* Mike Hommey
| On Tue, Apr 05, 2005 at 08:18:25AM +0200, Andreas Barth [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
|
| For the first, there are well working mirror scripts that prevent that,
|
| Why on earth aren't they in place on official mirrors ? I *always* get
| 404 errors for new packages at the time
* Mike Hommey ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050403 14:55]:
I think he's talking about mirrored Packages files being updated before
all the packages get mirrored and/or arch all packages reaching the
archive before arch specific builds (except the maintainer's arch),
because of buildd queue.
For the
On Tue, Apr 05, 2005 at 08:18:25AM +0200, Andreas Barth [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
* Mike Hommey ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050403 14:55]:
I think he's talking about mirrored Packages files being updated before
all the packages get mirrored and/or arch all packages reaching the
archive before arch
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 tests can be automated, do we have a need to go through the
process of spreading a
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 tests can be
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED] you wrote:
It seems there are only minimal checks, so developers can unwittingly
upload broken packages.
Any numbers where you can proof your claim? Developers are required to test
the packages before upload, and I havent noticed any uninstallable package
in years.
On Sun, Apr 03, 2005 at 02:28:36PM +0200, Bernd Eckenfels [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED] you wrote:
It seems there are only minimal checks, so developers can unwittingly
upload broken packages.
Any numbers where you can proof your claim? Developers are required to
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 tests can be
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED] you wrote:
Why, if tests can be automated
which tests?
Gruss
Bernd
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It seems there are only minimal checks, so developers can unwittingly
upload broken packages.
Wouldn't a nightly
$ for package in all_of_debian
do apt-get --print-uris install $package; done /dev/null
2errors_for_inspection
done at Debian Headquarters 'catch' them before they are allowed to go
Dan Jacobson writes:
...Debian Headquarters...
There is no such place.
Why isn't this same apt-get check that the user does, also get done
beforehand by the archive patrol?
The users of Unstable are the archive patrol.
For instance, let's say we are a food company. Why not check to see if
11 matches
Mail list logo
