Hi,
> > The rule I am following is that "a" vs. "an" is decided by pronounciation
> > only - i.e., it's "an eff ey kju", but "a FAT file system". After all,
> > that's how the exact letters are most easily read (without expanding
> > acronyms or such).
>
> Your rule is correct: it is determined b
On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 11:46:51 +1100, Matthew Palmer
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I think a lot of users would consider it a problem. Imagine, would you be
>happy with a highly visible public announcement of every vulnerability
>against your servers, a week before you got the fix?
If the alternative
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 08:43:40PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> For s390 and sparc, it appears that only one machine is in place
> building these archs.
As Bastian Blank said yesterday on IRC, w-b admins are idly refusing to add
a new buildd for s390 to the ACLs. So, blame neuro and/or elm
On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 08:50:04 +1000, Anthony Towns
wrote:
> From the announcement:
>
>---
>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 t
Hi, Matthew Palmer wrote:
>> However, I consider an update whose $ARCH binaries are released a week
>> later not to be a problem.
>
> I think a lot of users would consider it a problem. Imagine, would you be
> happy with a highly visible public announcement of every vulnerability
> against your
Ingo Juergensmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 08:43:40PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>
> > For s390 and sparc, it appears that only one machine is in place
> > building these archs.
>
> As Bastian Blank said yesterday on IRC, w-b admins are idly refusing to add
>
Hi, sean finney wrote:
> - create a source package gnupg2
exists
> - gnupg2 *only* produces package(s?) for the peripheral binar(y|ies)
a binary for gnupg2 exists too, with a warning that it's not for public
consumption
> - when gnupg releases an official version 2, james uploads a new gnupg
>
On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 15:52:22 -0500, David Nusinow
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Sarge was already very late before Ubuntu existed. Our mirror network was
>already strained before Ubuntu existed. Our release team was struggling to get
>sarge out before Ubuntu existed. Our security team was already und
On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 10:45:45 +1000, Anthony Towns
wrote:
>Once you get over giggling at the phrasing (or maybe that's just me),
>there're a few answers. The ones that come to my mind are:
>
> (a) Just build against testing/stable instead of unstable; when etch
>happens, fix up any remaining pro
On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 07:32:12AM +0100, Marc Haber wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 22:51:40 +0100, Sven Luther
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 08:04:53PM +0100, Marc Haber wrote:
> >> On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 19:11:01 +0100, Sven Luther
> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >Well,
On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 11:48:53 +1100, Matthew Palmer
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I've seen no hesitation inducting new AMs, and I got solicited to be part of
>the security team a couple of years ago which suggests that they're not
>particularly picky about who they let in .
A couple of years ago, we
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 10:32:57AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> 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,
Hi, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> As I understand it, SCC *binaries* get their own domain / mirrors /
>> everything, but the *source* shall be shared with the main archive.
>
> Uh. Not if you want to distribute any GPLed material.
So we ask our mirrors to please pull the source if they pull any $ARC
On 14 Mar 2005 22:51:23 -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>Ingo Juergensmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> As Bastian Blank said yesterday on IRC, w-b admins are idly refusing to add
>> a new buildd for s390 to the ACLs. So, blame neuro and/or elmo, not s390...
>
>The s390 por
> ad b) where is that .ldif file to be saved? For small directories not an
> issue (take /var/backups or something). For big directories it should be
> on a different disk than /var/lib/ldap with enough space to get sensible
> performance.
I think that people who are running large directories shou
Marc Haber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >The s390 porting team can perfectly well do what the hurd-i386 porting
> >team does: build them themselves. I mean, umm, you don't have to be
> >hooked into w-b to upload packages.
>
> Why are some architectures refused the same service that others get?
* Julien BLACHE
(I'm not an employee of canonical, but I am a Ubuntu developer, FTR.)
| How could we know ? We know nothing about Ubuntu, nothing about
| Canonical, nothing about the goals, nothing about how everything was
| done to begin with, nothing about who works or doesn't work there.
Tha
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 11:37:31PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> > >The s390 porting team can perfectly well do what the hurd-i386 porting
> > >team does: build them themselves. I mean, umm, you don't have to be
> > >hooked into w-b to upload packages.
> > Why are some architectures refused
On Tue, 15 Mar 2005, Anthony Towns wrote:
if you want a technical discussion instead of a political one it helps to
...not have it on a Debian mailing list. :-/
Quoting from http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/
Development of Debian
Discussion about technical development topics.
You sho
Hello, world,
please allow me as a member of the release team to share my view of the
issue as I have been invited to the vancouver meeting as well. The
contents of Steve's message were meant as a proposal, not as a definite
decision and of course any input from you, whether as maintainers, as
po
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 07:05:52PM +0100, David Schmitt wrote:
> 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
> > >
Christian Perrier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ...but quite sad (or happy?) to see that nearly only the proposal to handle
> architectures differently got criticism...while this proposal contains
> several other key point.
I do not understand why the Nybbles team mixed their good news about
sarge
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 11:36:22AM -0500, David Nusinow wrote:
> Aren't scc.debian.org (or perhaps various different hosts for each SCC) part
> of
> the plan in the email? I don't think anyone wants to break alioth further.
The plan for scc.debian.org was for unstable plus snapshots of that. If
501 - 523 of 523 matches
Mail list logo
