Toni wrote:
>
>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 mu
On Wed, 16 Mar 2005, Frank Küster wrote:
> Miros/law Baran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb:
> > The font is included in the tetex-base package, along with other Type1
> > GUST-sponsored fonts (Antykwa Toru?ska etc.) - I think such a package
> > will be redundant.
>
> Well, tetex-base only has the afm a
Hello
On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 04:10:17PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> 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
>
Hello
On Wed, Mar 16, 2005 at 02:30:29PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> 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, bui
The JED-related packages are now maintained in a collaborative effort
hosted at Alioth. All developers interested in JED (that famous editor)
packaging, either DDs or non-DDs, are invited to participate. More
information can be found at:
http://pkg-jed.alioth.debian.org
[N.B.: The M-F-T of
On Wed, Mar 16, 2005 at 09:36:17AM -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> 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 am
Tollef Fog Heen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Most of the teams here work by the principle of Âsubmit working
> patches and be usefulÂ. I don't think having a formalised process to
> join the CD-image team (randomly chosen) is very useful.
BTW, I hope to be able to make a web page that explains
Tollef Fog Heen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> * 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.
The Hurd
> slang should, I hope, be a fairly small change; OTOH, we seem to still have
> conflicting slang1 and slang1a-utf8 packages in the archive (conflicting
> -dev packages at least), so it would certainly be nice to wrap this up and
> only have to carry one version of this core library for etch.
>
> Is this already in the Developer's Reference? If not, I think it should be
> added there. Thanks for the info!
Sigh, I *knew* someone would say this..:-)
Well, I may be unlucky enough for the tutorial about "i18n/l10n
handling for maintainers and translators" I proposed at debconf
to be accep
Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > So do it on machines that *are* hosted by DDs. Geez.
>
> Still not debian admin approved.
The Developer's Reference contains the procedures for binary NMUs.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Tro
Martin Michlmayr - Debian Project Leader <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> One problem, as you say above, is that random people building packages
> are more likely to break things because they don't know about
> architecture specific problems.
I have not said anything about "random people", but rat
Ingo Juergensmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Either you trust me as a person or you trust some kind of software snippet,
> aka gpg key.
I don't know who you are. The snippet tells me who you are.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Conta
On Wed, Mar 16, 2005 at 04:51:29PM +0100, Ingo Juergensmann wrote:
> 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
> > trustworth
Stephen Frost <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Well, that's not *necessairly* true. If the buildd maintainer is also
> part of DSA/ftpmasters (as seems to often be the case, and might even be
> required by some unwritten law) then it'd be possible for them to
> disable the account doing the uploadin
David Schmitt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Additionally, this hints at hidden problems of this architecture which - in
> the worst case - might lead to Debians sudden inability to support a
> really-stable release on this architecture. Regardless of the outcome of the
> post-Vancouver fallout,
Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Moving wanna-build to a mirror will mean that new source packages have
> to be in the archive for at least one mirror pulse before they get
> built. The m68k port has been working like that for a very long time
> (Since wanna-build's inception until a
I demand that Aurelien Jarno may or may not have written...
> On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 08:58:44AM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > As Steve 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
* Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-03-16 09:59]:
> If the information in the Developers' Reference is no longer
> correct, then fix it
Can you please give a specific section so we know what information
you're talking about exactly.
[The following is a clarification of what I said gi
Martin Michlmayr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> * Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-03-16 09:59]:
> > If the information in the Developers' Reference is no longer
> > correct, then fix it
>
> Can you please give a specific section so we know what information
> you're talking about exac
Hi Martin, *!
I spent a lot of my time reading the list in the last few days. The following
is a short summary of the the answers I observed on d-devel in the last days.
I'll amend that with observation I made in the last years from the sidelines
as a interested non-DD.
Thank you for providing
Hi, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> As far as a NEW-review team, when I raised this about a week ago, aj said
> that you'd effectively be ftpmasters, so why not be an ftpmaster?
Umm, no. I presume ftpmaster has other duties. Besides, eyeballing the new
packages and drafting a list for ftpmaster to cross-
Hi, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> The Developer's Reference contains the procedures for binary NMUs.
The BinNMU procedure covers the "a binary was built incorrectly and I can
fix it without touching the source" situation. Third-level Debian version
numbers and all.
What we're talking about here,
On Wednesday 16 March 2005 19:14, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
> Hi, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> > As far as a NEW-review team, when I raised this about a week ago, aj said
> > that you'd effectively be ftpmasters, so why not be an ftpmaster?
>
> Umm, no. I presume ftpmaster has other duties. Besides, eyeba
Hi, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> I think the queue
> needs to be as FIFO as possible for fairness and "principle of least
> surprise" sake.
See my patch on d-d (also mailed to the ftpmasters), which inserts "age in
queue" (actually, timestamp of last status change, but that's
more-or-less equivalent)
On Wednesday 16 March 2005 18:12, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> I already sent two mails [1,2] where I expressed my opinion that dumping
> testing might be an option since it's the main reason for the underlying
> problems that seem to cause the proposed removal of two third of the
> Debian architectures fr
To be in SCC, under the proposal we're all discussing, an arch must
have build 50% of the archive, not counting arch-specific packages.
The Debian Hurd project has another category that should be excluded
because they are kernel-specific. (The current list on the web page
is update, makedev, ld.
One of the conditions for SCC is "fully functioning Unix, including
DNS and firewall support." What specifically is intended by "firewall
support"?
Those who felt this necessary, can you please describe which specific
features you believe are necessary, and why?
Thomas
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, e
Hello
On Wed, Mar 16, 2005 at 03:27:27PM +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 cr
Matthias Urlichs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hi, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>
> > The Developer's Reference contains the procedures for binary NMUs.
>
> The BinNMU procedure covers the "a binary was built incorrectly and I can
> fix it without touching the source" situation. Third-level Debian
On Wed, Mar 16, 2005 at 12:09:08PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> 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
Eric Dorland wrote:
An arguably more secure approach would be to use a cryptographic smart
card in a usb key form factor with OpenSC. Unfortunately integration
with ssh and gpg is lacking at this point, but I hope to be able to do
something about that post-sarge (ssh has support but doesn't compile
Hi,
Thomas Bushnell BSG:
> I was speaking specifically of porter uploads; my discussion is about
> the specific case of s390 complaining that they can't do their porting
> work (which includes simply compiling packages) because the w-b admins
> won't add whatever buildd. My point is that porters
Andreas Barth wrote:
* Matthew Palmer ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050313 01:05]:
On Sat, Mar 12, 2005 at 03:12:12PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
Er, packages *do* eventually get built; they just don't get built in any
kind of FIFO order.
Er, no.
Thomas Bushnell BSG writes:
> The Debian Hurd project has another category that should be excluded
> because they are kernel-specific. (The current list on the web page is
> update, makedev, ld.so, modconf, modutils, netbase, pcmcia-cs, procps,
> ppp, pppconfig, setserial.
Pppconfig is not kernel
On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 04:35:24PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
...
> 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 appo
John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Thomas Bushnell BSG writes:
> > The Debian Hurd project has another category that should be excluded
> > because they are kernel-specific. (The current list on the web page is
> > update, makedev, ld.so, modconf, modutils, netbase, pcmcia-cs, procps,
> >
Hello
On Fri, Feb 25, 2005 at 07:45:47PM -0600, Ron Johnson wrote:
> On Sat, 2005-02-26 at 00:53 +0100, Santiago Vila wrote:
> > Hello.
> >
> > I have several reports saying procmail does not support mbox folders
> > larger than 2GB. Questions:
>
> OT here, but WTF are people smoking, to have 2G
On Wed, 2005-03-16 at 21:18 +0100, Ola Lundqvist wrote:
> Hello
>
> On Fri, Feb 25, 2005 at 07:45:47PM -0600, Ron Johnson wrote:
> > On Sat, 2005-02-26 at 00:53 +0100, Santiago Vila wrote:
> > > Hello.
> > >
> > > I have several reports saying procmail does not support mbox folders
> > > larger t
Scripsit Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 09:56:03PM +, Henning Makholm wrote:
>>An IRREGULAR architecture either does not make releases, or release
>>according to a schedule that does not match the REGULAR one. (One
>>possible instance of this is "we'll tr
Le Mer 16 Mars 2005 21:36, Ron Johnson a Ãcrit :
> On Wed, 2005-03-16 at 21:18 +0100, Ola Lundqvist wrote:
> > Hello
> >
> > On Fri, Feb 25, 2005 at 07:45:47PM -0600, Ron Johnson wrote:
> > > On Sat, 2005-02-26 at 00:53 +0100, Santiago Vila wrote:
> > > > Hello.
> > > >
> > > > I have several repor
On Wed, Mar 16, 2005 at 06:39:11PM +0100, Christian Perrier wrote:
> > slang should, I hope, be a fairly small change; OTOH, we seem to still have
> > conflicting slang1 and slang1a-utf8 packages in the archive (conflicting
> > -dev packages at least), so it would certainly be nice to wrap this up
On Wed, 2005-03-16 at 20:27 +0100, Andreas Jochens wrote:
> This is a call for help from the 'ppc64' porters.
>
Which group? According to Sven Luther's e-mail to debian-devel there
are currently two competing efforts for this port.
Scott
--
Have you ever, ever felt like this?
Had strange thin
Hello,
This is a call for help from the 'ppc64' porters.
On 05-Mar-14 16:14, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
> Also, as with the amd64 port, there is disagreement about the name.
> While ppc64 would be nicer and in line with the LSB, our current
> PowerPC port is called powerpc and therefore it would ma
Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I presume the following is true (but different teams are different, so
> that's what I'm looking for, what is different) for the teams you are
> speaking of:
>
> 1) Anyone can join the mailing list and participate in the
>discussions;
> 2) Anyon
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Decklin Foster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* Package name: python-mpdclient
Version : 0.10.0
Upstream Author : Nick Welch
* URL : http://www.musicpd.org/py-libmpdclient.shtml
* License : LGPL
Description : Python interface
Adam Borowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb:
> On Wed, 16 Mar 2005, Frank Küster wrote:
>> Miros/law Baran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb:
>> > The font is included in the tetex-base package, along with other Type1
>> > GUST-sponsored fonts (Antykwa Toru?ska etc.) - I think such a package
>> > will be
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Decklin Foster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* Package name: python-beautifulsoup
Version : 1.2+cvs20041017
Upstream Author : Leonard Richardson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://www.crummy.com/software/BeautifulSoup/
* License : P
El mar, 15-03-2005 a las 19:53 -0500, Joey Hess escribiÃ:
> Marc Haber wrote:
> > The architectures you plan to release have a working installer,
> > anaconda, for years. d-i was developed to allow release of all
> > architectures. You are dropping that requirement, flushing all d-i
> > efforts dow
Ingo Juergensmann wrote:
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 backbone
On Wed, 2005-03-16 at 22:48 +0100, Andreas Jochens wrote:
> On 05-Mar-16 21:16, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> > On Wed, 2005-03-16 at 20:27 +0100, Andreas Jochens wrote:
> >
> > > This is a call for help from the 'ppc64' porters.
> > >
> > Which group? According to Sven Luther's e-mail to debia
On 05-Mar-16 21:16, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> On Wed, 2005-03-16 at 20:27 +0100, Andreas Jochens wrote:
>
> > This is a call for help from the 'ppc64' porters.
> >
> Which group? According to Sven Luther's e-mail to debian-devel there
> are currently two competing efforts for this port.
The
On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 05:04:26PM -0800, Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote:
> >> The first. Basically upstream changes the database format quite often.
> >> I am even not entirely sure if the database format stays compatible in
> >> the 2.1 or 2.2 line but I'd expect it to. The 2.2.23 Debian packages
> >>
Hi Quanah,
On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 01:07:29PM -0800, Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote:
> 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 variety of ta
On Wed, 2005-03-16 at 23:14 +0100, Andreas Jochens wrote:
> On 05-Mar-16 22:01, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> > On Wed, 2005-03-16 at 22:48 +0100, Andreas Jochens wrote:
> >
> > My concern is the same as that of the Project Leader, that the existing
> > powerpc port is called "powerpc" -- and that
On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 17:19:31 +0100, Thiemo Seufer uttered
> AFAIR it wasn't fixed but dropped, nobody seemed to care about
> sun4c any more.
>
You need to check your assertions better. Joshua Kwan has done a hell
of a lot of work with sparc{32,64} recently. Anyway, sun4c is not the
only sparc32 su
On 05-Mar-16 22:01, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> On Wed, 2005-03-16 at 22:48 +0100, Andreas Jochens wrote:
>
> > On 05-Mar-16 21:16, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2005-03-16 at 20:27 +0100, Andreas Jochens wrote:
> > >
> > > > This is a call for help from the 'ppc64' porters.
> > > >
On Wed, Mar 16, 2005 at 10:24:04PM +, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> Because it's a 64-bit version of an already supported architecture.
> Having "ppc" and "ppc64" would be fine, as would having "powerpc" and
> "powerpc64". Having "powerpc" and "ppc64" is inconsistent.
and deviating from an alr
On Wed, Mar 16, 2005 at 10:00:15AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> > Either you trust me as a person or you trust some kind of software snippet,
> > aka gpg key.
> I don't know who you are. The snippet tells me who you are.
even with that snippet you don't know me. You just know, that there
On Wed, 2005-03-16 at 20:27 +0100, Andreas Jochens wrote:
> Hello,
>
> This is a call for help from the 'ppc64' porters.
>
> On 05-Mar-14 16:14, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
> > Also, as with the amd64 port, there is disagreement about the name.
> > While ppc64 would be nicer and in line with the LSB
On Mar 16, Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> One of the conditions for SCC is "fully functioning Unix, including
> DNS and firewall support." What specifically is intended by "firewall
> support"?
I think that simple ACLs are the bare minimum.
> Those who felt this necessary, ca
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes:
> On Mar 16, Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > One of the conditions for SCC is "fully functioning Unix, including
> > DNS and firewall support." What specifically is intended by "firewall
> > support"?
> I think that simple ACLs are
> Anyway, the biarch approach will also need a 'dpkg' which supports
> separate 64-bit ppc64 packages in the end.
>
> What are your concerns? Do you refuse to support a native 64-bit
> powerpc64/ppc64 port? Or do you want a different name for it?
I think there is not real point in doing so, or
On 05-Mar-17 09:46, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> Have we any proper way of doing multiarch setups ? The "proper" way to
> do ppc64 is to have both archs libs and 32 bits userland for most
> things, as ppc64 native code is slightly slower.
Detailed measurements of 32 bit vs. 64 bit code for diff
> However, I still do not understand why you and/or the Project Leader
> want to override the decision of the porters and choose a different name
> than the LSB specifies. I am not saying that Debian should always follow
> the LSB blindly, but I cannot see a good reason for deviating from the
>
On Mar 17, Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > One of the conditions for SCC is "fully functioning Unix, including
> > > DNS and firewall support." What specifically is intended by "firewall
> > > support"?
> > I think that simple ACLs are the bare minimum.
> Ok, can you point
On Wed, 2005-03-16 at 22:24 +, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> On Wed, 2005-03-16 at 23:14 +0100, Andreas Jochens wrote:
>
> > On 05-Mar-16 22:01, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2005-03-16 at 22:48 +0100, Andreas Jochens wrote:
> > >
> > > My concern is the same as that of the Project
On Wed, 2005-03-16 at 23:59 +0100, Andreas Jochens wrote:
> On 05-Mar-17 09:46, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> > Have we any proper way of doing multiarch setups ? The "proper" way to
> > do ppc64 is to have both archs libs and 32 bits userland for most
> > things, as ppc64 native code is slightly
On Wed, 2005-03-16 at 23:59 +0100, Andreas Jochens wrote:
> On 05-Mar-17 09:46, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> > Have we any proper way of doing multiarch setups ? The "proper" way to
> > do ppc64 is to have both archs libs and 32 bits userland for most
> > things, as ppc64 native code is slightly
On Wed, Mar 16, 2005 at 07:51:16PM +0100, David Schmitt wrote:
> On Wednesday 16 March 2005 18:12, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > I already sent two mails [1,2] where I expressed my opinion that dumping
> > testing might be an option since it's the main reason for the underlying
> > problems that seem to c
On Wed, 2005-03-16 at 09:20 -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> Due to a scheduling conflict with our regular meeting date of April
> 19, the Board elected to meet on April 12 instead. The time will be
> the same as always, 19:00 UTC.
>
> Please note: this will be a different *local* time for people in
On 05-Mar-16 22:24, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> > So you would add 'powerpc64' support to dpkg if the port changes its
> > package name accordingly?
> >
> Yes, that'd be applied to the 1.13 branch straight away.
>
> > However, I still do not understand why you and/or the Project Leader
> > wan
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
* Package name: coils
Version : no version
Upstream Author : Rob Russell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://www.russell.embl.de/cgi-bin/coils-svr.pl
* License : GPL
Description : [Biology] prediction of coiled coil seconda
On Thu, 2005-03-17 at 00:31 +0100, Andreas Jochens wrote:
> On 05-Mar-16 22:24, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> > > So you would add 'powerpc64' support to dpkg if the port changes its
> > > package name accordingly?
> > >
> > Yes, that'd be applied to the 1.13 branch straight away.
> >
> > > Howe
Hi, David Schmitt wrote:
> Collecting tidbits of
> information concerning the various packages rotting in NEW and making that
> information public.
A list of packages-in-NEW is available on the Web, including binary
package names, bugs closed, et al.
Nothing more can be done by the average bored
On Thu, Mar 17, 2005 at 12:24:00AM +0100, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Mar 17, Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > > One of the conditions for SCC is "fully functioning Unix, including
> > > > DNS and firewall support." What specifically is intended by "firewall
> > > > support"?
Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> It seems what makes Thomas suspicous is that of all current ports of
> Debian (Linux, *BSD, GNU/Hurd), the only one that might be affected is
> GNU/Hurd - this requirement is therefore either void for all current
> Debian ports or it was meant specifica
On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 08:44:49PM -0800, Blars Blarson wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you write:
> >I have an e3500 to replace both auric and vore (and the raid), but I
> >haven't gotten an ok from James to do so yet.
>
> That would cut the number of sparc buildds down to one, when two a
Hi, Ola Lundqvist wrote:
> Hello
>
> On Wed, Mar 16, 2005 at 03:27:27PM +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
Ben Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 08:44:49PM -0800, Blars Blarson wrote:
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you write:
> > >I have an e3500 to replace both auric and vore (and the raid), but I
> > >haven't gotten an ok from James to do so yet.
> >
> > That would cu
Hi, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> You've deliberately chosen an
> architecture name that's jarringly different from your 32-bit variant;
> that's a rather bold thing to do, and I think you need to justify that.
>
He did, didn't he? LSB conformity, for one. No Debian precedent for
appending "64" to
Hi, Karsten Merker wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 16, 2005 at 02:02:09PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
>
>> For that matter, it would probably make sense to drop 2.4 kernels fully
>> in the not so far future.
>
> I would like to strongly advise against that - 2.6 does not even work
> properly on several i386
On Wed, Mar 16, 2005 at 11:07:56AM -0500, Stephen Frost wrote:
> * 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)
I demand that Adrian Bunk may or may not have written...
[snip]
> And without testing, all these transition problems wouldn't exist.
And without testing, there are those who currently use testing who'd use
stable instead, or possibly go elsewhere.
(I'm currently using testing. Updating an instal
I demand that Marc Haber may or may not have written...
> On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 14:02:20 +0100, Frank Küster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>> luna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> We all have seen this proposal for "dropping architecture" and a lot of
>>> us are crying because their favourite pet archi
On Thu, 2005-03-17 at 01:57 +0100, Andreas Jochens wrote:
> On 05-Mar-17 00:10, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> > No, I would just prefer consistency. You've deliberately chosen an
> > architecture name that's jarringly different from your 32-bit variant;
> > that's a rather bold thing to do, and I
Thomas wrote:
>Tollef Fog Heen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Most of the teams here work by the principle of «submit working
>> patches and be useful». I don't think having a formalised process to
>> join the CD-image team (randomly chosen) is very useful.
>
>BTW, I hope to be able to make a we
Ben Collins wrote:
>On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 08:44:49PM -0800, Blars Blarson wrote:
>> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you write:
>> >I have an e3500 to replace both auric and vore (and the raid), but I
>> >haven't gotten an ok from James to do so yet.
>>
>> That would cut the number of sparc buildd
On 05-Mar-17 00:10, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> No, I would just prefer consistency. You've deliberately chosen an
> architecture name that's jarringly different from your 32-bit variant;
> that's a rather bold thing to do, and I think you need to justify that.
The decision to use the name 'ppc6
Hey Steve,
Steve Langasek wrote:
>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 s
Scott James Remnant wrote:
>On Thu, 2005-03-17 at 01:57 +0100, Andreas Jochens wrote:
>>
>> The decision to use the name 'ppc64' is based on the LSB and it is
>> consistent with the decision of all other distributions I know of.
>>
>But it isn't consistent with Debian's previous decision on the
* Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote:
[...]
> You do *not* want to run OpenLDAP against BDB 4.3. Releasing Debian
> with its OpenLDAP compiled against BDB 4.3 would be a serious
> mistake.
You forgot to explain _why_ OpenLDAP compiled against BDB 4.3 should
be a serious mistake.
Norbert
--
To UNSUBSCRI
On Thu, Mar 17, 2005 at 01:07:05AM +, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> On Thu, 2005-03-17 at 01:57 +0100, Andreas Jochens wrote:
>
> > On 05-Mar-17 00:10, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> > > No, I would just prefer consistency. You've deliberately chosen an
> > > architecture name that's jarringly d
On Thu, Mar 17, 2005 at 12:29:28AM +, Darren Salt wrote:
> I demand that Adrian Bunk may or may not have written...
>
> [snip]
> > And without testing, all these transition problems wouldn't exist.
>
> And without testing, there are those who currently use testing who'd use
> stable instead,
Hi Guys,
I hope this is the right area to send this email. My apologies if I am
wrong. If so, please forward to the appropriate area.
I have fiddles with Linux distro's for approx 3 years, and found Debian 3
months ago. I adore it, and will be using debian from now on.
I would like to off
On Thu, 2005-03-17 at 01:07 +, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> On Thu, 2005-03-17 at 01:57 +0100, Andreas Jochens wrote:
>
> > On 05-Mar-17 00:10, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> > > No, I would just prefer consistency. You've deliberately chosen an
> > > architecture name that's jarringly differen
On Thu, Mar 17, 2005 at 12:28:55PM +1100, Evan Cox wrote:
> My suggestion has come from frustration in trying to maintain Debian Sarge
> from the CLI. I am very use to some sort of system control center, for
> common tasks such as iptables, network connection/configuration, configuring
> hardw
Ben Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The requirement sucks, lets leave it at that. If the machine dies, I can
> have two to replace it within a day or two.
>
> The point being, there's no reason to have two seperate machines when one
> can do the job. As long as it keeps up, then there shoul
On Thu, Mar 17, 2005 at 01:26:17AM +0100, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
> No Debian tool depends on s/32/64/ or s/$/64/. As for me, I type "ppc"
> instead of "powerpc" very often, even though I should know better by now.
Likewise. This would seem to be a case of "once may be regarded as a
misfortune,
Torsten Landschoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Some issues to consider for the 2.1 to 2.2 process:
>>
>> 1) OpenLDAP 2.1 generally used BDB 4.1. OpenLDAP 2.2 should only be used
>> with BDB 4.2.52+patches when using bdb or hdb as the backend (Ignore the
>> documentation with OpenLDAP 2.2.23
101 - 200 of 228 matches
Mail list logo
