Scripsit Stephen Gran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> No, I thought the proposal stated quite clearly, if there are users and
> there are porters, a given arch is able to be included.
"Included" perhaps, but still banned from making stable releases
within Debian.
> All that means is that those interested
Hi, Stephen Gran wrote:
> I took those two in
> particular to be guidelines, rather than strict quantifiers.
That's not how I was reading that list.
> The
> problems they appear to be trying to address with these points are
> hardware availability and buildd admin time.
If no more working hard
This one time, at band camp, John Goerzen said:
> 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'
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 03:24:06PM +0100, Aurélien Jarno wrote:
> 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 b
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 10:44:50AM -0500, David Nusinow wrote:
> > Why? Because having an environment that works exactly the same across
> > multiple architectures is a Good Thing. If I will no longer be able to
> > achieve that, then Debian on x86 becomes seriously less useful, because
> > now I
On Mon, 2005-03-14 at 11:13 +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 10:16:20AM +, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
> > * AurÃlien Jarno <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-03-14 10:56]:
> > > Would it be possible to have a list of such proposed architectures?
> >
> > amd64, s390z, powerpc64, netbsd-
Hi, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> 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
>> >
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 10:16:19AM -0500, David Nusinow wrote:
> 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 te
On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 10:21:39 -0500, Stephen Gran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
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 s
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 04:26:50PM +0100, Frank Küster wrote:
> That is a problem. However it seemed that the amd64 people could solve
> it nevertheless. And I think there can also be technical and/or social
> mechanisms to deal with that:
Funny that you would compare amd64 to m68k or s390 or ..
On Monday 14 March 2005 14:24, Aurélien Jarno wrote:
> 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.
>
> S
Scripsit David Schmitt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 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 a
>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 prov
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 10:52:29AM -0500, Stephen Gran wrote:
> Let me try to be clear. I am not necessarily in favor of dropping
> arches. I am opposed to having portability issues make new releases
> drag on forever, and slowing security releases. We have been told
I am too.
I have no object
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 04:17:45PM +0100, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
> 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
On Mon, 2005-03-14 at 16:51 +0100, Marc Haber wrote:
> 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 de
On Monday 14 March 2005 16:27, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
> 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 security
> updates".
This is not the only one. Taking days to build some packages also leads to
shlibs-
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 09:54:49AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> It is not unstable that I am (most) worried about.
>
> It is the lack of any possibility of a stable release that concerns me.
> Even if the people for a given arch were to build a stable etch, it
> would have no home in Debian, would
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 04:10:33PM +0100, David Schmitt wrote:
> 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 wh
David Schmitt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb:
> 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 Debi
On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 10:52:29 -0500, Stephen Gran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>The only real showstopper for some of the slower arches is that they
>take too long to compile some of the bigger packages, and that slows
>down getting security upgrades out the door. I was under the impression
>that thi
* Scott James Remnant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-03-14 15:56]:
> > ppc64 is not currently a candidate for a separate arch,
> >
> If that's the case, could you close #263743.
The problem is that afaik there's currently disagreement about how it
should be done. The IBM folks wanted to think about i
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 03:56:34PM +, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> On Mon, 2005-03-14 at 11:13 +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
>
> > 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
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 05:03:30PM +0100, David Schmitt wrote:
> Thus the problem is less in the development and more in the support of
> testing
> requirements (all arches in sync) and stable support (security response
> time). Therefore the N<=2 requirement is only needed for tier-1 arches but
Stephen Gran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 don't particularly t
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 03:47:52PM +, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Scripsit David Schmitt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > 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 d
On Monday 14 March 2005 14:50, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> Lots of people on arm, for a start. Debian is (to my knowledge) the
> only common distro that supports arm, so there are _lots_ of people
> out there running embedded machines using bits from Debian. Look at
> the emdebian project. Of course, m
This one time, at band camp, Marc Haber said:
> On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 10:52:29 -0500, Stephen Gran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >The only real showstopper for some of the slower arches is that they
> >take too long to compile some of the bigger packages, and that slows
> >down getting security upgrad
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 09:27:25AM -0500, Stephen Gran wrote:
> 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
(Please don't cc me. I'm on-list. Thanks.)
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 04:06:39PM +, Alastair McKinstry wrote:
> The question is: how do you release a SCC arch, if at all?
>
> Its unlikely that producing an s390 (for example) release for etch is simply
> a matter of building the released etch on
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 11:22:33AM -0500, Stephen Gran wrote:
> This one time, at band camp, Marc Haber said:
> > On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 10:52:29 -0500, Stephen Gran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >The only real showstopper for some of the slower arches is that they
> > >take too long to compile some
Hi, David Schmitt wrote:
>> Not when the alternate choice is to not have Debian support $ARCH at all.
>
> Please cite where this was proposed. I read the original Nybbles mail (and a
> part of the current thread) but couldn't find the "at all" bit.
I consider an official stable release with at
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 11:12:29AM -0500, David Nusinow wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 09:54:49AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> > It is not unstable that I am (most) worried about.
> >
> > It is the lack of any possibility of a stable release that concerns me.
> > Even if the people for a given a
This one time, at band camp, Sven Luther said:
> On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 09:27:25AM -0500, Stephen Gran wrote:
> > 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
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 01:41:04PM +0100, Jon Kåre Hellan wrote:
> 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
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 05:13:59PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> So you mean that all the tier-2 arches should go and take over alioth as
> distribution media ? You read the answer of wiggy about this almost bringing
> alioth to his knees ?
Aren't scc.debian.org (or perhaps various different hosts
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 05:03:30PM +0100, David Schmitt wrote:
> On Monday 14 March 2005 14:24, Aurélien Jarno wrote:
> > 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
> > > uns
Op ma, 14-03-2005 te 16:51 +0100, schreef Marc Haber:
> 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 de
David Schmitt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb:
> On Monday 14 March 2005 16:27, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
>
>> Not when the alternate choice is to not have Debian support $ARCH at all.
>
> Please cite where this was proposed. I read the original Nybbles mail (and a
> part of the current thread) but cou
Steve Langasek wrote:
[snip]
> This change has superseded the previous SCC (second-class citizen
> architecture) plan that had already been proposed to reduce the amount of
> data Debian mirrors are required to carry; prior to the release of sarge,
> the ftpmasters plan to bring scc.debian.org on-l
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 11:31:56PM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> 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?
> >
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb:
> On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 04:26:50PM +0100, Frank Küster wrote:
>> That is a problem. However it seemed that the amd64 people could solve
>> it nevertheless. And I think there can also be technical and/or social
>> mechanisms to deal with that:
>
> Funny
This one time, at band camp, Sven Luther said:
> On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 11:22:33AM -0500, Stephen Gran wrote:
> >
> > amd64 seems to have done quite well for themselves actually. They
> > have actually done exactly what this proposal has asked for - they
> > have done the heavy lifting themselve
John Goerzen wrote:
[snip]
> > - the release architecture must have N+1 buildds where N is the number
> > required to keep up with the volume of uploaded packages
> >
> > - the value of N above must not be > 2
>
> It seems to me that if an arch can keep up with builds, why impose this
> artific
Frank Küster a écrit :
I think Sven was talking about *his* proposal for an alternative
handling of SCC architectures, giving them a chance to be released.
Oops sorry. I am not really against, but we should before try to address
the real problems.
What about partial mirroring to address space pro
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 03:42:54PM +0100, Steinar H. Gunderson wrote:
> 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 poi
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:
>
> > 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
Matthias Urlichs wrote:
With a decent toolset, doing a security package for 10 architectures
should be a nearly-constant amount of work, no matter which base the
number 10 is written in.
Speaking of which, can anyone here explain to me why does a two-line
security fix on, say, KDE, makes things ne
David Nusinow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm pretty amazed that people are saying that without being an FCC that their
> arch will simply die. I don't understand why the porters, who've been so quick
> to point out that they'll host and maintain buildd's, aren't willing to simply
> track unstabl
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 04:10:30PM +0100, Eduard Bloch wrote:
> #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 s
[Wouter Verhelst]
>> For example, it suspiciously looks like the Security Team only has one
>> public active member, Martin Schulze, since at least October 2004.
>
> Uh. there's only been one person sending out the emails when a security
> announcement is due, but that isn't the same thing.
Who e
This one time, at band camp, Sven Luther said:
> On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 05:03:30PM +0100, David Schmitt wrote:
> >
> > Thus the problem is less in the development and more in the support
> > of testing requirements (all arches in sync) and stable support
> > (security response time). Therefore th
On Monday 14 March 2005 07:49 am, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> Sure. Who's doing that on anything but i386/amd64/powerpc?
Yes, I'm sure all those s390 users are running it on a machine in their
basements... ;-)
Daniel
--
/--- Daniel Burrows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --
Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 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 prioritized
> above
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 SCC requirements, as
>> > neither has a running autobuilder or is keeping up wi
Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 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
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 02:57:25PM +0100, Marc Haber wrote:
> Considered that ftbfs bugs for scc architectures are not going to be
> RC any more, people will stop fixing them, thus the scc architectures
Some may, but some would continue to be helpful. My experience doing
porting work was that pr
Em Dom, 2005-03-13 às 14:39, Stephen Gran escreveu:
> I can offer something as well - I would probably lean towards just
> auth+ssl instead of over VPN, but it's up to you. I just don't happen
> to have a VPN set up yet, so it's less ovrhead for me :)
That would be nice, auth+ssl sounds simpler t
[Sven, pPlease teach you and your mutt the use of reply-to-list]
On Monday 14 March 2005 14:06, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 01:02:34PM +0100, David Schmitt wrote:
[...]
> No, you didn't understand.
You are right.
> let's tell the plan again :
>
> 1) people upload to unstable
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I don't really understand that point though, since the plan is to drop mirror
> support for all minor arches, what does it cost to have a 3 level archive
> support :
>
> 1) tier 1 arches, fully mirrored and released.
One full set of sources, 10G.
>
On Monday 14 March 2005 14:06, Sven Luther wrote:
> > My answer is that I don't care enough for tow out of 15 boxes for the
> > hassle, I will update them to sarge, be grateful for the gracetime given
> > and - iff nobody steps up to do the necessary porting and security work -
> > donate them to D
On Monday 14 March 2005 18:11, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Speaking of the mirror network is a red-herring. Mirrors are not
> > forced to distribute every arch; they can and should eliminate archs
> > they aren't interested in distributing.
>
>
Salve
Ho sheda video integrata una s3g unicrome mk400a che mi da
problemi sulla risoluzione con debian come posso fare?
Cuschera Carmelo
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hi Andreas,
>
> On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 07:37:51AM +0100, Andreas Tille wrote:
>> On Sun, 13 Mar 2005, Steve Langasek wrote:
>
>> IMHO all these facts with exception of those "social" facts I marked (?)
>> are fullfilled by Sparc.
>
> For reference, the
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 04:44:27PM +0100, David Schmitt wrote:
>
> In my reading of the proposal, not-tier-1 arches will receive appropriate
> space and resources off the main mirror network if they can demonstrate
> viability (working buildd, basic unix functionality, compiled 50%, 5
> develop
Tollef Fog Heen 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? (Grab «random»
> snapshot; stabilise)
The "stabil
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 04:51:30PM +0100, Marc Haber wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 15:41:16 +, Scott James Remnant
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Are you thinking of any particular developers here?
>
> For example, it suspiciously looks like the Security Team only has one
> public active mem
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 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 possibiliit
Hi Claire,
Sorry for the delay.
Is Debian still a member of the OASIS group?
Yes. Our membership expires in June.
I just looked at
their member list, and didn't see us listed.
We are listed as a "Contributor", rather than a sponsor, owing to the fact that
we pay a reduced rate:
http://www.oasis-
Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 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 r
On Monday 14 March 2005 18:37, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > This point is *not* about supported architectures, only about
> > architectures carried by the primary mirror network. We did consider
> > having a single set of requirements for both "relea
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 04:04:45PM +0100, Roland Mas wrote:
> - d-i, especially the kernel problems: okay, so there the
> arch-specific kernels have played a role.
Future (post sarge) kernels will have one kernel package only, which will
build all arches, and possibly even all .udebs, like the u
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 11:17:55AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> Like said, since ubuntu has mplayer, there is really no reason to stale it for
> debian now.
I cannot speak for anyone regarding the specific case of mplayer, but the
above is not a valid inference for any package. Ubuntu and Debian
Op ma, 14-03-2005 te 17:59 +0100, schreef Goswin von Brederlow:
> Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > 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
> >
On Monday 14 March 2005 17:39, Frank Küster wrote:
> David Schmitt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb:
> > On Monday 14 March 2005 16:27, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
> >> Not when the alternate choice is to not have Debian support $ARCH at
> >> all.
> >
> > Please cite where this was proposed. I read the orig
Rene Engelhard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hi,
>
> Am Montag, 14. März 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:
On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 11:27:11 -0500, David Nusinow
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 04:06:39PM +, Alastair McKinstry wrote:
>> will Security releases be available?
>
>Explicitly no, unless the porters themselves handle them.
Will early-release information be available to the
On Monday 14 March 2005 17:31, Aurélien Jarno wrote:
> Frank Küster a écrit :
> > - First of all, we should take the details as a starting point for
> > discussion, not as a decision that has made. Nevertheless, we must
> > take into account that there are reasons for it: The people doing the
On Monday 14 March 2005 17:46, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
> John Goerzen wrote:
> [snip]
>
> > > - the release architecture must have N+1 buildds where N is the
> > > number required to keep up with the volume of uploaded packages
> > >
> > > - the value of N above must not be > 2
> >
> > It seems to me
* David Schmitt
| On Monday 14 March 2005 18:11, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
|
| > Instead of dropping archs from debian mirrors should be allowed to do
| > partial mirrors. That would solve the space and bandwith problems for
| > mirrors without adverse effects to the project as such.
|
| And w
David Schmitt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Monday 14 March 2005 17:39, Frank Küster wrote:
>> No testing, no release, no security support. For me, that is so close
>> to "not support at all" that I hardly see the difference.
>
> No testing and release support by the current RMs and no security
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 01:51:02PM -0300, Humberto Massa wrote:
> Matthias Urlichs wrote:
>
> >With a decent toolset, doing a security package for 10 architectures
> >should be a nearly-constant amount of work, no matter which base the
> >number 10 is written in.
> >
> Speaking of which, can anyon
On Monday 14 March 2005 17:16, John Goerzen wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 05:03:30PM +0100, David Schmitt wrote:
> > Thus the problem is less in the development and more in the support of
> > testing requirements (all arches in sync) and stable support (security
> > response time). Therefore the
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 05:57:05PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Reasonable security support requires some degree of cooperation with the
> current security team. Without that, vulnerabilities notifications won't
> be available.
Why can't porters join the security team? Then everyone benefits.
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 09:53:38AM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 11:17:55AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
>
> > Like said, since ubuntu has mplayer, there is really no reason to stale it
> > for
> > debian now.
>
> I cannot speak for anyone regarding the specific case of mpl
Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 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 t
Hi,
Am Montag, 14. März 2005 18:58 schrieben Sie:
> Rene Engelhard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > 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.
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/archive/pur
On Monday 14 March 2005 12:45, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> 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 chr
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 07:03:52PM +0100, Marc Haber wrote:
> Will early-release information be available to the porters? Or do
> porters only start building their security updates once the official
> advisory has gone out?
Why can't porters join the security team?
> >Not necessarily. I imagine
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 06:20:23PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > I don't really understand that point though, since the plan is to drop
> > mirror
> > support for all minor arches, what does it cost to have a 3 level archive
> > support :
> >
Thiemo Seufer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 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 S
On Monday 14 March 2005 19:18, David Nusinow wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 05:57:05PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > Reasonable security support requires some degree of cooperation with the
> > current security team. Without that, vulnerabilities notifications won't
> > be available.
>
> Why
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Lee Aylward <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* Package name: oidua
Version : 0.16.1
Upstream Author : Sylvester Johansson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://oidua.suxbad.com/
* License : GPL
Description : an audio file metadata
On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 13:18:54 -0500, David Nusinow
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 05:57:05PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> Reasonable security support requires some degree of cooperation with the
>> current security team. Without that, vulnerabilities notifications won't
>> b
On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 18:54:34 +0100, David Schmitt
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Monday 14 March 2005 17:39, Frank Küster wrote:
>> No testing, no release, no security support. For me, that is so close
>> to "not support at all" that I hardly see the difference.
>
>No testing and release support b
Tollef Fog Heen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> * 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
Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 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
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 06:43:21PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> 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.
> >
> > W
> Based on the last few hours only, I think you'll have lots of comments
> to meditate on :-)
Only if considering that a few dozen of people making a lot of noise
and thus making the thread absolutely impossible to read for people
with a normal life and health, represents the feeling of near 100
201 - 300 of 523 matches
Mail list logo
