-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Matthew Wilcox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi Matthew,
> I didn't realise how emotionally attached I was until I came to write
> this mail. I really wish things could have worked out better.
Although I am quite puzzled by the way you treated Sven a
On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 15:02:39 +0100, Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip]
> Uh. Most porting bugs that require attention fall in one of the
> following areas:
> * Toolchain problems (Internal Compiler Errors, mostly)
> * Mistakes made by the packager. Quite easy to fix, usually.
> * Inc
> If Debian is keeping an arch alive so much that one can still buy it new, I
> certainly can't see why we should not continue releasing for that arch,
> however. So I'd say Matthew's explanation is not perfect. But the
> reasoning behind it is not difficult to spot.
>
> Throwing out this requir
On Tue, 22 Mar 2005, Peter 'p2' De Schrijver wrote:
> > If Debian is keeping an arch alive so much that one can still buy it new, I
> > certainly can't see why we should not continue releasing for that arch,
> > however. So I'd say Matthew's explanation is not perfect. But the
> > reasoning behin
On Mon, Mar 21, 2005 at 12:50:03PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> 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
On Sat, Mar 19, 2005 at 09:36:38AM -0600, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
> Ola Lundqvist dijo [Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 09:19:45PM +0100]:
> > > And would a larger discussion at debconf'05 not have been more appropriate
> > > than handing done a couple of taken decision disguised as proposal ?
> > >
> > > It is
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Scott James Remnant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Many Debian developers have been asking for a simple way to see the
> current difference between their package and the equivalent in Ubuntu,
> if any.
>
> http://people.ubuntu.com/~scott/patches/
That
Hi,
reading larger parts of the recent threads triggered by the
'Vancouver proposal' brought me to write this mail.
Over the last two years testing became more and more a second
(almost) stable distribution instead of being a preparation area for the
next release. Now there is even security sup
On Mon, Mar 21, 2005 at 08:38:11AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> 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 an
On Mon, Mar 21, 2005 at 06:23:30PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> 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
On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 12:28:36AM +, Roger Leigh wrote:
> One suggestion: if any Ubuntu patches were CC'd to the Debian
> maintainer, or filed in the BTS, they would get applied quicker. I've
> now put your gimp-print changes back into my packages, but I would
> have been happy to do this la
Mike Fedyk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 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 requir
Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
Mike Fedyk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
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
* Wouter Verhelst
| 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 unsta
On Mon, Mar 21, 2005 at 09:51:25PM +0100, Falk Hueffner wrote:
> 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 w
Peter 'p2' De Schrijver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This is unacceptable. It would for example allow archs to be refused
> because their names starts with an 'A'.
Personally, I'd prefer to delegate that sort of decision to the
technical committee rather than have the release team have a veto. Ev
Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 12:28:36AM +, Roger Leigh wrote:
>
> > One suggestion: if any Ubuntu patches were CC'd to the Debian
> > maintainer, or filed in the BTS, they would get applied quicker. I've
> > now put your gimp-print changes back into my
On Mon, Mar 21, 2005 at 02:39:21PM +0100, David Schmitt wrote:
> Sorry Kyle, I owe you an apology and $DRINK on my tab.
>
And I owe you an apology. As I later realized, and a few folks pointed
out, I was way beyond the line in my reply.
Sorry for being so harsh.
Regards,
Kyle M.
> You
Joerg Friedrich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 1. The number of packages
>Debian never stopped growing, and there are packages which are
>unmaintained but they are still in the archive.
>Hey, if noone is willing to maintain a package, wait a grace period
>(30 days) and remove it fr
On Mon, Mar 21, 2005 at 06:43:45PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Many Debian maintainers would consider this unwelcome noise. In cases where
> > we can be certain that this is welcome (i.e., a bug is open in debbugs), the
> > patch is pushed, o
Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, Mar 21, 2005 at 06:43:45PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>
> > Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > Many Debian maintainers would consider this unwelcome noise. In cases
> > > where
> > > we can be certain that this is welcome
On Mon, Mar 21, 2005 at 07:04:04PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> So can you explain what I'm misunderstanding? What sort of patches
> are we talking about, and what is the publishing you're talking about?
The only distinction here is between merely publishing the patches on our
website, an
Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The only distinction here is between merely publishing the patches on our
> website, and pushing the patch to the Debian maintainer immediately. We
> publish all of our patches relative to Debian on a regular basis, and make
> an honest effort to sort
Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The only distinction here is between merely publishing the patches on our
> website, and pushing the patch to the Debian maintainer immediately. We
> publish all of our patches relative to Debian on a regular basis, and make
> an honest effort to sort
Sven Luther wrote:
Ok, this is the easy part, and also what the vancouver-proposal included, the
difference comes in how the minority-arches are handled, and my proposal is a
'including' proposal, while the vancouver-proposal was 'excluding'.
4) each non-tier1 arches will have its own testing infra
On Mon, Mar 21, 2005 at 03:11:38PM -0800, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> - out-of-date packaging; for XFree86 4.3 and Xorg, the package should
> build-depend on libxinerama-dev and build-conflict (if there were such
> a thing) with xlibs-static-pic
There is such a thing: Build-Conflicts.
Hamish
--
On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 19:32:54 -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> The only distinction here is between merely publishing the patches on our
>> website, and pushing the patch to the Debian maintainer immediately. We
>> publish all of our patches rela
On Mon, Mar 21, 2005 at 11:31:01PM -0500, Andres Salomon wrote:
> These seem like excellent fodder for a FAQ/wiki, if there isn't one
> already (a quick scan around Ubuntu's official and wiki FAQs didn't turn
> up anything). Perhaps "How Ubuntu relates to Debian", or "How Ubuntu
> changes find the
Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, Mar 21, 2005 at 11:31:01PM -0500, Andres Salomon wrote:
>
> > These seem like excellent fodder for a FAQ/wiki, if there isn't one
> > already (a quick scan around Ubuntu's official and wiki FAQs didn't turn
> > up anything). Perhaps "How Ubuntu
Torsten Landschoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 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
On Sun, Mar 20, 2005 at 03:45:00PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 20, 2005 at 10:53:57PM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> > On Sun, Mar 20, 2005 at 09:56:05AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > On Sun, Mar 20, 2005 at 12:00:23PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > > > But why would you spend over 1
On Sun, Mar 20, 2005 at 04:39:21PM +0100, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
> Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> > Most work for embedded systems would be cross-compiled from faster
> > systems anyway.
>
> The price for that is a serious lack of testing. Debian stable provides
> known good binaries.
I didn't mean that w
On Mon, Mar 21, 2005 at 07:08:14AM -0500, Ben Collins wrote:
> > 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
> >
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, Mar 21, 2005 at 08:38:11AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> > 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, o
Hi Bill,
On Fri, Mar 18, 2005 at 06:50:05AM -0600, Bill Allombert wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 17, 2005 at 09:47:42PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > Well, the release team are not the only Debian developers with credibility,
> > surely? Not everything needs to go through us; if the project has the will
Scripsit Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Mon, Mar 21, 2005 at 06:43:45PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>> Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > Many Debian maintainers would consider this unwelcome noise. In
>> > cases where we can be certain that this is welcome (i.e., a bu
On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 03:02:32AM +, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Then I'm having trouble parsing what you are saying, too. Like
> Thomas, the only sense I can make of your description is that
> you are are describing an algorithm that goes roughly like
>
> 0 Bug is discovered
> 1 Patch
On Mon, 21 Mar 2005, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
for use elsewhere. In the future, we intend to offer a subscription
mechanism for interested parties to receive asynchronous notification of new
patches and other activity, but until that time, we are taking a
If you ask me I would immediately subscribe t
On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 07:55:38AM +0100, Andreas Tille wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Mar 2005, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
>
> >for use elsewhere. In the future, we intend to offer a subscription
> >mechanism for interested parties to receive asynchronous notification of
> >new
> >patches and other activity, b
On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 07:55:38AM +0100, Andreas Tille wrote:
> If you ask me I would immediately subscribe to all of my packages and
> I would not consider it as noise if any patch Ububtu is doing would be
> sended automatically as wishlist bug to the Debian BTS.
If you browse through the patch
On Mon, Mar 21, 2005 at 08:39:58PM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Mar 2005, Peter 'p2' De Schrijver wrote:
> > No. There needs to be some override procedure like we have for maintainers
> > not
> > doing their job. But that's beyond the scope of this discussion.
>
> In th
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: "Nelson A. de Oliveira" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* Package name: gff2aplot
Version : 2.0
Upstream Author : Josep Francesc ABRIL FERRANDO <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://genome.imim.es/software/gfftools/GFF2APLOT.html
* License
I can happily provide two Sun SS20's , one or two U1's and an Acorn RiscPC
to help build ARM and Sparc. I'd happily give them a basic install, provide
broadband
access to them and hand over control to the buildd team.
--
Paul
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 08:43:40PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>
101 - 143 of 143 matches
Mail list logo
