Hi pabs,
On Sa 05 Jan 2013 02:50:47 CET Paul Wise wrote:
On Sat, Jan 5, 2013 at 5:09 AM, Mike Gabriel wrote:
Slightly different approach: However, for serious server deployments we in
Debian might want to think about supporting older releases a little longer
than atm.
A scheme like
veryol
Hi Thomas,
On Sa 05 Jan 2013 07:03:25 CET Thomas Goirand wrote:
On 01/05/2013 09:50 AM, Paul Wise wrote:
Please check out these links if you want to make this happen. Probably
an initial target of supporting oldstable for the same length of time
as stable (instead of just a year) is a good fi
Hi Neil,
On Sa 05 Jan 2013 09:58:48 CET Neil Williams wrote:
On Sat, 05 Jan 2013 14:03:25 +0800
Thomas Goirand wrote:
On 01/05/2013 09:50 AM, Paul Wise wrote:
>
> Please check out these links if you want to make this happen. Probably
> an initial target of supporting oldstable for the same l
On Sat, 05 Jan 2013 14:03:25 +0800
Thomas Goirand wrote:
> On 01/05/2013 09:50 AM, Paul Wise wrote:
> >
> > Please check out these links if you want to make this happen. Probably
> > an initial target of supporting oldstable for the same length of time
> > as stable (instead of just a year) is a
On 01/05/2013 09:50 AM, Paul Wise wrote:
>
> Please check out these links if you want to make this happen. Probably
> an initial target of supporting oldstable for the same length of time
> as stable (instead of just a year) is a good first goal to achieve
> before adding more supported suites.
I a
On 01/05/2013 01:28 AM, alberto fuentes wrote:
> The few people on the list seems happy with it. If this is working
> well, it needs a little more love on debian.org and a 'testing-cut'
> link in the repos pointing to latest cut, so it can be set on
> sources.list and forgotten
Yes, we need to adv
On Sat, Jan 5, 2013 at 5:09 AM, Mike Gabriel wrote:
> Slightly different approach: However, for serious server deployments we in
> Debian might want to think about supporting older releases a little longer
> than atm.
>
> A scheme like
>
> veryoldstable -> oldstable -> stable -> testing -> unsta
On Fri, Jan 04, 2013 at 10:09:42PM +0100, Mike Gabriel wrote:
> Hi Alberto, hi all,
Hi Mike
>
> On Do 03 Jan 2013 19:18:27 CET alberto fuentes wrote:
>
> >Ubuntu has done some poor decisions but it has done some other that are
> >okay. We should consider merging some of them back.
> >Im thinkin
What is the defference:
1. Insert a new stage between "stable" and "testing"
and
2. double the period of automatic migration from "unstable" to "testing"?
m? :-)
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lis
Hi Alberto, hi all,
On Do 03 Jan 2013 19:18:27 CET alberto fuentes wrote:
Ubuntu has done some poor decisions but it has done some other that are
okay. We should consider merging some of them back.
Im thinking about the 6 months release thing. Without further ado, here's
the proposal pre-draft:
Im adding the cut-team to the loop. Original message:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2013/01/msg00082.html
On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 8:15 PM, Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez
wrote:
> AFAIK there is already an ongoing effort to provide an usable updated
> rolling release of Debian.
>
> http://joeyh.
On 01/04/2013 09:15 AM, Thomas Preud'homme wrote:
Le vendredi 4 janvier 2013 05:44:57, The Wanderer a écrit :
That doesn't seem to match my experience.
I most commonly encounter apt-listbugs bug lists via 'apt-get
dist-upgrade'. If I say "no" in response to the list of bugs, and then run
'apt
Le vendredi 4 janvier 2013 05:44:57, The Wanderer a écrit :
>
> That doesn't seem to match my experience.
>
> I most commonly encounter apt-listbugs bug lists via 'apt-get
> dist-upgrade'. If I say "no" in response to the list of bugs, and then run
> 'apt-get dist-upgrade' again, I see the same l
On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 7:18 PM, alberto fuentes wrote:
> _Proposal_:
> Add a new release stage between stable and testing. Called usable or
> whatever name we find fit for it
>
> stable <- <- testing <- sid
>
> Migrate packages after a period* in testing without RC bugs.
> *a 2-4 weeks seems reas
On 01/03/2013 06:32 PM, gregor herrmann wrote:
On Fri, 04 Jan 2013 05:12:03 +0600, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote:
No, because apt-listbugs exists and provides a nice interface so users
don't have to care about pinning details for themselves.
Can apt-listbugs do anything more than abort the entir
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 01/03/2013 08:15 PM, Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez wrote:
> http://cut.debian.net/
>
>
> Isn't this (more or less) what you are asking for?
Isn't this (more or less) dead?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: U
On Fri, 04 Jan 2013 05:12:03 +0600, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote:
> > > * Pin packages with RC bugs on upgrade. This is:
> > > - Non trivial: it makes you understand how bad the bug is and know how
> > > the pinning system works
> > No, because apt-listbugs exists and provides a nice interface so
On Thu, Jan 03, 2013 at 11:45:45PM +0100, gregor herrmann wrote:
> > * Pin packages with RC bugs on upgrade. This is:
> > - Non trivial: it makes you understand how bad the bug is and know how
> > the pinning system works
>
> No and yes.
>
> No, because apt-listbugs exists and provides a nic
On Thu, 03 Jan 2013 19:18:27 +0100, alberto fuentes wrote:
> The only ways to prevent this if you are running the more or less
> up-to-date testing are:
> * Pin packages with RC bugs on upgrade. This is:
> - Non trivial: it makes you understand how bad the bug is and know how
> the pinning sy
On 03/01/13 19:18, alberto fuentes wrote:
> Request for comments!
AFAIK there is already an ongoing effort to provide an usable updated
rolling release of Debian.
http://joeyh.name/code/debian/cut/
http://cut.debian.net/
Isn't this (more or less) what you are asking for?
signature.asc
Descr
20 matches
Mail list logo
