On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 20:45:09 -0800, 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 option for these other architectures, and the
> ftpmasters also
Martin Michlmayr wrote:
[snip]
> - a _clear_ plan about this migration (and have this plan before
> sarge is out), including a clear timeplan (announcement on day X,
> maintainers have Y months to upload, if they don't do it in Y
> months, we'll have a time of Z people who'll NMU the
On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 23:30:20 +1100, Hamish Moffatt writes:
>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 a
Op ma, 14-03-2005 te 23:30 +1100, schreef Hamish Moffatt:
> 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
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 11:00:22PM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> Ingo, obviously you are pissed off. But really, is there much benefit in
> making *releases* for the SCC architectures?
yes, there is. because people want it. just like they want stable
releases for i386. the only difference is tha
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 09:30:54AM +0100, Matthias Urlichs 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
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 01:33:16PM +0100, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
> 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.
A short comment from a user perspective: I find this proposal
very encouraging. It goes a long way towards restoring my
confidence that sarge will in fact happen, and that future Debian
releases will be made in a timely manner.
Jon KÃre Hellan, Trondheim, Norway
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMA
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 10:42:50PM +1000, Alexander Zangerl wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 23:30:20 +1100, Hamish Moffatt writes:
> >OK, that makes sense. Can you buy those architectures new? (Surely yes
> >in the case of s390 at least, probably mipsel also as the mips CPU
> >manufacturers are alive
On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 23:49:44 +1100, Hamish Moffatt writes:
>On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 01:33:16PM +0100, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
>> For anyone who uses Debian as base of a commercial solution it is a
>> requirement. Grabing some random unstable snapshot is a non-starter.
>
>Sure. Who's doing that on anyt
Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> 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 di
David Schmitt wrote:
> I cannot remember[0] a question to the candidates regarding
> architecture-dropping. The only question pertaining the release[1], was only
> answered by Matthew Garret, saying that "it would be helpful if (in future)
> the release team would communicate their list of rele
Thiemo Seufer wrote:
> Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> > 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 S
Hi,
sean finney:
> On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 09:30:54AM +0100, Matthias Urlichs 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
> > s
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Andreas Schuldei (DPL candidate)
> Angus Lees (DPL candidate)
> Branden Robinson (DPL candidate)
> Jonathan Walther (DPL candidate)
Little advance public warning was given about this meeting, and the
scope of the discussions that would take plac
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 01:02:34PM +0100, David Schmitt wrote:
> 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. F
Hi Sean!
sean finney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 09:30:54AM +0100, Matthias Urlichs 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 sourc
On Mon, 2005-03-14 at 12:47 +0100, Julien BLACHE wrote:
> Given the list of DPL candidates supporting this new "thing" (don't
> know how to call that, really), I think I'm just going to vote for
> "None of the above". I knew I should have run, but obviously, I do not
> have the time required to be
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 02:09:54PM +0100, Kevin B. McCarty wrote:
> David Schmitt wrote:
>
> > I cannot remember[0] a question to the candidates regarding
> > architecture-dropping. The only question pertaining the release[1], was
> > only
> > answered by Matthew Garret, saying that "it would b
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 06:23:50AM -0500, Joey Hess wrote:
> 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 fr
On Mon, 14 Mar 2005, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
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 don't really want to run unstable in such
environments. testing+security updates might be a compr
* Steve Langasek:
> 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 when mirror space
> is freed up by moving the other architectures to scc.debia
On Mon, 14 Mar 2005, Andres Salomon wrote:
Releasing a snapshot of unstable definitely seems like a step backwards.
Of course, I understand the reason for suggesting it (and not wanting to
support a testing distribution for SCC). Instead, I would suggest to
porters that they base releases off Debi
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 12:18:33PM +, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
> * 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 re
Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 01:33:16PM +0100, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
> > 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 van
Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb:
> On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 01:33:16PM +0100, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
>> 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
* Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-03-14 02:14]:
> I know how to take care of the package. But Anthony Fok is currently
> the maintainer, so he needs to either orphan it or offer it for
> adoption. I can't speak about the question of making that happen; I'm
> just saying that if it s
Hamish Moffatt a écrit :
I see it as more a practical consideration. If you can't buy the
hardware new then you will have trouble keeping up with a growing unstable,
especially given the requirement that you need <= 2 buildds.
So the requirement that you need <= 2 buildds is not well choosen. Why
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 12:36:45PM +0100, Roland Mas wrote:
> 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)
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 12:32:05PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> Note that I *have* offered to help out maintaining buildd hosts for
> architectures currently maintained by other people who are also in other
> roles in the project, and that this help was turned down; and given the
> fact that I'v
Rob Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I feel the need point out that the current DPL and one DPL candidate,
> Matthew Garrett, havn't expressed support for this proposal in its
> current form.
I should say that I don't necessarily disagree with the current
proposals, just the process by which t
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 11:11:55AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 02:12:48AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> > 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
Hamish Moffatt wrote:
>On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 01:33:16PM +0100, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
>>
>> For anyone who uses Debian as base of a commercial solution it is a
>> requirement. Grabing some random unstable snapshot is a non-starter.
>
>Sure. Who's doing that on anything but i386/amd64/powerpc?
Lot
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 11:10:36AM +0100, 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.
powerpc is clearly a release architecture; the question is whether it
Sven Luther a écrit :
- Not having slower arches hold up testing.
Slower arches don't hold up testing. Arches with buildd not well managed do.
If you look at the current needs-build graph [1], m68k the slowest arch
we support is going pretty well. On the other hand s390 (which is not a
slow ar
On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 23:36:47 -0800, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>Well, sparc is not in any danger of being dropped from SCC. :) As I
>said, none of the current sarge candidate architectures are.
Considered that ftbfs bugs for scc architectures are not going to be
RC any more, people
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> No, you didn't understand. let's tell the plan again :
>
[...]
> This would have the benefit of :
>
> - Not having slower arches hold up testing.
> - not overloading the testing scripts.
> - allow the tier 2 arches to have the benefit of testing, th
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 01:06:05PM +0100, Ingo Juergensmann wrote:
> 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
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 pisse
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 02:38:01PM +0100, Aurélien Jarno wrote:
> Sven Luther a écrit :
> > - Not having slower arches hold up testing.
> Slower arches don't hold up testing. Arches with buildd not well managed do.
> If you look at the current needs-build graph [1], m68k the slowest arch
> we s
On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 14:32:42 +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
[...]
>
> I'm a bit disappointed how the decision has been made. I would have
*Is* it a decision, or is it a proposal? The wording is unclear.
> hoped that Debian as an organization would be able to reach a workable,
> rough consensus
Hi,
Jeroen van Wolffelaar:
Steve was probably referring to the burden of fixing and debugging
packages that fail to work/build on a specific architecture, and not to
the buildd stuff. It is currently the package maintainer of a package
that doesn't work on a specific architecture that's faced with
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 02:44:52PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > There were offers of help in man power and machines for archs that had
> > problems in keeping up. Those were rejected. Punishing those archs for the
> > mistakes of those buildd admins rejecting helping hands is just plain
> > stupi
* Martin Michlmayr
| Basically, there has been a lot of discussions about multi-arch and
| some people seem to think that after sarge we'll _obviously_ move to
| multi-arch. Well, this is not so obvious to me. In particular, I see
| no consensus among ftpmaster/archive people, release people, t
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 02:38:01PM +0100, Aurélien Jarno wrote:
> Sven Luther a écrit :
> > - Not having slower arches hold up testing.
> Slower arches don't hold up testing. Arches with buildd not well managed do.
Ok, drop this argument, but what do you think of the rest of the proposal ?
> I
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 02:57:54PM +0100, Frank Küster wrote:
> Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > They don't scale well, and have passed the past couple of year insisting
> > that
> > there is no problem apart from the waste majority of DDs likeing to complain
> > and flame overmuch.
>
>
Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Op za, 12-03-2005 te 15:01 -0800, schreef Thomas Bushnell BSG:
>> Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > Remember that the buildd queue is not FIFO at all. The queue has a
>> > completly static order. Any changes to the queue are jus
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 02:53:53PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> And arm as a badly buildd-maintained one ? :)
Yes, when it's rejecting machine offers or other help.
--
Ciao... //
Ingo \X/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscrib
* Hamish Moffatt
| OK, that makes sense. Can you buy those architectures new? (Surely yes
| in the case of s390 at least, probably mipsel also as the mips CPU
| manufacturers are alive and well.)
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~# uname -a
Linux eetha 2.4.29 #1 Fri Mar 4 02:35:42 EST 2005 mips unknown
This w
On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 08:54:09 -0500, Andres Salomon
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 14:32:42 +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
>> I'm a bit disappointed how the decision has been made. I would have
>
>*Is* it a decision, or is it a proposal? The wording is unclear.
I don't think it is
* Thiemo Seufer
| For anyone who uses Debian as base of a commercial solution it is a
| requirement. Grabing some random unstable snapshot is a non-starter.
You do realise this is exactly what Ubuntu is doing? (Grab «random»
snapshot; stabilise)
--
Tollef Fog Heen
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 11:58:06AM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> 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
On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 15:15:16 +0100, Marc Haber wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 08:54:09 -0500, Andres Salomon
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 14:32:42 +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
>>> I'm a bit disappointed how the decision has been made. I would have
>>
>>*Is* it a decision, or i
This one time, at band camp, Ingo Juergensmann said:
> On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 12:47:58PM +0100, Julien BLACHE wrote:
>
> > Moreover, the criterias given in your mail are just so oriented
> > towards/against some architectures, that it's a bad joke (I was going
> > to write "disgusting", really).
Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> * 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.
>>
>
Re: Andres Salomon in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> without being constricted by others' deadlines and such. Unfortunately,
> the naming (second class citizen?), and the feeling that their
> architectures are no longer "officially supported", means that people will
> view this as a negative thing.
I'd pr
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 09:19:27AM -0500, Andres Salomon wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 15:15:16 +0100, Marc Haber wrote:
> > Additionally, they are being excluded from having access to important
> > resources, and the possibility of filing RC bugs which is the only way
> > to get lazy maintainers mo
On Mon, March 14, 2005 15:09, Goswin von Brederlow said:
>>> People
>>> should stop repeating the fiction then that "just wait" means "your
>>> package will eventually get built".
> It usualy is. It might not be. And it can be an awfully long wait.
> The last one is the problem. The first two not.
On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 15:15:34 +0100, Tollef Fog Heen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>* Thiemo Seufer
>| For anyone who uses Debian as base of a commercial solution it is a
>| requirement. Grabing some random unstable snapshot is a non-starter.
>
>You do realise this is exactly what Ubuntu is doing? (G
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 03:31:30PM +0100, Christoph Berg wrote:
> Re: Andres Salomon in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > without being constricted by others' deadlines and such. Unfortunately,
> > the naming (second class citizen?), and the feeling that their
> > architectures are no longer "officially sup
Andreas Schuldei <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 11:58:06AM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> Uhm. You knew that conclusions from that meeting would be likely to
>> contradict the answers from other DPL candidates, but you did nothing to
>> make them aware of this before they ha
Sven Luther a écrit :
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 02:38:01PM +0100, Aurélien Jarno wrote:
Sven Luther a écrit :
- Not having slower arches hold up testing.
Slower arches don't hold up testing. Arches with buildd not well managed do.
Ok, drop this argument, but what do you think of the rest of the pro
* David Härdeman wrote:
[...]
> o gpg-agent support in the same manner as ssh-agent would be neat. I
> understand that this requires gnupg 2.0 though.
Should be no problem with quintuple-agent.
Norbert
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? C
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 03:31:30PM +0100, Christoph Berg wrote:
> I'd propose to use a less "discriminating" name for the scc archive.
> What about ports.debian.org (which coincidentally already exists and
> http-wise points to http://www.debian.org/ports/)?
You are probably risking confusion with
Marc Haber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb:
> On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 08:54:09 -0500, Andres Salomon
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 14:32:42 +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
>>> I'm a bit disappointed how the decision has been made. I would have
>>
>>*Is* it a decision, or is it a proposa
Hi, Stephen Gran wrote:
> No, I thought the proposal stated quite clearly, if there are users and
> there are porters, a given arch is able to be included.
... but only if new systems are still sold, and if individual machines are
fast enough to keep up with half the buildd work, and ... read the
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
Hi, David Schmitt wrote:
> Please, 98% is not high. It is just a call to porters to get their act
> together.
I wonder where i386 would be if we'd disallow binary uploads.
In fact I strongly suggest switching to source-only after Sarge is
released.
--
Matthias Urlichs | {M:U} IT Design @
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
[debian-release dropped]
Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> But do you notice when the same packages keep showing up at the end of
> the queue for weeks? The queue can be as small as 1 package inbetween
> and that 1 package could still never get build.
Just out of curiosity, what
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 01:14:47AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > Why only unstable? In other words: will it be possible for scc arches to
> > have a testing distribution? Obviously, this testing/arch will not
> > influence the release candidate arch testing, but will allow real releases
> >
* Goswin von Brederlow ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050314 15:35]:
> Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > * 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,
On Monday 14 March 2005 10:56, Aurélien Jarno wrote:
> I think that supporting a lot of architectures is an important
> difference between Debian and other distributions. Changing that could
> have a dramatically influence of what users think of Debian. IMHO, such
> an important decision should not
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
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 11:31:56PM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> > A: "Oh, no release of Debian for Alpha... it's unsupported..."
> > B: "Sad... it's a nice machine, but without a working Linux on it, we're
> > gonna
> > throw it away"
>
> It's unsupported officially, but unstable is still a
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 03:24:06PM +0100, Aurélien Jarno wrote:
> What about partial mirroring to address space problems? What about a
> team for wanna-build so that help and machines are not refused anymore?
> What about a team for buildd so that there is always an admin available
> at a given
On Monday 14 March 2005 12:05, Robert Lemmen wrote:
> - there must be a way for a scc arch to get a stable release. why don't
> we either keep testing for scc archs but not do releases, so the
> porters can do their own stable releases of their arch or have
> per-arch testing? (the latter mig
Hi, Sven Luther wrote:
> What about building the scc (or tier 2 as i would say) arches from testing and
> not unstable ?
That would negate one of the main points of having Testing, i.e. something
that's supposed to be in an installable state at all times, for that
architecture.
You could treat T
Steve Langasek, 2005-03-13 20:45:09 -0800 :
[...]
> 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
This one time, at band camp, Matthias Urlichs said:
> Hi, Stephen Gran wrote:
>
> > No, I thought the proposal stated quite clearly, if there are users
> > and there are porters, a given arch is able to be included.
>
> ... but only if new systems are still sold, and if individual machines
> are
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 reas
On Sun, Mar 13, 2005 at 08:45:09PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> - the Debian System Administrators (DSA) must be willing to support
> debian.org machine(s) of that architecture
>
> - the Release Team can veto the architecture's inclusion if they have
> overwhelming concerns regarding the arch
Aurélien Jarno <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb:
> Sven Luther a écrit :
>> On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 02:38:01PM +0100, Aurélien Jarno wrote:
>>
>>>Sven Luther a écrit :
>>>
- Not having slower arches hold up testing.
>>>
>>>Slower arches don't hold up testing. Arches with buildd not well managed do
#include
* Colin Watson [Mon, Mar 14 2005, 02:40:56PM]:
> On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 03:31:30PM +0100, Christoph Berg wrote:
> > Re: Andres Salomon in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > without being constricted by others' deadlines and such. Unfortunately,
> > > the naming (second class citizen?), and the f
Hi, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> especially given the requirement that you need <= 2 buildds.
I consider that requirement to be not warranted, and indeed unjustified.
If I had to think of a rationale for it, the only one I could think of
would be "the architecture needs to be fast enough not to block
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 10:21:39AM -0500, Stephen Gran wrote:
> So far as I can tell, the governing rule in Debian thus far has always
> been that the people doing the work get to make the decisions about
> their corner of the project. I don't see that that's going to change
> any time soon, and I
On Sun, 13 Mar 2005, 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:
>
> [...]
>
> - the architecture must have successfully compiled 50% of the archive's
>
On Monday 14 March 2005 15:31, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > * 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,
Daniel Schepler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> martin f krafft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> also sprach Petter Reinholdtsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005.03.05.1225 +0100]:
>>> > I am trying to use distcc to compile Debian packages and kernels,
>>> > and am failing. The reason is that I need to use
Hi, David Nusinow wrote:
> What about the *massive* issues with releasing d-i due to syncing on all
> arch's?
Yeah, and *after* these were solved, it was "oops, we still can't release
because of $different_problem".
Such things are somewhat more parallelizeable than has happened during
this rele
Re: Eduard Bloch in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > I like this idea. SCC was a working codename that I think was originally
> > intended to be changed as soon as somebody thought of something better,
> > but nobody ever quite got round to it ...
>
> Does it sound discriminating because you associcate tha
On Mon, 2005-03-14 at 15:38 +0100, Marc Haber wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 15:15:34 +0100, Tollef Fog Heen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >* Thiemo Seufer
> >| For anyone who uses Debian as base of a commercial solution it is a
> >| requirement. Grabing some random unstable snapshot is a non-star
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 09:23:54AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> 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 s
On Monday 14 March 2005 14:29, Sven Luther wrote:
> Obviously the aim is to have the tier 2
> arches dropped from the main ftp-servers of debian (do we still run some of
> those on sun-donated sparc machines though ?), and going into alternate
> solutions like the amd64 move on alioth or whatever,
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 01:49:24PM +, Colin Watson wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 11:11:55AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 02:12:48AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> > > Where human delay did come into play was in getting the xfree86 mess
> > > cleaned; in theory i
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 03:58:32PM +0100, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
> Hi, David Schmitt wrote:
>
> > Please, 98% is not high. It is just a call to porters to get their act
> > together.
>
> I wonder where i386 would be if we'd disallow binary uploads.
>
> In fact I strongly suggest switching to s
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 01:51:28PM +, Colin Watson wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 11:10:36AM +0100, 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.
>
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 04:44:27PM +0100, David Schmitt wrote:
> On Monday 14 March 2005 14:29, Sven Luther wrote:
> > Obviously the aim is to have the tier 2
> > arches dropped from the main ftp-servers of debian (do we still run some of
> > those on sun-donated sparc machines though ?), and goin
On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 15:41:16 +, Scott James Remnant
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Mon, 2005-03-14 at 15:38 +0100, Marc Haber wrote:
>> It does a significant number of other things, one of them being paying
>> a number of Debian developers to work on Ubuntu and obviously keeping
>> them _that_
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 04:37:36PM +0100, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
> Hi, David Nusinow wrote:
>
> > What about the *massive* issues with releasing d-i due to syncing on all
> > arch's?
>
> Yeah, and *after* these were solved, it was "oops, we still can't release
> because of $different_problem".
>
101 - 200 of 523 matches
Mail list logo
