Sorry for being late to this discussion, but there are a few points
and a suggestion I'd like to make:
1. Reproducibility is not a big concern
Quoting policy:
Packages should build reproducibly, which for the purposes of this
document means that given
...
- a set of environment variab
Hi,
I'm a former Debian developer, and this mail contains some subjective
observations of mine regarding what lessions Debian might learn from
mistakes during the sarge release cycle.
Contents:
- Introduction
- Have a second plan - Discover problems early and react
- RC bugs - only a metric
- D
Let's analyze the requirements the release team sent for release
architectures:
- it must first be part of (or at the very least, meet the criteria for)
scc.debian.org (see below)
- there must be a developer-accessible debian.org machine for the
architecture.
That's obvious.
- the release
On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 11:25:23AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
>...
> SO archs will be handled exactly like we do now, EXCEPT that we will
> not distribute .debs for most packages. I expect that we will
> distribute .debs for base and build-essential, mainly -- the minimum
> someone needs to instal
On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 04:55:08PM -0500, Alec Berryman wrote:
> Ola Lundqvist on 2005-03-15 22:45:45 +0100:
>
> > This is the problem. How do you make sure that the package is
> > buildable on the architecture without building it? And if you have
> > built it why not just add it to the archives.
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 04:06:35PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>
> I am of the opinion that the testing distribution has been a great
> help in releasing.
>...
Is this just a personal opinion or backed by any objective evaluation?
I'm asking because as I've already expressed my impression
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 01:17:03PM +0100, Ingo Juergensmann wrote:
>...
> > But really, is there much benefit in
> > making *releases* for the SCC architectures?
> > The packages will still be built and d-i maintained as long as there are
> > porters interested in doing that work for the architect
On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 07:40:09PM -0500, Joey Hess wrote:
> Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > Not after October 1st 2003 it sould have been clear that the progress
> > of the installer wasn't as good as expected. This was 2 months before
> > the announced release date.
>
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
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
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
>
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"?
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
On Thu, Mar 17, 2005 at 12:21:15AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>...
> Catchup has started to make some progress; the current disaster buildd
> seems to be arm, now that mipsel has mostly caught up and s390 has
> turned around. So long as at least a single buildd arch is having
> trouble, we
On Thu, Mar 17, 2005 at 09:47:42PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 07:59:43PM +, Alastair McKinstry wrote:
> > > AFAI can tell, anybody can host an archive of packages built from stable
> > > sources for a scc or unofficial port. And - if I read the conditions on
> > >
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 point, but since all sarge architectures
> > will have a working installer and I hope there's not another
>
On Thu, Mar 17, 2005 at 09:39:10PM +0100, David Schmitt wrote:
> On Thursday 17 March 2005 00:21, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 16, 2005 at 07:51:16PM +0100, David Schmitt wrote:
> > "libraries transitioned" is a big point against testing:
> >
> > Transiti
On Sat, Mar 19, 2005 at 04:19:03AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
>
> > Which delays are expected for etch, that are not only imposed by the
> > usage of testing for release purposes? [1]
>
> > I do still doubt that testing actually is an improvement compared to the
> > former method of freezing
On Sun, Mar 20, 2005 at 07:22:07PM +0100, Bernd Eckenfels wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
> > Debian as a whole shouldn't suffer from minority arches. So we decide to
> > refuse most of the constraints imposed by the minority arches... this
> > way the release team shouldn't pest
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 Mon, Mar 21, 2005 at 05:28:51PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> 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 keep
On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 07:45:00AM +, Alastair McKinstry wrote:
>
> I think the point of this requirement is to support it we need buildds
> in the future for security fixes. Hence while I might like my mips box,
> etc. it would be irresponsible for us to do a release that we could not
> suppo
On Mon, Mar 21, 2005 at 11:13:40PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>...
> People are far too busy picking on small details of proposals they don't
> like instead of coming up with a decent and comprehensive set of
> solutions. If you don't like what's been proposed, produce something
> better. For th
On Mon, Mar 21, 2005 at 06:50:22PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
>...
> The top three things I've spent release management time on that I shouldn't
> have had to are, in no discernable order:
>
> 1) processing new RC bug reports to set sarge/sid tags appropriately, so
> that the RC bug list for sar
On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 02:55:17PM +, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 12:14:17 +0100, Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 21, 2005 at 06:50:22PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > >...
> > > The top three things I've s
On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 03:20:04PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 12:14:17PM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 21, 2005 at 06:50:22PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > >...
> > > The top three things I've spent release management
On Wed, Mar 23, 2005 at 11:30:51AM -0800, Karl Chen wrote:
> > On 2005-03-22 20:13 PST, Jeroen van Wolffelaar writes:
>
> Jeroen> I think it'd be good to ship sarge without such
> Jeroen> situations, but again, this needs to be looked into on
> Jeroen> a case-by-case basis, and I c
On Sun, Mar 27, 2005 at 03:00:07AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 01:39:27PM +0100, Peter 'p2' De Schrijver wrote:
> > > | - the release architecture must have a working, tested installer
> > > I hope that's obvious why. :)
>
> > As long as FAI or even raw debootstrap count
On Fri, Apr 01, 2005 at 03:48:00PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
>...
> Major changes in etch
> -
>
> If you intend to make major changes (like a C++ ABI bump) during the
> development of etch, please speak with the release team as soon as
> possible, describing the changes you'r
On Fri, Apr 01, 2005 at 06:56:45PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 01, 2005 at 07:59:01PM +0200, Frank Küster wrote:
> > Jeroen van Wolffelaar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > On Fri, Apr 01, 2005 at 07:28:35PM +0200, Frank K?ster wrote:
>
> > > Right, but open for 47 days already. I
On Sat, Apr 02, 2005 at 12:35:55AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > It doesn't need to be an exact date, but someting like
> > "third quarter of 2005" or "mid-2008" would help to avoid situations
> > lik
On Sun, Apr 03, 2005 at 02:26:34PM +0200, Thijs Kinkhorst wrote:
> On Sun, April 3, 2005 05:39, John Hasler said:
> >> For instance, let's say we are a food company. Why not check to see if
> >> the food is rotten before it gets to the consumer?
> >
> > That's what Unstable is for.
>
> Why, if tes
On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 05:19:41PM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote:
> Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > The milestone that included the start of the official security support
> > for sarge was only 6 days after the announcement, but is was missed by
> > more than 6 months.
> >
>
On Tue, Apr 05, 2005 at 04:15:40PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> * Adrian Bunk ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050401 23:35]:
> > On Fri, Apr 01, 2005 at 03:48:00PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > >...
> > > Major changes in etch
> > > -
> > &g
On Wed, Apr 06, 2005 at 01:17:54AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 05, 2005 at 04:52:29PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > Why do you need to know about all transitions this month if Debian 3.2
> > is scheduled for the end of 2006 or 2007?
>
> ... so that the releas
On Thu, Apr 07, 2005 at 09:21:06PM +0200, Christian BAYLE wrote:
> Hi all
Hi Christian,
> I've found on www.cvsnt.org
> a NT ported version of CVS with some nice extra features
> http://www.cvsnt.com/cvspro/compare.htm like ssl, acl
>
> I downloaded at http://www.cvsnt.org/wiki/Download and
>
The following might sound absurd, but it seems to follow directly from
Debian's current interpretation of the DFSG:
All GPL'ed programs have to go to non-free.
Proof:
You are only allowed to distribute verbatim copies of the GPL license
text.
In Debian, documents are considered software an
On Wed, Apr 13, 2005 at 10:12:31AM -0400, Patrick A. Ouellette wrote:
>...
> The progression I see is:
>
> unstable -> testing -> candidate -> stable
>
> The existing rules for promotion from unstable to testing continue to be
> used.
>
> Promotion from testing to candidate requires meeting the
On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 10:31:47PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 08:08:18PM -0400, sean finney wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 11:47:26PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > > Therefore, all GPL'd programs will have to go to non-free.
> >
> &g
On Fri, Apr 15, 2005 at 02:22:11PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I'd also say that for a user, access to documentation is an unavoidable
> > requirement for using the software (e.g. for most non-trivial uses it
> >
On Fri, Apr 15, 2005 at 05:30:15PM +0200, Jacobo Tarrio wrote:
> > > Adrian, you're deliberately wasting the project's time with a very old,
> > > eternity-since-debunked "argument". That's known as "trolling". Unless
> > > you have something of value to say, go away.
> > If you call me a "troll"
On Fri, Apr 15, 2005 at 09:26:30PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 06:46:41PM -0500, John Hasler wrote:
> > Matthew Garrett writes:
> > > In general, the law doesn't allow us to modify the license attached to a
> > > piece of software.
> >
> > That has nothing to do with cr
On Fri, Apr 15, 2005 at 09:33:00PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 15, 2005 at 03:44:04PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > The question remains whether a gcc or MySQL without documentation is of
> > any practical value.
>
> There are MySQL documentation package
On Fri, Apr 15, 2005 at 11:58:52AM -0400, Hubert Chan wrote:
>...
> In fact, I've never looked at the gcc documentation other than to look
> up machine-specific options and optimization flags. It's easy to use
> gcc without the documentation.
Simple usage might work, but as soon as you reach any
On Fri, Apr 15, 2005 at 07:17:08PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 16, 2005 at 12:05:42AM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > If you call people who don't know about it a troll you should ensure
> > that it's documented at the places where you'd expect to r
On Sat, Apr 16, 2005 at 09:07:58AM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 16, 2005 at 12:18:45AM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 15, 2005 at 09:33:00PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > > Cool. Didn't know that. Then again, I've only been using MySQL since
On Fri, Apr 15, 2005 at 09:22:48PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 16, 2005 at 02:51:32AM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
>...
> > Please tell me where the document is I should have found that explains
> > Debian's position on this issue and then you have my publically
On Fri, Apr 15, 2005 at 10:35:36PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
>...
> > What do you win by moving things to non-free?
>
> You inform people that what they're using is not Free. That's a fundamental
> purpose of non-free: to be able to make some important but non-free pieces
> available to users,
On Fri, Apr 15, 2005 at 11:15:29PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 16, 2005 at 04:29:42AM +0200, Bernd Eckenfels wrote:
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
> > > Is this wanted?
> >
> > This may not be wanted, but what is your alternative?
>
> Well, it's not that we don't want
On Sat, Apr 16, 2005 at 12:31:23AM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 16, 2005 at 05:54:08AM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
>...
> > Case 1: foo = nvidia binary modules
> > Answer: Because these modules are binary-nonly and therefore
> > undebuggable for everyone
On Fri, Apr 15, 2005 at 04:45:17PM -0400, Patrick Ouellette wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 11:59:52PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Apr 13, 2005 at 10:12:31AM -0400, Patrick A. Ouellette wrote:
> > >...
> > > The progression I see is:
> > &g
On Fri, Apr 15, 2005 at 11:13:04PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
>...
> This makes it extremely clear that, as far as the Social Contract is
> concerned, everything in Debian is software, covered by the DFSG. This
> is a discussion that's done and complete, settled by GR2004-003, and
> I'm not inter
On Sat, Apr 16, 2005 at 04:29:42AM +0200, Bernd Eckenfels wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
> > Is this wanted?
>
> This may not be wanted, but what is your alternative?
If you really want to retain your "everything is software" point of
view, think about the consequences and w
On Tue, Apr 19, 2005 at 11:52:19PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 20, 2005 at 05:06:16AM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > I've heard three different stories describing this GR:
> > 1. it contained only Editorial amendments and didn't change anything
> > 2. t
On Tue, Apr 19, 2005 at 11:52:19PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
>...
> (GR2004-004 didn't make
> any sense at all, nor does it make any sense that Sarge can ship
> with non-free documentation, and at the time I found the posts of
> the RM on the topic to make no sense at all, but I was satisfied wit
On Wed, Apr 20, 2005 at 01:22:06AM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 20, 2005 at 06:24:51AM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > The nice thing about 3:1 majorities is, that once you've tricked
> > something as "Editorial amendments" into it, a 25% minority is eno
On Wed, Apr 20, 2005 at 09:39:23AM -0400, Daniel Burrows wrote:
>
> Adrian,
>
> I believe that you are misrepresenting the outcome of -004. The proposal
> to
> postpone the changes till after the release, then reinstate them, defeated
> option D (rescind -003) by a 2:1 majority. The onl
On Wed, Apr 20, 2005 at 02:06:12PM -0700, Jeff Carr wrote:
> Adam M wrote:
>
> >Why? Why is there RHEL 2.0, 3.0.. Why not just RHEL 2005-01-01,
> >2005-01-02, etc..?
>
> Because redhat makes money selling releases.
>
> > The releases are there to provide interface stability. Everyone does
> th
On Wed, Apr 20, 2005 at 03:18:52PM -0700, Jeff Carr wrote:
> Adrian Bunk wrote:
>...
> >Debian stable is comparable to the enterprise products of e.g. RedHat or
> >SuSE.
> >
> >These distributions are usually installed on servers that are installed
> >and int
On Wed, Apr 20, 2005 at 04:23:02PM -0700, Jeff Carr wrote:
> Adrian Bunk wrote:
>
> >Let me ask some questions:
> >- How many thousand people can't continue working if the server isn't
> > available?
> >- How many million dollar does the customer lose ev
On Sat, Apr 23, 2005 at 12:26:45AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
>
> Well, the other big ones would be the installer, being synced up on sources,
> and the ability to do point releases. It seems the first two are addressed,
> and the third seems to be more or less the same question as that of secu
On Sat, Apr 23, 2005 at 11:40:03AM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Apr 2005, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > A silly question to you as release manager:
>
> Silly indeed. Use the list archives. You cannot miss the monstruous threads
> about it.
I didn't mis
On Fri, Apr 22, 2005 at 12:21:49PM -0400, Patrick Ouellette wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 20, 2005 at 04:56:32AM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > The rules and goals of testing are clear.
> >
> > The more interesting points are the problems of testing that several
> > y
On Fri, Apr 22, 2005 at 12:02:39PM -0400, Patrick Ouellette wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 21, 2005 at 01:04:34AM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > Let my try to explain it:
> >
> >
> > The "debian stable == obsolete" is a release management problem of
> > Deb
On Fri, Apr 22, 2005 at 02:54:38PM -0400, Patrick Ouellette wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 22, 2005 at 07:16:30PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> >
> > The problem is that for many transitions, "slowly" means "never", since
> > the criteria you set are unlikely to
On Sat, Apr 23, 2005 at 01:20:42PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 23, 2005 at 04:24:28PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
>
> > A silly question to you as release manager:
>
> > What exactly are the technical reasons why amd64 can't simply be shipped
> >
On Sun, Apr 24, 2005 at 12:12:42AM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le samedi 23 avril 2005 à 13:20 -0700, Steve Langasek a écrit :
> > We are already running into size constraints (on an ongoing basis) with our
> > mirrors due to the size of the archive.
>
> Given that - if I believe the security
On Sun, Apr 24, 2005 at 12:24:44AM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> * Josselin Mouette ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050424 00:15]:
> > Le samedi 23 avril 2005 à 13:20 -0700, Steve Langasek a écrit :
> > > We are already running into size constraints (on an ongoing basis) with
> > > our
> > > mirrors due to t
On Fri, Apr 29, 2005 at 03:50:37PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> * Martin Waitz ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050429 15:40]:
> > On Mon, Apr 25, 2005 at 05:22:53PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > > Why not? removing arm from testing does not change at all the number of
> > > binary arm packages being pushed
On Fri, Apr 29, 2005 at 09:10:10PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 29, 2005 at 10:52:02PM -0500, Adam M. wrote:
>
> > >Ideally, we would have agreement to update all of the following packages to
> > >libmysqlclient12 at the same time:
>
> > I would suggest that libmysqlclient14 should
On Mon, Apr 25, 2005 at 07:57:13PM +0200, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> On 10270 March 1977, Piotr Roszatycki wrote:
>
> > 1. The ftpmaster was a member of pkg-php project, he boycotts my work and
> > don't offer something else.
>
> Im not a member of the php project and I would have rejected it too, I
On Sat, Apr 30, 2005 at 11:50:30AM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Sorry, but I still don't understand it:
> >
> > You could continue to offer the complete archive as it is today, and it
> > shouldn'
On Sun, May 01, 2005 at 12:38:41AM +0200, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 30, 2005 at 06:45:26PM -0300, Otavio Salvador wrote:
> > But you remove the package from testing doesn't mean we won't have
> > users with it installed since it was present there so, IMHO, the
> > Confl
On Mon, May 02, 2005 at 07:55:23PM -0700, Mashilamani Sambasivam wrote:
> Hello,
> I just want to get the opinion/comments of
> developers on some 10 slides I made, if you have time:
> 'Brief Analysis and Generalisation of Closed-Source
> Software Business Model to All Maximum-Profit Based
> Bu
On Tue, May 03, 2005 at 12:15:43AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Tue, May 03, 2005 at 03:54:10AM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 29, 2005 at 09:10:10PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > > On Fri, Apr 29, 2005 at 10:52:02PM -0500, Adam M. wrote:
>
> >
severity 306015 grave
thanks
Hi Steve,
first of all, if you downgrade a bug only a good hour after I upgraded
it, it would be nice if you would:
- Cc me
- send a better explanation than "This is not a missing dependency, feh"
I know that downgrading RC bugs makes your RC bugs metric look better
On Tue, May 03, 2005 at 11:26:19AM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Tue, May 03, 2005 at 04:04:44AM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 25, 2005 at 07:57:13PM +0200, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
>
> > > And then there is this yada packaging you used.
>
> > Not that I w
On Tue, May 03, 2005 at 07:08:50AM -0400, sean finney wrote:
> On Tue, May 03, 2005 at 10:22:04AM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > BTW: The interaction between the two MySQL server packages in
> > unstable/sarge at purge time is *ahem* interesting.
> > They are reall
On Tue, May 03, 2005 at 08:30:22AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > severity 306015 grave
> > thanks
> >
> > Hi Steve,
> >
> > first of all, if you downgrade a bug only a good hour after I upgraded
On Tue, May 03, 2005 at 12:40:21PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
>...
> On Tue, May 03, 2005 at 12:27:32PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
>
> > first of all, if you downgrade a bug only a good hour after I upgraded
> > it, it would be nice if you would:
> > - Cc me
> >
On Tue, May 03, 2005 at 09:24:34AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > You seem to confuse this with bug closing. It's common practice to
> > adjust the severity of a bug to a RC one if a RC issue was mistakenly
> &
On Tue, May 03, 2005 at 12:46:32PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
>...
> 30 May 2005
> Release
>
> And if everything goes well, we'll be ready to release at the end of the
> month.
>...
Setting goals is the easy part of release management.
Ensuring that the goals are met is the hard part of th
On Tue, May 03, 2005 at 01:54:46PM -0500, Adam M. wrote:
> Adrian Bunk wrote:
>
> >grave <-> serious isn't worth a discussion since there's not a big
> >difference between them (both are RC)
>
> You are 100% wrong here. Why do we have bug severities th
On Wed, May 04, 2005 at 03:05:24PM +0200, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote:
> On Wed, May 04, 2005 at 02:42:15PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > Can you tell about the possible risks that may affect your release plan
> > and what you have done to ensure that they will not delay your re
On Sun, May 08, 2005 at 08:45:21AM +0200, Andreas Tille wrote:
> On Sat, 7 May 2005, Joey Hess wrote:
>
> >bb
> I did not checked your complete list but our most frequently used
> programs at exhigition boothes. It currently has no RC bug (the only
> grave bug was solved two weeks ago.
>
> So so
On Sun, May 08, 2005 at 03:07:44PM +0200, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
> [Joey Hess]
> > So here is a list (from update-excuses) of all 491 packages that is
> > being held out of sarge[1].
>
> I would be even more interested in seeing which packages in woody are
> now missing in sarge. Anyone have
> At the bottom is a complete list of the 2070 binary packages present in
> woody but not in sarge (including nun-US and contrib/non-free).
Correction: 2069 binary packages
The entry "packages:" was a bug in my quick&dirty scripting...
cu
Adrian
--
"Is there not promise of rain?" Ling
On Sun, May 08, 2005 at 03:54:46AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
>
> Yes, it's called "garbage in, garbage out". If people aren't going to file
> bugs at the proper severity, and if package maintainers aren't going to
> treat release-critical bugs with the appropriate urgency when they *are*
> fil
On Mon, May 09, 2005 at 04:02:58PM +0200, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
> [Adrian Bunk]
> > The entry "packages:" was a bug in my quick&dirty scripting...
>
> Thanks for making a nice summary of the relevant packages. :)
>
> Feel free to include the script to
On Tue, May 10, 2005 at 10:42:43PM +0200, Andreas Tille wrote:
> On Tue, 10 May 2005, Adrian Bunk wrote:
>
> Speaking as somebody who is quite unrelated to release issues (except
> that I keep my packages bug free) I have some questions:
>
> >were at the correct severity
On Wed, May 11, 2005 at 09:50:48AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Tue, May 10, 2005 at 11:00:48PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > On Tue, May 10, 2005 at 10:42:43PM +0200, Andreas Tille wrote:
> > > On Tue, 10 May 2005, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > > >How often does
On Wed, May 04, 2005 at 09:36:39AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > What's the syntax for the email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] for adding a second
> > submitter?
>
> I believe
>
> submitter [EMAIL PROTECTE
On Wed, May 11, 2005 at 12:39:04PM +0200, Thomas Schoepf wrote:
> Hi,
Hi Thomas,
> how important is it to have unzoo, now that zoo is in main?
> unzoo is only able to list and extract files, not to add new ones.
the functionality of unzoo is a subset of the functionality of zoo?
In this case a
On Sat, May 14, 2005 at 11:07:36AM +0200, Thomas Hood wrote:
> On Wed, 11 May 2005 12:30:21 +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > Completely MIA maintainers are one part of the problem.
> >
> > But then there's the class of maintainers who manage to upload a new
> > upstr
On Wed, May 11, 2005 at 09:33:36PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Tue, May 10, 2005 at 11:10:10AM +0200, Rene Mayrhofer wrote:
> > Steve Langasek schrieb:
> > >>If that 2.3.x bug really only affects the newer (> 2.6.8) kernel, why
> > >>not just get 2.3.x pushed into sarge? Are there any other b
On Mon, May 16, 2005 at 05:58:24PM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
> Short version:
> Should users first upgrade dpkg and aptitude before upgrading the rest of
> the system or can the upgrade safely be done using Woody's version of the
> package tools?
>
> Long version:
> The current version of the rele
On Mon, May 16, 2005 at 07:44:37PM +0200, Adeodato Simó wrote:
> * Adrian Bunk [Mon, 16 May 2005 18:14:20 +0200]:
> > On Mon, May 16, 2005 at 05:58:24PM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
>
> > > The current version of the release notes tells users to (simplified):
> > > 1. ap
On Mon, May 16, 2005 at 09:49:01AM -0700, Adam McKenna wrote:
> I am not sure whether the ipfwadm package should be removed. Kernels up to
> 2.4 still have support for ipfwadm filtering rules, so theoretically people
> could still be using it with current kernels.
>
> cc'ing debian-devel. If th
On Mon, May 16, 2005 at 08:12:04PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Mon, May 16, 2005 at 07:44:37PM +0200, Adeodato Simó wrote:
>...
> > Note that in (4), the command is aptitude, not apt-get.
>
> Does this make any difference?
>...
It does.
My fault, I confused (4)
On Wed, May 18, 2005 at 11:23:35AM -0400, sean finney wrote:
>...
> the following upgrade paths work:
>
> mysql-server/woody -> mysql-server/sarge
> mysql-server/woody -> mysql-server/sarge -> mysql-server-4.1/sarge
>
> but this does not:
>
> mysql-server/woody -> mysql-server-4.1/sarge
>
> so
1 - 100 of 672 matches
Mail list logo
