable tree as too behind the times back when
> > slink was nearing freeze.
>
> Here's a serious question
On Mon, Mar 13, 2000 at 08:17:00PM -0800, Joey Hess wrote:
> > But slink is practically completely adjusted for 2.2 already.
>
> Sure, if you ignore the 12 packages that break
> (http://www.debian.org/releases/stable/running-kernel-2.2)
I believe 12 out of ~2250 counts as "practically completely"
On Mon, Mar 13, 2000 at 09:08:43AM -0500, Ben Collins wrote:
> > Woody should be running 2.3 or pre-2.4. That should have been among
> > the first things to change.
>
> We are knee deep in a release cycle. We should not be expending our
> resources on woody right now.
speak for yourself. not ever
On Mon, Mar 13, 2000 at 11:02:04AM -0500, Mark Mealman wrote:
> I really don't like unstable either, but I've pretty much abandoned the
> stable tree as too behind the times back when slink was nearing freeze.
Here's a serious question for you: which parts are too old on slink
to perform the func
Ari Makela wrote:
> Yes, I've installed Slink on an exotic AST server hardware. 2.0 didn't
> work. There was nothing that was hard to fix.
You're a better man than I.
--
see shy jo
Joey Hess writes:
> Ari Makela wrote:
> > series kernel or newer XFree86. Neither it's difficult to change the
> > kernel on the rescue floppy if the provided kernel does not support
> > hardware. If, Samba, for example, is not new enough, it's not
> > difficult to fetch the sources and compile it.
Ari Makela wrote:
> series kernel or newer XFree86. Neither it's difficult to change the
> kernel on the rescue floppy if the provided kernel does not support
> hardware. If, Samba, for example, is not new enough, it's not
> difficult to fetch the sources and compile it.
Have you ever actually tr
Filip Van Raemdonck writes:
> And if they have this new hardware, does it mean they should not be
> able to run Debian then? If that's the case, better start rewriting
> some documentation...
What I ment was that it's quite easy to upgrade Slink to use 2.2
series kernel or newer XFree86. Neither
On Mon, Mar 13, 2000 at 11:50:47AM +, Paul M Sargent wrote:
> On a side note. I'm really not sure that this 'release' stuff works
> on debian. Coordinating the development cycles of an infinite number
> of packages is impossible. What I would like to see is an unstable
> tree where all developm
>>"Ari" == Ari Makela <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Ari> Manoj Srivastava writes:
>> It is a quality of imlementation issue. If we are seriously
>> outmoded, we can't honestly say we are trying to be the best
>> distribution out there.
Ari> I must say I completely fail to understand your poin
>>"Eray" == Eray Ozkural <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Eray> What happened to the package pools proposal? It's as if Debian
Eray> developers are suffering from amnesia. I guess the package
Eray> pools, as an idea at least, had found a significant appeal in
Eray> this list. According to some form
On Mon, Mar 13, 2000 at 08:17:00PM -0800, Joey Hess wrote:
> Josip Rodin wrote:
> > But slink is practically completely adjusted for 2.2 already.
>
> Sure, if you ignore the 12 packages that break
> (http://www.debian.org/releases/stable/running-kernel-2.2)
Most people can run 2.2 on slink withou
Moore, Paul wrote:
> I disagree. The approach taken by slink was sensible. Have 2.0 as the base,
> because it was QA'd to the high standards required by Debian, but include
> the latest 2.2 source package for people willing to upgrade. Adding a bit
> more support, in the form of including the equiv
Eray Ozkural wrote:
> What happened to the package pools proposal?
It's not been implemented.
> It's as if Debian developers are suffering from amnesia.
It's easy to be amnesiac about vaporware.
--
see shy jo
Josip Rodin wrote:
> But slink is practically completely adjusted for 2.2 already.
Sure, if you ignore the 12 packages that break
(http://www.debian.org/releases/stable/running-kernel-2.2)
--
see shy jo
> > We are all using potato, but we are shipping slink, keep that in mind.
> This is *wrong* as is wrong the claim that "slink is useless". The vast
> majority of the machines I manage are slinks.
You, but most of us are using potato in production systems.
Slink is a year old. It was released
On Mon, Mar 13, 2000 at 01:31:41PM +, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
> Paul M Sargent <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> > OK, Here's a question then. If Woody is unstable, which kernel is it
> > running?
>
> > Woody should be running 2.3 or pre-2.4. That should have been among the
> > first
> > things t
On Mon, Mar 13, 2000 at 12:50:22PM +0200, Ari Makela wrote:
>
> The point might be that Slink can be updated to use 2.2 kernels and
> other sofware which are not included. After all, quality software
> compiles usually quite effortlessy with ./configure, make and make
> install.
>
> All said, as
Just a short notice:
It is not possible to mount a newer ext2 filesystem with the slink
kernel-image.
Tamas
"Moore, Paul" wrote:
> I disagree. The approach taken by slink was sensible. Have 2.0 as the base,
> because it was QA'd to the high standards required by Debian, but include
> the latest 2.2 source package for people willing to upgrade. Adding a bit
> more support, in the form of including the equ
> On Sat, Mar 11, 2000 at 11:44:39PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > Why is it bad having a stable kernel installed as default,
> > and a 2.4-pre kernel, marked as extra, with warning in the long
> > description, also in the distribution?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marcus Brinkmann) added:
Paul M Sargent wrote:
>
> On a side note. I'm really not sure that this 'release' stuff works on
> debian. Coordinating the development cycles of an infinite number of
> packages is impossible. What I would like to see is an unstable tree where
> all development is done. As packages reach maturity
Steve Greenland ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Which is it? Do your friends want the newest bleeding edge stuff, or
> do they want stability? They can't have both at the same time! Oh, I
> see, the want the newest, but they want us to call it "stable".
I don't know.. IMO unstable is often more stab
> On 12-Mar-00, 10:56 (CST), Ron Farrer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I disagree! (surprise ;) I personally know of about ~4 people who were
> > turned away from slink because GNOME and KDE were so OLD. I personally
> > got around this by running potato (unstable then), but most people don't
> >
Just to interject a point of view from someone who is running the
"newest available hardware", I have an Athlon with a LeadTek GeForce DDR
video card, IBM 13.5gb S.M.A.R.T. drives, and sensors on all vital systems
(temps, rpms, and voltages). Potato is rock solid on the system - indeed,
potato and
From: Joey Hess [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> I'd like to propose that we make a committment to getting an update to
> potato out within a month of the release of the 2.4 kernel or
> the release of potato, whichever comes last. (I did a similar thing for
> slink in a 3 week time-frame, and so I thi
> > We should be making potato the best that it
> > can be. Every release cycle, peoples obsession with "this new thing" or
> > "that latest beta" is what makes the cycle so drawn out.
>
> All I was saying was that 'that new thing' should be included in the
> unstable tree as soon as possible. Ad
On Mon, Mar 13, 2000 at 03:04:26PM +, Paul M Sargent wrote:
> > > If the kernel isn't even in the archive then potential problems aren't
> > > going to be found.
> >
> > I wouldn't put that much `weight' in the fact that kernel is in the archive:
> > kernel packages don't get upgraded to new u
From: Ron Farrer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Slink is called `stable' for a reason. It's not obsolete
> > for people who just want a stable distribution.
> >
> > Of course, it is obsolete for people who want a nice GNOME
> > (or especially KDE) environment, or those who own Athlons or other
>
On Mon, Mar 13, 2000 at 03:30:53PM +0100, Josip Rodin wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 13, 2000 at 01:43:46PM +, Paul M Sargent wrote:
> >
> > ...but a distribution is designed for a particular kernel. e.g. slink is
> > designed for 2.0.x with some packages for 2.2.x support.
>
> But slink is practicall
8:25 -0800
> From: Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: David Bristel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: debian-devel@lists.debian.org
> Subject: Re: Danger Will Robinson! Danger!
>
> David Bristel wrote:
> > The solution to this is that we ignore woody for the moment, and
On Mon, Mar 13, 2000 at 09:08:43AM -0500, Ben Collins wrote:
> >
> > Woody should be running 2.3 or pre-2.4. That should have been among the
> > first
> > things to change.
> >
>
> We are knee deep in a release cycle. We should not be expending our
> resources on woody right now.
Ohh, Agreed.
From: Jacob Kuntz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> our biggest handicap is that we're always a year behind everyone
> else. being a year behind is suicide in any industry. being a year behind
> in an industry that moves as fast as open source software, is idiocy.
Agreed. With hardware changing as r
l also be EASIER, since
not every single package will change between releases.
Dave Bristel
On Sun, 12 Mar 2000, Steve Greenland wrote:
> Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2000 15:53:41 -0600
> From: Steve Greenland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: d
On Mon, Mar 13, 2000 at 01:43:46PM +, Paul M Sargent wrote:
> > > Woody should be running 2.3 or pre-2.4. That should have been among the
> > > first things to change.
> >
> > There's a misunderstanding here: the distribution has no default kernel,
> > the boot floppies do. Since nobody is wor
>
> Woody should be running 2.3 or pre-2.4. That should have been among the first
> things to change.
>
We are knee deep in a release cycle. We should not be expending our
resources on woody right now. We should be making potato the best that it
can be. Every release cycle, peoples obsession wit
On Mon, Mar 13, 2000 at 02:50:12PM +0100, Josip Rodin wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 13, 2000 at 11:50:47AM +, Paul M Sargent wrote:
> > Woody should be running 2.3 or pre-2.4. That should have been among the
> > first things to change.
>
> There's a misunderstanding here: the distribution has no defaul
On Mon, Mar 13, 2000 at 11:50:47AM +, Paul M Sargent wrote:
> Woody should be running 2.3 or pre-2.4. That should have been among the
> first things to change.
There's a misunderstanding here: the distribution has no default kernel,
the boot floppies do. Since nobody is working on woody boot f
Paul M Sargent <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> OK, Here's a question then. If Woody is unstable, which kernel is it
> running?
> Woody should be running 2.3 or pre-2.4. That should have been among the first
> things to change.
I don't think so. People who are interested in debugging the kernel
can instal
>I'd like to propose that we make a committment to
>getting an update to
>potato out within a month of the release of the 2.4
>kernel or the
>release
>of potato, whichever comes last. (I did a similar
>thing for slink in a
>3
>week time-frame, and so I think this is a reasonable
>time-frame.)
>
>
On Sun, Mar 12, 2000 at 09:53:41PM -, Steve Greenland wrote:
> Which is it? Do your friends want the newest bleeding edge stuff, or
> do they want stability? They can't have both at the same time! Oh, I
> see, the want the newest, but they want us to call it "stable".
OK, Here's a question th
Manoj Srivastava writes:
> It is a quality of imlementation issue. If we are seriously
> outmoded, we can't honestly say we are trying to be the best
> distribution out there.
I must say I completely fail to understand your point. Quality has not
very much to do with the fact how new t
On Sunday 12 March 2000, at 20 h 59, the keyboard of
=?iso-8859-1?Q?Nicol=E1s_Lichtmaier?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> We are all using potato, but we are shipping slink, keep that in mind.
This is *wrong* as is wrong the claim that "slink is useless". The vast
majority of the machines I mana
On Mon, Mar 13, 2000 at 09:39:52AM +1100, Drake Diedrich wrote:
> New hardware support seems to be a reasonable justification for allowing
> new versions into stable/frozen if there is also an older version there
> for the rest of us to fall back on in case it's a lemon.
This would be valid, howev
On Sun, Mar 12, 2000 at 08:59:30PM -0300, Nicolás Lichtmaier wrote:
> We are all using potato, but we are shipping slink, keep that in mind.
last year we were...but now i would bet that half of us (or more) are
running woody, not potato.
imo, that says a lot about the quality of debian "unstable
On Sun, Mar 12, 2000 at 03:53:41PM -0600, Steve Greenland wrote:
> On 12-Mar-00, 10:56 (CST), Ron Farrer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I disagree! (surprise ;) I personally know of about ~4 people who
> > were turned away from slink because GNOME and KDE were so OLD. I
> > personally got around t
Will Barton wrote:
> I like the idea a lot, but I have a question about version numbers. Potato
> is
> 2.2, so would you call 2.2.1? I'm assuming it would be more than just 2.2r2,
> etc.
Yes, that makes sense to me.
> It would be better to have these included in another release with our
> bl
Ben Collins wrote:
> > - X 4.0 drivers (but probably just X servers, to minimize changes; Branden
> > has huge reorganizations in mind for X)
>
> I'll agree with everything but this. X 4.0 stands to push aside support
> for some of our architectures.
My idea was just to include the driver packa
> This update would NOT be blessed as stable, it would be a semi-stable
> release with:
>
> - 2.4 kernel and support utilities
> - X 4.0 drivers (but probably just X servers, to minimize changes; Branden
> has huge reorganizations in mind for X)
>
> This would be a full Debian release, with a v
> - X 4.0 drivers (but probably just X servers, to minimize changes; Branden
> has huge reorganizations in mind for X)
I'll agree with everything but this. X 4.0 stands to push aside support
for some of our architectures. Atleast from what I have read, m68k and
sparc will not be supported under
On Sun, Mar 12, 2000 at 06:18:25PM -0800, Joey Hess wrote:
> I'd like to propose that we make a committment to getting an update to
> potato out within a month of the release of the 2.4 kernel or the release
> of potato, whichever comes last. (I did a similar thing for slink in a 3
> week time-fram
David Bristel wrote:
> The solution to this is that we ignore woody for the moment, and begin an all
> out effort to get the 2.4 kernel, XF4.0, and Apache 2.0 into Debian as STABLE.
> The work for these things can also incorporate the work needed to re-add the
> packages that were removed because o
Alisdair McDiarmid ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>
> What's the point in providing a briefly tested package of 2.4.0 when,
> by the time potato is out and burnt onto CDs, 2.4.x (where x > 0) will
> be available and people can compile their own kernel?
>
> The only reason for putting a 2.4.x kernel i
Steve Greenland ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>
> Let's see, we're going to release potato (I *hope*) before kernel 2.4.0
> is released, but we're outdated. Hmmm. Somehow, I just don't get it.
>
what that means is that we've almost totally missed the 2.2 kernel. we're an
entire release cycle behind
> Which is it? Do your friends want the newest bleeding edge stuff, or
> do they want stability? They can't have both at the same time! Oh, I
> see, the want the newest, but they want us to call it "stable".
>
> Sigh.
>
> Why is is this basic distinction so hard to explain to people? Testing
> an
On Sun, Mar 12, 2000 at 04:30:21PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Probably not. But That's why no one is talking about making
> 2.4 the default kernel. We package it up, we put i warnings, and we
> let it out for those of us who can really use it.
Those can really use it are those who
On Sun, Mar 12, 2000 at 04:30:21PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >>"Jason" == Jason Gunthorpe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Jason> On 11 Mar 2000, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >> I've been running 2.3 kernels for a while now, and so have
> >> several people. Though it may not work as a defaul
On Sun, Mar 12, 2000 at 04:30:21PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >>"Jason" == Jason Gunthorpe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Jason> On 11 Mar 2000, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >> I've been running 2.3 kernels for a while now, and so have
> >> several people. Though it may not work as a defaul
>>"Jason" == Jason Gunthorpe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Jason> On 11 Mar 2000, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> I've been running 2.3 kernels for a while now, and so have
>> several people. Though it may not work as a default ekrnel,
Jason> But can we integrate the necessary new changes to properl
1 - 100 of 141 matches
Mail list logo
