Re: Do not make gratuitous source uploads just to provoke the buildds!

Op za, 12-03-2005 te 16:24 -0800, schreef Thomas Bushnell BSG: > Matthew Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Practically, buildd admins can notice a longer-than-usual queue and throw > > hardware at the problem, and that seems to work well enough, and we could > > reduce the rate of package i

Re: Do not make gratuitous source uploads just to provoke the buildds!

Op za, 12-03-2005 te 15:01 -0800, schreef Thomas Bushnell BSG: > Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Remember that the buildd queue is not FIFO at all. The queue has a > > completly static order. Any changes to the queue are just packages > > hiding because they are not "needs-b

Re: Do not make gratuitous source uploads just to provoke the buildds!

Op za, 12-03-2005 te 15:19 +1100, schreef Matthew Palmer: > I'm trying to work out why package *section* matters at all. This is simply an attempt to avoid as much needs-build->building->dep-wait cycles as possible; packages that are usually build-dependencies are built before packages that are us

Re: Is there Linux operating system for Nokia mobile devices?

Op zo, 13-03-2005 te 21:19 +0200, schreef Mikko Ma Aaltonen: > Hi Debian developers. (My first time post here.) > > I'm here to ask, if anyone of you know, > has someone done some development work to get a Nokia (or some other > brand) mobile to work with some other operating system than Symbian?

Re: Do not make gratuitous source uploads just to provoke the buildds!

Op vr, 11-03-2005 te 17:03 -0800, schreef Thomas Bushnell BSG: > Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Re-uploading a package to provoke a buildd response is counterproductive, > > *particularly* when the package is already in Needs-Build on the missing > > architectures. Re-uploading

Re: Do not make gratuitous source uploads just to provoke the buildds!

Op vr, 11-03-2005 te 19:14 -0800, schreef Steve Langasek: > The queue ordering is entirely automatic, and AIUI the queue(s) is (are) > sorted by: > > - target suite - previous compilation state (already built packages are prioritized above packages never built for the target architecture) > -

Re: buildd queue starvation (Was: Re: Do not make gratuitous source uploads just to provoke the buildds!)

Op za, 12-03-2005 te 21:12 -0800, schreef Thomas Bushnell BSG: > Jeroen van Wolffelaar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > If the queue is non-zero for a longer time, there is a problem in buildd > > machine power, and the wanna-build admin has choosen to in this case > > allocate the buildd power t

Re: buildd queue starvation (Was: Re: Do not make gratuitous source uploads just to provoke the buildds!)

On Sun, Mar 13, 2005 at 11:07:29PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: > Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > None of the documentation calls it a 'queue', in fact; only people not > > really involved in buildd stuff do. > > Does that include yo

Re: Do not make gratuitous source uploads just to provoke the buildds!

Op ma, 14-03-2005 te 00:10 -0800, schreef Steve Langasek: > Well, my objection is basically the same as Thomas's here -- all package > builds are *not* equally urgent, Of course not, that is exactly my point. But from the POV of a package's maintainer, all fixes are more or less urgent. If some

Re: Bits (Nybbles?) from the Vancouver release team meeting

Op zo, 13-03-2005 te 23:36 -0800, schreef Steve Langasek: > Personally, I'd love to see our porter teams rise to the occasion and > prove that we can release etch in 18 months with 8 architectures meeting > these criteria instead of 4; but the first step is to shift the burden > onto the porters, w

Re: Bits (Nybbles?) from the Vancouver release team meeting

Op ma, 14-03-2005 te 12:38 +0100, schreef David Schmitt: > On Monday 14 March 2005 11:28, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: > > In this case, it was a bug that required human intervention, a package > > upload that accidentally would hose a chroot, which required the > > chroot to be repaired for each aff

Re: Bits (Nybbles?) from the Vancouver release team meeting

Op ma, 14-03-2005 te 23:30 +1100, schreef Hamish Moffatt: > On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 12:06:18PM +, Martin Michlmayr wrote: > > * Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-03-14 23:00]: > > > But really, is there much benefit in making *releases* for the SCC > > > architectures? > > > > For some

Re: Bits (Nybbles?) from the Vancouver release team meeting

Op ma, 14-03-2005 te 16:51 +0100, schreef Marc Haber: > On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 15:41:16 +, Scott James Remnant > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >On Mon, 2005-03-14 at 15:38 +0100, Marc Haber wrote: > >> It does a significant number of other things, one of them being paying > >> a number of Debian de

Re: Do not make gratuitous source uploads just to provoke the buildds!

Op ma, 14-03-2005 te 17:59 +0100, schreef Goswin von Brederlow: > Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Op vr, 11-03-2005 te 19:14 -0800, schreef Steve Langasek: > >> The queue ordering is entirely automatic, and AIUI the queue(s) is (are) > >>

Re: Bits (Nybbles?) from the Vancouver release team meeting

Op ma, 14-03-2005 te 19:21 +0100, schreef David Schmitt: > A current pbuilder chroot takes 121 MB (containing build-essential already). > > How long does a '(mv $chroot foo; rm -Rf foo & cp $stash $chroot)' take for > 121 MB on $small-arch? I'm guessing about half an hour. Didn't try it, though.

Re: Bits (Nybbles?) from the Vancouver release team meeting

Op ma, 14-03-2005 te 19:15 +0100, schreef Sven Luther: > so the buildd admin really examine all the packages for deviation that a > compromised buildd could have incorporated before signing them ? Or that they > scan the machine for a compromise and always detect them before signing ? Not really.

Re: Bits (Nybbles?) from the Vancouver release team meeting

On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 10:20:00PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote: > But you would notice all this just the same if the signing where automated, > don't you ? Possibly; however, it wouldn't buy us much (signing successful build logs currently takes me 10 seconds for the first log, and less than a second

Re: Bits (Nybbles?) from the Vancouver release team meeting

Op ma, 14-03-2005 te 16:09 -0800, schreef Steve Langasek: > You do know that m68k is the only architecture still carrying around > 2.*2* kernels in sarge? False. See sparc32. Even if it is true that we do still carry 2.2 into sarge, that is only for Mac; not for any of the other subarchitectures.

Re: m68k (was: Re: Bits (Nybbles?) from the Vancouver release team meeting)

Op di, 15-03-2005 te 10:49 +0100, schreef David Schmitt: > Does m68k have developers to support d-i Yes. Stephen Marenka and, to a lesser extent, myself, have ported d-i to the m68k port, and we do not intend to let it slip away now that it does work. -- EARTH smog | bricks AI

Re: SCC proposal (was: Re: Questions for the DPL candidates)

Op ma, 14-03-2005 te 20:54 -0500, schreef Daniel Jacobowitz: > On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 07:51:05PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote: > > Perhaps, but then why not just use the existing testing setup? > > Because, as has been explained several times, it doesn't scale. What are the exact problems? My main

Re: Bits (Nybbles?) from the Vancouver release team meeting

will end them up with less time to spend on Debian than before they were on their current employer's payroll. -- Wouter Verhelst NixSys BVBA Louizastraat 14, 2800 Mechelen T:+32 15 27 69 50 / F:+32 15 27 60 51 / M:+32 486 836 198 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Bits (Nybbles?) from the Vancouver release team meeting

Op di, 15-03-2005 te 15:38 +0100, schreef Ingo Juergensmann: > Beside that, I think I made an excellent job during my work for the m68k > port. ACK. When you were still involved in the m68k port, your contributions were usually quite valuable. That time's long gone now, though. > And I could sti

Re: *seconded* Re: Bits (Nybbles?) from the Vancouver release team meeting

Op wo, 16-03-2005 te 12:09 +1000, schreef Anthony Towns: > 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 no

Re: Alternative: Source-Centric Approach [w/code]

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, buildd systems > > 2) Difficulty of syncing testing across all archs given #1 > > 3

Re: Do not make gratuitous source uploads just to provoke the buildds!

Op di, 15-03-2005 te 16:19 -0500, schreef Anthony DeRobertis: > Wouter Verhelst wrote: > > | You misunderstood. I don't fight generic changes to the order; I just > | don't think it would be a good thing that any random developer could > | prioritize his pet package. >

Re: Bits (Nybbles?) from the Vancouver release team meeting

Op di, 15-03-2005 te 17:16 +, schreef Henning Makholm: > Scripsit Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > * Henning Makholm ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050315 12:45]: > >> Scripsit Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > >> Is there an underlying reason why the wanna-build management for all > >> archit

Re: Bits (Nybbles?) from the Vancouver release team meeting

Op di, 15-03-2005 te 11:43 -0800, schreef Steve Langasek: > On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 01:28:15PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > > Op ma, 14-03-2005 te 16:09 -0800, schreef Steve Langasek: > > > You do know that m68k is the only architecture still carrying around > >

Re: Bits (Nybbles?) from the Vancouver release team meeting

Op di, 15-03-2005 te 14:22 -0500, schreef David Nusinow: > On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 06:45:48PM +, Henning Makholm wrote: > > Scripsit David Nusinow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > For *years*, I've heard porters complain about ftpmaster and > > > such. Well, now every port has the full ability to take

Re: status of buildds?

Op wo, 16-03-2005 te 14:30 +0100, schreef Ingo Juergensmann: > On Thu, Mar 17, 2005 at 12:09:28AM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote: > > > > So, you call me not trustworthy, [...] > > No. I said you aren't trusted, not that you aren't trustworthy. > > Those are quite different things. As I am not the DA

Re: *seconded* Re: Bits (Nybbles?) from the Vancouver release team meeting

Op wo, 16-03-2005 te 14:52 +0100, schreef Ingo Juergensmann: > On Wed, Mar 16, 2005 at 01:55:47PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > > > I can understand these concerns, and they are valid; but there are > > better ways to tackle them. Requiring that the machines are owned and &g

Re: Bits (Nybbles?) from the Vancouver release team meeting

On Wed, Mar 16, 2005 at 09:57:29AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: > 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 > >

Re: Resignation and uploads

Op zo, 13-11-2005 te 15:06 +0100, schreef Thijs Kinkhorst: > On Fri, November 11, 2005 17:10, Christian Perrier wrote: > > From what I know of him, he will take care of these Debian tasks as > > soon as he'll be able to do sojust like any of us would after coming > > back from a conference we w

Re: master's mail backlog and upgrade time

On Sat, Nov 19, 2005 at 01:56:25PM -0500, Stephen Frost wrote: > * Ian Jackson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > So if I have my system say `250' to a piece of mail, I'm guaranteeing > > that either I'll bounce it (and get a `250' on the bounce), or that > > some human (me or someone else I know) will

Re: master's mail backlog and upgrade time

On Tue, Nov 22, 2005 at 10:57:27AM -0500, Stephen Frost wrote: > * Wouter Verhelst ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > I don't want to accept any random crap that a forwarding host might send > > me just because I asked it to forward mail for me; my resources (in the > > for

Re: dpkg-sig support wanted?

On Thu, Nov 24, 2005 at 02:11:45PM +1100, Matthew Palmer wrote: > On Thu, Nov 24, 2005 at 11:54:33AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 23, 2005 at 04:37:05PM -0200, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: > > > On Thu, 24 Nov 2005, Anthony Towns wrote: > > > > Personally, I think it's cryptogr

Re: Secret changes for binNMUs

On Thu, Nov 24, 2005 at 11:02:36AM +, Roger Leigh wrote: > Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > If you NEED to do a manual binNMU it is probably best to use sbuild > > (the cvs, not deb) > > Which sbuild CVS repo? It's actually a subversion repository, and it's at

Re: Secret changes for binNMUs

On Thu, Nov 24, 2005 at 06:51:24PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > I personally see the packages in unstable as something good for > > end-users who want to use it, or understand how the system works; but > > for

Re: Bug#340428: octave2.9 - lists mailing list as uploader in changelog

On Thu, Nov 24, 2005 at 08:26:17PM +, Stephen Gran wrote: > This one time, at band camp, Thiemo Seufer said: > > Btw, about this simple-minded test: > > 299 of those are maintained by the Debian Install System Team, and > > nobody there felt compelled to put [EMAIL PROTECTED] in the changelog >

Re: Secret changes for binNMUs

On Fri, Nov 25, 2005 at 02:03:12PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > It's in Debian, and it's easy to use and understand. If it doesn't > > diverge too far from the sbuild actually on svn.cyberhqz.com, it&

Re: Trying to reach consensus - Yet Another Alternate Proposal to Declassification of debian-private

On Wed, Dec 07, 2005 at 02:47:07PM -0300, Daniel Ruoso wrote: > Hi, > > I'll try to move forward in the direction of a more consensual proposal > about the declassification. > > In this discussion, two points were made clear to me: > > 1) It would be really nice to have the d-p archives availab

Re: master.debian.org bounces your mail

On Thu, 8 Dec 2005 08:07:36 +0100, Lionel Elie Mamane wrote: > On Thu, Dec 08, 2005 at 01:39:15AM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > > On Wed, Dec 07, 2005 at 02:47:07PM -0300, Daniel Ruoso wrote: > >> I hope this is closer to a consensus... > > > Afraid not. This proposal

Re: master mail problems -- help needed

.7 0.9 0:02.64 clamd 14004 wouter16 0 1416 1416 1060 R 10.3 0.1 0:00.15 top 13930 Debian-e 10 0 3184 3176 2820 S 4.4 0.2 0:00.06 exim4 14010 root 11 0 3184 3176 3036 S 4.4 0.2 0:00.05 exim4

Re: master mail problems -- help needed

On Thu, Dec 08, 2005 at 03:00:58PM +0100, Romain Francoise wrote: > Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > That's on master. I've been watching it for about 5 minutes, and never > > saw the load drop below 3.80-ish. > > > Could it be that master i

Re: apt PARALLELISM

On Sun, Dec 11, 2005 at 02:45:50AM +0100, Marco d'Itri wrote: > On Dec 11, Charles Fry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > But if multiple URLs could satisfactorily serve requests for a single > > repository, only one of them is currently used. > Which is fine, because we do not want people to open m

Re: StrongARM tactics

On Fri, Dec 09, 2005 at 04:17:28PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > I fail to see how downloading the source, extracting the source, > downloading and installing all Build-Depends, seeing there is nothing > to do and cleaning it all up again is doing anything but waste > valuable time. (Or does

Re: apt PARALLELISM

On Mon, Dec 12, 2005 at 12:52:09PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > True, but that's not what's being asked here. If multiple URLs could > > serve requests for a single repository---i.e., if you've got bot

Re: buildd administration

On Wed, Dec 14, 2005 at 03:51:06PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: > Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Rather, it seems much more likely that we would want to push such packages > > *out* of unstable. > > Really? So now, unstable should be maintained in a releasable state > *too*?

Re: display-dhammapada

On Thu, Dec 15, 2005 at 04:44:28PM +0100, Jakub Nadolny wrote: > Hi, > > I am new to the list and would like to ask you what can I do in > following subject. > There is a package called 'display-dhammapada'. It has not been updated > since few years. But there is new version of this software since

Re: congratulations to our ftp-master team

On Sun, Dec 18, 2005 at 04:34:54PM +1100, Anand Kumria wrote: > On Wed, Dec 14, 2005 at 09:30:15AM +, David Pashley wrote: > > On Dec 14, 2005 at 00:25, Anand Kumria praised the llamas by saying: > > > I'd like to congratulate our ftp-master team on their ability to timely > > > process package

Re: /run vs /var/run (was: Please test new sysvinit)

On Sun, Dec 18, 2005 at 02:37:28PM +0100, Marco d'Itri wrote: > On Dec 18, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I have yet to hear any strong reason why we should _not_ implement > > /run. > > I do not count "It's ugly!" as a strong reason. > It's not needed (since we have /dev/shm/)

Re: Your Confirmation Required

On Tue, Dec 27, 2005 at 01:12:21PM +0100, Marc Haber wrote: > On Tue, 27 Dec 2005 08:01:26 +0100 (CET), Xavier Roche > >alharamainsermons.org571 Bye > > That mailing list does seem to do proper confirmed opt-in. This must > be some prank who keeps subscribing -devel _and_ confirming the >

Re: Your Confirmation Required

On Tue, Dec 27, 2005 at 05:35:33PM +0100, Simon Richter wrote: > Hi, > > Wouter Verhelst wrote: > > >What's the chance of someone owning a domain with the intended use of > >sending out Islamic preaches in eight different languages would be > >interested in

Re: dependencies on makedev

On Fri, Dec 30, 2005 at 05:31:09PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > On Fri, Dec 30, 2005 at 12:40:37AM -0600, Adam Heath wrote: > > > Indeed. Editing plain text configuration files has never been the Unix > > > way, and vi certainly isn't a standard unix tool. > > No, I'm saying why are people attempt

Re: How to Increase Contributions from Volunteers

Op ma, 02-01-2006 te 11:24 +0100, schreef Andreas Fester: > > (No, I don't really think titles will attract most of the productive > > kind contributors to Debian. Sorry.) > > I agree that "title" might not be appropriate. Thats why I primarily > talked about "stages" (maybe there is a better word

Re: Need for launchpad

On Sun, Jan 08, 2006 at 11:44:57AM +0100, Stephan Hermann wrote: > On Sunday 08 January 2006 10:39, Andrew Suffield wrote: > > You can't normally design real APIs onto production software and get > > anything but a mess, you have to engage in sound engineering from the > > start. > > Well, if anyo

Re: Need for launchpad

On Sun, Jan 08, 2006 at 11:25:28AM +0100, Stephan Hermann wrote: > On Sunday 08 January 2006 09:49, Matthew Palmer wrote: > > On Sun, Jan 08, 2006 at 09:02:09AM +0100, Stephan Hermann wrote: > > > Luckily that the bts of Launchpad has a mailinterface..which is quite > > > nice. So some other parts

Re: Preparing the m68k port for the future.

Hi, On Fri, Jan 13, 2006 at 01:21:18PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > On Thu, Jan 12, 2006 at 07:17:48PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > > Yes, 'm68k' and 'future' in one sentence. Amazing, isn't it? Surely we > > must be joking? > > Hey, I

Re: Preparing the m68k port for the future.

On Fri, Jan 13, 2006 at 02:09:19PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > Hi, > > On Fri, Jan 13, 2006 at 01:21:18PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 12, 2006 at 07:17:48PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > > > Yes, 'm68k' and 'future' in one sentence

Re: Preparing the m68k port for the future.

On Fri, Jan 13, 2006 at 02:38:02PM +0100, Ingo Juergensmann wrote: > On Fri, Jan 13, 2006 at 02:09:19PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > > Additionally, Ingo told me when the mail about that meeting had come out > > that he'd already tried such a setup in the past (I didn

Re: Preparing the m68k port for the future.

On Sat, Jan 14, 2006 at 01:42:32AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > On Fri, Jan 13, 2006 at 02:09:19PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 13, 2006 at 01:21:18PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > > > On Thu, Jan 12, 2006 at 07:17:48PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote: >

Re: Preparing the m68k port for the future.

On Sat, Jan 14, 2006 at 03:24:42AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > On Fri, Jan 13, 2006 at 06:04:00PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > > The point of my previous mail was to demonstrate that I am, in fact, > > trying to be proactive about getting the qualification done. > > The

Re: Anthony Towns: What I did today

On Fri, Jan 13, 2006 at 08:34:20PM +0100, Martin Zobel-Helas wrote: > Hi Anthony, > > On Saturday, 14 Jan 2006, you wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 13, 2006 at 04:22:50PM +0100, Martin Zobel-Helas wrote: > > > On Friday, 13 Jan 2006, you wrote: > > > > Things I did today: > > > > 2. Removed the empty Super

Re: Anthony Towns: What I did today

On Sun, Jan 15, 2006 at 10:20:33AM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote: > * Wouter Verhelst ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060115 10:00]: > > If you remove cruft from one of your packages, do you start notifying > > developers on d-d-a? > > In case of the developers reference, I did. That'

Re: Preparing the m68k port for the future.

On Sat, Jan 14, 2006 at 05:35:58PM +0100, Daniel Widenfalk wrote: > Wouter Verhelst wrote: > >On Sat, Jan 14, 2006 at 03:24:42AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > > > >>On Fri, Jan 13, 2006 at 06:04:00PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > >> > >>The fact you don&

Re: Need for launchpad

On Mon, Jan 16, 2006 at 04:04:09PM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote: > The ratio of Debian developers to upstream developers is *much* closer to > 1:1 than the ratio of Ubuntu developers to Debian developers, Obviously; but still, I'd appreciate it if people responsible downstream for my packages would

Re: For those who care about their packages in Ubuntu

On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 11:07:40AM +0100, Reinhard Tartler wrote: > What I find very dissapointing is that mdz asked on debian-devel twice > for a decision from debian how ubuntu should handle the maintainer Field > without any luck: [...] > This is a call for discussion: What does debian actually

Re: Need for launchpad

On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 10:34:57AM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote: > On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 06:52:10PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > > It'd probably be great if Ubuntu would set up (or, if it already exists, > > advertise) some way to have a canonical way (no pun intended

Re: Debian derivatives and the Maintainer: field (again)

On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 04:54:36PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: > Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Besides which, do you honestly know which packages other Debian derivatives > > rebuild? As a rule, they are far less communicative about their practices > > than Ubuntu. > > H

Re: Debian derivatives and the Maintainer: field (again)

On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 08:57:51PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > I don't agree. This isn't even the case within Debian. Binary-only NMUs > > don't modify the source package, even though the binaries are recompiled. > > They obviously do. The

Re: statement from one of the klik project members [was: The klik project and Debian]

On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 08:34:59PM +, Kurt Pfeifle wrote: > And third, klik doesn't really "install". It brings exactly 1 additional > file (the *.cmg) onto the system. It works with "user only" privileges. Hang on. You loop-mount with user-only privileges? How? -- .../ -/ ---/ .--./ / .--/

Re: Re: statement from one of the klik project members [was: The klik project and Debian]

[Re-adding Cc to Kurt, as he's mentioned he isn't subscribed] On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 01:20:26PM +0800, Cameron Patrick wrote: > Kurt Pfeifle wrote: > > > > On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 08:34:59PM +, Kurt Pfeifle wrote: > > > > And third, klik doesn't really "install". It brings exactly 1 addition

Re: Dangling alternatives symlink on the autobuilders

On Sat, Jan 21, 2006 at 10:25:41AM +0100, Rafael Laboissiere wrote: > We (the Debian Octave Group, pkg-octave.alioth.d.o) are running into a > nasty problem regarding the Debian autobuilders. For some reason, one of > the previous uploads of the octave2.9 package has wrongly manipulated the > octa

Re: Autobuilding and the build-arch target, again

On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 06:59:55PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote: > On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 06:36:40PM +0100, Simon Richter wrote: > > To summarize the proposals so far: > > > > - "Scan debian/rules, invoke build-arch if present". > > > > Has been tried, does not work. > > AFAIK it is working as l

Re: Autobuilding and the build-arch target, again

On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 02:17:36PM -0600, Bill Allombert wrote: > On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 07:45:10PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote: > > The difference between the two is that -q checks whether a target is > > uptodate and return an appropriate exit code, while -p prints out the > > data base (i.e. the

Re: Autobuilding and the build-arch target, again

On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 11:21:55PM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote: > On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 11:08:00PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > > And I would strongly suggest you to consider Simon Richter's proposal, > > which sounds a lot cleaner to me: if you have build-depends-inde

Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?

On Fri, Jan 27, 2006 at 09:42:47AM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote: > Le jeudi 26 janvier 2006 à 20:04 -0500, David Nusinow a écrit : > > On the other hand, adding languages only adds to the complexity and tools > > that a Debian developer should know to be effective. > > Despite the days of nightma

Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?

On Sat, Jan 28, 2006 at 02:13:57AM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote: > Le vendredi 27 janvier 2006 à 12:46 +0100, Wouter Verhelst a écrit : > > The point, however, is that it's rather silly to add yet another > > scripting language to the set of Essential packages. > > Per

Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?

On Sat, Jan 28, 2006 at 04:37:23PM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote: > Le samedi 28 janvier 2006 à 12:47 +0100, Wouter Verhelst a écrit : > > Personally, I'd prefer to throw out perl rather than to add python. Our > > set of Essential packages is bloated already as it is. >

Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?

On Sat, Jan 28, 2006 at 07:14:45PM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote: > Le samedi 28 janvier 2006 à 18:55 +0100, Wouter Verhelst a écrit : > > > Because python and ruby have similar features, and the former is more > > > widely spread and used. > > > > I disagree.

Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?

On Sat, Jan 28, 2006 at 07:27:57PM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote: > Le samedi 28 janvier 2006 à 19:18 +0100, Wouter Verhelst a écrit : > > > This is only a feature for perl maniacs. A language that requires a > > > specific coding style is better, because it makes possible for

Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?

On Mon, Jan 30, 2006 at 11:03:03AM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote: > Le lundi 30 janvier 2006 à 10:20 +1100, Matthew Palmer a écrit : > > On Sun, Jan 29, 2006 at 02:58:05PM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote: > > > There have already been - admittedly sporadic - proposals to rewrite > > > some key parts

Re: BTS LDAP interface (or something) broken?

On Wed, Feb 01, 2006 at 09:08:41PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote: > bts.turmzimmer.net just went nuts: > >Changes at Thu Feb 2 0:10:06 CET 2006: > (all but six RC bugs are supposedly "solved" simultaneously) > > Obviously something broke. Perhaps the ldap interface to the BTS, since > packages.qa

Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract

On Wed, Feb 08, 2006 at 09:21:36PM +1300, Nick Phillips wrote: > What it says, for those who can't (or can't be bothered) to read it is > essentially this: > > We will include GFDL'd works that have no bad bits unless we have > permission to remove them. > > Or rewritten slightly more clearly (

Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract

On Wed, Feb 08, 2006 at 07:56:45PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: > Nick Phillips <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > documents. It clearly asserts otherwise, and one might assume that > > developers voting for it would agree with that. If it won a majority, > > it would therefore seem to be the

Re: documentation types

On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 12:09:40PM +0100, Hendrik Sattler wrote: > Hi, > > I about packaging a library that ships an API reference in docbook SGML and > provides manual build targets for PDF, PS and HTML. > > Is there any preference on which type should be included in the -dev package? > I would

Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract

On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 12:36:54PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: > Peter Samuelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > [Christopher Martin] > >> If an issue is highly controversial, then I can think of no better > >> way of settling it in a way that most developers will accept than a > >> vote.

Re: Bug#353277: ndiswrapper in main (was: Bug#353277: should be in contrib)

On Sat, Feb 18, 2006 at 09:40:26AM +0100, Robert Millan wrote: > I'll ask again: Is the purpose of ndiswrapper running non-free drivers? If > it > isn't, show me a free, non-toy, non-POC driver that would prove otherwise. Does the lack of a free driver which can be used with ndiswrapper mean th

Re: Bug#353277: ndiswrapper in main (was: Bug#353277: should be in contrib)

On Sat, Feb 18, 2006 at 01:42:38PM +0100, Robert Millan wrote: > On Sat, Feb 18, 2006 at 12:49:48PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > > On Sat, Feb 18, 2006 at 09:40:26AM +0100, Robert Millan wrote: > > > I'll ask again: Is the purpose of ndiswrapper running non-free >

Re: Bug#353277: ndiswrapper in main (was: Bug#353277: should be in contrib)

On Sat, Feb 18, 2006 at 06:12:36PM +0200, Lars Wirzenius wrote: > la, 2006-02-18 kello 10:43 -0500, Michael Poole kirjoitti: > > What's the purpose of an assembler without assembly code to use it on? > > It can be used, for example, to assemble code you write yourself. Exactly. ndiswrapper can b

Re: Bug#353277: ndiswrapper in main (was: Bug#353277: should be in contrib)

On Mon, Feb 20, 2006 at 05:10:42PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > On Sun, Feb 19, 2006 at 03:14:40AM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote: [...] > > It is already possible to use ndiswrapper without having any non-free > > software installed. Granted, it doesn't do much useful that wa

Re: Bug#353277: ndiswrapper in main (was: Bug#353277: should be in contrib)

On Sun, Feb 19, 2006 at 02:11:30AM -0600, Peter Samuelson wrote: > [Michael Poole] > > If you want to move ndiswrapper to contrib, I expect the next step is > > to do the same to libflash, for the same reasons. > > There's a big difference between enabling someone to install non-free > software, a

Re: Bug#353277: ndiswrapper in main

On Sun, Feb 19, 2006 at 11:11:32AM +0100, Robert Millan wrote: > On Sat, Feb 18, 2006 at 05:36:37PM +0100, Mike Hommey wrote: > > On Sat, Feb 18, 2006 at 05:04:54PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow > > > The availability to do this is enough even if there are other > > > (possibly better) ways to do the

Re: Bug#353277: ndiswrapper in main (was: Bug#353277: should be in contrib)

On Mon, Feb 20, 2006 at 04:21:44PM -0600, Peter Samuelson wrote: > [Wouter Verhelst] > > apt-cache rdepends libstdc++2.10-glibc2.2 > > > > Gee, only -dev, -dbg and gcc packages. Isn't that for non-free software? > > No, not really. There's plenty of soft

Re: PROPOSAL: debian/control file to include new License: field

On Tue, Feb 21, 2006 at 02:45:12AM -0500, Kevin Mark wrote: > On Mon, Feb 20, 2006 at 11:12:46PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: [License field] > > In other words, it seems like a lot of work, and it's not clear what > > problem it would really solve. > Hi, > would it provide any automation or easier p

Re: Bug#353277: ndiswrapper in main (was: Bug#353277: should be in contrib)

On Wed, Feb 22, 2006 at 12:35:06PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > The only instance when it's usable without any non-free code is when > you're better off using a native driver anyway. The only instance where wine is serving a purpose without requiring the use of non-free code is when you're better

Re: Bug#353277: ndiswrapper in main (was: Bug#353277: should be in contrib)

On Wed, Feb 22, 2006 at 03:33:19PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > On Tue, Feb 21, 2006 at 09:11:50PM -0800, Adam McKenna wrote: > > The reality is that we can't imagine all the uses our users might have for > > this software, > > You don't have to imagine all the uses, just the realistic ones, whi

Re: Bug#353277: ndiswrapper in main (was: Bug#353277: should be in contrib)

On Wed, Feb 22, 2006 at 09:52:28PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > On Wed, Feb 22, 2006 at 12:29:25PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 22, 2006 at 12:35:06PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > > > The only instance when it's usable without any non-free code is when

Re: Bug#353277: ndiswrapper in main (was: Bug#353277: should be in contrib)

On Thu, Feb 23, 2006 at 04:58:38AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > On Wed, Feb 22, 2006 at 07:32:33PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > > > > The only instance where wine is serving a purpose without requiring the > > > > use of non-free code is when you'

Re: Bug#353277: ndiswrapper in main

On Wed, Feb 22, 2006 at 05:29:35PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote: > The distinction between main and contrib isn't one of the freeness of the > contents, though; it's of whether the package requires a component outside > of Debian/main for use. Actually, let's look at what policy says: Agreed; but

Re: Bug#353277: ndiswrapper in main

On Mon, Feb 27, 2006 at 01:50:16PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: > Or, perhaps it's not true that there are no free drivers for it. The > claim was also made that there was a single free driver out there for > use with ndiswrapper, but others claimed that the hardware in question > is already

<    1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >