Dear developers,
[My post involve only technical issues which are orthogonal to the
current GR which addresses the non-technical issues.]
On Thu, Jan 25, 2007 at 01:23:35AM +, James Troup wrote:
>Why restrictions on binary uploads?
>
Paul Cager <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Tim Cutts wrote:
>> What I'd actually like is some sort of non-root packaging system so that
>> users could build software with decent dependency checking for their
>> shared software infrastructure. Can dpkg be cajoled into doing that?
>
> Could you use
On 6 Feb 2007, at 11:22 am, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
http://www.oracle.com/technology/tech/linux/install/xe_on_debian.html
(dunno whether that's what you need, but Oracle does support their
products on Debian these days, if I understand them correctly)
Yes, I know about that (and indeed have gi
On Thu, Feb 01, 2007 at 10:38:46AM +, Tim Cutts wrote:
>
> On 1 Feb 2007, at 1:00 am, Charles Plessy wrote:
>
> >(Sorry for the noise, I reply on the list since Sanger's mail server
> >thinks I am a spammer.
>
> Does it?
>
> >I am very interested to hear that Sanger is using Debian on
> >
On Fri, 2 Feb 2007 14:09:59 +, Tim Cutts
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Yes, indeed, because --root does a chroot() which requires root
> privilege. What I'm basically after is a dpkg-alike that uses a
> different root directory, but without using a chroot, so that non-
> root users can use it
On 2 Feb 2007, at 10:28 am, Gabor Gombas wrote:
On Thu, Feb 01, 2007 at 08:10:56PM +, Tim Cutts wrote:
What I'd actually like is some sort of non-root packaging system so
that users could build software with decent dependency checking for
their shared software infrastructure. Can dpkg b
[Tim Cutts]
> No. The network admin didn't like the idea of all the mail
> messages. I think I might just ignore him though. :-)
Newer versions of popularity-contest deliver via HTTP, so you should
have that worry any more.
I see from popcon.debian.org we have 26962 submissions currently.
On Thu, Feb 01, 2007 at 08:10:56PM +, Tim Cutts wrote:
> What I'd actually like is some sort of non-root packaging system so
> that users could build software with decent dependency checking for
> their shared software infrastructure. Can dpkg be cajoled into
> doing that?
I knew peop
On Thu, 1 Feb 2007, Tim Cutts wrote:
What I'd actually like is some sort of non-root packaging system so
that users could build software with decent dependency checking for
their shared software infrastructure. Can dpkg be cajoled into
doing that?
I've heard about "click" (or "klick") which
Tim Cutts wrote:
> What I'd actually like is some sort of non-root packaging system so that
> users could build software with decent dependency checking for their
> shared software infrastructure. Can dpkg be cajoled into doing that?
Could you use a schroot instance to do that?
--
To UNSUBSCR
On Thu, 1 Feb 2007, Tim Cutts wrote:
On 1 Feb 2007, at 1:30 pm, Steffen Moeller wrote:
There is probably no point for Debian to compete in the package versions
with
upstream developers of BioPerl, Wise, EMBOSS and whatever other tools yours
and your neighbouring institutes' are providing :o)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 1 Feb 2007, at 1:30 pm, Steffen Moeller wrote:
Have you installed the popularity-contest package?
No. The network admin didn't like the idea of all the mail
messages. I think I might just ignore him though. :-)
There is probably no poin
On Thursday 01 February 2007 11:38:46 Tim Cutts wrote:
> On 1 Feb 2007, at 1:00 am, Charles Plessy wrote:
> > I am very interested to hear that Sanger is using Debian on
> > thousands of
> > machines. Do not hesitate to tell us a bit more on
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] Bioinformatics is part of our effo
On Thu, 1 Feb 2007, Tim Cutts wrote:
[... impresive numbers of Debian usage at Sanger ...]
Wow. ;-)
We're quite keen to present something about all this at Debconf; I realise
the deadline has passed, but hopefully they'll squeeze us in...
It would be great to meet you at DebConf, but would
On 1 Feb 2007, at 1:00 am, Charles Plessy wrote:
(Sorry for the noise, I reply on the list since Sanger's mail server
thinks I am a spammer.
Does it?
I am very interested to hear that Sanger is using Debian on
thousands of
machines. Do not hesitate to tell us a bit more on
[EMAIL PROTECTE
(Sorry for the noise, I reply on the list since Sanger's mail server
thinks I am a spammer.)
Le Tue, Jan 30, 2007 at 05:38:01PM +, Tim Cutts a écrit :
> On 25 Jan 2007, at 1:23 am, James Troup wrote:
>
> > (a) we don't currently have the buildd infrastructure for this - it
> > would requ
Goswin von Brederlow dijo [Mon, Jan 29, 2007 at 10:42:25AM +0100]:
> I would rather do the opposite. Stop building a package when it fails
> on other archs. Thing about the (unlikely) situation that arm is
> idle. Nothing to build. Now someone uploads foobar. Should we wait or
> just try? If it wor
On Mon, Jan 29, 2007 at 10:42:25AM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> Santiago Vila <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Sun, 28 Jan 2007, Benjamin Seidenberg wrote:
> >
> >> If we do go to source-only uploads, could this problem be avoided by
> >> having arm and other slow arches wait until at lea
On 25 Jan 2007, at 1:23 am, James Troup wrote:
(a) we don't currently have the buildd infrastructure for this - it
would require a minimum of 2 (preferably 3) machines dedicated to
being i386 buildds. It would also make i386 uploads much more
sensitive to delays and really requ
Steffen Moeller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Monday 29 January 2007 10:42:25 Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
>> Santiago Vila <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > On Sun, 28 Jan 2007, Benjamin Seidenberg wrote:
>> >> If we do go to source-only uploads, could this problem be avoided by
>> >> having arm
Tollef Fog Heen a écrit :
> * Joey Hess
>
> | > (b) source only uploads are in my experience very often badly tested
> | > if they're even tested at all. For a long time after Ubuntu
> | > switched to source only uploads, it was really obvious that a
> | > large number of them ha
Charles Plessy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Le Mon, Jan 29, 2007 at 10:42:25AM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow a écrit :
>> Santiago Vila <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > On Sun, 28 Jan 2007, Benjamin Seidenberg wrote:
>> >
>> >> If we do go to source-only uploads, could this problem be avoided b
Le Mon, Jan 29, 2007 at 10:42:25AM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow a écrit :
> Santiago Vila <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Sun, 28 Jan 2007, Benjamin Seidenberg wrote:
> >
> >> If we do go to source-only uploads, could this problem be avoided by
> >> having arm and other slow arches wait until
On Monday 29 January 2007 10:42:25 Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> Santiago Vila <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Sun, 28 Jan 2007, Benjamin Seidenberg wrote:
> >> If we do go to source-only uploads, could this problem be avoided by
> >> having arm and other slow arches wait until at least one othe
Santiago Vila <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sun, 28 Jan 2007, Benjamin Seidenberg wrote:
>
>> If we do go to source-only uploads, could this problem be avoided by
>> having arm and other slow arches wait until at least one other arch
>> successfully builds the package?
>
> I think that would be
On Sun, 28 Jan 2007, Benjamin Seidenberg wrote:
> If we do go to source-only uploads, could this problem be avoided by
> having arm and other slow arches wait until at least one other arch
> successfully builds the package?
I think that would be a good idea anyway, even if we do not go to
source-
Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
> * Joey Hess
>
> | > (b) source only uploads are in my experience very often badly tested
> | > if they're even tested at all. For a long time after Ubuntu
> | > switched to source only uploads, it was really obvious that a
> | > large number of them hadn't
On Sun, Jan 28, 2007 at 09:42:19PM +0100, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
> * Joey Hess
>
> | > (b) source only uploads are in my experience very often badly tested
> | > if they're even tested at all. For a long time after Ubuntu
> | > switched to source only uploads, it was really obvious th
* Joey Hess
| > (b) source only uploads are in my experience very often badly tested
| > if they're even tested at all. For a long time after Ubuntu
| > switched to source only uploads, it was really obvious that a
| > large number of them hadn't even been test built, never mind
On Thu, Jan 25, 2007 at 03:44:39AM -0500, Jaldhar H. Vyas wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Jan 2007, James Troup wrote:
>
> >Summary
>
> Credit where credit is due. This is exactly the kind of informative
> explanation I have been looking for and I hope we'll see a lot of more of
Hi,
On Thu Jan 25, 2007 at 01:23:35 +, James Troup wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Summary
> ===
>
> I've done some work in dak to improve the binary upload restrictions
> that are currently in place to hopefully reduce some of the collateral
>
On Thu, Jan 25, 2007 at 01:23:35AM +, James Troup wrote:
> unilaterally make the decision that they are or are not OK. If it's
> the consensus of the release managers and the architecture porting
> team that they want to use emulated buildds and/or cross compiling, I
> absolutely will not stop
>Summary
>===
>
> I've done some work in dak to improve the binary upload restrictions
> that are currently in place to hopefully reduce some of the
> collateral damage that resulted from the initial implementation.
> Binary uploa
El jue, 25-01-2007 a las 01:23 +, James Troup escribió:
[...]
>
>Why restrictions on binary uploads?
>===
>
> So there are several reasons why these restrictions have been put in
> place:
>
> (o) reproducibility
>
[...]
>
> (o
Clint Adams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Is it technically and/or socially possible to send build logs to
>> buildd.debian.org?
>
> Yes, the current security model does not prohibit that.
When amd64 tried doing that the logs got filtered out.
Has the filtering of uploads from unofficial buildd
James Troup dijo [Thu, Jan 25, 2007 at 01:23:35AM +]:
> [heavy-SNIP]
>
> (a) we don't currently have the buildd infrastructure for this - it
> would require a minimum of 2 (preferably 3) machines dedicated to
> being i386 buildds. It would also make i386 uploads much more
> sen
>> Is it technically and/or socially possible to send build logs to
>> buildd.debian.org?
> Yes, the current security model does not prohibit that.
And how do we send the build logs, please?
Best regards,
Nelson
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Tr
James Troup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hi,
>
> Summary
> ===
>
> I've done some work in dak to improve the binary upload restrictions
> that are currently in place to hopefully reduce some of the collateral
> damage that resulted fro
> Is it technically and/or socially possible to send build logs to
> buildd.debian.org?
Yes, the current security model does not prohibit that.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, Jan 25, 2007 at 03:44:39AM -0500, Jaldhar H. Vyas wrote:
> However, as I can be drummed out of Debian for not fulfilling my quota of
> complaining, may I ask why this was sent to debian-devel and not
> debian-devel-announce? :-)
Because it really just is an implementation detail of our
b
On Thu, 25 Jan 2007, James Troup wrote:
Summary
===
Credit where credit is due. This is exactly the kind of informative
explanation I have been looking for and I hope we'll see a lot of more of
this sort of thing from the in
Le jeudi 25 janvier 2007 à 01:23 +, James Troup a écrit :
> The idea of emulated buildds or cross compiling has been around for a
> long time. Personally I don't think it's a good idea, but that's not
> really the point. The point is that one person should not
> unilaterally make the decision
James Troup a écrit :
> Why are the current set of restrictions in place?
> =
>
> arm has had restrictions in place ever since Aurelien decided to
> unilaterally turn on emulated buildd(s) for arm with no consensus from
> the arm port
On Thu, 25 Jan 2007 01:23:35 +, James Troup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>(o) logging
>
>The build logs at buildd.debian.org are invaluable in trying to debug
>problematic builds. Byhand builds and other unofficial builds often
>don't send an associated log to buildd.debian.org.
Is it technica
On Wed, 2007-01-24 at 19:10 -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 24, 2007 at 09:15:44PM -0500, Joey Hess wrote:
> > > [2] Unfortunately there was very little notice of goedel's move and it
> > > was originally scheduled only to take a couple of days but was
> > > unavoidably delayed b
On Wed, Jan 24, 2007 at 09:15:44PM -0500, Joey Hess wrote:
> > [2] Unfortunately there was very little notice of goedel's move and it
> > was originally scheduled only to take a couple of days but was
> > unavoidably delayed by external factors.
> I hope that one of the offers of hardware
James Troup wrote:
> alpha has recently had restrictions added because the main alpha
> buildd has been down due to relocation[2] for some time now and so, as
> a result, the number of byhand builds on random machines has shot up.
> Once Goedel is back (tomorrow - apparently) and if the byhand buil
47 matches
Mail list logo
