On Wed, May 06, 2015 at 11:39:29AM +0100, Neil Williams wrote:
> On Wed, 6 May 2015 18:18:34 +0800
> Paul Wise wrote:
>
> > On Wed, May 6, 2015 at 6:11 PM, Neil Williams wrote:
> >
> > > You've admitted that the port cannot keep pace because it needs
> > > changes to be made by maintainers who d
Neil Williams, le Wed 06 May 2015 20:34:15 +0100, a écrit :
> On Wed, 6 May 2015 20:36:25 +0200
> Samuel Thibault wrote:
>
> > Neil Williams, le Wed 06 May 2015 12:03:30 +0100, a écrit :
> > > If the patch *is* trivial and testable then it is up to the porters
> > > to arrange a fully tested NMU.
On May 06 2015, Neil Williams wrote:
> You can continue expecting others to do the work for you (which leads
> to bugs sliding down the priority list of some of the maintainers) or
> you can do the work.
It seems to me that you don't (want to?) realize that in some cases the
porters are doing all
On Wed, 6 May 2015 20:36:25 +0200
Samuel Thibault wrote:
> Neil Williams, le Wed 06 May 2015 12:03:30 +0100, a écrit :
> > If the patch *is* trivial and testable then it is up to the porters
> > to arrange a fully tested NMU.
>
> How can a porter fully test a package? Only maintainers really kn
Neil Williams, le Wed 06 May 2015 12:03:30 +0100, a écrit :
> If the patch *is* trivial and testable then it is up to the porters to
> arrange a fully tested NMU.
How can a porter fully test a package? Only maintainers really know
their package well, testing a package is rarely documented.
> Mai
On 2015-05-06 10:44, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> [ with my m68k buildd maintainer and (ex-?) porter hat ]
>
> Aurelien Jarno dixit:
>
> >- debian-ports uses mini-dak instead of dak. It uses less resources and
> > brings some features that are useful for new architectures like
> > accepting binary
On Tue, 05 May 2015 09:17:02 +0200, Samuel Thibault wrote:
(replying only to -devel)
> * Appearing on packages' and maintainers' PTS
> pages like http://buildd.debian.org/bash and
> https://buildd.debian.org/sthiba...@debian.org
>
> This makes people aware of portability issues; when hurd-i386 m
On Wed, May 6, 2015 at 7:03 PM, Neil Williams wrote:
> Maintainers should help porters for release architectures wherever
> possible - for non-release architectures, that really isn't something
> you can do anything about except do the work yourselves.
One could argue the same for the official po
On Wed, 6 May 2015 12:49:44 +0200
Samuel Thibault wrote:
> Neil Williams, le Wed 06 May 2015 11:39:29 +0100, a écrit :
> > It's not at all that the maintainers are "lazy" or that those
> > maintainers could have done anything differently. Those maintainers
> > have their workloads and have made a
Neil Williams, le Wed 06 May 2015 11:39:29 +0100, a écrit :
> If the wave simply moves on, leaving the port behind, it is harder to
> accept, very hard to regain momentum and high time that the porters
> ask themselves the hard question of whether it is worthwhile to
> continue, as the crest of the
Neil Williams, le Wed 06 May 2015 11:39:29 +0100, a écrit :
> It's not at all that the maintainers are "lazy" or that those
> maintainers could have done anything differently. Those maintainers
> have their workloads and have made an assessment of their priorities.
I'm sorry I have to disagree her
[ with my m68k buildd maintainer and (ex-?) porter hat ]
Aurelien Jarno dixit:
>- debian-ports uses mini-dak instead of dak. It uses less resources and
> brings some features that are useful for new architectures like
> accepting binary uploads when it "improves" the version even if it is
> no
On Wed, 6 May 2015 18:18:34 +0800
Paul Wise wrote:
> On Wed, May 6, 2015 at 6:11 PM, Neil Williams wrote:
>
> > You've admitted that the port cannot keep pace because it needs
> > changes to be made by maintainers who do not see the port as a
> > particular priority and that this blocks or imped
On Wed, May 6, 2015 at 6:11 PM, Neil Williams wrote:
> You've admitted that the port cannot keep pace because it needs changes
> to be made by maintainers who do not see the port as a particular
> priority and that this blocks or impedes further changes. You've
> tried and failed to increase the l
On Wed, 6 May 2015 11:35:45 +0200
Samuel Thibault wrote:
> Neil Williams, le Wed 06 May 2015 09:47:36 +0100, a écrit :
> > Lack of widespread interest in any particular port is a problem with
> > that port not having widespread appeal.
>
> And lack of helping maintainers will entail a lack of wo
Neil Williams, le Wed 06 May 2015 09:47:36 +0100, a écrit :
> Lack of widespread interest in any particular port is a problem with
> that port not having widespread appeal.
And lack of helping maintainers will entail a lack of working stuff in
the port, and thus a more difficult appeal, and the lo
On Wed, 6 May 2015 10:11:02 +0200
Samuel Thibault wrote:
> Neil Williams, le Wed 06 May 2015 08:56:38 +0100, a écrit :
> > Ports which take so long to develop that a stable release is
> > deemed unlikely will also struggle. That is a problem caused by that
> > port, not by the project or other ma
Neil Williams, le Wed 06 May 2015 08:56:38 +0100, a écrit :
> Ports which take so long to develop that a stable release is
> deemed unlikely will also struggle. That is a problem caused by that
> port, not by the project or other maintainers.
Not only. A typical scenario that does happen and can
On Tue, 05 May 2015 23:36:32 +0100
peter green wrote:
> >
> > > Perhaps we need a political decision here?
When considering maintainers not directly involved in the port,
motivation for doing work which only helps a particular port tends to
be easier to find when the objective of that port is t
Hello,
Paul Wise, le Tue 05 May 2015 15:49:36 +0800, a écrit :
> I haven't seen any resistance to the idea of merging more Debian ports
> services with the equivalent Debian services, apart from the work
> needed to do so.
Ok.
I'm actually realizing one thing: can buildd.debian.org perhaps be ma
> Perhaps we need a political decision here?
I think it's mostly a practical one, as I don't see much disagreement
about the objectives here: What is the best way to arrange things to
support 'released, supported, all-equal' ports vs 'best-effort, let
them get out of sync' 2nd-class ports (both
[ With my debian-ports admin hat ]
On 2015-05-04 11:48, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> Lucas Nussbaum (2015-05-04):
> > I'm wondering if we could find a way to accomodate those architectures
> > in an official way, while still limiting the impact on ftpmasters and
> > other teams. I'm not entirely clea
Samuel Thibault, le Tue 05 May 2015 15:09:29 +0200, a écrit :
> Svante Signell, le Tue 05 May 2015 15:00:55 +0200, a écrit :
> > One of the main problems with debian-ports is that the Sources.gz file
> > is empty:
> > http://ftp.debian-ports.org/debian/dists/unreleased/main/source/
>
> No, this is
+++ Samuel Thibault [2015-05-05 09:17 +0200]:
> * Getting binNMUs from d-release transitions
>
> This saves porters a lot of tedious work that would otherwise be just
> duplicated. We are not talking about fine-grain binNMUs here, but
> coarse-grain well-known planned binNMUs. Wanna-build supports
Svante Signell, le Tue 05 May 2015 15:38:27 +0200, a écrit :
> On Tue, 2015-05-05 at 15:09 +0200, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> > Svante Signell, le Tue 05 May 2015 15:00:55 +0200, a écrit :
> > > One of the main problems with debian-ports is that the Sources.gz file
> > > is empty:
> > > http://ftp.deb
On Tue, 2015-05-05 at 15:09 +0200, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> Svante Signell, le Tue 05 May 2015 15:00:55 +0200, a écrit :
> > One of the main problems with debian-ports is that the Sources.gz file
> > is empty:
> > http://ftp.debian-ports.org/debian/dists/unreleased/main/source/
>
> No, this is rea
Svante Signell, le Tue 05 May 2015 15:00:55 +0200, a écrit :
> One of the main problems with debian-ports is that the Sources.gz file
> is empty:
> http://ftp.debian-ports.org/debian/dists/unreleased/main/source/
No, this is really a corner issue: "unreleased" is a very small part of
the picture.
On Tue, 2015-05-05 at 09:17 +0200, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> [Speaking for the debian-hurd team]
>
> Lucas Nussbaum, le Mon 04 May 2015 08:28:22 +0200, a écrit :
> > Maybe it's just about supporting and advertising debian-ports as
> > Debian's official way to host second-class architectures. Maybe
Richard Braun, le Tue 05 May 2015 12:27:10 +, a écrit :
> On Tue, May 05, 2015 at 01:36:57PM +0200, Arne Babenhauserheide wrote:
> > Given that the package coverage of the Hurd continuously increased and
> > that it just released 0.6 of its core components[1] along with releasing
> > Debian GNU
On Tue, May 05, 2015 at 01:36:57PM +0200, Arne Babenhauserheide wrote:
> Given that the package coverage of the Hurd continuously increased and
> that it just released 0.6 of its core components[1] along with releasing
> Debian GNU/Hurd[2], this strikes me as an odd time to throw the Hurd off
> ftp
On Tue, May 05, 2015 at 09:17:02AM +0200, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> [Speaking for the debian-hurd team]
>
> Lucas Nussbaum, le Mon 04 May 2015 08:28:22 +0200, a écrit :
> > Maybe it's just about supporting and advertising debian-ports as
> > Debian's official way to host second-class architectures.
Am Montag, 20. April 2015, 00:22:08 schrieb Joerg Jaspert:
> hurd-i386
> =
> Well before wheezy was released, we talked with the HURD porters, and
> they agreed to re-check their archive status just after the wheezy
> release[1]. The plan was to move the HURD port off ftp-master if it
> was
On Tue, May 5, 2015 at 3:38 PM, Paul Wise wrote:
> ...
Apologies for the contentless reply.
I haven't seen any resistance to the idea of merging more Debian ports
services with the equivalent Debian services, apart from the work
needed to do so.
--
bye,
pabs
https://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise
On Tue, May 5, 2015 at 3:17 PM, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> [Speaking for the debian-hurd team]
>
> Lucas Nussbaum, le Mon 04 May 2015 08:28:22 +0200, a écrit :
>> Maybe it's just about supporting and advertising debian-ports as
>> Debian's official way to host second-class architectures. Maybe
>> th
On 05/05/15 at 09:17 +0200, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> * Appearing on packages' and maintainers' PTS
> pages like http://buildd.debian.org/bash and
> https://buildd.debian.org/sthiba...@debian.org
>
> * Being considered as "second-class citizen"
Note that our developer dashboards (DDPO, Tracker, DM
[Speaking for the debian-hurd team]
Lucas Nussbaum, le Mon 04 May 2015 08:28:22 +0200, a écrit :
> Maybe it's just about supporting and advertising debian-ports as
> Debian's official way to host second-class architectures. Maybe
> there's more to it. What are the current downsides of moving hurd-
Was that before or after arm64 and ppc64el migrated off ports to the
main archive?
I'm pretty sure ppc64el was never on debian-ports, it went straight from
an IBM run repository to the main archive.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscri
Joerg Jaspert, le Mon 04 May 2015 18:11:29 +0200, a écrit :
> On 13931 March 1977, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
>
> > That pad says: "As a result of current state, d-ports cannot accept more
> > ports". If that's still true, it would make sense to postpone dropping
> > hurd and sparc until this is fixed.
On 13931 March 1977, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> That pad says: "As a result of current state, d-ports cannot accept more
> ports". If that's still true, it would make sense to postpone dropping
> hurd and sparc until this is fixed...
Hurd is already on d-p, so hurd actually has double infrastructure
+++ Lucas Nussbaum [2015-05-04 12:47 +0200]:
> On 04/05/15 at 18:04 +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
> > On Mon, May 4, 2015 at 5:48 PM, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> > > Lucas Nussbaum (2015-05-04):
> > >> I'm wondering if we could find a way to accomodate those architectures
> > >> in an official way, while s
On 04/05/15 at 18:04 +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
> On Mon, May 4, 2015 at 5:48 PM, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> > Lucas Nussbaum (2015-05-04):
> >> I'm wondering if we could find a way to accomodate those architectures
> >> in an official way, while still limiting the impact on ftpmasters and
> >> other t
On Mon, May 4, 2015 at 5:48 PM, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> Lucas Nussbaum (2015-05-04):
>> I'm wondering if we could find a way to accomodate those architectures
>> in an official way, while still limiting the impact on ftpmasters and
>> other teams. I'm not entirely clear on the status of debian-po
Lucas Nussbaum (2015-05-04):
> I'm wondering if we could find a way to accomodate those architectures
> in an official way, while still limiting the impact on ftpmasters and
> other teams. I'm not entirely clear on the status of debian-ports.org,
> and of what the current downsides of using debian
On 20/04/15 at 00:22 +0200, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> Hi,
>
> As the jessie release approaches, the ftp-team have been reviewing the
> status of the architectures in unstable.
>
> Neither sparc nor hurd-i386 are going to release with jessie and we are
> therefore looking at their future in unstable.
Hello,
Joerg Jaspert, le Mon 20 Apr 2015 00:22:08 +0200, a écrit :
> hurd-i386
> =
> Well before wheezy was released, we talked with the HURD porters, and
> they agreed to re-check their archive status just after the wheezy
> release[1]. The plan was to move the HURD port off ftp-master if
Hi,
As the jessie release approaches, the ftp-team have been reviewing the
status of the architectures in unstable.
Neither sparc nor hurd-i386 are going to release with jessie and we are
therefore looking at their future in unstable.
SPARC
=
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bu
46 matches
Mail list logo
