On Sat, Aug 02, 2003 at 06:01:51AM -0500, Luca - De Whiskey's - De Vitis wrote:
> What we need, is a task management system almost like our bug tracking system.
> A way we can express task that have to be done before next relese or any other
tasks
> goal we wants to achive. A
On Fri, Aug 01, 2003 at 07:03:46PM +0200, Arnaud Vandyck wrote:
> Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [...]
> > [3] http://www.fs.tum.de/~bunk/Debian/freeze
>
> Reading the whole "Future releases of Debian" thread, I thought that
> the main idea was that Debian need a more 'readable' stat
On Fri, 1 Aug 2003, Arnaud Vandyck wrote:
> Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [...]
> > [3] http://www.fs.tum.de/~bunk/Debian/freeze
>
> Reading the whole "Future releases of Debian" thread, I thought that
> the main idea was that Debian need a more 'readable' status for the next
> stab
On Fri, Aug 01, 2003 at 07:03:46PM +0200, Arnaud Vandyck wrote:
> I propose to create a meta-package called 'release-status-sarge' that
> depends on packages (with version number) that we want to see in sarge.
I don't think that the most important release goals can be expressed in
terms of ve
Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
> [3] http://www.fs.tum.de/~bunk/Debian/freeze
Reading the whole "Future releases of Debian" thread, I thought that
the main idea was that Debian need a more 'readable' status for the next
stable release.
I propose to create a meta-package called
On Tue, 2003-07-29 at 16:59, Marc Haber wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Jul 2003 09:08:54 +0100, Colin Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >On Tue, Jul 29, 2003 at 08:55:15AM +0200, Marc Haber wrote:
> >> (2) Since all people say that having an account on the Debian machines
> >> is the major reason tha
On Tue, 29 Jul 2003 09:08:54 +0100, Colin Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>On Tue, Jul 29, 2003 at 08:55:15AM +0200, Marc Haber wrote:
>> (2) Since all people say that having an account on the Debian machines
>> is the major reason that everybody and his brother want to be DD.
>> Why shou
On Tue, Jul 29, 2003 at 08:55:15AM +0200, Marc Haber wrote:
> Actually, when I was stuck in the DAM queue for half a year without
> getting a single word of feedback, I wouldn't have dreamt to ask for
> an account for two reasons:
How long would it take for you to ask questions? 1 year? 2 years?
* Marc Haber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [030729 08:57]:
> On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 20:58:02 -0700, David Nusinow
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Even the most
> >knowledgable people will appreciate hardware detection.
>
> As long as it can be reliably turned off.
Another thing is the ease to switch it off. I
On Tue, Jul 29, 2003 at 08:55:15AM +0200, Marc Haber wrote:
> (2) Since all people say that having an account on the Debian machines
> is the major reason that everybody and his brother want to be DD.
> Why should simply asking for that have a positive result?
Surely that's not "having an
On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 20:58:02 -0700, David Nusinow
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Even the most
>knowledgable people will appreciate hardware detection.
As long as it can be reliably turned off.
Greetings
Marc
--
-- !! No courtesy copies, please !! -
Marc Hab
On 25 Jul 2003 16:47:24 +0100, Scott James Remnant
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I think other answers in this thread speak for themselves. If you've
>not even tried asking for an account to fix some bugs, then you're
>obviously not that interested fixing them.
Actually, when I was stuck in the DAM
On Mon, Jul 28, 2003 at 07:57:46PM +0100, Roger Leigh wrote:
> Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Sat, Jul 19, 2003 at 08:42:37PM +0100, Roger Leigh wrote:
> >>...
> >> I contacted the SRM about the possibility of inclusion of gimp-print
> >> 4.2.5-1woody0 in a point release, but I'v
Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sat, Jul 19, 2003 at 08:42:37PM +0100, Roger Leigh wrote:
>>...
>> I contacted the SRM about the possibility of inclusion of gimp-print
>> 4.2.5-1woody0 in a point release, but I've not had any reply yet. It
>> doesn't meed the usual criteria for a sta
On Sat, Jul 26, 2003 at 03:32:33PM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> If someone wants to donate an S390 to me I'll happily take it to work on
> d-i; I'll even pay the power bills myself. How's that for selfless
> sacrifice?
On a reasonably fast machine, Hercules is pretty usable for
small-to-medi
On Saturday 26 July 2003 01:08, John Hasler wrote:
> No research, but I've had a couple of experiences that tend to confirm it.
> It's irrelevant, though, because people who have never used Windows or Mac
> are getting scarce.
In the industrialized world. But there's 3 billion people who have nev
John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Bob Hilliard wrote:
>> A true newbie would be one who has never used a computer before. To such
>> a person, a CLI is much more intuitive than any GUI.
>
> Colin Walters writes:
>> And your research supporting this is...?
>
> No research, but I've had a c
On Sat, Jul 26, 2003 at 11:39:38AM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 26, 2003 at 07:10:06PM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> > And, quite honestly, animals should probably disappear. When all of a
> > maintainer's packages were NMU'd into stable, and they haven't moved since,
> > it's time to
On Sat, Jul 26, 2003 at 07:10:06PM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 26, 2003 at 02:45:56AM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> > What exactly is going on here? It appears that apart from 'animals',
>
> And, quite honestly, animals should probably disappear. When all of a
> maintainer's pa
Richard Braakman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Alternately... is the difference between "required" and "important"
> really useful? We already have the "Essential" flag to indicate
> which packages are really required. We could just fold these
> levels into one to simplify things.
Required cou
On Sat, Jul 26, 2003 at 02:45:56AM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> >db2:
> > This is pretty old... who still uses it, anyway? More specifically,
> > does anyone use libdb2++, and if so, are they only things which
> > aren't supposed to be transitioned?
>
> OK, this is an odd list:
> Package
On Sat, Jul 26, 2003 at 12:10:01AM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> dselect (required) depends on libstdc++5, libgcc1 (both important)
> Upgrade priority of the latter two, or downgrade dselect.
Alternately... is the difference between "required" and "important"
really useful? We already have t
On Sat, Jul 26, 2003 at 02:45:56AM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
>
> >db2:
> > This is pretty old... who still uses it, anyway? More specifically,
> > does anyone use libdb2++, and if so, are they only things which
> > aren't supposed to be transitioned?
>
> OK, this is an odd list:
> Packa
>db2:
> This is pretty old... who still uses it, anyway? More specifically,
> does anyone use libdb2++, and if so, are they only things which
> aren't supposed to be transitioned?
OK, this is an odd list:
Package: libdb2++
Reverse Depends:
libdb4.1++,libdb2++ 2:2.7.7-3
libdb4.0++c102,l
On Sat, Jul 26, 2003 at 12:10:01AM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> debconf (important) depends on liblocale-gettext-perl (standard).
> Presumably liblocale-gettext-perl should become important.
> Or debconf could be replaced in 'important' with cdebconf, of course.
Ouch...
> db2:
> This
Andreas Metzler writes:
>Using my memory of my last visit on
>http://bjorn.haxx.se/debian/testing.pl
>and from reading diverse mailinglists I think the major issues are:
There are probably other issues than the ones you mention below which
really ought to be fixed prior to release, such as
* the
Bob Hilliard wrote:
> A true newbie would be one who has never used a computer before. To such
> a person, a CLI is much more intuitive than any GUI.
Colin Walters writes:
> And your research supporting this is...?
No research, but I've had a couple of experiences that tend to confirm it.
It's i
Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Jérôme Marant wrote:
>> Userfirendliness means necessarily hiding technical details IMO, without
>> dealing with graphical aspects. I think that D-i hasn't reach that
>> state.
>
> It seems you're not aware of the SkoleLinux distribution. SkoleLinux has
> ta
On Fri, 2003-07-25 at 09:53, Bob Hilliard wrote:
> There is a widespread tendency to consider "newbie" to mean a
> refugee from MS or some other eye-candy system. A true newbie would
> be one who has never used a computer before. To such a person, a CLI
> is much more intuitive than any GUI
On Fri, Jul 25, 2003 at 07:51:49PM +0200, Peter Makholm wrote:
> Scott James Remnant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > If your package has a bug affecting arm, login to debussy and fix it.
> > If your package has a bug affecting mips, login to casals and fix it.
> > If your package has a bug affectin
On Fri, Jul 25, 2003 at 04:47:24PM +0100, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> I think other answers in this thread speak for themselves. If you've
> not even tried asking for an account to fix some bugs, then you're
> obviously not that interested fixing them.
You're talking as if fixing bugs is some ki
Karsten Merker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> There is an official mips system available to all developers (casals.d.o).
Oh, cool, I must have missed that announcement.
> If you need stuff tested on a mipsel system in the meantime, please send me
> an email and I will try to get account on anothe
Scott James Remnant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> If your package has a bug affecting arm, login to debussy and fix it.
> If your package has a bug affecting mips, login to casals and fix it.
> If your package has a bug affecting m68k, login to kullervo and fix it.
Have I missed something? I can'
>
> I do not know whether there is, but, what about making a architecture
> archive for debian package managers to use, test, update their packages
maintainers..
pgpc9w36PWV3K.pgp
Description: PGP signature
>
> You checked too long ago. Casals.debian.org is an SGI Indigo2, MIPS
> R4000 CPU.
>
> Williams.debian.org and vaughan.debian.org will be MIPSel boxes, as soon
> as Sun ships them to me, I get them online, and the sysadmin team gets
> them configured. Supposedly I'll have the boxes within a w
On Fri, Jul 25, 2003 at 01:37:15PM -0400, Aaron M. Ucko wrote:
> > The reason I havn't offered them for general Debian machines is that there
> > are already (generally better) machines available on better connections.
>
> Last I checked, there weren't any public mips or mipsel machines.
You ch
Nick Lopez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The reason I havn't offered them for general Debian machines is that there
> are already (generally better) machines available on better connections.
Last I checked, there weren't any public mips or mipsel machines.
--
Aaron M. Ucko, KB1CJC (amu at alu
On Fri, Jul 25, 2003 at 09:40:44AM -0600, Jamin W. Collins wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 25, 2003 at 04:25:57PM +0100, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> > On Thu, 2003-07-24 at 19:34, Jamin W. Collins wrote:
> > If your package has a bug affecting arm, login to debussy and fix it.
> > If your package has a bug a
Hi, Eduard Bloch wrote:
> There were no emotion. I just listed facts;
Sorry, but using the word "crap" crosses the line between fact and emotion.
>> We can't find a good solution to this problem, if indeed there is one,
>> if all we have is two rows of people on different sides of a long table,
On Fri, Jul 25, 2003 at 06:46:16PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 25, 2003 at 09:45:01AM -0600, Jamin W. Collins wrote:
> >...
> > > There are at least two ways how you can get an account on a machine in
> > > such a situation:
> > > - ask the Debian admins for a guest account on a machine
Discussing via emails seems to get hard again...
* Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [030725 16:37]:
> Bernhard R. Link wrote:
> > Both a system presenting a utter mess of uneeded things and technical
> > terms and a system only saying "Installation successful" or
> > "Installation failed" are two end
On Fri, Jul 25, 2003 at 09:45:01AM -0600, Jamin W. Collins wrote:
>...
> > There are at least two ways how you can get an account on a machine in
> > such a situation:
> > - ask the Debian admins for a guest account on a machine of this
> > architecture
>
> I was not aware that this was an opti
On Jul 25, Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Could you give examples of your "nobody has enough time or interest to
>fix toy architectures"?
I already gave many in this thread.
--
ciao, |
Marco | [1008 afu6BxGoAAolg]
On Fri, 2003-07-25 at 16:40, Jamin W. Collins wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 25, 2003 at 04:25:57PM +0100, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> > On Thu, 2003-07-24 at 19:34, Jamin W. Collins wrote:
> >
> > > So, are you volunteering to help those of us without access to
> > > either of the above architectures wit
On Thu, 2003-07-24 at 21:23, Jamin W. Collins wrote:
> Now you're assuming that I have access to the Debian machines. TMK,
> these machines are *not* public access machines, but instead are
> accessible to full DDs only. This excludes all new maintainer
> applicants, myself included.
>
Ask the
On Fri, Jul 25, 2003 at 05:31:36PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 24, 2003 at 02:23:30PM -0600, Jamin W. Collins wrote:
>
> > Now you're assuming that I have access to the Debian machines. TMK,
> > these machines are *not* public access machines, but instead are
> > accessible to full DD
On Thu, 2003-07-24 at 19:34, Jamin W. Collins wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 24, 2003 at 08:25:16PM +0200, Robert Lemmen wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 24, 2003 at 08:39:11PM +0300, Halil Demirezen wrote:
> > > Are we in dilemma on "should we support arch that are not used
> > > widely?" or "We should support all a
On Fri, Jul 25, 2003 at 04:25:57PM +0100, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> On Thu, 2003-07-24 at 19:34, Jamin W. Collins wrote:
>
> > So, are you volunteering to help those of us without access to
> > either of the above architectures with "bugs" found in our packages?
> > I'm not saying that all arch
On Thu, Jul 24, 2003 at 02:23:30PM -0600, Jamin W. Collins wrote:
>
> Now you're assuming that I have access to the Debian machines. TMK,
> these machines are *not* public access machines, but instead are
> accessible to full DDs only. This excludes all new maintainer
> applicants, myself includ
On Thu, Jul 24, 2003 at 07:16:14PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Jul 24, Matthias Urlichs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >> If nobody volunteeers to make the crap ready,
> >Umm, using that word puts your mail firmly into the "flame" category,
> >especially for readers who actually care about
Bernhard R. Link wrote:
> Both a system presenting a utter mess of uneeded things and technical
> terms and a system only saying "Installation successful" or
> "Installation failed" are two ends of user-unfriendly behaviour.
> While the first can be at least cured with a good documentation, the
> l
Jérôme Marant wrote:
> Userfirendliness means necessarily hiding technical details IMO, without
> dealing with graphical aspects. I think that D-i hasn't reach that
> state.
It seems you're not aware of the SkoleLinux distribution. SkoleLinux has
taken the current d-i, made very few changes, and p
"Bernhard R. Link" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Taken this statement directly it's user-unfriendly in both the sense of
> newbie-unfriendly and experienced-unfriendly. (A newbie might like it,
> but he will still suffer from it).
There is a widespread tendency to consider "newbie" to mean
* Jérôme Marant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [030725 13:03]:
> Userfirendliness means necessarily hiding technical details IMO, without
> dealing with graphical aspects.
Taken this statement directly it's user-unfriendly in both the sense of
newbie-unfriendly and experienced-unfriendly. (A newbie might l
On Fri, Jul 25, 2003 at 12:02:09AM -0600, Bob Proulx wrote:
> Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> > tolerances. When was the last time you had a motherboard, or CPU, or
> > network card, or a video card die because it was "too old"? This stuff
> > isn't exactly perishable. It lasts long beyond its obsolesc
On Jul 24, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>This does not excuse broken, ugly x86isms in packages. The vast
>majority of portability problems are NOT confined to a single oddball
>architecture; they may manifest in different ways, but the bugs are
>usually there on multiple architec
On Jul 25, Robert Lemmen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>in that case it's the compiler or library that's buggy (as you said) and
>needs to be fixed. no reason to abandon the arch
As some of us are patiently trying to explain, the problem is that often
there are not enough resources to quickly diagn
Quoting "Bernhard R. Link" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> And my point was, that userfriendlyness and looking like Mandrake are
> orthogonal aspects. As the princible user-interaction of the
> bootfloppies is one of the most userfriendly around, I'd be very
> supprised, if debian-installer did not look si
On Fri, Jul 25, 2003 at 12:17:37PM +0200, Robert Lemmen wrote:
> actually i don't because i have no access to any arch except x86 and
> alpha. but that is only true for non-DDs like me and (i presume) you,
> DDs have access to all those architectures.
Although even with access to machines dependi
On Thu, Jul 24, 2003 at 01:37:18PM -0500, John Hasler wrote:
> Robert Lemmen writes:
> > any package that doesn't build on m68k or arm is broken and needs to be
> > fixed, even if it works on x86 by chance!
>
> Even when it fails to build due to compiler errors or buggy libraries?
in that case it
On Thu, Jul 24, 2003 at 12:34:29PM -0600, Jamin W. Collins wrote:
> > me too! any package that doesn't build on m68k or arm is broken and
> > needs to be fixed, even if it works on x86 by chance!
>
> So, are you volunteering to help those of us without access to either of
> the above architectures
* Jérôme Marant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [030724 22:35]:
> But my point was the new debian-installed is not going to look like
> the current Mandrake 9.1 nor RedHat 9.0 (I've recently installed),
> at least for sarge.
And my point was, that userfriendlyness and looking like Mandrake are
orthogonal aspe
Moin Matthias!
Matthias Urlichs schrieb am Friday, den 25. July 2003:
> > You keep using this "flame" excuse
>
> I remember the last time this was discussed, and I believe that ESPECIALLY
> when emotions tend to run high, the words we use make a difference.
There were no emotion. I just listed f
Quoting David Nusinow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Thu, Jul 24, 2003 at 10:35:01PM +0200, J?r?me Marant wrote:
> > Quoting "Bernhard R. Link" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > But my point was the new debian-installed is not going to look like
> > the current Mandrake 9.1 nor RedHat 9.0 (I've recently install
On Fri, Jul 25, 2003 at 12:02:09AM -0600, Bob Proulx wrote:
| I was able to salvage the fan from the first and fix the
| second with it. Just two weeks ago another newer video card fan
| died. Wish I had a source for those thin pci card fans...
There's a computer shop near me that sells them, bu
Hi, Bob Proulx wrote:
> One case of silicon death
> which was also probably a moving part if you count electromigration as the
> most likely cause of death there.
If you do that, then _all_ deaths are the fault of moving parts...
a statement which sounds rather non-useful.
Computers run by smoke
Hi, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> You keep using this "flame" excuse
I remember the last time this was discussed, and I believe that ESPECIALLY
when emotions tend to run high, the words we use make a difference.
We can't find a good solution to this problem, if indeed there is one, if
all we have is two
On Fri, Jul 25, 2003 at 12:02:09AM -0600, Bob Proulx wrote:
> Just two weeks ago another newer video card fan died. Wish I had a
> source for those thin pci card fans...
my school got a bunch of geforce cards with fans. all the fans died,
killing all the cards. now one of the criteria the math/CS
Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> Anthony Towns wrote:
> > Where I come from, old hardware is unreliable hardware.
>
> This would really only apply to disks, which have moving parts and small
> tolerances. When was the last time you had a motherboard, or CPU, or
> network card, or a video card die because
On Thu, Jul 24, 2003 at 01:42:25PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 23, 2003 at 06:17:25PM -0400, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> > Where I come from, cheap hardware is old hardware, and old hardware has much
> > better support in Linux (and Debian) than new hardware.
>
> Where I come from, old
On Fri, Jul 25, 2003 at 12:13:44AM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Jul 24, Robert Lemmen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >me too! any package that doesn't build on m68k or arm is broken and
> >needs to be fixed, even if it works on x86 by chance!
>
> Really? Then please tell me what is broken in li
>
> And in the past months some packages (among them mutt, which even fixed a
For example, I came accross a segfault with micq. However, I could not find
the reason for this bug. Why i pointed out this is that there may be a probable
bug there.
sincerely.
On Jul 24, Robert Lemmen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>me too! any package that doesn't build on m68k or arm is broken and
>needs to be fixed, even if it works on x86 by chance!
Really? Then please tell me what is broken in libberkeleydb-perl:
http://buildd.debian.org/fetch.php?&pkg=libberkeleydb
On Thu, Jul 24, 2003 at 04:23:29PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 24, 2003 at 01:08:40PM -0600, Jamin W. Collins wrote:
>
> > Yes, I do not have access to them for testing or debugging. I have
> > access to only x86 machines currently. Thus, I can not adequately
> > resolve problems
On Thu, Jul 24, 2003 at 01:08:40PM -0600, Jamin W. Collins wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 24, 2003 at 10:12:11PM +0300, Halil Demirezen wrote:
> > > So, are you volunteering to help those of us without access to either of
> > > the above architectures with "bugs" found in our packages? I'm not
> > > saying
#include
* David Z Maze [Thu, Jul 24 2003, 03:52:38PM]:
> > On Thu, Jul 24, 2003 at 08:25:16PM +0200, Robert Lemmen wrote:
> >> me too! any package that doesn't build on m68k or arm is broken and
> >> needs to be fixed, even if it works on x86 by chance!
> >
> > So, are you volunteering to help t
On Thu, Jul 24, 2003 at 10:35:01PM +0200, J?r?me Marant wrote:
> Quoting "Bernhard R. Link" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> But my point was the new debian-installed is not going to look like
> the current Mandrake 9.1 nor RedHat 9.0 (I've recently installed),
> at least for sarge.
Perhaps for now, but tha
David Z Maze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"Jamin W. Collins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> On Thu, Jul 24, 2003 at 08:25:16PM +0200, Robert Lemmen wrote:
>>> me too! any package that doesn't build on m68k or arm is broken and
>>> needs to be fixed, even if it works on x86 by chance!
>>
>> So, are
Quoting "Bernhard R. Link" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> * Jérôme Marant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [030724 15:08]:
> > >From the user point of view, the new debian-installer looks almost
> > > like boot-floppies (plus some bits of hardware autodetection).
> > So, quite no step has been done on the user friendl
On Thu, Jul 24, 2003 at 03:52:38PM -0400, David Z Maze wrote:
> "Jamin W. Collins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Thu, Jul 24, 2003 at 08:25:16PM +0200, Robert Lemmen wrote:
> >> me too! any package that doesn't build on m68k or arm is broken and
> >> needs to be fixed, even if it works on x
On Thu, 2003-07-24 at 21:52, David Z Maze wrote:
> "Jamin W. Collins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Thu, Jul 24, 2003 at 08:25:16PM +0200, Robert Lemmen wrote:
> >> me too! any package that doesn't build on m68k or arm is broken and
> >> needs to be fixed, even if it works on x86 by chance!
"Jamin W. Collins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, Jul 24, 2003 at 08:25:16PM +0200, Robert Lemmen wrote:
>> me too! any package that doesn't build on m68k or arm is broken and
>> needs to be fixed, even if it works on x86 by chance!
>
> So, are you volunteering to help those of us without a
On 21-Jul-03, 16:10 (CDT), Mathieu Roy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Don't you agree that game industry is not a minor industry related to
> computers?
All I meant to ask was for a clarification of "card Foo is unsupported".
My *personal* experience is that I've gotten a wide variety of cards
to
On Thu, Jul 24, 2003 at 10:12:11PM +0300, Halil Demirezen wrote:
> > So, are you volunteering to help those of us without access to either of
> > the above architectures with "bugs" found in our packages? I'm not
> > saying that all architectures shouldn't be supported equally. I just
> > don't h
> So, are you volunteering to help those of us without access to either of
> the above architectures with "bugs" found in our packages? I'm not
> saying that all architectures shouldn't be supported equally. I just
> don't have access to either of the above architectures to correct
> problems fou
>an arch if nobody is interested in doing the work?
do you mean "someone who is interested in the maintanence of these
architectures"?
Did I get wrong? I so, Lets think that We quit support for those architectures.
Debian
will be unaware of them. Portability?
sincerely
pgp0UNNYoRrSG.pgp
De
On Thu, Jul 24, 2003 at 08:25:16PM +0200, Robert Lemmen wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 24, 2003 at 08:39:11PM +0300, Halil Demirezen wrote:
> > Are we in dilemma on "should we support arch that are not used
> > widely?" or "We should support all architectures"
> >
> > what i prefer is the second one.
>
>
Robert Lemmen writes:
> any package that doesn't build on m68k or arm is broken and needs to be
> fixed, even if it works on x86 by chance!
Even when it fails to build due to compiler errors or buggy libraries?
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, Wisconsin
Halil Demirezen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> some useless architecture like arm or m68k
>
> Are we in dilemma on "should we support arch that are not used widely?" or
> "We should support all architectures"
No, this has nothing to do with usage. The question is why support
an arch if nobody i
On Thu, Jul 24, 2003 at 08:39:11PM +0300, Halil Demirezen wrote:
> Are we in dilemma on "should we support arch that are not used widely?" or
> "We should support all architectures"
>
> what i prefer is the second one.
me too! any package that doesn't build on m68k or arm is broken and
needs to
On Jul 24, Matthias Urlichs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> If nobody volunteeers to make the crap ready,
>Umm, using that word puts your mail firmly into the "flame" category,
>especially for readers who actually care about Debian supporting these
>architectures.
So what? You keep using this "f
> some useless architecture like arm or m68k
Are we in dilemma on "should we support arch that are not used widely?" or
"We should support all architectures"
what i prefer is the second one.
* Jérôme Marant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [030724 15:08]:
> >From the user point of view, the new debian-installer looks almost
> > like boot-floppies (plus some bits of hardware autodetection).
> So, quite no step has been done on the user friendliness side.
First of all there might be some deficits in
On Thursday 24 July 2003 17:09, Martin Pitt wrote:
> Could
> someone tell me what is actually wrong with them (apart from not
> having a more colorful interface, SCNR)? If it is totally screwed up
> under the hood, then a clean redesign is good. If its only a cosmetic
> issue, I do not see the poin
On Thu, Jul 24, 2003 at 12:03:24PM +0200, Eduard Bloch wrote:
> And here a decission has to be made: releasing with
> not-sympatic-for-so-called-new-users BFs in 2003 or with stable D-I one
> year later.
Eduard, we've had this discussion before a few times now. If you can
get boot-floppies working
On Thu, Jul 24, 2003 at 01:01:42PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Jul 23, Anthony Towns wrote:
> >(On the other hand, if you really want a shorter release cycle, there's
> >always testing, which releases every day. All it really needs for us to be
> >able to recommend people use it is security
Hi again!
Am 2003-07-24 10:11 +0200 schrieb Roland Mas:
> They're the single most unpopular point of Debian. The installation
> process is universally known to be non-user-friendly. (Note I'm not
> saying it doesn't work.)
IMHO the problem (that journal testers complain of) is not the base
inst
Hi, Eduard Bloch wrote:
> Why NOT?! If nobody volunteeers to make the crap ready, why should
> others *without hardware and any other motivation* care about?
I was talking about flames, not about reasonable discussion. The borders
between these two are unfortunately somewhat fuzzy, sometimes.
>
Moin Matthias!
Matthias Urlichs schrieb am Thursday, den 24. July 2003:
> Hi, Marco d'Itri wrote:
>
> > some useless architecture like arm or m68k
>
> Happy flaming.
>
> NOT. Please.
Why NOT?! If nobody volunteeers to make the crap ready, why should
others *without hardware and any other motiv
Hi, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> some useless architecture like arm or m68k
Happy flaming.
NOT. Please.
--
Matthias Urlichs | {M:U} IT Design @ m-u-it.de | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Disclaimer: The quote was selected randomly. Really. | http://smurf.noris.de
--
Only Irish coffee provides in a single
1 - 100 of 138 matches
Mail list logo
