Don Armstrong dijo [Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 06:06:59PM -0700]:
> I think this discussion is great and good to have; thanks for starting it!
I completely concur.
> As a point of order, the TC isn't responsible for deciding whether bugs
> are RC or not. That responsibility belongs with the Release
I think this discussion is great and good to have; thanks for starting it!
As a point of order, the TC isn't responsible for deciding whether bugs
are RC or not. That responsibility belongs with the Release Managers.
[I don't think that should stop the TC from facilitating the decision
and the
On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 08:45:42PM +0200, Ansgar wrote:
> Adrian Bunk writes:
> > - An environment with at least 16 GB RAM is supported.
> >
> > Not sure about the exact number, but since many packages have
> > workarounds for gcc or ld running into the 4 GB address space
> > limit on i386 it is
Russ Allbery writes:
> Ansgar writes:
>> Even more, from the "32 bit archs in Debian" BoF at DebConf15 I remember
>> the suggestion that one might have to switch to 64-bit compilers even on
>> 32-bit architectures in the future... So building packages would in
>> general require a 64-bit kernel,
Ansgar writes:
> Adrian Bunk writes:
>> - An environment with at least 16 GB RAM is supported.
>>
>> Not sure about the exact number, but since many packages have
>> workarounds for gcc or ld running into the 4 GB address space
>> limit on i386 it is clear that several packages wouldn't build
Adrian Bunk writes:
> - An environment with at least 16 GB RAM is supported.
>
> Not sure about the exact number, but since many packages have
> workarounds for gcc or ld running into the 4 GB address space
> limit on i386 it is clear that several packages wouldn't build
> in an amd64 vm with
On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 01:30:58PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Santiago Vila writes ("Bug#932795: Ethics of FTBFS bug reporting"):
>...
> On the point at issue, do these packages build in a cheap single-vcpu
> vm from some kind of cloud vm service ? ISTM that this is a much
> better argument than
On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 01:54:10PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
>...
> * I'm told that single-cpu systems are an oddity and that most
> physical machines manufactured today are multi-core, but this
> completely fails to account that single-cpu systems are today more
> affordable than ever thanks to
On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 01:54:10PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
> * Because this is a violation of a Policy "must" directive, I consider
> the downgrade to be a tricky way to modify Debian Policy without
> following the usual Policy decision-making procedure.
Please also note that
Santiago Vila writes ("Bug#932795: Ethics of FTBFS bug reporting"):
> Would it work, for example, if I propose a change to Debian Policy
I think the problem here is that:
- Some packages do not build in quite sane non-buildd build
environments, but:
- Some build environments are too weird
Package: tech-ctte
Dear TC:
I reported this bug:
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=907829
and it was downgraded on the basis that the official autobuilders
are multi-core.
I believe this downgrade is not appropriate, for several reasons:
* The informal guideline which is
11 matches
Mail list logo
