On Sat, Mar 26, 2005 at 12:38:05AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 01:01:24PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 21, 2005 at 05:28:51PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > > This adds up to a lot of effort for a dead-end architecture. Do
> > > you believe that such p
Steve Langasek wrote:
One of the delays affecting getting lully.d.o back on line, AIUI, was a dead
power supply that was non-trivial to replace. This is a case of scarce
hardware impacting a port even *before* it has ceased to become available
for sale.
Well, N+1 redundancy is already required. Ma
Benjamin,
On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 09:12:45AM +0100, Benjamin Mesing wrote:
> Why not freeze the archive at a given time and make a release for all
> architectures ready until then. As this code is frozen, the porters can
> continue to work on the frozen codebase where only patches are allowed
> w
On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 01:01:24PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 21, 2005 at 05:28:51PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > This adds up to a lot of effort for a dead-end architecture. Do you believe
> > that such ports are going to command enough interest to be able to keep up
> > with
Peter 'p2' De Schrijver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The arch should still be available, but a big enough collection of
> existing machines will do here IMO. Not that this holds for mips as
> there are new MIPS based systems available. Both broadcom and PMC
> announced new MIPS based chips for ex
On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 01:51:57PM +, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 14:15:13 +0100, Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [snip]
> > Except that arm doesn't *have* a large number of slow autobuilders,
> > working in parallel. They have four, and are having problems keep
On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 05:31:58AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 01:13:15PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 01:11:32AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
>
> > > You didn't answer the question I asked. Do you believe that DSA should be
> > > spending i
On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 14:15:13 +0100, Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip]
> Except that arm doesn't *have* a large number of slow autobuilders,
> working in parallel. They have four, and are having problems keeping up
> right now.
Precisely. And four is already pushing the point of di
On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 01:13:15PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 01:11:32AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > You didn't answer the question I asked. Do you believe that DSA should be
> > spending its limited resources keeping hardware running for dead
> > architectures?
On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 04:58:33 -0800, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Eh, not particularly. This inspection can be done on any machine, and
> there's no reason not to just use the fastest one available to you (whether
> that's by CPU, or network); what's needed here is to first identify
On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 12:45:56PM +, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 11:02:47 +0100, David Schmitt
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [snip]
> > As Steve mentioned in another mail[1], one of the points where arches
> > offload
> > work onto the release team is
> >
> > "3) chasing
On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 12:45:56PM +, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 11:02:47 +0100, David Schmitt
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > As Steve mentioned in another mail[1], one of the points where arches
> > offload
> > work onto the release team is
> > "3) chasing down, or ju
On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 11:02:47 +0100, David Schmitt
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip]
> As Steve mentioned in another mail[1], one of the points where arches offload
> work onto the release team is
>
> "3) chasing down, or just waiting on (which means, taking time to poll the
> package's status to f
* Wouter Verhelst ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050322 13:35]:
> On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 01:28:18PM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > * Wouter Verhelst ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050322 13:05]:
> > > In the general case, as I have said before, I don't think anyone would
> > > take offense at a security announcement
On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 01:28:18PM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
> * Wouter Verhelst ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050322 13:05]:
> > In the general case, as I have said before, I don't think anyone would
> > take offense at a security announcement being sent out containing
> > MD5sums for packages for i386,
* Wouter Verhelst ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050322 13:05]:
> In the general case, as I have said before, I don't think anyone would
> take offense at a security announcement being sent out containing
> MD5sums for packages for i386, sparc, powerpc, alpha, ia64 and s390,
> with a message like 'packages f
On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 01:11:32AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 09:36:46AM +0100, Falk Hueffner wrote:
> > This is too vague for me.
>
> Does the release team now have to do price shopping on replacement
> parts for buildds before it can say that it doesn't want to suppo
On Mon, Mar 21, 2005 at 05:28:51PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> This adds up to a lot of effort for a dead-end architecture. Do you believe
> that such ports are going to command enough interest to be able to keep up
> with Debian's stable support requirements for more than 2 1/2 years (18mo.
>
On Mon, Mar 21, 2005 at 11:13:40PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>...
> People are far too busy picking on small details of proposals they don't
> like instead of coming up with a decent and comprehensive set of
> solutions. If you don't like what's been proposed, produce something
> better. For th
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The problem is when they actively oppose work.
I have not seen the release team actively oppose useful work. I don't
/think/ I've seen them actively oppose useless work, either. I'm fairly
sure I've seen them actively oppose work that would delay the relea
On Tue, 22 Mar 2005, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 21, 2005 at 08:39:58PM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> > On Tue, 22 Mar 2005, Peter 'p2' De Schrijver wrote:
> > > No. There needs to be some override procedure like we have for
> > > maintainers not
> > > doing their job. But that
>
> The only sarge architectures that are likely of being affected by your
> "must be publicly available to buy new" rule during the next 10 years
> are hppa and alpha (dunno about s390).
>
Given IBM's track record in backwards compatibility I don't expect s390
to die at all :) Even the latest
On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 07:45:00AM +, Alastair McKinstry wrote:
> On Máirt, 2005-03-22 at 00:11 +0100, Peter 'p2' De Schrijver wrote:
> > > If Debian is keeping an arch alive so much that one can still buy it new,
> > > I
> > > certainly can't see why we should not continue releasing for that
On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 07:45:00AM +, Alastair McKinstry wrote:
>
> I think the point of this requirement is to support it we need buildds
> in the future for security fixes. Hence while I might like my mips box,
> etc. it would be irresponsible for us to do a release that we could not
> suppo
On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 11:02:47AM +0100, David Schmitt wrote:
> On Tuesday 22 March 2005 08:22, Sven Luther wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 21, 2005 at 08:39:58PM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> > > On Tue, 22 Mar 2005, Peter 'p2' De Schrijver wrote:
> > > > No. There needs to be some override
On MÃirt, 2005-03-22 at 00:11 +0100, Peter 'p2' De Schrijver wrote:
> > If Debian is keeping an arch alive so much that one can still buy it new, I
> > certainly can't see why we should not continue releasing for that arch,
> > however. So I'd say Matthew's explanation is not perfect. But the
> >
On Mon, Mar 21, 2005 at 05:28:51PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 21, 2005 at 09:51:25PM +0100, Falk Hueffner wrote:
> > Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > > * the release architecture must be publicly available to buy new
>
> > > Avoids a situation where Debian is keep
On Tuesday 22 March 2005 08:22, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 21, 2005 at 08:39:58PM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> > On Tue, 22 Mar 2005, Peter 'p2' De Schrijver wrote:
> > > No. There needs to be some override procedure like we have for
> > > maintainers not doing their job. But t
On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 09:36:46AM +0100, Falk Hueffner wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 21, 2005 at 09:51:25PM +0100, Falk Hueffner wrote:
> >> Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> > * the release architecture must be publicly available to buy new
> >> > Avoids a situation where Debian is kee
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, Mar 21, 2005 at 09:51:25PM +0100, Falk Hueffner wrote:
>> Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> > * the release architecture must be publicly available to buy new
>
>> > Avoids a situation where Debian is keeping an architecture alive
On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 09:12:45AM +0100, Benjamin Mesing wrote:
> Hello,
>
> > The Vancouver proposals satisfy all of these, potentially at the cost of
> > removing some architectures from the set released by Debian. If we want
> > to avoid that cost, can we come up with another proposal that sol
Hello,
> The Vancouver proposals satisfy all of these, potentially at the cost of
> removing some architectures from the set released by Debian. If we want
> to avoid that cost, can we come up with another proposal that solves the
> same problems in a way that satisfies the release team?
There w
On Mon, Mar 21, 2005 at 08:39:58PM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Mar 2005, Peter 'p2' De Schrijver wrote:
> > No. There needs to be some override procedure like we have for maintainers
> > not
> > doing their job. But that's beyond the scope of this discussion.
>
> In th
Peter 'p2' De Schrijver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This is unacceptable. It would for example allow archs to be refused
> because their names starts with an 'A'.
Personally, I'd prefer to delegate that sort of decision to the
technical committee rather than have the release team have a veto. Ev
On Mon, Mar 21, 2005 at 09:51:25PM +0100, Falk Hueffner wrote:
> Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > * the release architecture must be publicly available to buy new
> > Avoids a situation where Debian is keeping an architecture alive.
> I don't understand this. What is the problem w
On Tue, 22 Mar 2005, Peter 'p2' De Schrijver wrote:
> > If Debian is keeping an arch alive so much that one can still buy it new, I
> > certainly can't see why we should not continue releasing for that arch,
> > however. So I'd say Matthew's explanation is not perfect. But the
> > reasoning behin
> If Debian is keeping an arch alive so much that one can still buy it new, I
> certainly can't see why we should not continue releasing for that arch,
> however. So I'd say Matthew's explanation is not perfect. But the
> reasoning behind it is not difficult to spot.
>
> Throwing out this requir
On Mon, 21 Mar 2005, Peter 'p2' De Schrijver wrote:
> > * the release architecture must be publicly available to buy new
> >
> > Avoids a situation where Debian is keeping an architecture alive. This
> > isn't intended to result in an architecture being dropped part way
> > through a release cycle
> * the release architecture must be publicly available to buy new
>
> Avoids a situation where Debian is keeping an architecture alive. This
> isn't intended to result in an architecture being dropped part way
> through a release cycle or once it becomes hard to obtain new hardware.
>
What prob
Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> * the release architecture must be publicly available to buy new
>
> Avoids a situation where Debian is keeping an architecture alive.
I don't understand this. What is the problem with Debian is keeping an
architecture alive? What problem are you tryi
Ok. I've written this based on the original d-d-a posting from Steve,
and from information cribbed from various other posts. The idea is to
focus consideration on the problems that the release team view as
needing to be solved, rather than just criticising the conclusions
reached.
To start with, h
41 matches
Mail list logo
