On 05/05/25 at 22:14 +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
> In some cases, the bug is already known, because debian/rules
> has --max-parallel=1. Example: The alpine package.
>
> (I wonder how much feasible would be to skip those packages)
The alpine package is indeed a good example of a package that make
Hi Mo,
Am Mon, May 05, 2025 at 06:24:32PM -0400 schrieb M. Zhou:
> Hi Andreas,
>
> According to constitution A.1.6, would you mind helping us extend
> the discussion period by a week?
> https://www.debian.org/devel/constitution
I hereby extend the discussion period by a week.
I admit that I con
On Mon, May 05, 2025 at 11:15:01AM -0400, Mo Zhou wrote:
More information can be found at:
https://www.debian.org/vote/2025/vote_002
I guess this is still in "discussion period"? When does that
period end and
the vote begin?
That's described in
https://www.debian.org/devel/constitution.en
Hi,
On Mon, 2025-05-05 at 11:15 -0400, Mo Zhou wrote:
> It is too rush to start to vote for this within 3 weeks as I'm
> completely not available for involving into discussions.
It is two weeks unless something specific happens, so discussion period
might already have ended by now...
Ansgar
Hi Mo (2025.05.05_15:15:01_+)
"The minimum discussion period is 2 weeks. The maximum discussion
period is 3 weeks."
This is surprising to me. Does that mean we must start to vote when we
reach the
maximum discussion period? I just thought I can go back and reply to
the detailed
issues in
Hi,
On Mon, 2025-05-05 at 16:13 +, Stefano Rivera wrote:
> Read section A.2 of the constitution: you can withdraw your ballot
> option, and the GR won't happen. Others may pick it up and carry it
> through to a GR, though.
There is that part though:
+---
| No new ballot options may be prop
Hi Andreas,
According to constitution A.1.6, would you mind helping us extend
the discussion period by a week?
https://www.debian.org/devel/constitution
>From the feedbacks I've heard, there are a couple of problems we are
facing currently.
* Myself being confident in proposal A is one thing. Bu
El 5/5/25 a las 21:26, Lucas Nussbaum escribió:
[...]
Thanks a lot for this. I was never brave enough to go ahead
and announce a MBF.
May I know what kind of machines did you use to found those bugs?
Machines with 8 CPUs only? (I ask because I found more than 800
packages with makefile issues
On Mon, May 5, 2025 at 2:49 PM Mo Zhou wrote:
> On 5/5/25 11:44, Andrey Rakhmatullin wrote:
> >> It is too rush to start to vote for this within 3 weeks
> >
> > Does this maybe sound like the GR call was premature?
> > The project consensus, especially after
> > https://www.debian.org/vote/2021/vo
Hi,
On 05/05/25 at 21:53 +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
> El 5/5/25 a las 21:26, Lucas Nussbaum escribió:
> > [...]
>
> Thanks a lot for this. I was never brave enough to go ahead
> and announce a MBF.
>
> May I know what kind of machines did you use to found those bugs?
> Machines with 8 CPUs only
In some cases, the bug is already known, because debian/rules
has --max-parallel=1. Example: The alpine package.
(I wonder how much feasible would be to skip those packages)
Thanks.
On 5/5/25 01:58, Andrey Rakhmatullin wrote:
On Sun, May 04, 2025 at 09:24:45PM -0500, Steven Robbins wrote:
More information can be found at:
https://www.debian.org/vote/2025/vote_002
I guess this is still in "discussion period"? When does that period
end and
the vote begin?
That's descri
On 5/5/25 11:44, Andrey Rakhmatullin wrote:
It is too rush to start to vote for this within 3 weeks
Does this maybe sound like the GR call was premature?
The project consensus, especially after
https://www.debian.org/vote/2021/vote_003, seems to say that we don't
want multi-month GR discussio
Hi,
GNU Make now has a --shuffle option that simulates non-deterministic
ordering of target prerequisites. See
https://trofi.github.io/posts/238-new-make-shuffle-mode.html and also
previous work in Debian by Santiago Vila:
https://people.debian.org/~sanvila/make-shuffle/
While make always process
On Monday, May 5, 2025 12:26:00 PM Mountain Standard Time Lucas Nussbaum
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> GNU Make now has a --shuffle option that simulates non-deterministic
> ordering of target prerequisites. See
> https://trofi.github.io/posts/238-new-make-shuffle-mode.html and also
> previous work in Debian
[adding -devel]
On 05/05/2025 2:49 pm, Bill Allombert wrote:
On Sat, May 03, 2025 at 09:11:21PM +0530, Pirate Praveen wrote:
Package: debian-policy
Version: 4.7.2.0
Dear Pirate,
Control: block 1104509 by -1
As a general policy, such block is inappropriate. Package are supposed to
comply wit
On Tue, May 06, 2025 at 01:12:43AM +0530, Pirate Praveen wrote:
> I think we have to consider test target in rules differently from build
> targets as the effect on these on the final binaries we ship is different.
>
> I agree the current policy fit well when applied to the build target. As we
> d
On 06/05/2025 1:33 am, Bill Allombert wrote:
On Tue, May 06, 2025 at 01:12:43AM +0530, Pirate Praveen wrote:
I think we have to consider test target in rules differently from build
targets as the effect on these on the final binaries we ship is different.
I agree the current policy fit well wh
18 matches
Mail list logo
