Scripsit Matthias Urlichs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Hi, Henning Makholm wrote:
>>> Nothing's going to prevent porters from adding stable-security (or
>>> whatever) to their autobuilders,
>> True - for as long as they do not try to upload the result to the
>> Debian archive, which will carry only "uns
On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 07:13:39PM +0100, Marc Haber wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 11:17:25 -0500, David Nusinow
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 08:04:31AM +0100, Marc Haber wrote:
> >> From what is public visible, the security team has lost at least one
> >> of the active me
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Gunnar Wolf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* Package name: libhtml-fillinform-perl
Version : 1.05
Upstream Author : TJ Mather, Maxmind LLC, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* URL : http://www.cpan.org/modules/by-module/HTML/
* License : GPL + Artis
On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 06:42:32PM +0100, Lech Karol Paw?aszek wrote:
> On Tuesday 15 of March 2005 18:25, John Goerzen wrote:
> [...]
> > More on srcinst:
> [...]
> > So, what do you think? Could this work?
>
> What's a difference between srcinst and apt-build ? ;-)
egrep 'apt-get.*install' apt
On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 18:37:10 +0100, Thiemo Seufer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > This was bought about a week ago; a linksys WRT54GS.
> >
> > Please be serious. Did you really manage to get debian running on that
> > hardware?
> > [...]
> You probably missed the GS suffix.
Please provide me then
Scripsit Bastian Blank <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Yes, it was a broken autobuilder, the only autobuilder, the others are
> blocked by the w-b admins.
How can something really be "blocked by the w-b admins"? The buildds
build .debs from publicly available source packages, don't they? They
upload to th
On Monday, 14 March 2005 21:32, Florian Zumbiehl wrote:
> To verify that what I think to be incorrect really is, here is the
> list of "words" I've found to be used with "a" but which I think
> should be used with "an":
> FAQ
Most people I know pronounce this "fack" not "eff ay kyu". Others
prob
Ingo Juergensmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 09:07:46AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>
> > > It's the job of w-b admins to add new buildds in a timely manner. If they
> > > don't do that, they simply fail (one significant part of) their job.
> > > This not only ha
On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 11:25:23AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
>...
> SO archs will be handled exactly like we do now, EXCEPT that we will
> not distribute .debs for most packages. I expect that we will
> distribute .debs for base and build-essential, mainly -- the minimum
> someone needs to instal
On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 06:57:00PM +0100, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
> Hi, John Goerzen wrote:
>
> > 1) Difficulty with, and speed of, buildd systems
> >
> > 2) Difficulty of syncing testing across all archs given #1
>
> 2a) Bugs on "small" arch which blocks testing migration of "big" arch
>
> The
Scripsit Marc Haber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 11:17:25 -0500, David Nusinow
>>We didn't "lose" him to Ubuntu. The man got a job and is busy. It would have
>>been the same with any other job that keeps one busy. There's no grand
>>Canonical Conspiracy [tm] to keep him from working o
On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 10:44:03AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> > > > It's the job of w-b admins to add new buildds in a timely manner. If
> > > > they
> > > > don't do that, they simply fail (one significant part of) their job.
> > > > This not only happens to s390 now but already happen
On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 06:31:03PM +, Henning Makholm wrote:
> > If his job is keeping him from working on Debian, he should step down
> > from his post.
> My job is keeping me from working on Debian as much as I'd like.
> Should I resign as a DD?
> Do you think that only people who are either
Scripsit David Nusinow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> Do they? The announcement looks noticeably different.
> My interpretation of the announcement, and this also comes from
> talking with some of the people involved, is that this affords ports
> with the flexibility to do as they please without slowing
Henning Makholm wrote:
> Scripsit Bastian Blank <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > Yes, it was a broken autobuilder, the only autobuilder, the others are
> > blocked by the w-b admins.
>
> How can something really be "blocked by the w-b admins"? The buildds
> build .debs from publicly available source pac
On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 06:27:34PM +, Henning Makholm wrote:
> How can something really be "blocked by the w-b admins"? The buildds
> build .debs from publicly available source packages, don't they? They
> upload to the upload queues that are avaiable to every DD, don't they?
They often build
This one time, at band camp, Henning Makholm said:
> Scripsit David Nusinow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> >> Do they? The announcement looks noticeably different.
>
> > My interpretation of the announcement, and this also comes from
> > talking with some of the people involved, is that this affords por
Ingo Juergensmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 10:44:03AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>
> > > > > It's the job of w-b admins to add new buildds in a timely manner. If
> > > > > they
> > > > > don't do that, they simply fail (one significant part of) their job.
> >
* Matthew Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [050315 01:48]:
> 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?
Yes, indeed I (and I think most others)
On Tue, 2005-03-15 at 00:58 -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> Hi Aurélien,
> On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 10:56:51AM +0100, Aurélien Jarno wrote:
> > Steve Langasek a écrit :
> > >The much larger consequence of this meeting, however, has been the
> > >crafting of a prospective release plan for etch. The r
Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> | - the release architecture must have N+1 buildds where N is the number
> | required to keep up with the volume of uploaded packages
> The reason for this proposal should be instantly clear to everyone who
> ever suffered from buildd backlogs. :)
I n
On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 08:51:30AM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 09:50:22AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 04:51:55PM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> > > On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 01:14:30AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Mon, Mar 14, 200
Bastian Blank <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 04:12:51PM +0100, David Schmitt wrote:
> > Looking at the stats[1], the amount of compiled packages seems to be a
> > blocker: 250-300 need-build packages. At approximatly 9000 source packages,
> > around 8820 must be built to s
Bastian Blank <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> It is possible, either you setup you own w-b or do it by hand, the later
> is a time consuming process. And you will generate a lot of noise with
> rejected packages.
Yes, it's better to do nothing than to do only part of the job.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE,
I am no debian developer (At least I am not involved in debian uploads and
releases). I have just followed the discussion, and have nothing to lose,
because I am not part of the community anyway. But I have seen a lot of
wise things said on the mailing list, but not assembled in one text. So
Martin Michlmayr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> We can move services to supported architectures, but there is of
> course one major problem: DSA is only willing to host stable .d.o
> boxes but if many architectures don't have stable releases, they will
> not be able to offer developer accessible po
Matthew Palmer wrote:
> But a DSA *is* the first highly visible announcement that *Debian* is
> affected. A general "this is a problem" announcement might make the
> crackers cackle with glee, but a DSA with a "m68k, mips, and arm updates
> will be forthcoming in a week or so" is a signal to brush
On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 06:45:48PM +, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Scripsit David Nusinow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > For *years*, I've heard porters complain about ftpmaster and
> > such. Well, now every port has the full ability to take matters in
> > to their own hands.
>
> Meaning that they are ki
Daniel Ruoso dijo [Sat, Mar 12, 2005 at 04:18:06PM -0300]:
> I'm with a problem about sending emails @debian.org. My ESP (email
> service provider) has a restrictive rule about sending emails with a
> >From header different of the account you actually have.
>
> This wouldn't be a problem, as I cou
On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 11:17:23AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> > Yes, it was a broken autobuilder, the only autobuilder, the others are
> > blocked by the w-b admins.
> Why don't you start building packages yourselves? You do have access
> to the hardware, right? It's supposed to be blind
Bastian Blank <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 11:17:23AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> > > Yes, it was a broken autobuilder, the only autobuilder, the others are
> > > blocked by the w-b admins.
> > Why don't you start building packages yourselves? You do have access
>
On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 11:57:27AM +, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Scripsit Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > This really makes unstable snapshotting, or building stable once it's
> > released as Anthony has also suggested in this thread, look like much
> > better options than trying to build
On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 11:18:11AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Bastian Blank <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > It is possible, either you setup you own w-b or do it by hand, the later
> > is a time consuming process. And you will generate a lot of noise with
> > rejected packages.
> Yes, it's
Scripsit Stephen Gran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> This one time, at band camp, Henning Makholm said:
>> The announcement that actually got posted says that the only
>> architectures that will be allowed to have "testing" and eventually
>> "stable" after sarge releases will be i386, ia64, powerpc, and am
Reinhard Tartler wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 18:37:10 +0100, Thiemo Seufer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > This was bought about a week ago; a linksys WRT54GS.
> > >
> > > Please be serious. Did you really manage to get debian running on that
> > > hardware?
> > > [...]
> > You probably missed
On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 02:31:01PM +, Dave Holland wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 01:36:17AM +0100, Torsten Landschoff wrote:
> > As you might have noticed or not we are working on getting OpenLDAP 2.2
> > into unstable. The packages are mostly working fine (as available in
> > experimental)
On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 01:28:15PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> Op ma, 14-03-2005 te 16:09 -0800, schreef Steve Langasek:
> > You do know that m68k is the only architecture still carrying around
> > 2.*2* kernels in sarge?
> False. See sparc32.
$ madison -a sparc -s testing -r 'kernel.*2\.2'
$
Scripsit Bastian Blank <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 06:27:34PM +, Henning Makholm wrote:
>> How can something really be "blocked by the w-b admins"? The buildds
>> build .debs from publicly available source packages, don't they? They
>> upload to the upload queues that are av
Scripsit Thiemo Seufer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Henning Makholm wrote:
>> If a DD has a machine with cpu cycles to spend on an architecture
>> that's lagging behind, what's to stop them from just beginning to
>> build packages and upload them?
> It needs e.g. to take P-a-s into account, for example.
Ingo Juergensmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Again, without a proper communication there's no chance of cooperation.
> Otherwise those kinds of "I've heard that you've done..."-stories would have
> happen again and again...
Ingo, stop being such a cock. Even if you'd found James assaulting you
Scripsit David Nusinow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 06:45:48PM +, Henning Makholm wrote:
>> Meaning that they are kicked out and told to start their own project
>> where they can take matters in their own hands. Just what they've
>> always wanted to do, I am sure.
> It's not
Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote:
[snip]
> In the contrary I assume that currently the security mechanism for
> alls archs is hindered by the fact that the slowest arch sets the pace.
> There has been a XSF-SVN commit for the latest libxpm vulnerability some
> days ago, which hasn't culminated into a DSA y
(what to do when correcting typos in debconf templatesand want to
avoid extra work to translators)
Quoting Adeodato Simó ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> * Christian Perrier [Tue, 15 Mar 2005 09:24:57 +0100]:
>
> > Indeed, typo and spell corrections should not need translation updates
> > and affected
Hi, David Nusinow wrote:
> This does not preclude porters from making a stable release. In fact, all
> the talk I've heard assumes that they will (via the snapshot method).
Anybody can do a snapshot release of Debian. They usually call it
something else, though.
What I'd like to see is actual su
Scripsit Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 11:57:27AM +, Henning Makholm wrote:
>> Building stable once it is released does look indeed like a good
>> option. Only it's a pity that the Vancouver plan does not allow it.
> There are lots of things not "allowed" by th
Gunnar Wolf writes:
> I deliver SMTP to the smarthost 127.0.0.1:10025
> At 127.0.0.1:10025, I have a ProtoWrap agent invoked with the script
> shown below
> ProtoWrap changes the envelope and hands it over to my ISP's MTA
I find it much simpler to just configure my local MTA to make the necessary
On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 07:37:25PM +, Henning Makholm wrote:
Your entire argument seems to hinge on one single thing: "unstable-only". Is
your mind really so inflexible that you can't see beyond this?
How about this? Try providing an alternative that actually fixes the problems
instead of ju
On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 11:20:07AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Martin Michlmayr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > We can move services to supported architectures, but there is of
> > course one major problem: DSA is only willing to host stable .d.o
> > boxes but if many architectures don't
Bastian Blank <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 11:18:11AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> > Bastian Blank <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > It is possible, either you setup you own w-b or do it by hand, the later
> > > is a time consuming process. And you will generate a l
On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 08:55:57PM +0100, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
> Hi, David Nusinow wrote:
>
> > This does not preclude porters from making a stable release. In fact, all
> > the talk I've heard assumes that they will (via the snapshot method).
>
> Anybody can do a snapshot release of Debian. T
On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 07:34:16PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > Again, without a proper communication there's no chance of cooperation.
> > Otherwise those kinds of "I've heard that you've done..."-stories would have
> > happen again and again...
> Ingo, stop being such a cock. Even if you'd
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 10:34:54AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Sorry, I'm speaking in term of possible future policies, not the
> present.
>
> Create i386.us.debian.org, powerpc.us.debian.org,
> amd64.us.debian.org, etc. Each of them points to the existing
> mirrors. Make the installer
Hi. I have setup a simple application with a reshape callback.
If my mouse cursor is over the application before/when it is
started, the reshape calback is only being called when i move the
mouse. Shouldn't it be called before the first redraw?
-- Fred
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EM
Andreas Schuldei <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> the ldif format was not a problem? was the syntax parsed
> correctly from 2.1 to 2.2?
LDIF is rfc described... there shouldn't be any issue using the LDIF
output. The main issue is possibly stripping the entryCSN for the use of
syncrepl. However, s
Scripsit Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Let's focus on making the plan useful, rather than
> treating it as a final pronouncement, shall we?
Here is one concrete proposal for making the plan useful: Remove the
language about SCC's being "unstable only", and instead put in
| SCC's will not
* Thomas Bushnell BSG ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050315 20:15]:
> Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > | - the release architecture must have N+1 buildds where N is the number
> > | required to keep up with the volume of uploaded packages
> > The reason for this proposal should be instantly c
Scripsit David Nusinow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 07:37:25PM +, Henning Makholm wrote:
>
Please point out what's circular about my discussion.
> Your entire argument seems to hinge on one single thing:
> "unstable-only".
Yes, because that is the part of the plan I'm obje
Julien BLACHE wrote:
> It has absolutely nothing to do with what has been discussed
> previously. The authors are the same who said repeteadly that the
> number of architectures wasn't reponsible for the sarge delay.
The above statement is incorrect. If you disagree, you'll need to pull
up referen
On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 02:28:13PM +, Martin Michlmayr - Debian Project
Leader wrote:
> * Julien BLACHE <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-03-15 11:44]:
> > - auric: RAID is dead (and auric is basically demilitarized since the
> >compromise -- not even running a buildd, although I'm not sure
> >
Hello
On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 12:43:11AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 05:32:44PM -0500, Joey Hess wrote:
> > Frank Küster wrote:
> > > I do not understand why the Nybbles team mixed their good news about
> > > sarge with their foreseeably controversial plans or proposal for
On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 07:46:23PM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > don't handle deps at all)
> >...
> > So, what do you think? Could this work?
>
> Yes, this could work.
> That's what Gentoo is good at.
[ snip ]
> Your priority are your users, and if Debian has decided to focus only on
> some ke
On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 08:06:03PM +, Henning Makholm wrote:
> > How about this? Try providing an alternative that actually fixes the
> > problems instead of just bitching.
>
> See reply to Steve Langasek that I just sent off.
Thank you, I agree with your suggestion in that email. It definite
Hi, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Yes, but the fact stands that the particular plan we're discussing
> does not allow them.
>
If the plan is set in stone there's no(t much) need for discussion.
> How do you propose that the plan can be made useful without pointing
> out its flaws?
I am not Steve, bu
On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 08:05:20PM +0100, Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote:
> In the contrary I assume that currently the security mechanism for
> alls archs is hindered by the fact that the slowest arch sets the pace.
> There has been a XSF-SVN commit for the latest libxpm vulnerability some
> days ago, w
* Julien BLACHE <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-03-15 17:42]:
> > (I'm not sure what you refer to. The only thing I can think of is
> > possibly Alioth, but I'm not convinced buying a new machine will help
> > at this stage. costa is doing pretty well right now and HP has
> > committed to a new box by
On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 02:24:01PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 07:46:23PM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > > don't handle deps at all)
> > >...
> > > So, what do you think? Could this work?
> >
> > Yes, this could work.
> > That's what Gentoo is good at.
>
> [ snip ]
>
> >
This one time, at band camp, Henning Makholm said:
> Scripsit Stephen Gran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > This one time, at band camp, Henning Makholm said:
>
> >> The announcement that actually got posted says that the only
> >> architectures that will be allowed to have "testing" and eventually
> >> "s
On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 06:37:22PM +0100, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
> Hi, Henning Makholm wrote:
>
> >> Nothing's going to prevent porters from adding stable-security (or
> >> whatever) to their autobuilders,
> >
> > True - for as long as they do not try to upload the result to the
> > Debian archi
Hi Sean,
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 08:14:39PM -0500, sean finney wrote:
> much of what you're trying to do touches a similar vein to a project
> i'm currently working on[1]. while unfortunately i haven't built in
As far as I can see your are mostly targetting packages /using/ a
database? Good wor
On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 12:53:31PM -0800, Marc Singer wrote:
> > Yes, but I hope that this proposal, or other suggestions, can help us
> > avoid dropping ports. This specific proposal, for instance, is meant to
> > provide us with a way forward that addresses the main concerns while
> > still prod
* Stephen Gran ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> This one time, at band camp, Henning Makholm said:
> > The point is still that some architectures are going to be left out in
> > the dark. That's the purpose of the whole plan.
>
> Only if those architectures don't have sufficient community support. I
* Ingo Juergensmann wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 07:34:16PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
[...]
> > Ingo, stop being such a cock. Even if you'd found James assaulting
> > your
>
> Please stop to call me that way.
>
> > dog with a cucumber, you'd be overreacting. Your repeated
> > outbursts ac
This one time, at band camp, Stephen Frost said:
> * Stephen Gran ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > This one time, at band camp, Henning Makholm said:
> > > The point is still that some architectures are going to be left
> > > out in the dark. That's the purpose of the whole plan.
> >
> > Only if tho
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Wouter Verhelst wrote:
| You misunderstood. I don't fight generic changes to the order; I just
| don't think it would be a good thing that any random developer could
| prioritize his pet package.
|
Any random developer already has root on X thousand deb
Can we *please* ban Ingo from d-d? He's been a huge pain in the ass on
this list for months now, has absolutely nothing constructive to
contribute, and is actively trying to subvert the project.
On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 09:09:47PM +0100, Ingo Juergensmann wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 07:34:16P
Torsten Landschoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hi there,
Hi Torsten,
First to introduce myself:
I currently maintain Stanford University's directory service, which is
based on OpenLDAP. I also am a member of the OpenLDAP core team, and I
hold down another job with Symas Corporation doing a v
* Stephen Gran ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> This one time, at band camp, Stephen Frost said:
> > I don't believe this is accurate, and is in fact a big problem that I
> > have with this proposal. Things like "N may not be more than 2" and
> > "architecture must be available for purchase new" are n
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Martin Michlmayr - Debian Project Leader <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > (I'm not sure what you refer to. The only thing I can think of is
>> > possibly Alioth, but I'm not convinced buying a new machine will help
>> > at this stage. costa is doing
Hello
As most people in this threas have expressed lot of bad feelings about
this. I must tell that I think this proposal is a good step toward
quicker releases etc.
With the clarifications (see the new thread) I must say that this
is a very sane proposal.
Some people tend to think the worst of
Scripsit Matthias Urlichs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> If the plan is set in stone there's no(t much) need for discussion.
Why is that strawman continually being repeated?
If I thought the plan was set in stone I would just quietly shake my
head and leave the project (well, perhaps with a few shouts of
Scripsit Ingo Juergensmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 07:34:16PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> dog with a cucumber, you'd be overreacting. Your repeated outbursts
>> actively hinder other developers. If you're not going to contribute
>> anything useful, then kindly fuck off a
On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 10:26:58PM +0100, Ola Lundqvist wrote:
> Hello
>
> As most people in this threas have expressed lot of bad feelings about
> this. I must tell that I think this proposal is a good step toward
> quicker releases etc.
>
> With the clarifications (see the new thread) I must sa
* Steve Langasek wrote:
> The much larger consequence of this meeting, however, has been the
> crafting of a prospective release plan for etch.
Thanks to the team for your work on that. I support the direction of the
proposal itself (modulo minor issues) and I hope that Debian reckognizes that
Hello
On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 11:25:23AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> As I have been reading the discussions about the SCC proposal for
> etch, it seems that these are the main problems:
>
> 1) Difficulty with, and speed of, buildd systems
>
> 2) Difficulty of syncing testing across all archs gi
* Brian Nelson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> I agree. It's become quite evident that Debian is barely able to make
> releases at all with the status quo. And, given a choice between having
> no stable releases at all and having stable releases of a significantly
> reduced number of arches, I'd gla
Norbert Tretkowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> * Ingo Juergensmann wrote:
>> Your wording is not on a level I would expect from a DD.
>
> And especially not on a level I would expect from someone who runs for
> DPL.
Ok. It's probably the case that I went too far there, and I do apologise
for th
Ola Lundqvist on 2005-03-15 22:45:45 +0100:
> This is the problem. How do you make sure that the package is
> buildable on the architecture without building it? And if you have
> built it why not just add it to the archives. :) So you still need a
> buildd. :(
Why not add it to the archives? Bec
On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 04:55:08PM -0500, Alec Berryman wrote:
> Ola Lundqvist on 2005-03-15 22:45:45 +0100:
>
> > This is the problem. How do you make sure that the package is
> > buildable on the architecture without building it? And if you have
> > built it why not just add it to the archives.
On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 10:45:45PM +0100, Ola Lundqvist wrote:
> > The speed of buildd systems mostly becomes irrelevant. They will
> > still have to keep up with base (the set of .debs that we do
> > distribute for a SO arch). Anything past that is there just for QA
> > purposes -- to make sure
On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 10:45:45PM +0100, Ola Lundqvist wrote:
> Hello
>
> > distribute for a SO arch). Anything past that is there just for QA
> > purposes -- to make sure packages are buildable on these archs, and
> > would be optional.
>
> This is the problem. How do you make sure that the pa
On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 11:01:06PM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On some mirrors?
> -> Not all mirrors have to mirror all ports.
The mirroring part of the proposal is effectively just a proposal to
rearrange the archive in order to make this easy for mirror admins.
--
"You grabbed my hand and we
This one time, at band camp, Stephen Frost said:
> * Stephen Gran ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > This one time, at band camp, Stephen Frost said:
>
> > The clarification made it fairly clear to me that if this is
> > achieved by the porter team running clusters with distcc and magic
> > smoke, and
The debate is being hard to follow, with tiers, classes of citizenship
and several other distinctions being tossed about, and not always
clearly mapped to a particular one of the two divisions in the plan.
I propose the following terminology (also paraphrasing the outline of
the plan according to m
Hi, John Goerzen wrote:
> This specific proposal, for instance, is meant to
> provide us with a way forward that addresses the main concerns while
> still producing a quality, usable result for our users.
It won't work that well for slower architectures, for the very simple
reason that compiling
On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 11:14:50PM +0100, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
> Hi, John Goerzen wrote:
>
> > This specific proposal, for instance, is meant to
> > provide us with a way forward that addresses the main concerns while
> > still producing a quality, usable result for our users.
>
> It won't wo
Brian Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Can we *please* ban Ingo from d-d? He's been a huge pain in the ass on
> this list for months now, has absolutely nothing constructive to
> contribute, and is actively trying to subvert the project.
For what it's worth, I second this request.
--
,''
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 04:06:35PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>
> I am of the opinion that the testing distribution has been a great
> help in releasing.
>...
Is this just a personal opinion or backed by any objective evaluation?
I'm asking because as I've already expressed my impression
On Tuesday 15 March 2005 22:42, Brian Nelson wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 10:26:58PM +0100, Ola Lundqvist wrote:
> > Hello
> >
> > As most people in this threas have expressed lot of bad feelings about
> > this. I must tell that I think this proposal is a good step toward
> > quicker releases e
Hi, Brian Nelson wrote:
> If they come to a
> conclusion that it's impossible to make timely releases and keep all of
> these architectures in a single archive, then that's their decision to
> make.
True. *If*. However, AFAIK they haven't done that yet.
> If you care enough about a particular SS
On Tue, March 15, 2005 22:50, Stephen Frost said:
> I'm not sure that we've entirely missed the point as much as we like to
> think there's a better solution than dropping all but 4 archs.
Here's where things go wrong in this discussion. I think the original
proposal was (in retrospect) worded too
201 - 300 of 381 matches
Mail list logo
