Andreas Barth [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
* Martin Michlmayr - Debian Project Leader ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040717 15:55]:
[AMD64 situation]
As to the
technical questions ftpmaster wants to raise, I'm quite disappointed
that they have not been posted yet because I was promised at DebConf
that
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes:
On Dec 11, Goswin von Brederlow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Because the GPL says so. Distribution of firmware binaries under GPL is
just not legal.
I do not believe that this is obvious. I understand that FSF disagrees,
and considers firmwares
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes:
On Dec 10, Matthew Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You may want to take a look at debian-legal, because some people there
think that even free drivers for hardware devices which need an
externally loaded firmware are not acceptable for main.
I
Brian Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sat, Dec 11, 2004 at 08:11:31PM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote:
Le samedi 11 d?cembre 2004 ? 11:00 -0800, Brian Nelson a ?crit :
You are the only person I've seen express views similar to mine on
debian-legal. All other participants argue for
Brian Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sat, Dec 11, 2004 at 11:50:44AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Brian Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It's a completely inconsistent and arbitrary policy.
It's hardly that. We distribute only free software, that's our rule.
The rest, as you
Brian Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sat, Dec 11, 2004 at 03:07:56PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
Brian Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
As far as I'm concerned, distribution of the firmware is the
manufacturer's realm. Whether the manufacturer distributes it on an
EPROM
Martin Michlmayr - Debian Project Leader [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
* Goswin von Brederlow [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-12-11 15:17]:
Is there any progress on this issue?
This seems to be one of your unfrozen mails (1. Aug, huh?). But it is
still as valid as back then.
My recollection
Josselin Mouette [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Le samedi 11 décembre 2004 à 11:44 -0800, Brian Nelson a écrit :
For a single package that won't work without the binary blob, that's a
good policy.
It's a completely inconsistent and arbitrary policy.
Virtually *all* device drivers in
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Goswin von Brederlow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
With drivers that load external firmware files this split is possible
leaving the driver in main inside the kernel and the non DFSG free
firmware in non-free.
This argument suggests that we can shift
Josselin Mouette [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Le samedi 11 décembre 2004 à 21:47 +, Matthew Garrett a écrit :
Goswin von Brederlow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
With drivers that load external firmware files this split is possible
leaving the driver in main inside the kernel and the non DFSG
Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Goswin von Brederlow writes:
Brian Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
You aren't reading what I've written. Virtually 100% of firmware
out there (included on the device or loaded externally) is non-free. By
your reasoning, the entire kernel
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes:
On Dec 11, Goswin von Brederlow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Your case of hardware wich already includes firmware is totaly
irelevant since Debian does not distributes hardware, does not even
stand for free hardware nor do debs have to depend on hardware
Brian Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Goswin von Brederlow [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Brian Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sat, Dec 11, 2004 at 03:07:56PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
Brian Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
As far as I'm concerned, distribution of the firmware
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes:
On Dec 11, Goswin von Brederlow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I know about no drivers which are useless without a non-free firmware,
while I know about a huge number of hardware devices which are useless
without a non-free firmware.
So the drivers
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes:
On Dec 11, Goswin von Brederlow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I do not believe that this is obvious. I understand that FSF disagrees,
and considers firmwares to be just data.
Would you accept a patch for ppp of the form:
char data[] = { 0x17, 0x23
Scott James Remnant [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sat, 2004-12-11 at 21:51 +0200, Ognyan Kulev wrote:
Adam Heath wrote:
Well, the plan is to make the dpkg-deb interface more formalized. What I
mean, is being able to use it in a filter, with plugging input and output.
Ie, multiple
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Josselin Mouette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Le samedi 11 d=E9cembre 2004 =E0 21:47 +, Matthew Garrett a =E9crit :
We put it in contrib
so that people know that by using this software, they will also have to
use non-free code. This is less obvious
Brian Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sat, Dec 11, 2004 at 05:49:26PM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Sat, Dec 11, 2004 at 02:23:16PM -0800, Brian Nelson wrote:
While you have your pen and paper out, go ahead and write some hardware
that a contrib device driver can use without needing
Bruce Perens [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Glenn,
If you don't have a physical copy of the device, the driver doesn't work
either. Very similarly to the way it would act if you don't have the
firmware. The problem is that we have to distribute the
Tim Cutts [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On 11 Dec 2004, at 12:24 am, Ron Johnson wrote:
On Fri, 2004-12-10 at 15:21 -0800, Brian Nelson wrote:
Matthew Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Fri, Dec 10, 2004 at 01:20:32PM +0100, Marco d'Itri wrote:
On Dec 09, Bruce Perens [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Tim Cutts [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On 11 Dec 2004, at 11:16 pm, Josselin Mouette wrote:
Le samedi 11 décembre 2004 à 23:12 +, Tim Cutts a écrit :
If Debian tries to be too rigid, we run a serious risk of consigning
ourselves to history, because people just won't install Debian any
more
Bruce Perens [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Is a driver that loads a BLOB Free Software? The problem is
connected with distribution. The BLOB is unquestionably software. It
runs below the bus,
Yes, I would agree that a non software blob is so unlikely that we can
rule it out. If it is non-software
Bruce Perens [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Glenn Maynard wrote:
It's free, but it has a non-optional dependency on non-free software, which
means contrib, not main.
In the case of a device driver, that dependency would still be there
if the firmware was in ROM. Which would put pretty much all of
Steve McIntyre [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Bruce Perens wrote:
A good hardware design would put this code in FLASH on the board.
Depends on what you mean by a good hardware design. For example, a
lot of the USB dongles becoming common would be significantly bigger
and/or more expensive if
Bruce Perens [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
Apart from being ugly the above is perfectly legal and nothing
speaks
against adding it, _provided_ this is the source. I have actually seen
GPL sources with such byte sequences
Ron Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sun, 2004-12-12 at 00:05 +0100, Santiago Vila wrote:
On Sat, 11 Dec 2004, Martin Michlmayr - Debian Project Leader wrote:
My recollection is that all technical concerns were addressed and that
the port would go in after the mirror issues will be
Adam Heath [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sat, 11 Dec 2004, Scott James Remnant wrote:
On Sat, 2004-12-11 at 21:51 +0200, Ognyan Kulev wrote:
Adam Heath wrote:
Well, the plan is to make the dpkg-deb interface more formalized. What I
mean, is being able to use it in a filter, with
Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sun, Dec 12, 2004 at 12:34:10AM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
Yes. Once you eliminate the dependency on the non-free file the driver
becomes suitable for main.
The driver does not have /any/ dependency on a non-free file. It will
function
Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sat, Dec 11, 2004 at 05:52:36PM -0800, Bruce Perens wrote:
In the case of a device driver, that dependency would still be there if
the firmware was in ROM. Which would put pretty much all of our device
drivers, X (talks to VESA code), APM and ACPI
Jose Carlos Garcia Sogo [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
El dom, 12-12-2004 a las 04:52 +0100, Goswin von Brederlow escribió:
Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sun, Dec 12, 2004 at 12:34:10AM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
Yes. Once you eliminate the dependency on the non-free
Jose Carlos Garcia Sogo [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
El dom, 12-12-2004 a las 00:22 +0100, Goswin von Brederlow escribió:
[...]
Installing non-free firmware taints your filesystem, using AIM does
not.
Taints your filesytem??? Oh, this is more than I expected.
Are you really aware
Miguel Gea Milvaques [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
El dg 12 de 12 del 2004 a les 00:05 +0100, en/na Goswin von Brederlow va
escriure:
The difference between a standalone driver and a driver included in
the kernel is the usability. A standalone driver is not useable
without its firmware and needs
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Nathanael Nerode) writes:
Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
If it comes down to the driver, on its own, would not be acceptable for
main because it is not functional; but as a practical matter, we allow
it aggregated with the rest of the kernel because splitting individual
drivers
Bruce Perens [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
Your opinion (and I would generaly agree there) would be that the
pseudo source files released are not source as per GPLs definition
A lot of these BLOBs have been identified as ARM7 code, and generally
thumb (the 8-bit ARM
Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Op za, 11-12-2004 te 20:12 -0500, schreef Glenn Maynard:
On Sat, Dec 11, 2004 at 04:43:48PM -0800, Bruce Perens wrote:
What about the rest of the driver? I think that if you remove the BLOB,
it's Free Software. It talks to a bus interface, which is
Florian Weimer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
* Bruce Perens:
That's why I say the BLOB should be in a file rather than the driver.
The problem is that this introduces unnecessary complexity. If the
blob is required for booting, it has to be put into the initial
ramdisk anyway, and a fail to
Tollef Fog Heen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
* Adam Heath
| The above makes it easy to exclude whole heiarachies, ie, /usr/share/doc.
So will the filetype part of how Scott James is doing stuff.
| It can also be used to alter /lib to /lib64 or /lib32, on the fly, during
| install.
You
Tollef Fog Heen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
* Brian Nelson
| Anyone, developer or non-developer, can help fix toolchain problems.
| However, the only people who can work on the testing-security
| autobuilders are ... the security team and the ftp-masters? What's
| that, a handful of people?
Florian Weimer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
* Goswin von Brederlow:
That's why I say the BLOB should be in a file rather than the driver.
The problem is that this introduces unnecessary complexity. If the
blob is required for booting, it has to be put into the initial
ramdisk anyway
Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sun, Dec 12, 2004 at 08:53:32AM -0800, Bruce Perens wrote:
contrib exists for software which is free but fails SC#1, we will never
make the system depend on an item of non-free software. Moving something
from contrib to main that does, in fact,
Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sun, Dec 12, 2004 at 06:05:58PM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
* Bruce Perens ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [041212 17:50]:
Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
Imagine a source where all variables are named vnumber and all
functions fnumber. Is that still free
Andreas Barth [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
* Goswin von Brederlow ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [041212 20:25]:
Compiled in the blob MUST comply to the GPL. The nature of being a
blob already seems to violate that.
Only if the blob is derived from the GPL-code.
No, always. Compiled in it is part
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes:
On Dec 12, Goswin von Brederlow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And why it should be different if that firmware is distributed by the
manufacturer on a CD instead of a flash EPROM chip?
Because the user has to actively do something and taint his filesystem
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes:
On Dec 11, Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If the driver has to be able to open the file and read the blob so it
can send it to the device, there's a clear relationship and dependency
between the driver and the blob: if you don't have a copy of
Tollef Fog Heen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
* Goswin von Brederlow
| Tollef Fog Heen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
|
| * Brian Nelson
|
| | Anyone, developer or non-developer, can help fix toolchain problems.
| | However, the only people who can work on the testing-security
Kurt Roeckx [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sun, Dec 12, 2004 at 08:29:16PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
Tollef Fog Heen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The problem is not the autobuilder infrastructure per se. It is that
testing and unstable are largely in sync (!). This, combinded
Andreas Barth [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
* Goswin von Brederlow ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [041212 21:55]:
Andreas Barth [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
* Goswin von Brederlow ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [041212 20:25]:
Compiled in the blob MUST comply to the GPL. The nature of being a
blob already seems
Goswin von Brederlow [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Kurt Roeckx [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sun, Dec 12, 2004 at 08:29:16PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
Tollef Fog Heen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The problem is not the autobuilder infrastructure per se. It is that
testing and unstable
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
1.rc 1.rc2 1.rc+b1
1.2-1~beta 1.2-1~beta2 1.2-1~beta+b1
1.2~beta-1 1.2~beta-1+b1 1.2~beta2-1
Keeping the Debian revision simple is a Good Thing.
Adding the implicit '0' that dpkg assumes on versions ending
Ola Lundqvist [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hello
I assume that my answer is a bit late as you wrote this in october.
I have written a package, dysyco that do similar things to what you
want.
Take a look. I may have misunderstood you.
// Ola
On Thu, Oct 14, 2004 at 03:37:27PM -0400, Mark
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
That'd mean REJECTing uploads whose versions match
[^0-9]+[a-z][0-9]+$ presumably.
^ ^
First + is literal, second + is one or more. One should be
escaped
Martin Waitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
hoi :)
On Sun, Dec 12, 2004 at 12:57:09AM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
Would you accept a patch for ppp of the form:
char data[] = { 0x17, 0x23, 0x42, ...};
...
*(int (*)(int))data(fd);
After all, it is just data.
No, because
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, Dec 16, 2004 at 11:10:15PM -0500, Joey Hess wrote:
Jay Berkenbilt wrote:
I've sent messages to various [EMAIL PROTECTED] addresses many
times for various reasons, and they have all always been ignored.
Me too, for values of ignored that
Cajus Pollmeier [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Am 30.01.2005 um 16:01 schrieb Thiemo Seufer:
Cajus Pollmeier wrote:
Hi,
I'm looking for a script that regenerates Packages* and Release
files for a complete mirror. Due to some installer development, I
currently need to switch the mirrors during
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Otto Wyss) writes:
Goswin von Brederlow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sure? Anyway DpartialMirror http://dpartialmirror.sourceforge.net/;
can.
A note of caution:
| 2004-04-03 (wyo) Since Debian does not change its policy to add
| adequate support for rsync'ing package
Martin Schulze [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Steve Langasek wrote:
There is one case in which users can be bitten by this: when using apt-get
dist-upgrade to sarge, so when documenting the woody-sarge upgrade, it
should
be at least mentioned that the user can run into this and should first
Martin Schulze [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Adrian von Bidder wrote:
You wouldn't need to change every script - you just need to move
gettext.sh to /usr/share/gettext/scripts and create /usr/bin/gettext.sh
with the content Sean suggested.
Which buys us what?
This new gettext.sh would
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Otto Wyss) writes:
Goswin von Brederlow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Otto Wyss) writes:
Goswin von Brederlow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sure? Anyway DpartialMirror http://dpartialmirror.sourceforge.net/;
can.
I guess mirrorer doesn't care
Raphael Bossek [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi,
I'm a active member of the dpkg-cross package part of the www.emdebian.org
project.
A long outstanding feature request was to support APT for dpkg-cross. The
realisation
result in diversion of apt-get, apt-cache and apt-config which is our
Domenico Andreoli [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, Feb 02, 2005 at 06:28:58PM +0100, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote:
Debian New queue summary,
http://developer.skolelinux.no/~pere/debian-NEW.html
i never made this question to myself but i'm finding the answer very
interesting.
just a
Andreas Rottmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Adrian von Bidder [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wednesday 02 February 2005 06.35, Brian M. Carlson wrote:
I think you meant to ask, Why would anyone want to execute the C
library?
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ /lib/ld-linux.so.2 /lib/libc.so.6
Ok, this
Frederik Dannemare [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thursday 03 February 2005 16:05, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
Op do, 03-02-2005 te 15:44 +0100, schreef Frederik Dannemare:
On Thursday 03 February 2005 14:45, Steve Langasek wrote:
Increasing the rate at which new packages flow into unstable is
Frank Küster [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Bartosz Fenski aka fEnIo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ok. So maybe ftp-masters shouldn't accept NEW packages, but accept new
binary packages (from existing source). This would allow me to close some
unfortunatelly non-critical bugs, and improve overall
Otto Wyss [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
Why there isn't there already a rsync method for apt is probably a
mystery nobody ever will solve.
It is not wanted due to rsync causing excessive server load.
That is simply not true. This statement is repeated all
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Otto Wyss) writes:
Goswin von Brederlow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Otto Wyss [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
reply (that is what I get roughly) to the server would waste 75 hours
on waiting for the initial three-way handshake for a connect. And
another 50 hours for the round
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
What I know is that every time an ftpmaster processes a batch of NEW
packages, a percentage of them wind up in testing with serious bugs for
failing to declare build-dependencies, and then the release team has to
track these bugs.
Since the testing
Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, Feb 03, 2005 at 04:31:02PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~% /lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2 /lib/libc-2.3.2.so
GNU C Library stable release version 2.3.2, by Roland McGrath et al.
Copyright (C) 2003 Free Software Foundation
Henrique de Moraes Holschuh [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Fri, 04 Feb 2005, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
The way to circumvent a noexec is to call the dynamic linker like I
did for libc:
/lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2 any file
Is it? In sid, ia32:
/lib/ld-linux.so.2 ./test
./test: error
Joey Hess [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Josselin Mouette wrote:
The most obvious solution I can come up for this issue is to build a
separate tree with DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS=noopt nostrip, at least for i386.
That means having a dedicated machine that would be used to run a buildd
for that.
Filippo Giunchedi [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sun, Jan 02, 2005 at 11:59:20PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
Why there isn't there already a rsync method for apt is probably a
mystery nobody ever will solve.
It is not wanted due to rsync causing excessive server load.
If Debian
Anibal Monsalve Salazar [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, Feb 16, 2004 at 02:50:27PM -0500, Joe Nahmias wrote:
Package: ftp.debian.org
Severity: wishlist
Hello ftp-masters,
It would be nice if there were a webpage (updated eg. once a day)
listing the packages in the NEW queue in (roughly) the
Brian May [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Goswin == Goswin von Brederlow [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Goswin zsync has the option of looking into gziped files and
Goswin rsync them as if they would be ungziped (while still just
Goswin downloading chunks of the gziped file). Its a bit more
Martin Schulze [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
| - key management,
- are able to review the key management part and
- design and discuss this with the release team
- (re-)design and discuss package updates and security updates
- take into account that the archive key is rotated yearly
Dan Jacobson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Upon apt-get, is it normal to every so often see Package xxx has
broken dep on yyy? However the next day the problem is gone.
Yes.
If normal, then can't whatever intermediate stage not be split across
the mirror push? Somehow can consistent versions
H. S. Teoh [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Actually, in csh/tcsh it's very un-obnoxious: foo --help | less
zsh too.
MfG
Goswin
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dan Jacobson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Well OK, but please be aware of the cases where a kid leaves his
village for a trip to the big city and his single chance to do an
apt-get dist-upgrade. He can't just try again tomorrow if things
don't work out.
So what? Then they don't have the
Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Goswin von Brederlow [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Dan Jacobson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Well OK, but please be aware of the cases where a kid leaves his
village for a trip to the big city and his single chance to do an
apt-get dist-upgrade
Hendrik Frenzel [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi,
i got a question regarding package updates.
If I have a source pack-1.1 from which some packages including
pack-gui-lang-de-1.1_2 (Provides: pack-gui-lang) are build.
Now i want to build the languages in seperade packages say
Matthew Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sun, Feb 20, 2005 at 10:57:47PM +, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
Clint Byrum cbyrum at spamaps.org writes:
Now, can someone please tell me how messages like the one below, and
others, aren't indicative that debian should drop s390, mipsel, and
Petter Reinholdtsen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
But at the moment, there are very few problems with the autobuilders,
it seem. The packages with missing builds on some archs are listedon
URL:http://developer.skolelinux.no/info/cdbygging/distdiff-all.html.gz,
and it is not bad compared to
Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, Feb 21, 2005 at 12:09:16AM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
On Sun, 20 Feb 2005, Brian Nelson wrote:
Also, really huge stuff, like KDE, cannot be uploaded as frequently
as perhaps the maintainers would like because it kills the
Peter Samuelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[Pierre Habouzit]
As far as mirror bandwidth goes (including end user bandwidth *from*
the mirrors), that's a problem for rsync/zsync to solve.
1- binary backages do not have the same name (so rsync/apt-get are lost)
It's still a problem for
Robert Lemmen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, Feb 21, 2005 at 07:25:02AM -0600, Peter Samuelson wrote:
zsync already reaches inside a gzip file and effectively rsyncs the
uncompressed version. No reason it couldn't be made a bit smarter so
as to look inside the components of a .deb ar
Thiemo Seufer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Those would need to go into experimental, where no buildd problem
exists by definition.
Thiemo
Except for the 11 archs with experimental buildds.
MfG
Goswin
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe.
Bernd Eckenfels [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED] you wrote:
Hypothetical daily KDE builds would also insanely increase the amount of
network traffic being used by the mirror pulse and people upgrading
their home boxes, so it isn't just a buildd problem.
Perhaps it
Scott James Remnant [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sat, 2005-02-19 at 23:06 -0600, Micah Anderson wrote:
#957: dpkg 957 802533782 open [EMAIL PROTECTED] wishlist
Do I get a medal when I fix this in the next week or two? :) I've been
working on an implementation over the weekend that's to my
John O'Sullivan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Ben Armstrong wrote:
I question, then, the integrity of ftp.ie.debian.org or your own mirror.
Just checking one of my own packages, I obtained a copy from my local
mirror, and this is the result:
$ extract -H md5
Eduard Bloch [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
#include hallo.h
* Christoph Berg [Mon, Feb 21 2005, 04:46:14PM]:
Re: Eduard Bloch in [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Agreed. However, I though about writting cp/mv versions that display
progress bars and allow interactive resuming of copy operations. I
think
John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Brian Nelson writes:
That's an overstatement. Simply having two architectures (i386 and ppc)
would be enough to reveal nearly all portability bugs.
It required several architectures to uncover all of the portability bugs in
Chrony. ppc was not one of
Marc Haber [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On 21 Feb 2005 20:54:36 -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Dirk Eddelbuettel [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
- security response time (more builds to do)
Which DSAs came out later than they should have because of this
supposed delay? Nor could
Dirk Eddelbuettel [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
For your convenience, I quote the numbers here again along with a quick
percentage calculation:
files.downloaded percent
i386 1285422 70.5079
all 504789 27.6886
powerpc17754 0.9738
ia64
Steve McIntyre [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Dirk Eddelbuettel [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
- mirrror capacity (witness the sad state of amd64),
But dropping an arch can't improve the capacity of a mirror which
doesn't carry it, and they can always simply not carry it if
Kevin Mark [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
would it make sense to examine the queue to see if any packages have
similar build dependencies and then move them to the top of the queue so
they build immediately after the current one?
or to re-sequence the queue to group package with similar build
Hamish Moffatt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, Feb 22, 2005 at 07:52:57AM +0100, Ingo Juergensmann wrote:
On Tue, Feb 22, 2005 at 02:29:33PM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
Why do the build servers install all the dependencies only to find out
that some installed versions are insufficient
Hamish Moffatt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, Feb 22, 2005 at 07:52:57AM +0100, Ingo Juergensmann wrote:
On Tue, Feb 22, 2005 at 02:29:33PM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
Why do the build servers install all the dependencies only to find out
that some installed versions are insufficient
Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, Feb 22, 2005 at 02:29:33PM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
Is the problem that you use apt-get to install the current version, and
then check what you got? Because you can't tell apt-get to install
at least version X else fail?
Yes, that's how
Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, Feb 22, 2005 at 03:07:54PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Since this also makes autobuilding experimental harder, work is being
done to use ``apt-cache policy'' output to determine whether
* Wouter Verhelst ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050222 18:00]:
On Tue, Feb 22, 2005 at 05:43:43PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
I can always tell you how to do things and you never have to
listen. But my opinion stands that improving apt-get is the right
thing to do, not having two divergent
Hi,
just an update about a small milestone we've taken.
Both current gnome and kde meta packages now have all their
dependencies fullfilled in the sarge tree. With recent reports of
successfull D-I installs with sarge we are now caught up with the
official release.
Our next step will be to get
Dirk Eddelbuettel [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Don Armstrong don at debian.org writes:
reports percent
hurd-i386 1 0.0175
kfreebsd-i386 1 0.0175
ppc64 1 0.0175
arm 2 0.0351
mipsel 2 0.0351
m68k
201 - 300 of 2345 matches
Mail list logo
