Hello,
Interesting matter ! Multiarch :-)
I have experienced the same treatment from binutils maintainer, he did
not answer to my mails or bug reports (393841,432772). Tired of this
and as it is an upstream matter i sent a patch upstream and it got
accepted. For my surprise, it is very close to 3
On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 17:49:07 +0200, Robert Millan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>Before you bring this to the tech ctte and such, don't you need a refusal
>by the maintainer?
Acticaly refusing things is not part of Mr. Troup's operations. He
rather sits on such issues for years until they solve thems
Kevin Mark wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 20, 2008 at 09:06:15PM +0100, Roger Leigh wrote:
>> Robert Millan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>>> On Sun, Apr 20, 2008 at 05:28:23PM +0200, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
>> If you do want to wait for permission/refusal, you might find you
>> never get a reply and end up w
On Sun, Apr 20, 2008 at 09:06:15PM +0100, Roger Leigh wrote:
> Robert Millan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Sun, Apr 20, 2008 at 05:28:23PM +0200, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
> >> > I bet that multiarch gets included into Ubuntu about two weeks after
> >> > we released lenny without multiarch.
> >>
Le Sun, Apr 20, 2008 at 05:49:07PM +0200, Robert Millan a écrit :
>
> Before you bring this to the tech ctte and such, don't you need a refusal
> by the maintainer?
Hello,
It reminds me when I had to deal with a DD who thought he orphaned a
package, but did not. It lead to a situation where a fe
[Roger Leigh]
> If you do want to wait for permission/refusal, you might find you
> never get a reply and end up waiting forever. So, why not wait long
> enough for a reply, say a fortnight, and then go ahead and hijack it
> after that if you have no response (and tell them in the mail that
> thi
Robert Millan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sun, Apr 20, 2008 at 05:28:23PM +0200, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
>> > I bet that multiarch gets included into Ubuntu about two weeks after
>> > we released lenny without multiarch.
>>
>> That's indeed the way the maintainer seems to work, and he keeps sit
On Sun, Apr 20, 2008 at 05:28:23PM +0200, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
> > I bet that multiarch gets included into Ubuntu about two weeks after
> > we released lenny without multiarch.
>
> That's indeed the way the maintainer seems to work, and he keeps sitting
> on way too many packages, stopping progres
> Why did I guess the name of binutils' maintainer correctly _before_
> looking into the PTS?
You're not alone.
> I bet that multiarch gets included into Ubuntu about two weeks after
> we released lenny without multiarch.
That's indeed the way the maintainer seems to work, and he keeps sitting
Luk Claes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
>> Wed, 21 Jun 2006 00:48:26 +0200: NMU attempt gets vetoed
>
> Nope, this is only a patch with a mail subject 'Patch for pending NMU of
> binutils'
The BTS doesn't show it but it was vetoed.
>> Wed, 28 Jun 2006 11:01:53 +0200:
Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> Luk Claes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
>>> Ove Kaaven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
The way I understand it, they HAVE been pushing... and pushing... for
a long time... against a nonresponsive binutils maintainer. This
thre
"Bernhard R. Link" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> * Lennart Sorensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [080415 21:57]:
>> Now I suppose sparc and others might still like it if they have
>> performance advantages of 32bit code over 64bit code, in which case
>> keeping 64bit for only those programs where the extra
Twas brillig at 10:01:53 16.04.2008 UTC+02 when Goswin von Brederlow did gyre
and gimble:
GvB> Luk Claes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
GvB> - 13 month from initial report to raising a minor issue that has no
GvB> negative effects on the functionality
GvB> - 4 days to fix the issue
GvB> - 9
* Lennart Sorensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [080415 21:57]:
> Now I suppose sparc and others might still like it if they have
> performance advantages of 32bit code over 64bit code, in which case
> keeping 64bit for only those programs where the extra address space is
> worth it would be great.
I guess
Luk Claes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
>> Ove Kaaven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> The way I understand it, they HAVE been pushing... and pushing... for
>>> a long time... against a nonresponsive binutils maintainer. This
>>> thread is just their latest, last-ditch e
On Wed, 16 Apr 2008 06:24:09 +0200, Goswin von Brederlow
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Ove Kaaven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> The way I understand it, they HAVE been pushing... and pushing... for
>> a long time... against a nonresponsive binutils maintainer. This
>> thread is just their latest, la
Stripping Ccs, in particular debian-release as it's no discussion list.
Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> Ove Kaaven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Andreas Barth skrev:
>>> * Lennart Sorensen ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [080415 22:26]:
>>> People, we want to release soon. Anyone is welcome to hack on feature
Ove Kaaven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Andreas Barth skrev:
>> * Lennart Sorensen ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [080415 22:26]:
>>> I suspect by the time a fully working multiarch is done, x86 won't need
>>> it anymore because everything will be fully 64bit. :)
>
> As Wine maintainer, I'd disagree with th
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lennart Sorensen) writes:
> On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 09:03:54PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
>> * Goswin von Brederlow ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [080415 20:34]:
>> > Description: The toolchain should be ready to handle libraries and
>> >include files in the multiarch locations.
>>
Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> * Goswin von Brederlow ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [080415 20:34]:
>> Description: The toolchain should be ready to handle libraries and
>>include files in the multiarch locations.
>> Bug-Url: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=369064
>>
Andreas Barth skrev:
* Lennart Sorensen ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [080415 22:26]:
I suspect by the time a fully working multiarch is done, x86 won't need
it anymore because everything will be fully 64bit. :)
As Wine maintainer, I'd disagree with that.
People, we want to release soon. Anyone is wel
* Lennart Sorensen ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [080415 22:26]:
> On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 09:03:54PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > * Goswin von Brederlow ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [080415 20:34]:
> > > Description: The toolchain should be ready to handle libraries and
> > >include files in the multiarch l
Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I would like to suggest a new release goal
The release goal list is frozen. We will only drop goals, not add new
ones.
Marc
--
Fachbegriffe der Informatik - Einfach erklärt
287: Palestinänsertipper
1 Anschlag pro Minute. (Bodo Eggert)
p
Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> * Goswin von Brederlow ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [080415 20:34]:
>> Description: The toolchain should be ready to handle libraries and
>>include files in the multiarch locations.
>> Bug-Url: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=369064
>>
On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 09:03:54PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> * Goswin von Brederlow ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [080415 20:34]:
> > Description: The toolchain should be ready to handle libraries and
> >include files in the multiarch locations.
> > Bug-Url: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugrepo
* Goswin von Brederlow ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [080415 20:34]:
> Description: The toolchain should be ready to handle libraries and
>include files in the multiarch locations.
> Bug-Url: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=369064
> State: All done except for binutils. Patch exists
26 matches
Mail list logo
