Please, try to avoid messages which are not directed to the end user under
NEWS.Debian:
* Removed patch 057_pppoe-interface-change which was refused by the
upstream maintainer. Now users must arrange for the ethernet
interface used for PPPoE to be up.
* The PPPoA plugin does not requir
On Mon, Mar 21, 2005 at 12:35:28AM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 18, 2005 at 11:43:48PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > the "more" or "less" aspect of the urgency is relevant here. We
> > obviously have a system for classifying the severity of bugs in
> > packages, and it's possible
Sven Luther wrote:
And what do you say of aj denying there is a NEW problem on the debian-vote
threads ?
I don't know what Steve says, but I say: Cite.
I don't believe I said any such thing -- NEW processing has been a
problem for some months now, which is why we were working on adding a
couple
Quoting Andreas Barth ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> * Thiemo Seufer ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050320 12:15]:
> > I don't regard my mips/mipsel porting work as just a hobby.
>
> You're definitly doing a very professional job with mips*. In fact, I'm
Which indeed does not change my statement. All this (our De
On Sun, Mar 20, 2005 at 12:13:13PM -0500, David Nusinow wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 20, 2005 at 10:05:15AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 18, 2005 at 12:06:15PM -0500, David Nusinow wrote:
> > > On Fri, Mar 18, 2005 at 05:43:26PM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > > > [1] The installer might be a po
On Mon, Mar 21, 2005 at 04:31:57AM +0100, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
> David Nusinow wrote:
> [snip]
> > > > If you have a single source package for 12 different architectures
> > > > that's great, because when you have a security fix you can take
> > > > care of that more easily. That's awesome.
> > >
Steve Langasek wrote:
One _might_ consider to have ports.d.o with the full package pool,
whereas ftp.d.o only consists the most wanted architectures. As a mirror
operator, you can than choose to either just have the most wanted
architectures, all or both.
Why not go the full way? What I've outlined
On Sun, Mar 20, 2005 at 12:45:33PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> discussion forward in such a way that we can get a resonable discussion at the
> helsinski debconf'05 meeting.
>
That's Helsinki, you ignoramus, you.
http://www.helsinki.fi/eng/index.html
--
Tapio Lehtonen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
GPG pub
On Mon, 21 Mar 2005, Jesus Climent wrote:
> upstream maintainer. Now users must arrange for the ethernet
> interface used for PPPoE to be up.
The rest of the technical details should not really be in NEWS.Debian, BUT
"Now users must arrange for the ethernet interface used for PPPoE to be
It's not so fair to perpetrate a straw man attack against Sven's whole
proposal just because he can't spell perfectly. Give the man credit
where it's due for trying to better Debian.
BTW, Sven and the Vancouver crew, I appreciate your collective thinking
about what's right for Debian and the minor
Hi tired and weary folks,
after such long and heated dicussions, I, ironically, think Debian needs
UBUNTU (at least the african concept of humanity towards others and
reconciliation)!
Lets work towards a solution together and help all of our users and all
of our porters and all of our maintainers,
On Mar 21, Jesus Climent <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Please, try to avoid messages which are not directed to the end user under
> NEWS.Debian:
They *are* directed to end users and document two changes which may need
their attention and require configuration changes.
--
ciao,
Marco
signature.a
On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 08:47:22 +0100, Adeodato Simó <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>* Marc Haber [Mon, 21 Mar 2005 08:03:21 +0100]:
>> | Version Table:
>> | 4.50-4 555
>> |500 http://debian.debian.zugschlus.de sid/main Packages
>> | *** 4.50-1 555
>> |100 /var/lib/dpkg/status
>> |
On Mon, Mar 21, 2005 at 12:27:49PM +0100, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Mar 21, Jesus Climent <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Please, try to avoid messages which are not directed to the end user under
> > NEWS.Debian:
> They *are* directed to end users and document two changes which may need
> their a
Hi Everyone,
There is an error in the currently posted transcript for part 1 of the
debate [1]. The following section, in "Managing DPL Duties and Life":
AngusLees:
I consider travelling as an extremely important factor of being
DPL. Before nominating, I carefully considered the time I wil
> http://people.ubuntu.com/~scott/patches/
Thanks, that is very useful.
I see that Ubuntu has done a lot of work to make initscripts send output
through lsb printing functions. Are there any plans for Debian to adopt
these changes?
--
Thomas Hood
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED
On Sat, Mar 19, 2005 at 04:10:51AM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > - While neither of the above concerns is overriding on its own (the
> > ftpmasters have obviously allowed these ports to persist on
> > ftp-master.debian.org, and they will be relea
On Mar 21, Thomas Hood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I see that Ubuntu has done a lot of work to make initscripts send output
> through lsb printing functions. Are there any plans for Debian to adopt
> these changes?
The first step would be for somebody to make a debian lsb-base package,
possibly
Hi, Kyle McMartin wrote:
> If you had actually _looked_ before you opened your dumb mouth,
There's at least one word in this sentence which is uncalled-for.
Please don't further escalate this already-heated debate by insulting
people.
Thank you.
--
Matthias Urlichs | {M:U} IT Design @ m-u
On Mon, Mar 21, 2005 at 01:03:17PM +0100, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Mar 21, Thomas Hood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I see that Ubuntu has done a lot of work to make initscripts send output
> > through lsb printing functions. Are there any plans for Debian to adopt
> > these changes?
>
> The fir
On Monday 21 March 2005 02:19, Kyle McMartin wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 20, 2005 at 08:20:40PM +0100, David Schmitt wrote:
> > kernel-latest-2.6-hppa 2.6.8-1
> > source hppa unstable
> > 1 month Kyle McMartin
> >
> > debian-kernel managed kernel-image tracker packages seem to be called
> > kernel-image
* Anthony Towns (aj@azure.humbug.org.au) wrote:
> >Apparently the feeling wrt distcc is somewhat different and is likely to
> >be a more generally accepted solution to the slow-at-compiling issue.
>
> I like distcc -- heck I went to high school with the author -- and I
> think it's cool. I don't
Hi Andrea,
Andrea Mennucc wrote:
> my source package has this web page in BTS
> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?src=libppd where you see
> there are 4 bugs listed (resolved)
>
>
> but then there is this web page
> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?pkg=libppd
[snip]
>
On Sun, Mar 20, 2005 at 03:16:08PM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
> * Henning Makholm ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050319 22:05]:
> > Scripsit David Weinehall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > > That said, I'm a firm believer of the suggestion posed by Jesus
> > > Climent[1], that we should have base set of software
* Wouter Verhelst ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050321 15:05]:
> On Sun, Mar 20, 2005 at 03:16:08PM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > Well, the toolchain is perhaps not the part where they turn up most
> > likely, but it's the part that creates most of the workload and delays.
> Uh. Most porting bugs that re
[ Please followup to the right list depending on the contents of your
reply. Be aware I'm not subscribed to -kernel, so Cc me if needed ]
On Mon, Mar 21, 2005 at 08:14:37AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> [huge rant about NEW and hurting kernel stuff etc etc]
Three remarks:
> Rejecting those would l
Sven Luther wrote:
[snip]
> > For sarge, kernels are built in a two-stage process. First is to create
> > a dsfg-free .deb from the upstream source which contains a source
> > tarball, second is to build kernel images from another (arch-specific)
> > .deb which build-depends on the source .deb. In
On Thu, Mar 17, 2005 at 01:09:33PM +0100, Marc Haber wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 20:39:48 -0700, Joel Aelwyn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >* The first rule of securing a machine exposed to the wilds is "Deny by
> > default, allow by need".
>
> Which is pretty well accomplished by only running
On Mon, Mar 21, 2005 at 03:11:06PM +0100, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote:
> [ Please followup to the right list depending on the contents of your
> reply. Be aware I'm not subscribed to -kernel, so Cc me if needed ]
>
> On Mon, Mar 21, 2005 at 08:14:37AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > [huge rant about
* Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> Note that some packages, directly or indirectly, build-depend on
> packages containing daemons that will be started by default if
> installed. In that light, a firewall really is required to keep things
> safe.
IMO most notably, because many users will hit that:
KDE ->
* Scott James Remnant wrote:
> Ubuntu developers have been asking for patches to be updated when a
> new Ubuntu upload is made, not just when a new Debian upload is
> made.
>
> Hand me that rock, I've a couple of birds to kill ...
>
> http://people.ubuntu.com/~scott/patches/
>
> At this URL, you
Hi, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Matthias Urlichs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> We can't. AFAIK: One or two rsync commands, and *that's*it*.
>>
>> Any required fanciness need to be done on the master server.
>
> But that's your choice.
> [ Rather silly dialogue deleted ]
The choice is to ei
On Fri, Mar 18, 2005 at 12:06:08PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> So, I'd just like to re-emphasise this, because I still haven't seen
> anything that counts as useful. I'm thinking something like "We use s390
> to host 6231 scientific users on Debian in a manner compatible to the
> workstations
On Mon, Mar 21, 2005 at 12:36:52PM +0100, Marc Haber wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 08:47:22 +0100, Adeodato Simó <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >* Marc Haber [Mon, 21 Mar 2005 08:03:21 +0100]:
> >> | Version Table:
> >> | 4.50-4 555
> >> |500 http://debian.debian.zugschlus.de sid/main P
On Mon, Mar 21, 2005 at 08:47:41AM -0500, Stephen Frost wrote:
> * Anthony Towns (aj@azure.humbug.org.au) wrote:
> > >Apparently the feeling wrt distcc is somewhat different and is likely to
> > >be a more generally accepted solution to the slow-at-compiling issue.
> >
> > I like distcc -- heck I
On Mon, Mar 21, 2005 at 03:10:34PM +, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 21, 2005 at 03:20:29PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > Anyway, regarding kernels: I can imagine sometimes, especially with the
> > > backlog we have currently, a swift processing of some kernel package
> > > might be warr
On Sun, Mar 20, 2005 at 12:00:23PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Darren Salt wrote:
> >I demand that Anthony Towns may or may not have written...
> >>Put them behind a firewall on a trusted LAN, use them to develop software
> >>for arm chips, and then just follow unstable or run non-security-suppor
On Mon, Mar 21, 2005 at 12:26:13AM -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> It's not so fair to perpetrate a straw man attack against Sven's whole
> proposal just because he can't spell perfectly. Give the man credit
> where it's due for trying to better Debian.
Hehe, no offense taken, and i can understa
On Sun, Mar 20, 2005 at 06:17:10PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> The primary alpha buildd last summer, lully.d.o, went off-line due to
> hardware failures and we were left with an under-powered backup, escher,
> that was unable to keep up with the package load. This persisted for more
> than a mo
Dear, all,
> [...]
I'm quite unhappy that this thread has turned so bad. Please, all of us
who are part of this thread, can we please try to get the heat out.
I think we all are happy that ftp-masters and -assistents are currently
working on reducing the NEW queue to a reasonable size. This wi
On Wed, Mar 16, 2005 at 08:34:44PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> One of my hopes for the new ftp/scc criteria is that buildds will be
> much better maintained than they are currently, with a single set of
> clear standards, which every single buildd is required to follow, and
> with extra bui
* Matthew Wilcox ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050321 17:05]:
> I'm not going to volunteer for them as I intend to leave Debian
> shortly after sarge releases.
Why do you intend to leave Debian?
Cheers,
Andi
--
http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/
PGP 1024/89FB5CE5 DC F1 85 6D A6 45 9C 0F 3B BE F
On Mon, Mar 21, 2005 at 03:09:26PM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
> * Wouter Verhelst ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050321 15:05]:
> > On Sun, Mar 20, 2005 at 03:16:08PM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > > Well, the toolchain is perhaps not the part where they turn up most
> > > likely, but it's the part that cr
On Sun, Mar 20, 2005 at 02:36:12PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Ben Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > I think they are designed too stringently. Guidelines should describe the
> > level of stability an arch is required to meet, and let the implementation
> > be whatever is needed, o
On Mon, Mar 21, 2005 at 07:42:11PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Sven Luther wrote:
> >And what do you say of aj denying there is a NEW problem on the debian-vote
> >threads ?
>
> I don't know what Steve says, but I say: Cite.
I don't care what you say, i am out of this anyway, there is no way i
On Sat, Mar 19, 2005 at 01:48:42AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 02:10:47PM -0500, Greg Folkert wrote:
> > I am currently in the process of acquiring rotated out of production
> > machines for 3 of the 5 architectures I support. I make a run to the
> > right-coast of the US
On Mon, Mar 21, 2005 at 03:45:10PM +, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 21, 2005 at 04:08:19PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > Thanks. Maybe i should resign from my debian duties then since i am not
> > wanted. Do you volunteer to take over my packages ? Please handle parted for
> > which i am
On Mon, Mar 21, 2005 at 12:36:42PM +0100, Norbert Tretkowski wrote:
> That helps a lot, thanks Scott! What about offering a way to subscribe
> to packages, so you'll get informed by mail if a package in Ubuntu is
> changed, maybe with an interdiff applied to that mail?
This isn't possible yet, bu
On Sat, Mar 19, 2005 at 04:19:03AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 18, 2005 at 05:43:26PM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > I do still doubt that testing actually is an improvement compared to the
> > former method of freezing unstable, and even more do I doubt it's worth
> > sacrificing 8
* Matthew Palmer
| You'd also have to modify fernanda to check whether sys.stdout is a
| TTY, and not invoke less if it isn't, since at the moment it automatically
| pipes it's output through less. The colour codes might also be an issue, so
| fernanda may need extra help not to screw that up.
On Fri, Mar 18, 2005 at 11:32:08PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> As pointed out in a recent thread, most of the core hardware portability
> issues are picked up just by building on "the big three" -- i386, powerpc,
> amd64. If we know the software isn't going to be used, is it actually
> useful t
On Sat, Mar 19, 2005 at 09:52:18AM -0600, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
> As you say, _most_ of the issues are triggered by one of those three
> chips, not all. And, by not making a hard requirement to compile the
> packages which will not be used, you are not holding the project back
> waiting for m68k's KDE
[Sven Luther]
> the problem is not the reject, is the no news in weeks and no
> communication channel open. But again, i think and hope that this
> will become better now.
I agree. Complete silence and no feedback is a real problem when it
happen, and only worse if it is an official debian role f
On Mon, Mar 21, 2005 at 03:11:06PM +0100, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote:
> Maybe, if one would reply to all mails you send out, one wouldn't have
> time for ANY other Debian work. For example, you contributed 75 mails[1]
> within 24 hours to the Vancouver thread, consisting (excluding quoted
> text)
On Mon, Mar 21, 2005 at 05:40:44PM +0100, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
> [Sven Luther]
> > the problem is not the reject, is the no news in weeks and no
> > communication channel open. But again, i think and hope that this
> > will become better now.
>
> I agree. Complete silence and no feedback is
It's also not something that would totally destroy an architecture's
ability to release. Yes, it would be bad, but not the end of the world.
On Sun, Mar 20, 2005 at 02:36:12PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Ben Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > I think they are designed too stringent
> For sparc, a second buildd was brought on-line on auric this year because
> (IIRC) vore was not keeping up with the upload volume at the time; this
> required effort on DSA's part to clear enough disk space to be able to run a
> buildd, until which time sparc was holding some RC bugfixes out of t
On Mon, Mar 21, 2005 at 03:20:29PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > Anyway, regarding kernels: I can imagine sometimes, especially with the
> > backlog we have currently, a swift processing of some kernel package
> > might be warranted and help Sarge. If there is such a case, it would
> > help if some
On Sun, Mar 20, 2005 at 11:22:48AM -0600, Steve Greenland wrote:
> On 19-Mar-05, 10:00 (CST), Matthias Urlichs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Umm, rp_filter is for rejecting packets whose *source* address is from the
> > wrong network.
>
> Right. I know this. But what Joel was originally tal
Wouter Verhelst wrote:
[snip]
> > m68k, mips, mipsel, hppa: I've got one in the basement, and I like
> > to brag that I run Debian on it; also I occassionally get some work out
> > of
> > it, but it'd be trivial to replace with i386.
>
> Aren't the first three of these also actively bei
On Fri, Mar 18, 2005 at 07:39:06PM -0600, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
> Matthias Urlichs dijo [Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 11:14:50PM +0100]:
> > It won't work that well for slower architectures, for the very simple
> > reason that compiling everything would take a long time.
> >
> > m68k (as the admittedly extre
On Mon, Mar 21, 2005 at 04:08:19PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> Thanks. Maybe i should resign from my debian duties then since i am not
> wanted. Do you volunteer to take over my packages ? Please handle parted for
> which i am searching a co-maintainer since > 6 month, and take over the
> powerpc k
[Petter Reinholdtsen]
> in later private emails.
This was a misunderstanding on my part, due to the fact that I
received the replies from Sven before I received the replies from
Matthew. The fact that the replies were done on public lists and not
in private email do not change how I react to thei
Wouter Verhelst wrote:
Joey Schulze has already said that doing security support for two
architectures is exactly as hard as doing security support for twenty
architectures, so the point about supporting stable is kindof moot. The
same isn't true for testing, obviously.
Joey gets to say this becaus
> I'm quite unhappy that this thread has turned so bad. Please, all of us
> who are part of this thread, can we please try to get the heat out.
I can't agree more. What I have seen up to now is make me very
sad. Seeing Sven considering to resign is sad news for me.
I won't play the "others star
On Mon, Mar 21, 2005 at 12:17:45PM +0100, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
> Sven Luther wrote:
> [snip]
> > > For sarge, kernels are built in a two-stage process. First is to create
> > > a dsfg-free .deb from the upstream source which contains a source
> > > tarball, second is to build kernel images from ano
On Mon, Mar 21, 2005 at 05:10:12PM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
> * Matthew Wilcox ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050321 17:05]:
> > I'm not going to volunteer for them as I intend to leave Debian
> > shortly after sarge releases.
>
> Why do you intend to leave Debian?
The Vancouver meeting summary upset me
Matthias Urlichs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The choice is to either restrict the required client-side fanciness to
> what most of our mirrors are willing to accept, or go without mirrors
> (OK, OK ... fewer mirrors anyway), which is something I don't think we'd
> want.
The whole point of SCC
> I am truly sorry for loosing you. You have done a good job helping
> Debian progress the state of free software, and it is sad that you
> decide to throw in the towel because of hard language from a fellow
> Debian volunteer. :(
I personnally can't stop thinking that Sven can reconsider his to
On Wed, Mar 16, 2005 at 08:14:59PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> This proposal is, first and foremost, about setting concrete criteria that
> we can hold the ports to for etch, to get away from wishy-washy, "one more
> week for kernel updates on $arch", "$arch2 isn't doing so well, maybe we
> shou
[Sven Luther]
> No, he is not, as far as i am concerned, unless he presents his
> apologies first.
For what? Commenting on your wast amount of email posted the last few
days, and his suggestion that the amount of email could make the
ftpmasters delete mails by mistake? I can not really believe t
On Mon, Mar 21, 2005 at 06:34:00PM +0100, Christian Perrier wrote:
> > I'm quite unhappy that this thread has turned so bad. Please, all of us
> > who are part of this thread, can we please try to get the heat out.
>
>
> I can't agree more. What I have seen up to now is make me very
> sad. Seein
On Thu, Mar 17, 2005 at 07:22:37PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> There would definitely be duplication of arch:all between ftp.debian.org
> and ports.debian.org (let's call it ports), as well as duplication of the
> source.
I don't think this is a good idea. I'm thinking something like this
could
On Mon, Mar 21, 2005 at 08:46:25AM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 21, 2005 at 12:36:42PM +0100, Norbert Tretkowski wrote:
> > That helps a lot, thanks Scott! What about offering a way to subscribe
> > to packages, so you'll get informed by mail if a package in Ubuntu is
> > changed, may
On Mon, Mar 21, 2005 at 08:40:11PM +0100, Christian Perrier wrote:
> > I am truly sorry for loosing you. You have done a good job helping
> > Debian progress the state of free software, and it is sad that you
> > decide to throw in the towel because of hard language from a fellow
> > Debian volunt
On Wed, Mar 16, 2005 at 04:49:48PM +0100, Bastian Blank wrote:
> 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".
O
On Mon, Mar 21, 2005 at 08:28:44PM +0100, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
> [Sven Luther]
> > No, he is not, as far as i am concerned, unless he presents his
> > apologies first.
>
> For what? Commenting on your wast amount of email posted the last few
> days, and his suggestion that the amount of ema
> A QA measure for kernel/toolchain issues, sure. Many compiler bugs are
> identified by compiling 10G worth of software for an architecture;
> perhaps we should have a better way of tracking these, but it surely is
> a class of problems that /cannot/ be identified by just building on the
> big N
On Sat, Mar 19, 2005 at 03:17:33AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > - at least two buildd administrators
>
> > This allows the buildd administrator to take vacations, etc.
>
> This is at odds with what I've heard from some buildd maintainers that
> having multiple buildd maintainers makes it hard
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> No, that is not acceptable, and probably not the right reason for this. Until
> evidence proves otherwise, it is just because they don't care to read those
> emails, and that that email address is simply forwarded to /dev/null.
This assertion isn't justifi
On Sat, Mar 19, 2005 at 02:12:50PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> TTBOMK, even m68k has one buildd admin per buildd
False. There are some of us who currently don't maintain more than one
buildd host, but with the exception of Roman, we all have (or have had)
more than one buildd host under our res
Ok. I've written this based on the original d-d-a posting from Steve,
and from information cribbed from various other posts. The idea is to
focus consideration on the problems that the release team view as
needing to be solved, rather than just criticising the conclusions
reached.
To start with, h
Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> * the release architecture must be publicly available to buy new
>
> Avoids a situation where Debian is keeping an architecture alive.
I don't understand this. What is the problem with Debian is keeping an
architecture alive? What problem are you tryi
On Sun, Mar 20, 2005 at 11:22:48AM -0600, Steve Greenland wrote:
> On 19-Mar-05, 10:00 (CST), Matthias Urlichs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Umm, rp_filter is for rejecting packets whose *source* address is from the
> > wrong network.
>
> Right. I know this. But what Joel was originally tal
On Sat, Mar 19, 2005 at 09:54:09AM -0600, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
> Ola Lundqvist dijo [Wed, Mar 16, 2005 at 09:18:33PM +0100]:
> > 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
* Peter 'p2' De Schrijver ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050321 16:55]:
> On Mon, Mar 21, 2005 at 03:09:26PM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > * Wouter Verhelst ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050321 15:05]:
> > > On Sun, Mar 20, 2005 at 03:16:08PM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > > > Well, the toolchain is perhaps not th
On Mon, Mar 21, 2005 at 05:23:12PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > No, that is not acceptable, and probably not the right reason for this.
> > Until
> > evidence proves otherwise, it is just because they don't care to read those
> > emails, and that th
> * the release architecture must be publicly available to buy new
>
> Avoids a situation where Debian is keeping an architecture alive. This
> isn't intended to result in an architecture being dropped part way
> through a release cycle or once it becomes hard to obtain new hardware.
>
What prob
>
Because it should not be reason to throw out an entire architecture. Ie.
if the package can not be compiled on $arch and the toolchain can not be
fixed in time, then release $arch without the package instead of
throwing out the whole arch.
Cheers,
Peter (p2).
signature.asc
Description: Digi
Joel Aelwyn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Either someone
> cares enough to write (or adapt) the management tools and it gets included,
> or they don't and it doesn't because nobody in their right mind would
> deploy it in any widespread fashion.
But the latter is already true, and irrelevant.
-
* Peter 'p2' De Schrijver ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050321 22:30]:
> Because it should not be reason to throw out an entire architecture. Ie.
> if the package can not be compiled on $arch and the toolchain can not be
> fixed in time, then release $arch without the package instead of
> throwing out the w
> That has happened, but that are not the really bad problems with the
> toolchain. The really bad problems is if e.g. a class of packages starts
> to fail to build from source. Or some new required kernel version forces
> all to upgrade some autoconf-scripts.
>
Both problems are easy to solve co
Hi Quanah,
On Thu, Mar 17, 2005 at 03:39:09PM -0800, Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote:
> > Is there a way to enforce this without editing DB_CONFIG? I'd rather set
> > an environment variable or something like that. Writing that into
> > DB_CONFIG in the maintainer scripts always poses the risk that it'
* Wouter Verhelst ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050321 00:25]:
> On Thu, Mar 17, 2005 at 10:40:43AM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > If we don't wait for an arch, it gets out-of-sync quite soon, and due to
> > e.g. legal requirements, we can't release that arch. (In other words, if
> > an arch is too long ig
On Fri, Mar 18, 2005 at 06:44:46PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 10:48:10PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > The next stage in the process is to actually sell the proposed changes for
> > etch to the developers at large[2]. There are several points which can and
> > shou
On Mon, 21 Mar 2005, Peter 'p2' De Schrijver wrote:
> > * the release architecture must be publicly available to buy new
> >
> > Avoids a situation where Debian is keeping an architecture alive. This
> > isn't intended to result in an architecture being dropped part way
> > through a release cycle
Andreas Barth wrote:
* Wouter Verhelst ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050321 00:25]:
On Thu, Mar 17, 2005 at 10:40:43AM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
If we don't wait for an arch, it gets out-of-sync quite soon, and due to
e.g. legal requirements, we can't release that arch. (In other words, if
an arch
On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 02:04:35AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> >Joey Schulze has already said that doing security support for two
> >architectures is exactly as hard as doing security support for twenty
> >architectures, so the point about supporting stable is kindof moot
* Riku Voipio
| Incidentally the first problem should be solvable with the multiarch
| proposal, and the toolchains need to be polished anyway.
The multiarch proposals out there deal with how to run binaries for
multiple architectures, not how to cross-build. That's one of the
roads which would
On Mon, Mar 21, 2005 at 06:15:11PM +0100, Peter 'p2' De Schrijver wrote:
>
> > A QA measure for kernel/toolchain issues, sure. Many compiler bugs are
> > identified by compiling 10G worth of software for an architecture;
> > perhaps we should have a better way of tracking these, but it surely is
>
1 - 100 of 143 matches
Mail list logo
