On Tue, 05 Aug 2003 07:32:57 +0200, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
> Hi, Peter Mathiasson wrote:
>
>> "[...] distcc sends the complete preprocessed source code across the
>> network for each job."
>
> Hmm, OK, but that would just speedup the actual compilation. Granted,
> that's the largest chunk, but
Richard Braakman wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 04, 2003 at 10:08:04AM +0200, Jérôme Marant wrote:
> > > Hence the need for policy to dictate to the maintainer not to allow the
> > > package to be removed before all other packages have transitioned. It
> > > usually doesn't take much more work as long as the
> On Tue, Aug 05, 2003 at 01:07:42AM +0400, Nikita V. Youshchenko wrote:
> > So buidd + distcc on a slow m68k/arm/whatever, and distccd on a fast
> > P4 or Athlon, or even on several of those. This is expected to reduce
> > the compile time to almost the same as it is on x86 :).
>
> I'm not sure t
On Tue, Aug 05, 2003 at 01:07:42AM +0400, Nikita V. Youshchenko wrote:
> So buidd + distcc on a slow m68k/arm/whatever, and distccd on a fast P4 or
> Athlon, or even on several of those. This is expected to reduce the compile
> time to almost the same as it is on x86 :).
I'm not sure that's true;
Hi, Peter Mathiasson wrote:
> "[...] distcc sends the complete preprocessed source code across
> the network for each job."
Hmm, OK, but that would just speedup the actual compilation. Granted,
that's the largest chunk, but cpp/asm/ld could do with a speed-up too.
Anyway, thanks for the pointer
At Mon, 04 Aug 2003 15:54:56 +0200,
Matthias Urlichs wrote:
>
> Hi, Nikita V. Youshchenko wrote:
>
> >> Guess how many hours it takes for the m68k buildd to rebuild
> >> kdegraphics. OVER 38 HOURS!
> >
> > By the way, isn't it a good time to rise up a discussion about package
> > cross-compi
At Mon, 04 Aug 2003 15:54:56 +0200,
Matthias Urlichs wrote:
>
> Hi, Nikita V. Youshchenko wrote:
>
> >> Guess how many hours it takes for the m68k buildd to rebuild
> >> kdegraphics. OVER 38 HOURS!
> >
> > By the way, isn't it a good time to rise up a discussion about package
> > cross-compi
On Tue, Aug 05, 2003 at 01:07:42AM +0400, Nikita V. Youshchenko wrote:
> I'm not sure that current distcc in unstable can support such configuration,
> but it should be really easy to add this support. In fact, as far as I can
> remember, it is mentioned in distcc documentation that machines that r
> > If you want to be productive, how about setting a buildd and trying to
> > crosscompile the distribution and then post statsistics of
> > failed/succeeded crosscompilings?
> This is a good idea. Maybe I will try after my vacation. Is
> documentation/hints abould how to do it available anywhe
On Sun, 2003-08-03 at 03:32, Chris Cheney wrote:
> Today I was reminded of something that causes apps not to migrate into
> sarge. When maintainers remove old libraries from the archive! Today
> for example libexif8 was removed by Christophe Barbe and replaced by
> libexif9. Guess what that doe
> On Mon, Aug 04, 2003 at 03:54:56PM +0200, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
>> Surprise, I was thinking about the same thing, yesterday. Basic idea:
>> mount the slow system's build chroot from the fast server, replace
>> gcc/g++/ld with scripts that call the server's version remotely. The
>> biggest pro
On 04-Aug-03, 12:42 (CDT), Adam Heath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 4 Aug 2003, Richard Braakman wrote:
> > Uh, no. Changing the binary package name the way we've always
> > handled soname changes, except with a small number of very popular
> > libraries. It's a lot less work, and it does
On Mon, Aug 04, 2003 at 12:42:27PM -0500, Adam Heath wrote:
> And of the users? Please read the social contract.
I read it every day, just before bedtime.
Richard Braakman
On Mon, 4 Aug 2003, Richard Braakman wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 04, 2003 at 10:53:00AM -0500, Adam Heath wrote:
> > In this case, libexif8 -> libexif9, this is a major soname bump, so should
> > have required a new source package. The maintainer was probably derelict in
> > this case.
>
> Uh, no. Chan
On Mon, Aug 04, 2003 at 08:07:56PM +0300, Richard Braakman wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 04, 2003 at 10:53:00AM -0500, Adam Heath wrote:
> > In this case, libexif8 -> libexif9, this is a major soname bump, so should
> > have required a new source package. The maintainer was probably derelict in
> > this ca
On Mon, Aug 04, 2003 at 10:53:00AM -0500, Adam Heath wrote:
> In this case, libexif8 -> libexif9, this is a major soname bump, so should
> have required a new source package. The maintainer was probably derelict in
> this case.
Uh, no. Changing the binary package name the way we've always
handle
On Mon, Aug 04, 2003 at 10:53:00AM -0500, Adam Heath wrote:
> In this case, libexif8 -> libexif9, this is a major soname bump, so should
> have required a new source package. The maintainer was probably derelict in
> this case.
The source package is libexif independently of the soname.
Are you su
Adam Heath wrote:
> Perhaps someone should write a script to detect these uninstallable issues,
> and notify the maintainers of the dependant packages when they occur.
Like [0]? (Not my work, but such a script certainly seems to exist.)
If done at all, probably a two (or something) day grace period
Chris Cheney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sun, Aug 03, 2003 at 03:55:41PM -0400, David Z Maze wrote:
>> Chris Cheney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > IMHO we need to make an addition to policy stating that an old lib can
>> > not be removed from the archive until no other packages still de
On Sun, 3 Aug 2003, Chris Cheney wrote:
> Seriously, if we want to ever release sarge we are going to need to stop
> making libraries disappear, every time we rebuild something it takes
> another 10 days for it to migrate into testing and everything that
> depends on it is also pushed back another
On Sun, 3 Aug 2003, Eduard Bloch wrote:
> #include
> * LapTop006 [Sun, Aug 03 2003, 03:13:57PM]:
>
> > > IMHO we need to make an addition to policy stating that an old lib can
> > > not be removed from the archive until no other packages still depend on
> > > it.
> > How about old libraries can n
On Mon, Aug 04, 2003 at 03:54:56PM +0200, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
> Surprise, I was thinking about the same thing, yesterday. Basic idea:
> mount the slow system's build chroot from the fast server, replace
> gcc/g++/ld with scripts that call the server's version remotely. The
> biggest problem wil
On Mon, Aug 04, 2003 at 10:18:37AM +0200, J?r?me Marant wrote:
> Usually, you can use apt-cache showpkg libexif8 and send a message to
> every maintainer whose package depends on it, asking to rebuild against
> the new libexif9. When everyone has rebuilt against the new lib,
> then you can ask for
Hi, Nikita V. Youshchenko wrote:
>> Guess how many hours it takes for the m68k buildd to rebuild
>> kdegraphics. OVER 38 HOURS!
>
> By the way, isn't it a good time to rise up a discussion about package
> cross-compiling infrastructure?
Surprise, I was thinking about the same thing, yesterda
> On Mon, Aug 04, 2003 at 04:28:49PM +0400, Nikita V. Youshchenko wrote:
> > > Guess how many hours it takes for the m68k
> > > buildd to rebuild kdegraphics. OVER 38 HOURS!
> >
> > By the way, isn't it a good time to rise up a discussion about package
> > cross-compiling infrastructure?
>
> I
On Mon, Aug 04, 2003 at 04:28:49PM +0400, Nikita V. Youshchenko wrote:
> Chris Cheney wrote:
> > Guess how many hours it takes for the m68k buildd to rebuild
> > kdegraphics. OVER 38 HOURS!
>
> By the way, isn't it a good time to rise up a discussion about package
> cross-compiling infrastruct
On Mon, Aug 04, 2003 at 04:28:49PM +0400, Nikita V. Youshchenko wrote:
> > Guess how many hours it takes for the m68k
> > buildd to rebuild kdegraphics. OVER 38 HOURS!
> By the way, isn't it a good time to rise up a discussion about package
> cross-compiling infrastructure?
Isn't it good ide
> Today I was reminded of something that causes apps not to migrate into
> sarge. When maintainers remove old libraries from the archive! Today
> for example libexif8 was removed by Christophe Barbe and replaced by
> libexif9. Guess what that does... any package which depends on libexif8
> now b
> Guess how many hours it takes for the m68k
> buildd to rebuild kdegraphics. OVER 38 HOURS!
By the way, isn't it a good time to rise up a discussion about package
cross-compiling infrastructure?
On Mon, Aug 04, 2003 at 08:33:31AM +0200, Thomas Viehmann wrote:
> Steve Langasek wrote:
> > I think a better approach would simply be to regard application
> > uninstallable-in-sid bugs as non-RC for testing purposes. Since the
> > testing scripts will already refuse to process new libs that rend
On Mon, Aug 04, 2003 at 12:49:51PM +0300, Richard Braakman wrote:
> Common sense says otherwise :) You see, before we had katie and the
> testing scripts, such removal of orphan libraries was done manually.
> ("orphan" because they no longer had a source package that built them).
> Our experience
On Mon, Aug 04, 2003 at 10:08:04AM +0200, Jérôme Marant wrote:
> > Hence the need for policy to dictate to the maintainer not to allow the
> > package to be removed before all other packages have transitioned. It
> > usually doesn't take much more work as long as the maintainer is even
> > aware of
Quoting christophe barbe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Ok, sorry for being rude in my previous mail.
>
> I understand the general problem that you are facing with KDE and
> will try in the future to announce upcomming soname changes.
>
> Concerning the removal, I don't really see the point of not remo
Quoting Chris Cheney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > Old libraries are removed since only one version can exist in the same
> > distro branch to the same time. If the library maintainer decided not to
> > fork the source package but change the binary package name inside of
> > existing three then he does
Steve Langasek wrote:
> I think a better approach would simply be to regard application
> uninstallable-in-sid bugs as non-RC for testing purposes. Since the
> testing scripts will already refuse to process new libs that render
> applications uninstallable, the only impact here will be that certai
On Mon, Aug 04, 2003 at 01:37:43AM +0200, Thomas Viehmann wrote:
> Chris Cheney wrote:
> ...
> > for example libexif8 was removed by Christophe Barbe and replaced by
> > libexif9. Guess what that does... any package which depends on libexif8
> ...
> > not be removed from the archive until no other
Chris Cheney wrote:
...
> for example libexif8 was removed by Christophe Barbe and replaced by
> libexif9. Guess what that does... any package which depends on libexif8
...
> not be removed from the archive until no other packages still depend on
> it.
Well, if it's uninstallable for a couple of
Ok, sorry for being rude in my previous mail.
I understand the general problem that you are facing with KDE and
will try in the future to announce upcomming soname changes.
Concerning the removal, I don't really see the point of not removing
older libraries from unstable. Most of the time, rebui
On Sun, Aug 03, 2003 at 05:31:37PM -0400, christophe barbe wrote:
> You are kidding right?
>
> I have not removed an old library, I have uploaded a newer upstream with
> a different soname. That's the way it works, a new library is uploaded,
> then packages using it are rebuilt and when they are a
You are kidding right?
I have not removed an old library, I have uploaded a newer upstream with
a different soname. That's the way it works, a new library is uploaded,
then packages using it are rebuilt and when they are all ready they
migrate in testing.
As the gphoto2 maintainer, I don't remem
On Sun, Aug 03, 2003 at 03:55:41PM -0400, David Z Maze wrote:
> Chris Cheney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > IMHO we need to make an addition to policy stating that an old lib can
> > not be removed from the archive until no other packages still depend on
> > it.
>
> So say I maintain foo. The
Chris Cheney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> IMHO we need to make an addition to policy stating that an old lib can
> not be removed from the archive until no other packages still depend on
> it.
So say I maintain foo. The source package produces two binary
packages, foo and libfoo1. Now, there's
On Sun, Aug 03, 2003 at 08:55:48AM +0200, Eduard Bloch wrote:
> #include
> * LapTop006 [Sun, Aug 03 2003, 03:13:57PM]:
>
> > > IMHO we need to make an addition to policy stating that an old lib can
> > > not be removed from the archive until no other packages still depend on
> > > it.
> > How abo
#include
* LapTop006 [Sun, Aug 03 2003, 03:13:57PM]:
> > IMHO we need to make an addition to policy stating that an old lib can
> > not be removed from the archive until no other packages still depend on
> > it.
> How about old libraries can not be removed until either no packages
> depend on it
On Sat, Aug 02, 2003 at 09:32:37PM -0500, Chris Cheney arranged a set of bits
into the following:
> Today I was reminded of something that causes apps not to migrate into
> sarge. When maintainers remove old libraries from the archive! Today
> for example libexif8 was removed by Christophe Barbe
45 matches
Mail list logo
