Re: Some observations regardig the progress towards Debian 3.1

On Mon, Dec 01, 2003 at 04:10:56PM -0800, Mike Fedyk wrote: >... > > * it isn't consistent in all respects; e.g. although the package > > dependencies might have been fulfilled, it contained for some time a > > strange mixture of GNOME 1 and GNOME 2 > > I'm pretty sure that was because of hi

Re: Some observations regardig the progress towards Debian 3.1

On Sat, Nov 22, 2003 at 02:20:20AM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote: > libfoo version 2-1 isn't allowed to enter testing since this would make > myprog uninstallable in testing > > myprog 5-2 isn't allowed to enter testing since this would make myprog > uninstallable in testing. > > These two packages n

Re: Some observations regardig the progress towards Debian 3.1

On Wed, Nov 19, 2003 at 10:41:05AM +0100, Yann Dirson wrote: >... > That could be done either by a rebuild, or, less costly, by a simple > unpack/edit-changelog/repack. Repacking breaks with every Depends: somepackage (= ${Source-Version}) > In that case, if we had libfoo0_1.0-1 in pre-testing,

Re: Some observations regardig the progress towards Debian 3.1

On Wed, Nov 19, 2003 at 02:03:08PM +, Wookey wrote: > Doing my builds on a testing machine, then uploading to > unstable can mean I introduce packages compiled against the wrong library > versions. Source-only uploads would solve this and I could do test-compiles > on some debian machine. Off

Re: Some observations regardig the progress towards Debian 3.1

I like this idea of pre-testing. It would allow to cut down the versionned dependencies caused by automatic detection and allow a quicker move to testing. The issue I see however is that a package rebuilded that way would go into testing without being tested by anyone. What if a given package fai

Re: Some observations regardig the progress towards Debian 3.1

+++ Yann Dirson [03-11-18 22:54 +0100]: > On Tue, Nov 18, 2003 at 07:29:29PM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote: > But that last point raises another issue: does anyone really use > testing ? Would anyone use pre-testing after all ? I used testing for a couple of years on my laptop and non-critical machin

Re: Some observations regardig the progress towards Debian 3.1

On Wed, Nov 19, 2003 at 10:41:05AM +0100, Yann Dirson wrote: > > testsuites must be written, and testsuites for GUI programs are even > > more work. > > Fortunately several of the packages we ship already have one. Most do not. > And for the bunch of non-gui programs, we could surely add some >

Re: Some observations regardig the progress towards Debian 3.1

On Tue, Nov 18, 2003 at 10:15:25AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote: > On Sat, Nov 15, 2003 at 05:35:19PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote: > > On Sat, Nov 15, 2003 at 05:42:20PM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote: > > > - Debian 3.0 doesn't support much of the hardware curently available - > > > the old 2.4.18 kerne

Re: Some observations regardig the progress towards Debian 3.1

Adrian wrote: > Your proposal wouldn't have been able to shorten the move of KDE 3 into > testing by one single day. Yes, my comment was misplaced wrt what you said, this problem still has to be addressed. My proposal, however, is more targetted to packages which would build with, say, KDE2, but

Re: Some observations regardig the progress towards Debian 3.1

On Tue, Nov 18, 2003 at 10:54:00PM +0100, Yann Dirson wrote: > On Tue, Nov 18, 2003 at 07:29:29PM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote: > > There are some good suggestions in your proposal, e.g. you suggest to > > check whether the build dependencies are fulfilled. The lack of checking > > for build dependen

Re: Some observations regardig the progress towards Debian 3.1

Scripsit Yann Dirson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > But that last point raises another issue: does anyone really use > testing ? Would anyone use pre-testing after all ? I think very many people use stable plus bits and pieces from testing. I have two machines set up that way. Getting the bits and pieces

Re: Some observations regardig the progress towards Debian 3.1

On Tue, Nov 18, 2003 at 07:29:29PM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote: > There are some good suggestions in your proposal, e.g. you suggest to > check whether the build dependencies are fulfilled. The lack of checking > for build dependencies in the current testing scripts often leads to > packages in tes

Re: Some observations regardig the progress towards Debian 3.1

On Tue, Nov 18, 2003 at 06:14:29PM +, Colin Watson wrote: > > [1] As I make it, the following packages in testing depend on a specific > version of mozilla in such a way as to cause problems when upgrading > mozilla. If you can back up your "about two dozen" with an expanded > list

Re: Some observations regardig the progress towards Debian 3.1

* Matt Zimmerman ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [031118 19:55]: > On Tue, Nov 18, 2003 at 06:06:08PM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote: > > Why did debian-installer miss the dates in the latest release timeline > > by so many months? > Because those dates were made up out of thin air? Then the obvious question is:

Re: Some observations regardig the progress towards Debian 3.1

On Tue, Nov 18, 2003 at 06:14:29PM +, Colin Watson wrote: >... > [1] As I make it, the following packages in testing depend on a specific > version of mozilla in such a way as to cause problems when upgrading > mozilla. If you can back up your "about two dozen" with an expanded > li

Re: Some observations regardig the progress towards Debian 3.1

On Tue, Nov 18, 2003 at 05:47:44PM +0100, Yann Dirson wrote: > Joey wrote: > >Packages in unstable have dependencies in unstable which may not be > >met in testing, hence they cannot simply be included in testing. > >Unfortunately we need to take care of this. > > I've come up at least once with a

Re: Some observations regardig the progress towards Debian 3.1

On Tue, Nov 18, 2003 at 06:06:08PM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote: > This might work on pure servers, but how do you manage to run XFree86 > 4.1.0 on brand-new graphics cards (e.g. integrated graphics of brand-new > Intel systems) in non-Vesa resolutions? I don't, because I don't buy motherboards with

Re: Some observations regardig the progress towards Debian 3.1

On Tue, Nov 18, 2003 at 06:15:41PM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote: > On Tue, Nov 18, 2003 at 09:57:41AM +, Colin Watson wrote: > > * mozilla - almost there but hasn't built on m68k and mipsel, > > apparently due to various dependency problems. Could benefit from > > being retried. > > Besi

Re: Some observations regardig the progress towards Debian 3.1

On Tue, Nov 18, 2003 at 09:57:41AM +, Colin Watson wrote: > On Mon, Nov 17, 2003 at 11:28:41PM -0500, Matt Zimmerman wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 18, 2003 at 02:14:49AM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote: > > > I'm not saying this would be immoral or something like that, but e.g. a > > > major release without

Re: Some observations regardig the progress towards Debian 3.1

On Mon, Nov 17, 2003 at 11:28:41PM -0500, Matt Zimmerman wrote: > > > So instead, we have a system where people take individual (or small > > > group) responsibility for a particular piece of software, to take care > > > of it and fix its bugs. This way, we distribute the effort over a large > > >

Re: Some observations regardig the progress towards Debian 3.1

On Tue, Nov 18, 2003 at 05:08:40PM +0100, Thomas -Balu- Walter wrote: > > For now I have to fiddle around, creating bootdisks with newer kernels, Maybe I've just been very lucky, but I've yet to need to create a custom boot disk to install any of my various systems. I wouldn't consider most of t

Re: Some observations regardig the progress towards Debian 3.1

On Sat, Nov 15, 2003 at 05:35:19PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote: > On Sat, Nov 15, 2003 at 05:42:20PM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote: > > - Debian 3.0 doesn't support much of the hardware curently available - > > the old 2.4.18 kernel on the boot floppies doesn't even boot on many > > new computers (

Re: Some observations regardig the progress towards Debian 3.1

On Mon, Nov 17, 2003 at 11:19:24AM +0100, Norbert Tretkowski wrote: > Unfortunately Adrian didn't wrote why he thinks backports aren't > usable for production systems. The only real problem with backports I > see is that there are no guaranted security updates. > > This could be a reason for someo

Re: Some observations regardig the progress towards Debian 3.1

On Tue, Nov 18, 2003 at 01:43:08PM +, Colin Watson wrote: > I think you're missing the point: package name changes due to soname > changes often cause delays to testing, and therefore it's *beneficial* > that there's potentially an easy way to hold them out of unstable at the > moment. right,

Re: Some observations regardig the progress towards Debian 3.1

On Tue, Nov 18, 2003 at 09:57:41AM +, Colin Watson wrote: > ... which will happen in a couple of days. However, evolution currently > depends on three "trouble spots" in addition to the guts of GNOME 2.4: > * krb4 - has a complicated dependency graph involving heimdal and > postgresql,

Re: Some observations regardig the progress towards Debian 3.1

On Tue, Nov 18, 2003 at 02:14:42PM +0100, Robert Lemmen wrote: > On Mon, Nov 17, 2003 at 09:51:16PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote: > > Given that each soname change requires a package name change, and every > > package name change requires a manual override by an ftpmaster, yes, > > it's theoreticall

Re: Some observations regardig the progress towards Debian 3.1

On Mon, Nov 17, 2003 at 09:51:16PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote: > Given that each soname change requires a package name change, and every > package name change requires a manual override by an ftpmaster, yes, > it's theoretically possible to "automate" the process of not approving > new package upl

Re: Some observations regardig the progress towards Debian 3.1

On Tue, 2003-11-18 at 15:28, Matt Zimmerman wrote: > On Tue, Nov 18, 2003 at 02:14:49AM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote: > > The problem is, this often chaotic development system doesn't scale to > > over 1200 developers (including many MIA developers). > > I think the only sticking point is determining

Re: Some observations regardig the progress towards Debian 3.1

On Mon, Nov 17, 2003 at 11:28:41PM -0500, Matt Zimmerman wrote: > On Tue, Nov 18, 2003 at 02:14:49AM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote: > > I'm not saying this would be immoral or something like that, but e.g. a > > major release without Evolution [2] (currently ages away from reentering > > testing) might

Re: Some observations regardig the progress towards Debian 3.1

(trimming -release) On Tue, Nov 18, 2003 at 02:14:49AM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote: > On Sun, Nov 16, 2003 at 11:53:36PM -0500, Matt Zimmerman wrote: > > So instead, we have a system where people take individual (or small > > group) responsibility for a particular piece of software, to take care > >

Re: Some observations regardig the progress towards Debian 3.1

On Tue, Nov 18, 2003 at 08:50:35AM +1100, Zenaan Harkness wrote: > > (I also share most of his conclusions. Why do we make a release plan > > if a lot of important packages ignore the plan?) > Is it possible to automate _enforcing_ any parts of the release plan > (eg. rejecting library so-name cha

Re: Some observations regardig the progress towards Debian 3.1

On Sun, Nov 16, 2003 at 11:53:36PM -0500, Matt Zimmerman wrote: > On Sat, Nov 15, 2003 at 05:42:20PM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote: > > > Today, it's only 17 days until the officially announced "aggressive goal" > > for the release of Debian 3.1 [1]. That's a date many users know about, > > but I don't

Re: Some observations regardig the progress towards Debian 3.1

On Sun, 2003-11-16 at 23:02, Andreas Barth wrote: > > Actually, Adrian Bunk _was_ a Debian maintainer, but he retired; see > > . He actively chose to > > make these posts instead of trying to make things better from the inside. > > Actually, this articl

Re: Some observations regardig the progress towards Debian 3.1

* Andreas Metzler wrote: > Norbert Tretkowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...] >> Unfortunately Adrian didn't wrote why he thinks backports aren't >> usable for production systems. The only real problem with backports >> I see is that there are no guaranted security updates. > > Imho the real pote

Re: Some observations regardig the progress towards Debian 3.1

Norbert Tretkowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Unfortunately Adrian didn't wrote why he thinks backports aren't > usable for production systems. The only real problem with backports I > see is that there are no guaranted security updates. Er, you missed another big one, then: trust. Trusting the

Re: Some observations regardig the progress towards Debian 3.1

Norbert Tretkowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...] > Unfortunately Adrian didn't wrote why he thinks backports aren't > usable for production systems. The only real problem with backports I > see is that there are no guaranted security updates. [...] Imho the real potential for problems with back

Re: Some observations regardig the progress towards Debian 3.1

* Brian Nelson wrote: > Norbert Tretkowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > * Adrian Bunk wrote: > >> - testing, unstable or Debian 3.0 with backports aren't suitable > >> for production systems > > > > Of course it is, Debian 3.0 with a few _selected_ backports works > > nice, also on production sy

Re: Some observations regardig the progress towards Debian 3.1

On Sat, Nov 15, 2003 at 05:42:20PM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote: > Today, it's only 17 days until the officially announced "aggressive goal" > for the release of Debian 3.1 [1]. That's a date many users know about, > but I don't see any real progress towards Debian 3.1 during the last > months. I sup

Re: Some observations regardig the progress towards Debian 3.1

On Sun, Nov 16, 2003 at 11:34:09AM -0800, Brian Nelson wrote: > Norbert Tretkowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > * Adrian Bunk wrote: > >> - testing, unstable or Debian 3.0 with backports aren't suitable for > >> production systems > > > > Of course it is, Debian 3.0 with a few _selected_ backp

Re: Some observations regardig the progress towards Debian 3.1

Norbert Tretkowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > * Adrian Bunk wrote: >> - testing, unstable or Debian 3.0 with backports aren't suitable for >> production systems > > Of course it is, Debian 3.0 with a few _selected_ backports works > nice, also on production systems. Err, do you realize you'r

Re: Some observations regardig the progress towards Debian 3.1

* Colin Watson | On Sun, Nov 16, 2003 at 02:19:29AM -0500, Alexander Winston wrote: | > On Sat, 2003-11-15 at 23:17, David Starner wrote: | > > If you were a Debian developer, you could fix this by adopting or at least | > > NMUing important programs that were unmaintained. Is it easier to stand

Re: Some observations regardig the progress towards Debian 3.1

On Sun, 16 Nov 2003 13:02:45 +0100 Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > * David Starner ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [031116 10:55]: [...] > > Actually, Adrian Bunk _was_ a Debian maintainer, but he retired; see > > . He actively chose to > > make these p

Re: Some observations regardig the progress towards Debian 3.1

* Goswin von Brederlow ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [031116 13:40]: > Adopting is easy compared to getting a NMU or a hijack sponsort. My first upload to the archive was a (of course sponsored) hijack. So, it's possible (but I had however the blessings of Martin on d-qa, and more-than-one-try to reach the

Re: Some observations regardig the progress towards Debian 3.1

Alexander Winston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Sat, 2003-11-15 at 23:17, David Starner wrote: > > > Debian 3.0 contains 7 CDs with binaries and Debian 3.1 might contain 10 > > > or more CDs. How do you explain to a user why there are 10 CDs, but this > > > popular package is not included, and

Re: Some observations regardig the progress towards Debian 3.1

Blars Blarson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > >Given a person with the hardware and time I'm certain support can be > >added in a single day. The big problem is getting access to the > >hardware directly or indirectly through a tester. >

Re: Some observations regardig the progress towards Debian 3.1

* David Starner ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [031116 10:55]: > Alexander Winston wrote: > > On Sat, 2003-11-15 at 23:17, David Starner wrote: > > > If you were a Debian developer, you could fix this by adopting or at least > > > NMUing important programs that were unmaintained. Is it easier to stand > > > o

Re: Some observations regardig the progress towards Debian 3.1

Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Sun, Nov 16, 2003 at 02:35:57AM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote: > > > The problem with your pragmatic approach is that every of your users has > > other packages he cares about. A package you care zero about might be > > the killer application for some

Re: Some observations regardig the progress towards Debian 3.1

On Sun, Nov 16, 2003 at 02:19:29AM -0500, Alexander Winston wrote: > On Sat, 2003-11-15 at 23:17, David Starner wrote: > > If you were a Debian developer, you could fix this by adopting or at least > > NMUing important programs that were unmaintained. Is it easier to stand > > on the outside and co

Re: Some observations regardig the progress towards Debian 3.1

* Adrian Bunk wrote: > - testing, unstable or Debian 3.0 with backports aren't suitable for > production systems Of course it is, Debian 3.0 with a few _selected_ backports works nice, also on production systems. -- - nobse

Re: Some observations regardig the progress towards Debian 3.1

Alexander Winston wrote: > On Sat, 2003-11-15 at 23:17, David Starner wrote: > > If you were a Debian developer, you could fix this by adopting or at least > > NMUing important programs that were unmaintained. Is it easier to stand > > on the outside and complain then actually work to making it bet

Re: Some observations regardig the progress towards Debian 3.1

On Sat, 2003-11-15 at 23:17, David Starner wrote: > > Debian 3.0 contains 7 CDs with binaries and Debian 3.1 might contain 10 > > or more CDs. How do you explain to a user why there are 10 CDs, but this > > popular package is not included, and that package he needs is not > > included? > > > > Sayi

Some observations regardig the progress towards Debian 3.1

> Debian 3.0 contains 7 CDs with binaries and Debian 3.1 might contain 10 > or more CDs. How do you explain to a user why there are 10 CDs, but this > popular package is not included, and that package he needs is not > included? > > Saying "The maintainer didn't care enough about the package you ne

Re: Some observations regardig the progress towards Debian 3.1

On Sat, Nov 15, 2003 at 09:51:55PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote: > On Sun, Nov 16, 2003 at 02:35:57AM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote: > > > The problem with your pragmatic approach is that every of your users has > > other packages he cares about. A package you care zero about might be > > the killer a

Re: Some observations regardig the progress towards Debian 3.1

On Sun, 16 Nov 2003, Adrian Bunk wrote: > But this problem needs either be fixed in any way or Debian should > officially announce that it's now a hackers-only distribution, since > it's due to the lack of stable releases not usable for serious systems. > > _Why_ do these threads pop up without an

Re: Some observations regardig the progress towards Debian 3.1

On Sun, Nov 16, 2003 at 02:35:57AM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote: > The problem with your pragmatic approach is that every of your users has > other packages he cares about. A package you care zero about might be > the killer application for some users. > This might not be a problem if it happens fo

Re: Some observations regardig the progress towards Debian 3.1

On Sat, Nov 15, 2003 at 05:42:20PM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote: > below are some subjective opservations and opinions regarding the > progress towards Debian 3.1 . This is off-topic for -release. Please restrict any replies to -devel or private mail. Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Re: Some observations regardig the progress towards Debian 3.1

On Sat, Nov 15, 2003 at 08:48:04PM +0100, Josip Rodin wrote: > On Sat, Nov 15, 2003 at 05:42:20PM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote: > > Please read it, and make your own opinions on where I'm right and where > > I'm wrong, even if you might not agree with my opinions on other issues > > or if you don't agr

Re: Some observations regardig the progress towards Debian 3.1

On Sun, Nov 16, 2003 at 12:34:27AM +, Colin Watson wrote: > On Sat, Nov 15, 2003 at 03:42:26PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote: > > On Sat, Nov 15, 2003 at 05:42:20PM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote: > > > For testing to work good, it's required to have unstable in a good > > > state. Often new so-version

Re: Some observations regardig the progress towards Debian 3.1

On Sat, Nov 15, 2003 at 03:42:26PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote: > On Sat, Nov 15, 2003 at 05:42:20PM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote: > > > During the last months, the number of RC bugs of packages in unstable > > was constant at 700 bugs including 500 RC bugs in packages that are in > > testing [2]. >

Re: Some observations regardig the progress towards Debian 3.1

On Sat, Nov 15, 2003 at 03:42:26PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote: > On Sat, Nov 15, 2003 at 05:42:20PM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote: > > For testing to work good, it's required to have unstable in a good > > state. Often new so-versions of libraries enter unstable, and e.g. KDE > > 3.2 might soon go into

Re: Some observations regardig the progress towards Debian 3.1

In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: >Given a person with the hardware and time I'm certain support can be >added in a single day. The big problem is getting access to the >hardware directly or indirectly through a tester. Given that I've spend about 20 hours trying to get deb

Re: Some observations regardig the progress towards Debian 3.1

Karsten Merker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Sat, Nov 15, 2003 at 07:15:42PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > > > The problems with porting debian-installer to different archs is > > minimal. As shown on the D-I debcamp in Oldenburg porting to a new > > architecture can be done over a week

Re: Some observations regardig the progress towards Debian 3.1

On Sat, Nov 15, 2003 at 05:42:20PM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote: > During the last months, the number of RC bugs of packages in unstable > was constant at 700 bugs including 500 RC bugs in packages that are in > testing [2]. > Yes, there's the common argument "Don't talk, fix bugs.". Unfortunately >

Re: Some observations regardig the progress towards Debian 3.1

On Sat, Nov 15, 2003 at 05:42:20PM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote: > Please read it, and make your own opinions on where I'm right and where > I'm wrong, even if you might not agree with my opinions on other issues > or if you don't agree with everything below. Nice of you to vent steam onto the mailing

Re: Some observations regardig the progress towards Debian 3.1

Moin Adrian! Adrian Bunk schrieb am Saturday, den 15. November 2003: > solved, the next one pups up. For testing to work good, it's required to > have unstable in a good state. Often new so-versions of libraries enter > unstable, and e.g. KDE 3.2 might soon go into unstable. If testing > should be

Re: Some observations regardig the progress towards Debian 3.1

Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Hi, > > below are some subjective opservations and opinions regarding the > progress towards Debian 3.1 . > > Please read it, and make your own opinions on where I'm right and where > I'm wrong, even if you might not agree with my opinions on other issue

Re: Some observations regardig the progress towards Debian 3.1

On Sat, Nov 15, 2003 at 05:42:20PM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote: > - Debian 3.0 doesn't support much of the hardware curently available - > the old 2.4.18 kernel on the boot floppies doesn't even boot on many > new computers (some Promise IDE chipsets require a more recent 2.4 ^

Some observations regardig the progress towards Debian 3.1

Hi, below are some subjective opservations and opinions regarding the progress towards Debian 3.1 . Please read it, and make your own opinions on where I'm right and where I'm wrong, even if you might not agree with my opinions on other issues or if you don't agree with everything below. This is