On 15-Mar-00, 01:06 (CST), Craig Sanders [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
DO NOT PUT WORDS IN MY MOUTH.
your argument for want of a better term is obviously so poor that you
have no choice but to misrepresent mine to make your points.
Hmm, it's ok for you to misrepresent other people's arguments,
On Wed, Mar 15, 2000 at 08:41:01PM -0600, Steve Greenland wrote:
On 15-Mar-00, 01:06 (CST), Craig Sanders [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
DO NOT PUT WORDS IN MY MOUTH.
your argument for want of a better term is obviously so poor that you
have no choice but to misrepresent mine to make your
Steve Greenland:
Hmm, it's ok for you to misrepresent other people's arguments, but not
the other way around, as follows:
Craig Sanders:
so why do you have a problem with infrastructure (i.e. package pools in
one form or another) which makes it easier to build a snapshot image?
Steve
On Tue, Mar 14, 2000 at 05:27:26PM -0500, Ben Collins wrote:
Well, it's really sad that you like to dredge up year old context for
this thread to suit your mundane arguments, they have little context
with what I was saying.
actually, it's really sad that you haven't learnt that closing down
On Tue, Mar 14, 2000 at 11:50:05PM +0100, Josip Rodin wrote:
Uh, which were the packages in question? Did you report it at the
time?
no need, the holes were already well known - and fixed in unstable.
Security fixes have to be (and are) fixed in stable, too!
most are.
craig
--
On Tue, Mar 14, 2000 at 05:43:38PM -0500, Michael Stone wrote:
On Tue, Mar 14, 2000 at 05:27:26PM -0500, Ben Collins wrote:
it doesn't distract me at all. i mostly ignore it these days as it is of
little or no relevance to me.
Safe to say, that is a really self-centered attitude. One
On 14-Mar-00, 18:58 (CST), Craig Sanders [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
actually, it's really sad that you haven't learnt that closing down
'unstable' is a disastrously bad idea. you've been with debian long
enough now to have learnt that.
How do you know? We've never tried it. You and others say
On Tue, Mar 14, 2000 at 09:23:42PM -0600, Steve Greenland wrote:
On 14-Mar-00, 18:58 (CST), Craig Sanders [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
actually, it's really sad that you haven't learnt that closing down
'unstable' is a disastrously bad idea. you've been with debian long
enough now to have
Le Wed, Mar 15, 2000 at 06:06:24PM +1100, Craig Sanders écrivait:
and fuck you too! how dare you fucking misrepresent my position and
twist what i said in such a reprehensible manner?
if you don't fucking understand what i'm saying then shut the fuck up.
Could you stop use those FUCKING
On Wed, Mar 15, 2000 at 12:10:54PM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
Uh, which were the packages in question? Did you report it at the
time?
no need, the holes were already well known - and fixed in unstable.
Security fixes have to be (and are) fixed in stable, too!
most are.
On Wed, Mar 15, 2000 at 09:35:35AM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
Le Wed, Mar 15, 2000 at 06:06:24PM +1100, Craig Sanders écrivait:
and fuck you too! how dare you fucking misrepresent my position and
twist what i said in such a reprehensible manner?
if you don't fucking understand what
On Wed, Mar 15, 2000 at 10:05:09AM +0100, Josip Rodin wrote:
Security fixes have to be (and are) fixed in stable, too!
most are.
IMNSHO *all* of them must be. It would be wrong to leave the users of stable
`in the cold'. Those bugs that aren't fixed in stable are the worst
15.03.2000 pisze Craig Sanders ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
[cut]
Gentlemen,
I have seen ``South Park: The Movie'' and I like it -- in the cinema.
Not here. I don't like to see developers of my favourite Linux
distribution to behave in such a childish way. Would you kindly like to
get your toys and go
On Wed, Mar 15, 2000 at 09:35:35AM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
You have 3 RCB open against your packages (11, 25 and 21 days old),
right. one of them for a package (spamdb) which doesn't even exist
anymore so it's a bit difficult to see how it could be release
critical.
two of them for
On Tue, 14 Mar 2000, Ben Collins wrote:
snip
First of all, you need to check your numbers. Last I checked there were
~350 official developers in the keyring. Right, so this proves my point in
that we should encourage developers to put a priority on frozen and the
next release cycle. And
On Wed, Mar 15, 2000 at 09:03:18PM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
On Wed, Mar 15, 2000 at 09:35:35AM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
You have 3 RCB open against your packages (11, 25 and 21 days old),
two of them for the same package (vtun). again, they hardly seem
release critical
i
On Wed, Mar 15, 2000 at 07:07:51AM -0500, Michael Stone wrote:
On Wed, Mar 15, 2000 at 09:03:18PM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
i haven't yet decided what to do about vtun. i'll probably get around
to upgrading it to the latest version one day, but i made a mistake
packaging it in the first
On Wed, Mar 15, 2000 at 11:18:49PM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
On Wed, Mar 15, 2000 at 07:07:51AM -0500, Michael Stone wrote:
On Wed, Mar 15, 2000 at 09:03:18PM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
i haven't yet decided what to do about vtun. i'll probably get around
to upgrading it to the latest
[ ok I'll keep calm this time ]
Le Wed, Mar 15, 2000 at 09:03:18PM +1100, Craig Sanders écrivait:
right. one of them for a package (spamdb) which doesn't even exist
anymore so it's a bit difficult to see how it could be release
critical.
That's possible, but then it would be great if you
On Wed, Mar 15, 2000 at 03:24:29AM -0700, John Galt wrote:
On Tue, 14 Mar 2000, Ben Collins wrote:
snip
First of all, you need to check your numbers. Last I checked there were
~350 official developers in the keyring. Right, so this proves my point in
that we should encourage developers
Steve Greenland wrote:
There is nothing stopping anyone from making snapshot releases of
unstable. Mirror the archive. Burn a CD. Done. That's what a snapshot
is.
As one of the many people who does not have cheap, fast, reliable
internet access, I would like to say that for me to mirror 650
I'll believe it when I see a newly minted developer. It never should have
been closed in the first place, so therefore I see the fact that it HAD to
be opened as doubt-inspiring as to whether there will ever be a newly
minted developer. Until I see a working new-developers mechanism, I see
I am going to attempt to install Potato over a
28.8/56k modem. I have downloaded and 'burned' all 15
floppies needed for the basic system, and will install
that first. Then I will set up PPP, and fire up
dselect (apt method). I have already done this at
work (but on a T1-lan-proxy setup).
I
On Mon, Mar 13, 2000 at 01:31:41PM +, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
Paul M Sargent [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
OK, Here's a question then. If Woody is unstable, which kernel is it
running?
Woody should be running 2.3 or pre-2.4. That should have been among the
first
things to change.
I
Josip Rodin wrote:
But slink is practically completely adjusted for 2.2 already.
Sure, if you ignore the 12 packages that break
(http://www.debian.org/releases/stable/running-kernel-2.2)
--
see shy jo
Eray Ozkural wrote:
What happened to the package pools proposal?
It's not been implemented.
It's as if Debian developers are suffering from amnesia.
It's easy to be amnesiac about vaporware.
--
see shy jo
On Mon, Mar 13, 2000 at 08:17:00PM -0800, Joey Hess wrote:
Josip Rodin wrote:
But slink is practically completely adjusted for 2.2 already.
Sure, if you ignore the 12 packages that break
(http://www.debian.org/releases/stable/running-kernel-2.2)
Most people can run 2.2 on slink without the
Eray == Eray Ozkural [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Eray What happened to the package pools proposal? It's as if Debian
Eray developers are suffering from amnesia. I guess the package
Eray pools, as an idea at least, had found a significant appeal in
Eray this list. According to some form of that
On Mon, Mar 13, 2000 at 11:50:47AM +, Paul M Sargent wrote:
On a side note. I'm really not sure that this 'release' stuff works
on debian. Coordinating the development cycles of an infinite number
of packages is impossible. What I would like to see is an unstable
tree where all development
On Mon, Mar 13, 2000 at 09:08:43AM -0500, Ben Collins wrote:
Woody should be running 2.3 or pre-2.4. That should have been among
the first things to change.
We are knee deep in a release cycle. We should not be expending our
resources on woody right now.
speak for yourself. not everyone
On Mon, Mar 13, 2000 at 08:17:00PM -0800, Joey Hess wrote:
But slink is practically completely adjusted for 2.2 already.
Sure, if you ignore the 12 packages that break
(http://www.debian.org/releases/stable/running-kernel-2.2)
I believe 12 out of ~2250 counts as practically completely.
--
On Tue, Mar 14, 2000 at 10:01:15PM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
On Mon, Mar 13, 2000 at 09:08:43AM -0500, Ben Collins wrote:
Woody should be running 2.3 or pre-2.4. That should have been among
the first things to change.
We are knee deep in a release cycle. We should not be expending our
On Tue, Mar 14, 2000 at 09:02:50AM -0500, Ben Collins wrote:
On Tue, Mar 14, 2000 at 10:01:15PM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
On Mon, Mar 13, 2000 at 09:08:43AM -0500, Ben Collins wrote:
We are knee deep in a release cycle. We should not be expending our
resources on woody right now.
On Wed, Mar 15, 2000 at 08:42:07AM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
this same empirical evidence has also proved that 'stable' is LESS
stable and reliable and secure than 'unstable'. the few debian boxes
which i know of that have been compromised were cracked BECAUSE they
were still running stable
On Tue, Mar 14, 2000 at 11:02:20PM +0100, Josip Rodin wrote:
On Wed, Mar 15, 2000 at 08:42:07AM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
this same empirical evidence has also proved that 'stable' is LESS
stable and reliable and secure than 'unstable'. the few debian boxes
which i know of that have been
Well, it's really sad that you like to dredge up year old context for this
thread to suit your mundane arguments, they have little context with what
I was saying.
resources on woody right now.
speak for yourself. not everyone in debian has your priorities. more to
the point, your
On Tue, Mar 14, 2000 at 11:02:20PM +0100, Josip Rodin wrote:
On Wed, Mar 15, 2000 at 08:42:07AM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
this same empirical evidence has also proved that 'stable' is LESS
stable and reliable and secure than 'unstable'. the few debian boxes
which i know of that have been
On Wed, Mar 15, 2000 at 09:18:00AM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
this same empirical evidence has also proved that 'stable' is LESS
stable and reliable and secure than 'unstable'. the few debian boxes
which i know of that have been compromised were cracked BECAUSE they
were still running
On Tue, Mar 14, 2000 at 05:27:26PM -0500, Ben Collins wrote:
it doesn't distract me at all. i mostly ignore it these days as it is of
little or no relevance to me.
Safe to say, that is a really self-centered attitude. One which I hope
that most developers don't have. Not a very team
On Sun, Mar 12, 2000 at 09:53:41PM -, Steve Greenland wrote:
Which is it? Do your friends want the newest bleeding edge stuff, or
do they want stability? They can't have both at the same time! Oh, I
see, the want the newest, but they want us to call it stable.
OK, Here's a question then.
Paul M Sargent [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
OK, Here's a question then. If Woody is unstable, which kernel is it
running?
Woody should be running 2.3 or pre-2.4. That should have been among the first
things to change.
I don't think so. People who are interested in debugging the kernel
can install 2.3
On Mon, Mar 13, 2000 at 11:50:47AM +, Paul M Sargent wrote:
Woody should be running 2.3 or pre-2.4. That should have been among the
first things to change.
There's a misunderstanding here: the distribution has no default kernel,
the boot floppies do. Since nobody is working on woody boot
On Mon, Mar 13, 2000 at 02:50:12PM +0100, Josip Rodin wrote:
On Mon, Mar 13, 2000 at 11:50:47AM +, Paul M Sargent wrote:
Woody should be running 2.3 or pre-2.4. That should have been among the
first things to change.
There's a misunderstanding here: the distribution has no default
Woody should be running 2.3 or pre-2.4. That should have been among the first
things to change.
We are knee deep in a release cycle. We should not be expending our
resources on woody right now. We should be making potato the best that it
can be. Every release cycle, peoples obsession with
On Mon, Mar 13, 2000 at 01:43:46PM +, Paul M Sargent wrote:
Woody should be running 2.3 or pre-2.4. That should have been among the
first things to change.
There's a misunderstanding here: the distribution has no default kernel,
the boot floppies do. Since nobody is working on
On Mon, Mar 13, 2000 at 09:08:43AM -0500, Ben Collins wrote:
Woody should be running 2.3 or pre-2.4. That should have been among the
first
things to change.
We are knee deep in a release cycle. We should not be expending our
resources on woody right now.
Ohh, Agreed. Potato is
On Mon, Mar 13, 2000 at 03:30:53PM +0100, Josip Rodin wrote:
On Mon, Mar 13, 2000 at 01:43:46PM +, Paul M Sargent wrote:
...but a distribution is designed for a particular kernel. e.g. slink is
designed for 2.0.x with some packages for 2.2.x support.
But slink is practically
On Mon, Mar 13, 2000 at 03:04:26PM +, Paul M Sargent wrote:
If the kernel isn't even in the archive then potential problems aren't
going to be found.
I wouldn't put that much `weight' in the fact that kernel is in the archive:
kernel packages don't get upgraded to new upstream
We should be making potato the best that it
can be. Every release cycle, peoples obsession with this new thing or
that latest beta is what makes the cycle so drawn out.
All I was saying was that 'that new thing' should be included in the
unstable tree as soon as possible. Add things
Paul M Sargent wrote:
On a side note. I'm really not sure that this 'release' stuff works on
debian. Coordinating the development cycles of an infinite number of
packages is impossible. What I would like to see is an unstable tree where
all development is done. As packages reach maturity
50 matches
Mail list logo
