On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 02:14:07 -0500, Andres Salomon wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 01:38:48 -0500, Andres Salomon wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 10:35:19 +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 04:21:21AM -0500, Joey Hess wrote:
Sven Luther wrote:
>> [...]
>
> This
Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> We did that last year for m68k, mips, mipsel and alpha and it produced
>> a great flame since some machines where hosted by non DDs and none of
>> them were approved by the debian admin team. Th
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [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
If we are going to require redundancy, I think we should do it better
and add:
- at least two buildd adminis
On Wed, March 16, 2005 03:14, luna said:
> Let us see what is exactly the proposal.
Right, this is exactly my view of the proposal: it isn't unreasonable for
an arch to meet the requirements (except from the stated N<2/by-new ones
which are controversial). With luna's clarifications I definately s
* Henning Makholm
| 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 t
Andres Salomon wrote:
> Actually, that was the case for a while (before ubuntu's kernel team went
> on vacation, and I went on vacation). However, w/ all the vacations
> that have been happening, it hasn't been the case for a few months.
Well it sounds like the earlier suggestion to get Joey to f
On Tuesday 15 March 2005 20:10, Greg Folkert wrote:
> On Tue, 2005-03-15 at 00:58 -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > This isn't being used to measure the use of the architecture; it's being
> > used to measure the *download frequency* for the architecture, which is
> > precisely the criterion that sh
Hello,
After reading the mention of it in debian-weekly-news, i read with interest :
http://kitenet.net/~joey/blog/entry/random_idea_re_new_queue-2005-03-02-21-12.html
And i am not sure to get the hang of it.
You mention that not all packages will be able to do go to this new.debian.org
arch
retitle 264567 RFA: dpatch -- patch maintenance system for Debian source
packages
thanks
I don't have time to properly maintain dpatch, nor do I use it anymore,
so a new maintainer is probably justified, to say the least.
You might consider this an O:, even. It is only RFA, because I do not
want
Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
I've suggested (briefly) a slaved testing which tries to enforce sync
with the main testing archive.
Hrm, I don't think I've got any idea what that means.
Cheers,
aj
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTE
Sven Luther wrote:
> After reading the mention of it in debian-weekly-news, i read with interest :
>
>
> http://kitenet.net/~joey/blog/entry/random_idea_re_new_queue-2005-03-02-21-12.html
>
> And i am not sure to get the hang of it.
>
> You mention that not all packages will be able to do go
Hi!
Andres Salomon [2005-03-16 2:43 -0500]:
> You seem to be implying that ubuntu is providing you with confidential
> prior warning about kernel security holes, but I really doubt this,
> >>>
> >>
> >> Actually, that was the case for a while (before ubuntu's kernel team went
> >> on
* Thomas Bushnell BSG
| Now one major question is: are these chosen by self-perpetuating work,
| or are they chosen by the DPL, or by someone else? Does the DPL have
| the power (where the Constitution doesn't say otherwise) to appoint
| additional people to perform these tasks (even over the ob
On Wed, Mar 16, 2005 at 12:20:34AM -0800, Blars Blarson wrote:
> If we are going to require redundancy, I think we should do it better
> and add:
> - at least two buildd administrators
*nod*
> - systems located in at least two different facilities (different
> cities and backbones if at all po
* Thomas Bushnell BSG
| Now now, "ls" has been working for a long time. We had bash running
| before the system could even boot.
Amazing. How do you make bash run on a non-booted system? It
certainly sounds zen-ish to me.
--
Tollef Fog Heen
ma, 2005-03-14 kello 13:42 +, Martin Michlmayr kirjoitti:
> Anthony told me over dinner that people interested in adopting his
> packages can go ahead. So please consider this an invitation to adopt
> lilypond if you're serious about maintaining it.
In this context, I'd like to point out the
On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 07:42:24PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> For that matter, why is it necessary to follow testing on an ongoing basis,
> instead of just building against everything in stable once it's released?
I believe it is best to follow testing, since this allow those arches to start
d
On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 09:50:36 +0100, Gergely Nagy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>retitle 264567 RFA: dpatch -- patch maintenance system for Debian source
>packages
>thanks
>
>I don't have time to properly maintain dpatch, nor do I use it anymore,
>so a new maintainer is probably justified, to say the
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Once you start talking about having divergent packages between
> architectures, a lot of the reasons I'm hearing from people about why
> they want Debian to *do* releases for these archs seem to dissipate,
> because they no longer have assurances that th
Hi, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
>> I've suggested (briefly) a slaved testing which tries to enforce sync
>> with the main testing archive.
>
> Hrm, I don't think I've got any idea what that means.
Dunno what Daniel meant, but this is how I'd understand it:
For each package i
Hi Alastair,
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 12:30:58PM +, Alastair McKinstry wrote:
> >* Steve Langasek
> >
> >| If you are planning any other transitions that will affect a lot of
> >| packages, please let us know in advance. We will need to complete the
> >| larger transitions as fast as possible
Hi Steve,
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 11:41:59AM +, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> >- 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
> When you say "N+1" buildds for a release
Anthony Towns wrote:
> Frank Küster wrote:
I think all this discussion about etch should be delayed until sarge is
out. Of course we would need a statement from the Nybbles team that
they do not intend to make decicions, and not to settle facts before a
thorough discussion has ta
Anthony Towns wrote:
> Frank Küster wrote:
>
>> Will it be possible to get the fixed-up sources reintegrated in point
>> releases of stable?
>> [don't know whether this is desirable]
>
> All things are *possible*. What's desirable is the question.
I understood that there are reasons for reducing
Sven Luther wrote:
>On Wed, Mar 16, 2005 at 01:27:37AM +, Steve McIntyre wrote:
>> Thus, for sarge, we plan to offer officially:
>>
>> * ISO images for business card and netinst CDs (for all architectures)
>> * ISO images for normal install CDs (for all architectures)
>> * ISO images for in
hi
I am the mantainer of 'lpr-ppd'
'lpr-ppd' is a daemon similar to 'lpr' ;
it was developed as part of project GNULPR
(see http://lpr.sf.net )
unfortunately, after the dot-com crisis ,
the project died
I have been keeping alive other packages from
GNULPR , which I use ; I am not wishing to
Hi, Anthony Towns wrote:
> The reason for the N = {1,2} requirement is so that the buildds can be
> maintained by Debian, which means that they can be promptly fixed for
> system-wide problems, and which means access to them can be controlled,
That can be handled differently.
If somebody write
Hi, Steve Langasek wrote:
>>> testing-proposed-updates is _still_ missing autobuilders.
>> May I respectfully ask why that's been a problem for half a year now, IIRC?
> So if it has taken us 6 months to get the problems with testing-security
> sorted out, what do you suppose we would have done fo
On Monday 14 March 2005 05:45, Steve Langasek wrote:
> Further plans for etch
> --
[...]
> Meanwhile, much of the release team's energy will be focused on
> coordinating the many major changes that are sure to hit the archive
> shortly after sarge's release. We already know o
* Thomas Bushnell BSG ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050316 01:05]:
> How does one become an ftpmaster or release manager? How were the
> current ones chosen? Do they simply choose their successors?
After working on release issues for some time (and offering hints etc),
Collin asked me whether I want to b
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Adam Borowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* Package name: ttf-antp
Version : 0.51
Upstream Author : Bogus³aw Jackowski, Janusz M. Nowacki and Piotr Strzelczyk
* URL : http://www.janusz.nowacki.strefa.pl/poltawski-e.html
* License
On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 20:57:45 -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> > Once translated, the user can browse around in directories and view
> > file contents by the means of standard GNU tools.
> By my vague (secondhand) understanding of Hurd translators, it shows up
> as a regular filesystem tree--so any t
* Ian Lynagh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-03-16 02:42]:
> I believe the wanna-build admins don't want builds that have neither
> been suitably tested (such as the build that accompanies the source in
> the maintainer's upload) nor built by one of the official buildds to be
> uploaded.
>
> The main re
16.03.2005 pisze Adam Borowski ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> * Package name: ttf-antp
> Version : 0.51
> Upstream Author : Bogus?aw Jackowski, Janusz M. Nowacki and Piotr Strzelczyk
> * URL : http://www.janusz.nowacki.strefa.pl/poltawski-e.html
> * License : GPL
> De
Steve Langasek wrote:
> First, the news for sarge. As mentioned in the last release team
> update[1], deploying the testing-security queues has been held up
> pending some infrastructure enhancements, without which
> ftp-master.debian.org cannot handle the load of the added wanna-build
> queues fo
* Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-03-16 12:18]:
> * Thomas Bushnell BSG ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050316 01:05]:
> > How does one become an ftpmaster or release manager? How were the
> > current ones chosen? Do they simply choose their successors?
>
> After working on release issues for some
Matthias Urlichs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb:
> Hi, Anthony Towns wrote:
>
>> Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
>>> I've suggested (briefly) a slaved testing which tries to enforce sync
>>> with the main testing archive.
>>
>> Hrm, I don't think I've got any idea what that means.
>
> Dunno what Daniel mea
On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 01:47:22PM +0100, Ingo Juergensmann wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 11:34:58PM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> > As you well know, the problem was that the buildds were run by
> > non-developers for whom we have no trust relationship, not that they
> > were being run by a d
Op wo, 16-03-2005 te 12:09 +1000, schreef Anthony Towns:
> Ola Lundqvist wrote:
> >>- the release architecture must have N+1 buildds where N is the number
> >> required to keep up with the volume of uploaded packages
> > Sane.
> >>- the value of N above must not be > 2
> > Testing related. I do no
luna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> |* To: debian-devel-announce@lists.debian.org
> |* Subject: Bits (Nybbles?) from the Vancouver release team meeting
> |* From: Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> |* Date: Sun, 13 Mar 2005 20:45:09 -0800
>
> We all have seen this proposal for "dro
On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 12:50:31 +0100, Martin Schulze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>Done.
Very well done. I couldn't have worded it any better. Thank you very
much.
Greetings
Marc
--
-- !! No courtesy copies, please !! -
Marc Haber | " Questions are
Op di, 15-03-2005 te 11:25 -0600, schreef John Goerzen:
> 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 given #1
>
> 3
On Thu, Mar 17, 2005 at 12:09:28AM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> > So, you call me not trustworthy, [...]
> No. I said you aren't trusted, not that you aren't trustworthy.
> Those are quite different things. As I am not the DAM, I don't
> decide whether or not to trust you on behalf of Debian.
I
On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 11:43:10AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> 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?
>
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Seo Sanghyeon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* Package name: python-enchant
Version : 1.1.0
Upstream Author : Ryan Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://pyenchant.sourceforge.net/
* License : LGPL with a special exception to link
On Wed, Mar 16, 2005 at 02:30:32PM +0100, Ingo Juergensmann wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 17, 2005 at 12:09:28AM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
>
> > > So, you call me not trustworthy, [...]
> > No. I said you aren't trusted, not that you aren't trustworthy.
> > Those are quite different things. As I am not
On Wed, 2005-03-16 at 13:55 +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> Op wo, 16-03-2005 te 12:09 +1000, schreef Anthony Towns:
> I can understand these concerns, and they are valid; but there are
> better ways to tackle them. Requiring that the machines are owned and
> hosted by Debian Developers, rather tha
* Thomas Bushnell BSG ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Blars Blarson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Another architecure that isn't keeping up to the 98% mark has a buildd
> > mainainter who insists (to the point of threating) that I don't build
> > and upload packages to help the build with its backlo
Op di, 15-03-2005 te 16:19 -0500, schreef Anthony DeRobertis:
> 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
Hello,
Please verify mod aic7xxx SCSI
Host Adapter, i find problem install Debian Sarge...
Debian sarge ---> Failed
Debian Woody ---> Sucess ( Drivers Red Hat this
OK )
I sorry my english
Daniel - Brasil
Miros/law Baran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb:
> 16.03.2005 pisze Adam Borowski ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
>
>> * Package name: ttf-antp
>> Version : 0.51
>> Upstream Author : Bogus?aw Jackowski, Janusz M. Nowacki and Piotr
>> Strzelczyk
>> * URL : http://www.janusz.nowacki.st
Hi,
> >retitle 264567 RFA: dpatch -- patch maintenance system for Debian source
> >packages
> >thanks
> >
> >I don't have time to properly maintain dpatch, nor do I use it anymore,
> >so a new maintainer is probably justified, to say the least.
> >
> >You might consider this an O:, even. It is o
On Wed, Mar 16, 2005 at 12:50:31PM +0100, Martin Schulze wrote:
> Done.
Well said.
--
Ciao... //
Ingo \X/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wednesday 16 March 2005 13:55, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> Op wo, 16-03-2005 te 12:09 +1000, schreef Anthony Towns:
> > The reason for the N = {1,2} requirement is so that the buildds can be
> > maintained by Debian, which means that they can be promptly fixed for
> > system-wide problems, and whic
Op di, 15-03-2005 te 17:16 +, schreef Henning Makholm:
> Scripsit Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > * Henning Makholm ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050315 12:45]:
> >> Scripsit Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> >> Is there an underlying reason why the wanna-build management for all
> >> archit
On Wed, Mar 16, 2005 at 01:55:47PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> I can understand these concerns, and they are valid; but there are
> better ways to tackle them. Requiring that the machines are owned and
> hosted by Debian Developers, rather than random non-developers, for
> example, could be a
On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 14:02:20 +0100, Frank Küster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>luna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> |* To: debian-devel-announce@lists.debian.org
>> |* Subject: Bits (Nybbles?) from the Vancouver release team meeting
>> |* From: Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> |* D
On 20050315T215603+, Henning Makholm wrote:
> (Or, as alternative alternative terminology:
> Widespread -> "utlanning"
> Narrowspread regular -> "framling"
> Irregular-> "ramen"
> Other unix-like OSes -> "varelse"
> Microsoft Windows-> "djur"
> )
Heh, second
* Steve Langasek ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 11:41:59AM +, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> > When you say "N+1" buildds for a release architecture, do you mean
> > _exactly_ N+1, or _at least_ N+1?
>
> At least; although, there are some concerns about plugging too many machine
Matthias Urlichs wrote:
>
>DSA can still admin the one or two systems per arch which need stricter
>checks -- for instance, those which are used by developers to test-build
>packages. But I don't think they need to personally admin every builder
>that's sitting behind a firewall, has no outside log
Hi,
* Marc Haber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-03-16 11:08]:
> On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 09:50:36 +0100, Gergely Nagy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >retitle 264567 RFA: dpatch -- patch maintenance system for Debian source
> >packages
> >thanks
> >
> >I don't have time to properly maintain dpatch, nor do I
On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 22:40:33 +0900, Junichi Uekawa
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Since I do care about dpatch, and I do use it a lot in my packages,
>I will be willing to help out / adopt this package.
After organizing on IRC, Junichi and I will take over the package.
Gergely has agreed, and an uplo
Hello,
as a non-DD I am not so tuned into the Debian project as many of you
are. However I would like to make a proposal about the "hot topic".
As I have noticed, most people ojecting against dropping architecures
feared for the coherence of the systems. They wanted to be able to have
the *same*
> > >I don't have time to properly maintain dpatch, nor do I use it anymore,
> > >so a new maintainer is probably justified, to say the least.
> > >
> > >You might consider this an O:, even. It is only RFA, because I do not
> > >want to upload a new, probably half-broken dpatch just to orphan it.
>
* David Schmitt ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Another factor might be security support:
>
> At least one buildd (plus hot-standby) must be available [under strict
> DSA/Security administration] which is fast enough to build security updates
> without infringing on vendor-sec embargoes.
I'm not 1
* Lars Wirzenius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-03-16 11:39]:
> In this context, I'd like to point out the release critical bug that has
> removed manpages-zh from sid (though it is still in sarge):
> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=267236
Thanks for that background information. I tol
On Wed, Mar 16, 2005 at 04:21:56AM -0500, Joey Hess wrote:
> Sven Luther wrote:
> > After reading the mention of it in debian-weekly-news, i read with interest
> > :
> >
> >
> > http://kitenet.net/~joey/blog/entry/random_idea_re_new_queue-2005-03-02-21-12.html
> >
> > And i am not sure to get
On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 11:39:03 +0200, Lars Wirzenius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ma, 2005-03-14 kello 13:42 +, Martin Michlmayr kirjoitti:
> > Anthony told me over dinner that people interested in adopting his
> > packages can go ahead. So please consider this an invitation to adopt
> > lilypon
On Wed, Mar 16, 2005 at 06:57:56PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> >I've suggested (briefly) a slaved testing which tries to enforce sync
> >with the main testing archive.
>
> Hrm, I don't think I've got any idea what that means.
I hadn't thought about the details yet, bu
Op di, 15-03-2005 te 11:43 -0800, schreef Steve Langasek:
> 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?
>
> >
On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 09:56:03PM +, Henning Makholm wrote:
> 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 follow
On Wed, 2005-03-16 at 22:05 +0900, Seo Sanghyeon wrote:
> Package: wnpp
> Severity: wishlist
> Owner: Seo Sanghyeon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>
> * Package name: python-enchant
> Version : 1.1.0
> Upstream Author : Ryan Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> * URL : http://pyenchant.
On Wed, Mar 16, 2005 at 12:50:31PM +0100, Martin Schulze wrote:
> > 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 fr
Op di, 15-03-2005 te 14:22 -0500, schreef David Nusinow:
> 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
I really like this suggestion and in fact I had the same idea too, but I
found your post only when I was ready with writing. You can find my
proposal at http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2005/03/msg01647.html.
It goes a little more into detail, but is based on basically the same
idea.
Greetings
Hi, Rob Taylor wrote:
> Do you think it might be better have a trusted builder keyring, with
> strict rules on what makes a trusted builder (it seems rather a
> different set of issues to that addressed by the DD criterion)?
That makes sense -- but only if Debian switches to source-only uploads.
Hello Wouter
On 2005-03-16 Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> That's not to say that a request to prioritize a package is to be
> ignored; however, the power of deciding which packages get built first
> should be with those that actually build the packages, rather than with
> those who want their packages t
Hi,
On Mon, 14.03.2005 at 07:37:51 +0100, Andreas Tille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In general I would like to say that supporting a lot of architectures was
> an important difference between Debian and other distributions. I know the
> drawbacks of this but I just do not want to hide my opinio
Op wo, 16-03-2005 te 14:30 +0100, schreef Ingo Juergensmann:
> On Thu, Mar 17, 2005 at 12:09:28AM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
>
> > > So, you call me not trustworthy, [...]
> > No. I said you aren't trusted, not that you aren't trustworthy.
> > Those are quite different things. As I am not the DA
Thanks for the opinion :-)
To 1)
I DID imply it in my proposal, but I didn't spell it out clearly enough.
So assume this passage to be included in the proposal:
>ALL ports, even tier 3, share the same source code base. This should make
>moving up or down the chain much less
On Wed, 2005-03-16 at 15:27 +0100, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
> Hi, Rob Taylor wrote:
>
> > Do you think it might be better have a trusted builder keyring, with
> > strict rules on what makes a trusted builder (it seems rather a
> > different set of issues to that addressed by the DD criterion)?
>
>
Op wo, 16-03-2005 te 14:52 +0100, schreef Ingo Juergensmann:
> On Wed, Mar 16, 2005 at 01:55:47PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
>
> > I can understand these concerns, and they are valid; but there are
> > better ways to tackle them. Requiring that the machines are owned and
> > hosted by Debian De
* Wouter Verhelst
| In practice, the fact that wanna-build runs on ftp-master means it gets
| updated right after the Debian Installer (the one that sends you the
| ACCEPTED or REJECTED mails, not the other one that'll be used for Sarge)
| runs. This is great, because it means the wanna-build dat
On Wed, Mar 16, 2005 at 03:29:28PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> Ideally we would see forming a little NEW-reviewing comittee which would
> facilitate the job of the ftp-masters. This is also in accordance of the
> small-team proposal in debian.
>
> It would be nice to have the opinion of the ftp-ma
Toni wrote:
>
>On Mon, 14.03.2005 at 07:37:51 +0100, Andreas Tille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> In general I would like to say that supporting a lot of architectures was
>> an important difference between Debian and other distributions. I know the
>> drawbacks of this but I just do not want to hi
On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 08:55:05PM +0100, Christian Perrier wrote:
> (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,
On Wed, Mar 16, 2005 at 04:14:22PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> The step for you to become trusted is easy: apply for NM. A few years
> ago, I would've happily become your advocate. This /must/ mean you're
> trustworthy, even though you're not trusted yet. After all, trustworthy
> means 'deserv
Hi, Sven Luther wrote:
> Ideally we would see forming a little NEW-reviewing comittee which would
> facilitate the job of the ftp-masters. This is also in accordance of the
> small-team proposal in debian.
>
Good idea. Count me in.
> It would be nice to have the opinion of the ftp-masters on thi
On Wed, Mar 16, 2005 at 04:36:25PM +0100, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
> Hi, Sven Luther wrote:
> > It would be nice to have the opinion of the ftp-masters on this, if this
> > seems
> > credible, and if there are design issues with it.
>
> A checklist of what NEW processing actually entails would be
On Wed, Mar 16, 2005 at 03:06:19PM +, Rob Taylor wrote:
> Yes, that makes total sense. Would there likely be major objections to
> this?
>
Even less (likely zero) testing of packages by the maintainer before they
upload? This is definitely a serious problem...
Famous last words...
"Oh, I'll j
On Wed, Mar 16, 2005 at 04:15:01PM +0100, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
> Merkel has a mirror which is updated more often than every mirror
> pulse. So, w-b could easily run on merkel or another host which has a
> mirror of the accepted queue.
It only needs access to the Packages/Source files, not a com
On Wed, Mar 16, 2005 at 04:11:21PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > How many *.debian.org machines are actually *owned* by the project or DDs?
> All of them. Otherwise they wouldn't be *.debian.org.
Please define "owned".
Bastian
--
It is more rational to sacrifice one life than six.
On Wed, Mar 16, 2005 at 02:30:29PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
>...
> Also it wouldn't help on slower architectures. People usually decline
> installing NetBSD on m68k (even if that's possible) when it takes two
> weeks to make the system useful, simply because everything needs to be
> compiled m
Wouter Verhelst wrote:
That's not to say that a request to prioritize a package is to be
ignored; however, the power of deciding which packages get built first
should be with those that actually build the packages, rather than with
those who want their packages to be built. The former are expected
On Wed, 2005-03-16 at 10:44 -0500, Kyle McMartin wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 16, 2005 at 03:06:19PM +, Rob Taylor wrote:
> > Yes, that makes total sense. Would there likely be major objections to
> > this?
> >
>
> Even less (likely zero) testing of packages by the maintainer before they
> upload? Thi
* Kyle McMartin ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 16, 2005 at 03:06:19PM +, Rob Taylor wrote:
> > Yes, that makes total sense. Would there likely be major objections to
> > this?
> >
>
> Even less (likely zero) testing of packages by the maintainer before they
> upload? This is definite
On Wed, Mar 16, 2005 at 10:44:15AM -0500, Kyle McMartin wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 16, 2005 at 03:06:19PM +, Rob Taylor wrote:
> > Yes, that makes total sense. Would there likely be major objections to
> > this?
> >
>
> Even less (likely zero) testing of packages by the maintainer before they
> uplo
Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
> Merkel has a mirror which is updated more often than every mirror
> pulse. So, w-b could easily run on merkel or another host which has a
> mirror of the accepted queue.
Didn't this get dropped down to being a once a day update after all due
to bandwidth concerns or somet
Hi Steve,
On Wed, 16.03.2005 at 15:23:42 +, Steve McIntyre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I wrote:
> >Btw, why, or how, do other projects with much fewer users and also much
> >fewer developers, manage to release for more than 4 architecture?
> >*BSD come to mind...
>
> By having a much smalle
Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> Op di, 15-03-2005 te 11:43 -0800, schreef Steve Langasek:
> > 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
> > >
1 - 100 of 228 matches
Mail list logo
