Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[snip]
> A buildd host does not need much to work safely, so writing a security
> standard should be possible. How about a security standard like the
> following:
>
> * A buildd host must not have any port open, except for one SSH port
> (preferably p
On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 12:55:16AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 21, 2005 at 08:08:57PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 18, 2005 at 06:44:46PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > > - Architectures which need more than 2 buildds to keep up with package
> > > uploads on an o
On Mon, Mar 21, 2005 at 08:08:57PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 18, 2005 at 06:44:46PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 10:48:10PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > > The next stage in the process is to actually sell the proposed changes for
> > > etch to the
On Fri, Mar 18, 2005 at 06:44:46PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 10:48:10PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > The next stage in the process is to actually sell the proposed changes for
> > etch to the developers at large[2]. There are several points which can and
> > shou
On Sat, Mar 19, 2005 at 04:10:51AM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > - While neither of the above concerns is overriding on its own (the
> > ftpmasters have obviously allowed these ports to persist on
> > ftp-master.debian.org, and they will be relea
Quoting Andreas Barth ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> * Thiemo Seufer ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050320 12:15]:
> > I don't regard my mips/mipsel porting work as just a hobby.
>
> You're definitly doing a very professional job with mips*. In fact, I'm
Which indeed does not change my statement. All this (our De
* Anthony Towns (aj@azure.humbug.org.au) wrote:
> >If this is the case, I think that needs to be made clearer to avoid
> >situations where people work to meet the criteria but are vetoed by the
> >release team because there are already too many architectures.
>
> The main issue is the port needs t
* Peter 'p2' De Schrijver ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 20, 2005 at 09:27:26AM +0100, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
> > Hi, Peter 'p2' De Schrijver wrote:
> >
> > > This is obviously unacceptable. Why would a small number of people be
> > > allowed to veto inclusion of other people's work ?
>
On Sun, Mar 20, 2005 at 09:27:26AM +0100, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
> Hi, Peter 'p2' De Schrijver wrote:
>
> > This is obviously unacceptable. Why would a small number of people be
> > allowed to veto inclusion of other people's work ?
>
> Why not? (Assuming they do have a valid reason. For instanc
On Sunday 20 March 2005 16:16, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Sven Luther wrote:
> > [...] and they hold us hostage [...]
> > Friendly,
>
> It seems odd to pretend to be friendly towards people you consider
> hostage takers. Or to call people you claim to be friendly towards
> "hostage takers".
it's call
[Matthew Garrett]
> Constitutionally, I think it makes more sense to devolve it to the
> technical committee.
Not sure if I agree. Weighting different interests and prioritizing
betweeen hard choices is a political and not a techincal decition. As
such, it might be better to vetoing to the posit
Matthew Garrett wrote:
Anthony Towns wrote:
If they can all satisfy the criteria, they're likely to be doing well
enough that there's not much *point* to dropping them -- the reason 11
architectures are hard to manage is because they're not all being
supported at an adequate level. The criteria li
On Mon, Mar 21, 2005 at 01:16:42AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Sven Luther wrote:
> >The ftp-masters are mandated by the DPL to handle the debian
> >infrastructure,
> >not to decide what arches debian should support or not.
>
> This is not the case; ftpmaster's role has historically included at
Sven Luther wrote:
The ftp-masters are mandated by the DPL to handle the debian infrastructure,
not to decide what arches debian should support or not.
This is not the case; ftpmaster's role has historically included at what
point architectures can be included in the archive (and in sh's case, at
* Thiemo Seufer ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050320 12:15]:
> I don't regard my mips/mipsel porting work as just a hobby.
You're definitly doing a very professional job with mips*. In fact, I'm
personally more in favour of mips* as release archs than some others
because you're doing such a good job.
Che
On Sun, Mar 20, 2005 at 10:26:44PM +1100, Daniel Stone wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 20, 2005 at 09:07:52AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > On Sun, Mar 20, 2005 at 02:57:23AM +0100, Peter 'p2' De Schrijver wrote:
> > > > > * Three bodies (Security, System Administration, Release) are given
> > > > > indepen
On Sun, Mar 20, 2005 at 10:26:44PM +1100, Daniel Stone wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 20, 2005 at 09:07:52AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > On Sun, Mar 20, 2005 at 02:57:23AM +0100, Peter 'p2' De Schrijver wrote:
> > > This is obviously unacceptable. Why would a small number of people be
> > > allowed to veto
Petter Reinholdtsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I tend to agree that the veto rights in the proposal are undemocratic.
> It is probably better to allow the DPL to veto the inclusion, and
> document that he is required to ask the porters, the ftp masters and
> the release team before making up his
On Sun, Mar 20, 2005 at 09:07:52AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 20, 2005 at 02:57:23AM +0100, Peter 'p2' De Schrijver wrote:
> > > > * Three bodies (Security, System Administration, Release) are given
> > > > independent veto power over the inclusion of an architecture.
> > > > A) Do
Anthony Towns wrote:
> If they can all satisfy the criteria, they're likely to be doing well
> enough that there's not much *point* to dropping them -- the reason 11
> architectures are hard to manage is because they're not all being
> supported at an adequate level. The criteria listed try to gi
Christian Perrier wrote:
[snip]
> This is spring time (at least for half of the world...and probably for
> 90% of Debian world)so take a break, go for a walk in the forest,
> hear the birds singing, get one day off with no mail reading...and
> remember this is all about a hobby for most of us.
[Sven Luther]
>> This is obviously unacceptable. Why would a small number of people
>> be allowed to veto inclusion of other people's work ?
>
> And a non-elected, non-properly-delegated, self-apointed group of
> people at that.
I tend to agree that the veto rights in the proposal are undemocrati
Hi, Peter 'p2' De Schrijver wrote:
> This is obviously unacceptable. Why would a small number of people be
> allowed to veto inclusion of other people's work ?
Why not? (Assuming they do have a valid reason. For instance, I probably
wouldn't allow an MMIX port into the archive even if it sat up a
On Sun, Mar 20, 2005 at 02:57:23AM +0100, Peter 'p2' De Schrijver wrote:
> > > * Three bodies (Security, System Administration, Release) are given
> > > independent veto power over the inclusion of an architecture.
> > > A) Does the entire team have to exercise this veto for it to be
> > >
On Fri, Mar 18, 2005 at 06:44:46PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> [cc:ed back to -devel, since these are technical questions being raised and
> answered]
>
> On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 10:48:10PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > The next stage in the process is to actually sell the proposed changes
> So drop this bullshit veto thing. There is no reason to have this.
I read this thread very occasionnally and I usually pick up posts my
people I respect for their ability to express their opinions quietly
and without the need of flaming.
Hence, I have to admit that I'm really surprised by this
Matthew Garrett wrote:
This, uh, sounds very much like "We need to drop architectures, and so
we have come up with these criteria that will result in us dropping
architectures". Which is a reasonable standpoint to take, but which also
seems to imply that if 12 architectures manage to fulfil all the
Bill Allombert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sat, Mar 19, 2005 at 09:13:07AM +0100, Karsten Merker wrote:
>> On Fri, Mar 18, 2005 at 06:44:46PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
>> > [cc:ed back to -devel, since these are technical questions being
>> > raised and answered]
>>
>> > > * Why is the pe
> > * Why is the permitted number of buildds for an architecture restricted to
> > 2 or 3?
>
> - Architectures which need more than 2 buildds to keep up with package
> uploads on an ongoing basis are very slow indeed; while slower,
> low-powered chips are indeed useful in certain application
El sÃb, 19-03-2005 a las 04:13 -0600, Bill Allombert escribiÃ:
> On Sat, Mar 19, 2005 at 09:13:07AM +0100, Karsten Merker wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 18, 2005 at 06:44:46PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > > [cc:ed back to -devel, since these are technical questions being raised
> > > and
> > > answere
On Sat, Mar 19, 2005 at 09:13:07AM +0100, Karsten Merker wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 18, 2005 at 06:44:46PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > [cc:ed back to -devel, since these are technical questions being raised and
> > answered]
>
> > > * Why is the permitted number of buildds for an architecture restr
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> - While neither of the above concerns is overriding on its own (the
> ftpmasters have obviously allowed these ports to persist on
> ftp-master.debian.org, and they will be released with sarge), there is a
> general feeling that twelve architectures
On Fri, 2005-03-18 at 18:44 -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > D) How will the exercise of a veto be communicated to the Project?
>
> An announcement mail with Subject: Vancouvered: $arch, of course.
>
Damn, I love this list.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "
[cc:ed back to -devel, since these are technical questions being raised and
answered]
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 10:48:10PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> The next stage in the process is to actually sell the proposed changes for
> etch to the developers at large[2]. There are several points which
34 matches
Mail list logo
