On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 01:18:12AM -0500, Kurt B. Kaiser wrote:
> Machine generated files (e.g. configure) constructed by autotools
> should not be in CVS.
> However, these files (as generated by the Debian maintainer's autotools
> run before the upload) should be included in the source package vi
Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb:
> Le dimanche 13 mars 2005 à 23:10 +0100, Michael Prokop a écrit :
>
>> And TeXciting might never be released, quoting Hendri - the author
>> of ha-prosper:
>>
>> | I have reconsidered whether it will be possible
>> | to finish this project. Taking in
Package: wnpp
Severity: normal
I'm looking for someone who wants to co-maintain vim, since I realized
that I'm currently unable to take care of the package alone. There are
a lot of open bugs that should be fixed, and there's also the upcoming
vim 7.0 package which is a complete rewrite of the pac
On Monday 14 March 2005 05.45, Steve Langasek wrote:
> Architectures that are no longer being considered for stable releases
> are not going to be left out in the cold. ÂThe SCC infrastructure is
> intended as a long-term option for these other architectures, and the
> ftpmasters also intend to pro
On Sun, Mar 13, 2005 at 11:36:39PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> Op vr, 11-03-2005 te 19:14 -0800, schreef Steve Langasek:
> > The queue ordering is entirely automatic, and AIUI the queue(s) is (are)
> > sorted by:
> > - target suite
>- previous compilation state (already built packages are
On Sun, Mar 13, 2005 at 08:45:09PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> Therefore, we're planning on not releasing most of the minor architectures
> starting with etch.
> Architectures that are no longer being considered for stable
> releases are not going to be left out in the cold. The SCC
> infrast
On Sun, Mar 13, 2005 at 11:21:29PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Sun, Mar 13, 2005 at 10:47:15PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> > > Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > > The sh and hurd-i386 ports don't currently meet the S
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The point is that the ftpmasters don't want to play host to various
> ports that *aren't* yet matured to the point of usability, where "being
> able to run a buildd" is regarded as a key element of usability in the
> port bootstrapping process. The amd
Hi, David HÃrdeman wrote:
> o gpg-agent support in the same manner as ssh-agent would be neat. I
> understand that this requires gnupg 2.0 though.
While gpg-agent is built from the gnupg 2.0 sources (a development
snapshot of which is currently sitting in the NEW queue ...), the agent
itself i
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The following people in Debian leadership roles have also expressed
> their support:
> Andreas Schuldei (DPL candidate)
> Angus Lees (DPL candidate)
> Branden Robinson (DPL candidate)
> Jonathan Walther (DPL candidate)
How exactly is DPL candi
* Matthew Palmer
| I'm willing to provide an OpenVPN tunnel to an SMTP server for any
| DD who is unable to find alternate lodgings, and I'm pretty sure I'm
| not the only one.
http://freerelay.err.no/
--
Tollef Fog Heen,''`.
UNIX is user
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 11:43:54AM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> s390 is also rising steeply.
gcc problems and non-responding ftp-masters for the new buildd.
Bastian
--
Those who hate and fight must stop themselves -- otherwise it is not stopped.
-- Spock, "Day of the Dove", st
* Henning Makholm
| When I provide a configure script in the source package it means, on
| the contrary, that I *have* tried it and therefore has some kind of
| evidence that it will probably work for other people too.
You have probably only tried it on one architecture.
A lot of the bugs I see
Hi, Adrian von Bidder wrote:
> In that light, fully automatic NEW processing will not hurt at all
Umm...
- Submit package with copyrighted stuff
- wait a few days
- watch the pants being sued off SPI/Debian
Likely? I don't know. Too dangerous? IMHO yes.
That being said, sources which just sprou
Thomas Bushnell writes:
[fixed lilypond list address: not snipping]
>> > We are a bit concerned with old LilyPond packages, and a potential
>> > new maintainer (Pedro Kroger) with his sponsor going mia.
>>
>> Who was going to sponsor him?
>
> I use lilypond all the time, so I'm happy to adopt it
On Sun, Mar 13, 2005 at 11:07:29PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > None of the documentation calls it a 'queue', in fact; only people not
> > really involved in buildd stuff do.
>
> Does that include you? In two recent messages, you referred
On Sun, Mar 13, 2005 at 08:45:09PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> The much larger consequence of this meeting, however, has been the
> crafting of a prospective release plan for etch. The release team and
> the ftpmasters are mutually agreed that it is not sustainable to
> continue making coordina
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 07:37:51AM +0100, Andreas Tille wrote:
> In general I would like to say that supporting a lot of architectures was
> an important difference between Debian and other distributions. I know the
In fact it was one of the 2 main reasons for my choice. apt-get was the other
ma
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 09:09:09AM +0100, Adrian von Bidder wrote:
> On Monday 14 March 2005 05.45, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > Architectures that are no longer being considered for stable releases
> > are not going to be left out in the cold. The SCC infrastructure is
> > intended as a long-term op
On Sun, Mar 13, 2005 at 08:15:13PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Given how low hamradio (and the like) are prioritised, I suggest that we
> > get smarter about 'tesing' and omit some sections on some architectures.
>
> I don't think those sec
you may find source, i386 and powerpc and sparc binaries
of mplayer 1.0pre6a-4 in your friendly repository
http://tonelli.sns.it/pub/mplayer/sarge
with special thanks to David Moreno Garza for the sparc binary
and Simon McVittie for powerpc
a.
--
Andrea Mennucc
"Ukn ow,Ifina llyfixe dmys
On Sun, Mar 13, 2005 at 08:45:09PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
>
> To be eligible for inclusion in the archive at all, even in the
> (unstable-only) SCC archive, ftpmasters have specified the following
> architecture requirements:
>
> [...]
>
> - binary packages must be built from the unmodifie
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 12:23:12AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 13, 2005 at 11:21:29PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> > Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > > On Sun, Mar 13, 2005 at 10:47:15PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> > > > Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTE
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 07:37:56AM +0100, Ingo Juergensmann wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 11:49:34AM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
>
> > Given how low hamradio (and the like) are prioritised, I suggest that we
> > get smarter about 'tesing' and omit some sections on some architectures.
> > Frank
* Steve Langasek
| If you are planning any other transitions that will affect a lot of
| packages, please let us know in advance. We will need to complete the
| larger transitions as fast as possible, to get testing back into a
| nearly releasable state quickly again after the release.
Multiarc
* Matthias Urlichs
| Hi, Adrian von Bidder wrote:
|
| > In that light, fully automatic NEW processing will not hurt at all
|
| Umm...
| - Submit package with copyrighted stuff
| - wait a few days
| - watch the pants being sued off SPI/Debian
|
| Likely? I don't know. Too dangerous? IMHO yes.
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 09:31:44AM +0100, Romain Francoise wrote:
> Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > The following people in Debian leadership roles have also expressed
> > their support:
> > Andreas Schuldei (DPL candidate)
> > Angus Lees (DPL candidate)
> > Branden Robinson
On Sun, Mar 13, 2005 at 11:36:47PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> For the specific case of sparc, it's worth noting that this architecture
> was tied for last place (with arm) in terms of getting the ABI-changing
> security updates for the kernel; it took over 2 months to get all
> kernel-image pac
* Hamish Moffatt ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050314 01:45]:
> On Sun, Mar 13, 2005 at 11:16:56PM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > Our goal is that the queue gets empty from time to time, and so,
> > priority shouldn't prevent a package from being built.
>
> How often should the queue be emptied, or when w
* Hamish Moffatt ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050314 01:55]:
> On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 12:01:59AM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > It is a highly ordered list, more or less libs+base first, than devel,
> > shells,
> > perl, python. After that graphics, admin, utils. Just to look at the
> > other side of th
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 10:10:32AM +0100, Ingo Juergensmann wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 07:37:51AM +0100, Andreas Tille wrote:
>
> > In general I would like to say that supporting a lot of architectures was
> > an important difference between Debian and other distributions. I know the
>
> I
On Mon, March 14, 2005 10:10, Ingo Juergensmann said:
> It would be better when the project would be honest and state that it want
> to become a x86-compatible only distribution (with the small tribute to
> powerpc users) than this braindead thingie.
The problems associated with carrying many arch
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 08:50:15PM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> How about geda-gschem? Waiting on arm for a couple of weeks now.
> Holding up migration of all of geda* on all architectures.
> I couldn't work out where wanna-build CVS is hosted so I couldn't
> actually check the order to see wher
Hi,
Am Montag, 14. MÃrz 2005 08:36 schrieb Steve Langasek:
> wanna-build stats:
> i386: 99.83% up-to-date, 99.83% if also counting uploaded pkgs
> ia64: 97.39% up-to-date, 97.41% if also counting uploaded pkgs
> powerpc: 97.99% up-to-date, 98.00% if also counting uplo
Steve Langasek a écrit :
The much larger consequence of this meeting, however, has been the
crafting of a prospective release plan for etch. The release team and
the ftpmasters are mutually agreed that it is not sustainable to
continue making coordinated releases for as many architectures as sarge
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> BTW, how much of the human intervention needed for buildd signing
> plays in the delays you see, and did you discuss the possibiliity of
> a fully autobuilder setup, like ubuntu does and i advocated years
> ago ?
I can't answer for Steve, but it seems to
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 01:14:47AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 09:09:09AM +0100, Adrian von Bidder wrote:
> > On Monday 14 March 2005 05.45, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > > Architectures that are no longer being considered for stable releases
> > > are not going to be left ou
* Robert Millan ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050314 10:50]:
> On Sun, Mar 13, 2005 at 08:45:09PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> >
> > To be eligible for inclusion in the archive at all, even in the
> > (unstable-only) SCC archive, ftpmasters have specified the following
> > architecture requirements:
> >
Jan Nieuwenhuizen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Thanks for the offer! I'm not sure however how adopting a package
> works, I guess you'll have to sort with Anthony and Pedro.
I know how to take care of the package. But Anthony Fok is currently
the maintainer, so he needs to either orphan it or
Matthias Urlichs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> That being said, sources which just sprout new binary packages really
> should be passed through NEW automagically.
I made a foolish mistake not too long ago that would never have been
caught by this mechanism; I was most grateful for Anthony Towns
w
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 10:49:20AM +0100, Thijs Kinkhorst wrote:
> On Mon, March 14, 2005 10:10, Ingo Juergensmann said:
> > It would be better when the project would be honest and state that it want
> > to become a x86-compatible only distribution (with the small tribute to
> > powerpc users) than
* Aurélien Jarno <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-03-14 10:56]:
> Would it be possible to have a list of such proposed architectures?
amd64, s390z, powerpc64, netbsd-i386 and other variants, sh3/sh4, m32r
--
Martin Michlmayr
http://www.cyrius.com/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 01:59:02AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 09:31:44AM +0100, Romain Francoise wrote:
> > Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > > The following people in Debian leadership roles have also expressed
> > > their support:
>
> > > Andreas Sch
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 10:39:24AM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 13, 2005 at 08:45:09PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> >
> > To be eligible for inclusion in the archive at all, even in the
> > (unstable-only) SCC archive, ftpmasters have specified the following
> > architecture require
* Tollef Fog Heen ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050314 10:55]:
> * Steve Langasek
>
> | If you are planning any other transitions that will affect a lot of
> | packages, please let us know in advance. We will need to complete the
> | larger transitions as fast as possible, to get testing back into a
> |
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 10:40:55AM +0100, A Mennucc wrote:
> you may find source, i386 and powerpc and sparc binaries
> of mplayer 1.0pre6a-4 in your friendly repository
>
> http://tonelli.sns.it/pub/mplayer/sarge
>
> with special thanks to David Moreno Garza for the sparc binary
> and Simon
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 02:12:48AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > BTW, how much of the human intervention needed for buildd signing
> > plays in the delays you see, and did you discuss the possibiliity of
> > a fully autobuilder setup, like ubuntu
* Sven Luther ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050314 11:20]:
> On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 10:39:24AM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
> > On Sun, Mar 13, 2005 at 08:45:09PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > > - the port must demonstrate that they have at least 50 users
> > How do you demonstrate that? Via popularity
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 11:09:27AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 10:40:55AM +0100, A Mennucc wrote:
> > you may find source, i386 and powerpc and sparc binaries
> > of mplayer 1.0pre6a-4 in your friendly repository
> >
> > http://tonelli.sns.it/pub/mplayer/sarge
> >
> > w
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 10:16:20AM +, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
> * Aurélien Jarno <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-03-14 10:56]:
> > Would it be possible to have a list of such proposed architectures?
>
> amd64, s390z, powerpc64, netbsd-i386 and other variants, sh3/sh4, m32r
ppc64 is not currently a
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Where human delay did come into play was in getting the xfree86 mess
> > cleaned; in theory it should have taken one or two days, but in
> > practice it took much longer.
>
> Why not fully eliminate the human factor ? Ubuntu does automated build from
>
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 11:05:16AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> And how do you reconcile the fact that most of those told us recently on
> debian-vote that they believed that dropping an architecture will not help
> with the delay of the release ? And giving the times of the posts, they
> probably k
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 11:26:07AM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
> * Sven Luther ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050314 11:20]:
> > On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 10:39:24AM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
> > > On Sun, Mar 13, 2005 at 08:45:09PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > > > - the port must demonstrate that they h
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 11:26:27AM +0100, A Mennucc wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 11:09:27AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 10:40:55AM +0100, A Mennucc wrote:
> > > you may find source, i386 and powerpc and sparc binaries
> > > of mplayer 1.0pre6a-4 in your friendly rep
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 11:28:08AM +0100, Andreas Schuldei wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 11:05:16AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > And how do you reconcile the fact that most of those told us recently on
> > debian-vote that they believed that dropping an architecture will not help
> > with the d
* Sven Luther ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050314 11:35]:
> Well, but wouldn't reenabling the popularity-contest by default for sarge help
> a lot on that ?
There was a technical reason why it was removed - more or less, if you
want this changed, you need to submit a patch (but it might be too late
now,
On Sun, Mar 13, 2005 at 08:45:09PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> Therefore, we're planning on not releasing most of the minor architectures
> starting with etch. They will be released with sarge, with all that
> implies (including security support until sarge is archived), but they
> would no lon
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 11:38:57AM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
> * Sven Luther ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050314 11:35]:
> > Well, but wouldn't reenabling the popularity-contest by default for sarge
> > help
> > a lot on that ?
>
> There was a technical reason why it was removed - more or less, if you
Scripsit Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> For these reasons, I think the snapshotting approach is a better option,
> because it puts the package selection choices directly in the hands of
> the porters rather than trying to munge the existing testing scripts
> into something that will make rea
Op ma, 14-03-2005 te 00:10 -0800, schreef Steve Langasek:
> Well, my objection is basically the same as Thomas's here -- all package
> builds are *not* equally urgent,
Of course not, that is exactly my point.
But from the POV of a package's maintainer, all fixes are more or less
urgent. If some
Sven Luther wrote:
> Yes, it asked one question during the install, wasn't it ? One potentially
> confusing question to the poor user.
That's almost as innacurate as your earlier statement that
popularity-contest was dropped from d-i for rc3 (it was dropped before
rc1). Please refer to [EMAIL PROT
Scripsit Tollef Fog Heen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> * Henning Makholm
> | When I provide a configure script in the source package it means, on
> | the contrary, that I *have* tried it and therefore has some kind of
> | evidence that it will probably work for other people too.
> You have probably only
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 10:50:41AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > IMHO scc.d.o will result in focussing on those archs, making it worse and
> > worse for the other archs. Implementing scc.d.o is equally to dropping those
> > older archs in my eyes. It's just another wording.
> Notice, that there i
On Mon, 14 Mar 2005, Ingo Juergensmann wrote:
Sorry for using "stupid", "braindead" and others. But there are no other
words for crap like this, imho.
Hmm, while I'm in principle share your point of keeping the architectures
it does not sound very sane to be that harsh. If a group of volunteers
fa
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 10:49:20AM +0100, Thijs Kinkhorst wrote:
> On Mon, March 14, 2005 10:10, Ingo Juergensmann said:
> > It would be better when the project would be honest and state that it want
> > to become a x86-compatible only distribution (with the small tribute to
> > powerpc users) than
Robert Lemmen a écrit :
i feel very,very bad about this, but perhaps it's what is needed. i have two
*big* concerns though:
- maintainers will start to downgrade or ignore bugs that are
arch-specififc if that arch is not in "the" archive. we should have at
least the requirement that a package m
Op zo, 13-03-2005 te 23:36 -0800, schreef Steve Langasek:
> Personally, I'd love to see our porter teams rise to the occasion and
> prove that we can release etch in 18 months with 8 architectures meeting
> these criteria instead of 4; but the first step is to shift the burden
> onto the porters, w
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 10:56:51AM +0100, Aurélien Jarno wrote:
> That let me raise a problem I see with such an infrastructure. Imagine
> an FTBFS on an SCC architecture (let's say arch X needs an autotools
> update). If it is not possible to have a high severity for this bug
> (because it is
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 11:26:07AM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
> * Sven Luther ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050314 11:20]:
> > On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 10:39:24AM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
> > > On Sun, Mar 13, 2005 at 08:45:09PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > > > - the port must demonstrate that they h
On Monday 14 March 2005 11:28, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> In this case, it was a bug that required human intervention, a package
> upload that accidentally would hose a chroot, which required the
> chroot to be repaired for each affected buildd.
Even that can be mitigated by debootstrapping the
On Monday 14 March 2005 11:10, Rene Engelhard wrote:
> pcc is barely at 98%. I don't think that barrier should be that high. We
> *should* at last release with the tree most important archs: i386, amd64,
> powerpc.
Please, 98% is not high. It is just a call to porters to get their act
together.
On Sun, Mar 13, 2005 at 08:45:09PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
>
>Once this happens,
>the testing-security configuration should itself be completed for all
>architectures in quick succession, with the result that testing-security
>and testing-proposed-updates will be fully operational in the space
Op ma, 14-03-2005 te 12:38 +0100, schreef David Schmitt:
> On Monday 14 March 2005 11:28, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> > In this case, it was a bug that required human intervention, a package
> > upload that accidentally would hose a chroot, which required the
> > chroot to be repaired for each aff
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 11:00:52AM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
> * Hamish Moffatt ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050314 01:55]:
> > Given how low hamradio (and the like) are prioritised, I suggest that we
> > get smarter about 'tesing' and omit some sections on some architectures.
>
> We won't omit some sec
On Monday 14 March 2005 12:21, Ingo Juergensmann wrote:
[...]
> but in fact this is already a decission being
> made by just a handful of people without asking those who will be affected
> by that decision.
I always thought those who do the work, also get to make the decisions.
Regards, David
-
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 12:41:18PM +0100, David Schmitt wrote:
> On Monday 14 March 2005 11:10, Rene Engelhard wrote:
> > pcc is barely at 98%. I don't think that barrier should be that high. We
> > *should* at last release with the tree most important archs: i386, amd64,
> > powerpc.
>
> Please,
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 11:21:53AM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
> * Tollef Fog Heen ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050314 10:55]:
> > Multiarch.
>
> I have yet to see a proposal how to do multiarch in the right way.
Is there even a demonstrated need?
Hamish
--
Hamish Moffatt VK3SB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[E
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 12:47:20PM +0100, David Schmitt wrote:
> On Monday 14 March 2005 12:21, Ingo Juergensmann wrote:
> [...]
> > but in fact this is already a decission being
> > made by just a handful of people without asking those who will be affected
> > by that decision.
>
> I always thoug
Sven Luther, 2005-03-14 10:50:13 +0100 :
> I don't see how having the in-devel arches be hosted on alioth
> instead on the official debian ftp server would cause a problem.
The amd64 archive on Alioth has been (and still is) the major cause of
many many problems. In a few words: it eats space, w
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 02:15:54AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Matthias Urlichs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> That being said, sources which just sprout new binary packages
>> really should be passed through NEW automagically.
> I made a foolish mistake not too long ago that would never
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 10:10:32AM +0100, Ingo Juergensmann wrote:
> All the work and support over all those years by all those users and porters
> will be vanished with that stupid idea, imho.
Ingo, obviously you are pissed off. But really, is there much benefit in
making *releases* for the SCC
On Monday 14 March 2005 11:00, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 01:14:47AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > There are a few problems with trying to run testing for architectures
> > that aren't being kept in sync. First, if they're not being kept in
> > sync, it increases the number of
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi,
> We project that applying these rules for etch will reduce the set of
> candidate architectures from 11 to approximately 4 (i386, powerpc, ia64
> and amd64 -- which will be added after sarge's release wh
Jose Manuel dos Santos Calhariz schrieb:
> I have 6 labs in the University with about 60 computers, dual
> booting Windows XP and linux. This computers will be used by the
> students to do work for the classes and as desktop for general work
> and leisure.
I have no great experience with Windows
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 12:25:13PM +0100, Andreas Tille wrote:
> >Sorry for using "stupid", "braindead" and others. But there are no other
> >words for crap like this, imho.
> Hmm, while I'm in principle share your point of keeping the architectures
> it does not sound very sane to be that harsh.
* Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-03-14 23:00]:
> But really, is there much benefit in making *releases* for the SCC
> architectures?
For some SSC arches, it *might* not make a difference (possibly m68k)
but others (e.g. s390 and mipsel) are typically used for servers
or gateways, and you
David Schmitt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb:
> On Monday 14 March 2005 12:21, Ingo Juergensmann wrote:
> [...]
>> but in fact this is already a decission being
>> made by just a handful of people without asking those who will be affected
>> by that decision.
>
> I always thought those who do the wor
* Andreas Barth
(Please don't send me Ccs; I read the lists I post to, else I would
have set mail-followup-to. And please don't set your mail-followup-to
to include me.)
| * Tollef Fog Heen ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050314 10:55]:
| > * Steve Langasek
| >
| > | If you are planning any other transi
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 12:47:20PM +0100, David Schmitt wrote:
> On Monday 14 March 2005 12:21, Ingo Juergensmann wrote:
> [...]
> > but in fact this is already a decission being
> > made by just a handful of people without asking those who will be affected
> > by that decision.
> I always thought
Andreas Schuldei <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> To my best knowledge Branden did not know about the proposal at
> the time of the LWN interview. So from him it was no demagogy but
> his own honest, private oppinion. I and AJ knew about it since we
> were involved in the meeting. We both sidestepped
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 11:00:22PM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 10:10:32AM +0100, Ingo Juergensmann wrote:
> > All the work and support over all those years by all those users and porters
> > will be vanished with that stupid idea, imho.
> Ingo, obviously you are pissed o
* Tollef Fog Heen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-03-14 13:10]:
> | I have yet to see a proposal how to do multiarch in the right way.
> What is lacking in the proposals out there?
The following is what I (as DPL) sent to the release people in January
to get them to discuss these issues. I didn't post
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 12:47:58PM +0100, Julien BLACHE wrote:
> Basically, you're just leaving a number of Debian users out in the
> cold. Users who choose Debian because we were the only distribution
> out of there to provide serious support for the architectures they
> care for, for various rea
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 12:06:18PM +, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
> * Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-03-14 23:00]:
> > But really, is there much benefit in making *releases* for the SCC
> > architectures?
>
> For some SSC arches, it *might* not make a difference (possibly m68k)
> but oth
>* Steve Langasek
>
>| If you are planning any other transitions that will affect a lot of
>| packages, please let us know in advance. We will need to complete the
>| larger transitions as fast as possible, to get testing back into a
>| nearly releasable state quickly again after the release.
>
On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 12:06:18 GMT, Martin Michlmayr writes:
>* Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-03-14 23:00]:
>> But really, is there much benefit in making *releases* for the SCC
>> architectures?
>
>For some SSC arches, it *might* not make a difference (possibly m68k)
>but others (e.g. s39
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 01:17:03PM +0100, Ingo Juergensmann wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 11:00:22PM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> > But really, is there much benefit in
> > making *releases* for the SCC architectures?
>
> What will happen is something like this:
>
> A: "Oh, let's see what
On Monday 14 March 2005 11:05, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > > Andreas Schuldei (DPL candidate)
> > > > Angus Lees (DPL candidate)
> > > > Branden Robinson (DPL candidate)
> > > > Jonathan Walther (DPL candidate)
[...]
> And how do you reconcile the fact that most of those told us recently on
Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 10:10:32AM +0100, Ingo Juergensmann wrote:
> > All the work and support over all those years by all those users and porters
> > will be vanished with that stupid idea, imho.
>
> Ingo, obviously you are pissed off. But really, is there much benefit i
* Hamish Moffatt
| Is there even a demonstrated need?
It solves the sparc64/powerpc64 issue in the right way as well as
giving us a nice set of other benefits such as the ability to do ABI
migrations similar to what for instance MIPS wants to do (migrate from
o32 to n32 + n64).
A complete migra
1 - 100 of 523 matches
Mail list logo
