On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 02:14:04PM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
For any architecture that builds directly from accepted, having
wanna-build on ftp-master has some improvements.
Not really, the volume of changes in the Packages file is small and it
changes only every 15 minutes.
Bastian
--
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.
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
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
Op di, 15-03-2005 te 11:32 +0100, schreef Julien BLACHE:
For $DEITY's sake. Will you please understand that the Ubuntu folks
totally failed to inform their fellows about what was going on ?
In july 2003, I co-founded NixSys, a company that provides support and
other things on Free Software; I
* Ingo Juergensmann
| On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 11:34:58PM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
| On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 10:41:12AM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
| Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
|If the s390 team is unhappy with w-b, they can simply set up their own
|
Andreas Barth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(And please remember that even if the proposed policy would become
effective without any change, that doesn't necessarily mean the end to a
certain architecture,
Can you please elaborate on this? Many people have pointed out that
having no testing, no
In another thread, Martin mentioned the Scrum development process.
Since I suspect I'm the only DD who is also a Certified Scrum Master,
I'd like to extend an offer to assist any group within Debian that wants
to implement Scrum or a Scrum-derivative.
I don't know if anyone has tried using Scrum
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
David Schmitt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sure, and I won't say the contrary. But having a great infrastructure
(which is the case) and great people doing good work is of no help in
making Debian if you haven't got any packages. We have some 10k+
Hi, Andreas Barth wrote:
| - the release architecture must have N+1 buildds where N is the number
| required to keep up with the volume of uploaded packages
The reason for this proposal should be instantly clear to everyone who
ever suffered from buildd backlogs. :)
Well, certainly the N+1
On Tuesday 15 March 2005 12:59, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
My main gripe with the proposal, as it currently stands, is that it
provides a solution for problems that haven't been discussed in detail,
without much space for improvements.
I agree. I think there is a spectrum of measures that could
On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 02:38:44PM +0100, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
| So, you call me not trustworthy, although it was *me* to first help out m68k
| when kullervo was unable to keep up with package building?
You are not a DD, so Debian does not have a trust relationship with
you. It has
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Short of a yeah, we're there on IRC when the bylaws were published and
official and all on july 21st, 2003, I didn't do anything to inform
anyone what I was up to, which is considerably less than can be
Hi, Ingo Juergensmann wrote:
Has the kernel team made any advances to the m68k kernel team for a closer
cooperation? Or did they just yelled Hey! We are now taking over the kernel
development, no matter if more capable people are outside of the project!?
Ingo, that's backwards. The m68k
Hi, Ingo Juergensmann wrote:
Anyway, even Galileo Galilei was entitled to be an idiot when he stated that
not the earth is the middle of the universe...
Sure, but for every Galileo who's vindicated by history there are
thousands of idiots (or, to be more exact, otherwise mostly-intelligent
* Julien BLACHE [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005-03-15 11:44]:
I wonder also, do we still not have some sun donated sparc box
running part of our infrastructure ? How will that stay if we drop
sparc support ?
According to db.d.o:
The complete URL is http://db.debian.org/machines.cgi just for
On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 01:36:17AM +0100, Torsten Landschoff wrote:
As you might have noticed or not we are working on getting OpenLDAP 2.2
into unstable. The packages are mostly working fine (as available in
experimental) but what is missing is a really tested upgrade path from
OpenLDAP 2.0
Hi,
I'm a former Debian developer, and this mail contains some subjective
observations of mine regarding what lessions Debian might learn from
mistakes during the sarge release cycle.
Contents:
- Introduction
- Have a second plan - Discover problems early and react
- RC bugs - only a metric
-
On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 03:22:44PM +0100, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
Has the kernel team made any advances to the m68k kernel team for a closer
cooperation? Or did they just yelled Hey! We are now taking over the kernel
development, no matter if more capable people are outside of the project!?
Ingo wrote:
On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 03:22:44PM +0100, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
Besides: It's not the team members' job to stalk prospective members until
they agree to join the team. (Kernel team, release team, whatever.)
It's the new member's job to show the team that he's able to do a good
On Mon, 2005-03-14 at 22:43 +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 03:52:22PM -0500, David Nusinow wrote:
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 09:25:02PM +0100, Julien BLACHE wrote:
Sure that's good. It stops to be that good when they're obviously
trying hard to impose their employer's
Hi, Ingo Juergensmann wrote:
Ah, you mean it's up to the team to sit there and wait until someone
mistakenly stumbles in and does some work instead of looking around for
valid new members, when there's need for help?
See, that's exactly my point. I didn't say *any* of what you think I meant.
On Tue, 2005-03-15 at 11:04 +0100, Julien BLACHE wrote:
Matt Zimmerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How could we know ? We know nothing about Ubuntu, nothing about
Canonical, nothing about the goals, nothing about how everything was
done to begin with, nothing about who works or doesn't work
* Julien BLACHE
| That's not what I'm asking for. Ubuntu is kind of special; it has
| nothing to do with Corel, SkoleLinux or Progeny.
(It's Skolelinux, btw.)
| They want to be as close to Debian as possible, by contributing back
| etc, which is good, as long as they're not trying to impose
* Andreas Barth ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
(And, BTW, newraff is a quite mature box. Of course, there is always
more and better hardware available, but newraff is already a very good
machine. And, we want to give the testing migration script more tasks,
like handling of the udebs, which puts
On Tue, 2005-03-15 at 11:32 +0100, Julien BLACHE wrote:
Tollef Fog Heen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| How could we know ? We know nothing about Ubuntu, nothing about
| Canonical, nothing about the goals, nothing about how everything was
| done to begin with, nothing about who works or doesn't
On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 02:44:10PM +, Steve McIntyre wrote:
*yawn* Ingo, please go away. I'm asking you nicely. Don't come back
until you have something constructive to say - at the moment you're
not helping anyone.
My dearest, beloved Steve,
although I understand that not everyone likes
Hi, Sven Luther wrote:
Because of [1], because they said they will drop security on tier-2 arches and
that porters should be left to fend by themselves, did they not ?
Nothing's going to prevent porters from adding stable-security (or
whatever) to their autobuilders, so even if they drop
As I understand it, the plan was to convert auric into a buildd but
the RAID needs to be fixed. Ben Collins was looking into this but I
don't know about the status. I've also heard discussions several
months ago about using one of Ben's really fast machines.
This is based on what I've
On Mon, 2005-03-14 at 22:49 +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
Ok, let me be blunt about this.
It is a political problem, the dpkg/buildd/ftp-master admin have not the will
to implement such a solution, and thus block any attempt to implement this
kind of problem.
We would need at least a dpkg
On Tue, 15 Mar 2005, Ben Collins wrote:
I have an e3500 to replace both auric and vore (and the raid), but I
Suddenly it occures to me that we might have no stable release for
some important machines in our infrastructure once etch is out.
H
Andreas.
--
http://fam-tille.de
--
To
On Tuesday 15 March 2005 12:08, Frank Küster wrote:
(exactly because of arches like s390 who
should be able to reach tier-1 easily, but really have no reason to be on
the mirror network).
But it does *not* say that s390 is likely to be among the released
architectures. And I do not
Hi Adrian,
On Tuesday, 15 Mar 2005, you wrote:
The timeline for another failed release date:
- August 2nd 2004: announcement
- August 8th 2004: Official security support for sarge begins
- September 15th 2004: announced release date
The milestone that included the start of the official
I strongly disagree with this. There is a need for a set of base
packages to work, but it's entirely reasonable to have a release for eg
m68k without KDE or other large package sets. It's not as if debian/m68k
would be unusable without KDE packages for example.
You might try to
* Andreas Tille [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005-03-15 16:06]:
I have an e3500 to replace both auric and vore (and the raid), but I
Suddenly it occures to me that we might have no stable release for
some important machines in our infrastructure once etch is out.
We can move services to supported
On Tuesday 15 March 2005 12:57, Henning Makholm wrote:
Scripsit Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED]
This really makes unstable snapshotting, or building stable once it's
released as Anthony has also suggested in this thread, look like much
better options than trying to build out of testing.
sean finney [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 01:36:17AM +0100, Torsten Landschoff wrote:
a) the preinst checks if the database format has changed between the old
version and the version that we are upgrading to
is this an underlying database format change, or simply
On Tuesday 15 March 2005 14:34, Julien BLACHE wrote:
David Schmitt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sure, and I won't say the contrary. But having a great infrastructure
(which is the case) and great people doing good work is of no help in
making Debian if you haven't got any packages. We have some
Le Mardi 15 Mars 2005 16:15, Martin Zobel-Helas a écrit :
I think the real problem within Debian is the lack of communication
of some people within the project. If the wanna-build admins and/or
the ftp-masters would have said: stop, were are still missing ,
without it you will not be able
* Peter 'p2' De Schrijver ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
I hope you can agree that we need to say that almost all packages that
should be build are build. And I consider 97.5% to be a reasonable
level. Also, if we exclude too much, we might start to ask the question
why we should do a stable
On Tuesday 15 March 2005 02:02, John Goerzen wrote:
Simply making a snapshot -- or posting a set of .debs -- does not make
Debian stable. See #2, for instance.
See below, please.
2) Provides no way for such a stable release to be integrated into the
security build system;
That's
On Mon, 2005-03-14 at 16:10 +, Scott James Remnant wrote:
On Mon, 2005-03-14 at 16:51 +0100, Marc Haber wrote:
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
Hi Pierre,
On Tuesday, 15 Mar 2005, you wrote:
Le Mardi 15 Mars 2005 16:15, Martin Zobel-Helas a écrit :
Full ACK on the whole mail.
Greetings
Martin
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Martin Michlmayr - Debian Project Leader [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Martin,
Thanks for following up.
BTW, couldn't we get our acts together and buy new disks for all those
poor machines which disks are dead ?
If there is demonstrated need to
* Ben Collins ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Also, this will make two ultrasparc machines available for some of our new
sparc developers. I can't pay to ship them, but if Debian foots the bill,
I'll get them to the right ppl.
I'd be willing to help with the shipping bill, and possibly with the
On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 01:56:58PM +0100, Ingo Juergensmann wrote:
Well, someone[TM] decided somewhen[TM] that d-i is mandatory for sarge.
You bitch about dropping an official stable Debian release on the one hand, and
then 24 hours later you bitch about having to release an official stable
Matthias Urlichs [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb:
Hi, Sven Luther wrote:
Because of [1], because they said they will drop security on tier-2 arches
and
that porters should be left to fend by themselves, did they not ?
Nothing's going to prevent porters from adding stable-security (or
whatever)
* Stephen Frost [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005-03-15 11:04]:
Also, this will make two ultrasparc machines available for some of our new
sparc developers. I can't pay to ship them, but if Debian foots the bill,
I'll get them to the right ppl.
I'd be willing to help with the shipping bill, and
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Tollef Fog Heen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| That's not what I'm asking for. Ubuntu is kind of special; it has
| nothing to do with Corel, SkoleLinux or Progeny.
(It's Skolelinux, btw.)
Sorry.
| They want to be as close to Debian as possible, by
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 still
On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 08:04:31AM +0100, Marc Haber wrote:
On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 15:52:22 -0500, David Nusinow
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sarge was already very late before Ubuntu existed. Our mirror network was
already strained before Ubuntu existed. Our release team was struggling to
get
* Martin Michlmayr - Debian Project Leader ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
* Stephen Frost [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005-03-15 11:04]:
Also, this will make two ultrasparc machines available for some of our new
sparc developers. I can't pay to ship them, but if Debian foots the bill,
I'll get them
* Julien BLACHE [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005-03-15 16:47]:
The problem isn't there, it's that we're not used to spending Debian
funds when we need to. This has already been discussed a couple of
weeks ago :)
Where was this and what should we (have) spent money on?
(I'm not sure what you refer to.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Scott James Remnant [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
For $DEITY's sake. Will you please understand that the Ubuntu folks
totally failed to inform their fellows about what was going on ? And
at the time, there was no Canonical website, no Ubuntu website.
Scripsit David Schmitt [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tuesday 15 March 2005 12:57, Henning Makholm wrote:
Scripsit Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED]
This really makes unstable snapshotting, or building stable once it's
released as Anthony has also suggested in this thread, look like much
better
On Monday 14 March 2005 21:35, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
Looking just at the ones I reported:
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?which=submitterdata=brederlo%
40informatik.uni-tuebingen.dearchive=no
#249397: FTBFS: amd64 missing in Architecture list
Package: mga-vid; Severity:
On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 05:14:54PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
And I could still do - but I'm not allowed anymore. Great Job, Mr.
Troup!
Oh, come on, this isn't fair.
You're not allowed to anymore because you stubbornly refused to pledge
you would not compromise Debian's security unless
On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 11:04:42AM -0500, Stephen Frost wrote:
* Ben Collins ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Also, this will make two ultrasparc machines available for some of our new
sparc developers. I can't pay to ship them, but if Debian foots the bill,
I'll get them to the right ppl.
I'd
Scripsit Matthias Urlichs [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hi, Sven Luther wrote:
Because of [1], because they said they will drop security on tier-2
arches and that porters should be left to fend by themselves, did
they not ?
Nothing's going to prevent porters from adding stable-security (or
whatever)
On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 04:10:49PM +, Martin Michlmayr - Debian Project
Leader wrote:
* Stephen Frost [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005-03-15 11:04]:
Also, this will make two ultrasparc machines available for some of our new
sparc developers. I can't pay to ship them, but if Debian foots the
Frank Küster a écrit :
There is one problem: These porters would need a debian.org machine to
host their archive, and this puts again some workload on the ftpmasters
and system admins. From the Vancouver proposal it seemed to me that
it was not planned to provide such ressources.
If there is more
On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 05:14:54PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
When he declined (after seriously considering the option), and, because
he didn't receive a pledge from you (and thus couldn't in any reasonable
way trust you) locked you out of Debian hardware, you rambled on and
screamed that
On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 04:15:38PM +0100, Martin Zobel-Helas wrote:
On Tuesday, 15 Mar 2005, you wrote:
[...]
Also i hoped the release team and the ftp-masters would have worked on
the current release instead of planing for the next on. Having all these
people together sitting in one room
On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 11:17:54AM -0500, Stephen Frost wrote:
* Martin Michlmayr - Debian Project Leader ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
* Stephen Frost [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005-03-15 11:04]:
Also, this will make two ultrasparc machines available for some of our
new
sparc developers. I
Let's analyze the requirements the release team sent for release
architectures:
- it must first be part of (or at the very least, meet the criteria for)
scc.debian.org (see below)
- there must be a developer-accessible debian.org machine for the
architecture.
That's obvious.
- the
On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 09:50:22AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 04:51:55PM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 01:14:30AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 06:10:30PM -0500, Andres Salomon wrote:
Yes, I would like to reiterate
On Tuesday 15 March 2005 17:08, Henning Makholm wrote:
Scripsit David Schmitt [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tuesday 15 March 2005 12:57, Henning Makholm wrote:
Scripsit Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED]
This really makes unstable snapshotting, or building stable once it's
released as Anthony
On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 12:29:06PM +0100, David Schmitt wrote:
On Tuesday 15 March 2005 03:09, Anthony Towns wrote:
Soon everyone loves you, and you get a huge userbase, and hit 10% of
i386+amd64 downloads or five times powerpc's current userbase or so, and
say I wanna be on ftp.d.o!! Then
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Martin Michlmayr - Debian Project Leader [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The problem isn't there, it's that we're not used to spending Debian
funds when we need to. This has already been discussed a couple of
weeks ago :)
Where was this and what should
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[...]
Therefore, we're planning on not releasing most of the minor architectures
starting with etch. They will be released with sarge, with all that
implies (including security support until sarge is archived), but they
would no longer be included in
On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 05:39:37PM +0100, Frank Lichtenheld wrote:
So where is the lack of communication you detected?
Well, at least to me it's completely unclear why it took so long to
address the points you mentioned (t-s, d-i). There are probably very good
reasons, and people did work hard
On Monday 14 March 2005 22:37, Brian M. Carlson wrote:
On Sun, 2005-03-13 at 20:45 -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
Architectures that are no longer being considered for stable releases
are not going to be left out in the cold.
I disagree. I feel that maintainers are going to ignore the SCC
Goswin von Brederlow [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
We did that last year for m68k, mips, mipsel and alpha and it produced
a great flame since some machines where hosted by non DDs and none of
them were approved by the debian admin team. The opinions (including
an RM too) expressed in that flame
On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 08:13:50AM +0100, Marc Haber wrote:
On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 10:45:45 +1000, Anthony Towns
aj@azure.humbug.org.au wrote:
Once you get over giggling at the phrasing (or maybe that's just me),
there're a few answers. The ones that come to my mind are:
(a) Just build
Ingo Juergensmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It's the job of w-b admins to add new buildds in a timely manner. If they
don't do that, they simply fail (one significant part of) their job.
This not only happens to s390 now but already happened in the past to m68k
for example.
Ok, let's
On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 01:41:01PM +0100, Ingo Juergensmann wrote:
On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 12:59:43PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
With the new proposal of de facto dropping m68k support, I'm this --
close
to recommend to Roman, that he better should invest his time into other
Peter 'p2' De Schrijver wrote:
[snip]
I think we should distinguish between what's really necessary to have a
useable release and what is nice to have. It's obviously nice to compile
almost everything for all archs. But if upstream is too broken for this
to be possible, it might make more
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
David Schmitt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We are all working for the stable release, you know. We're all trying
to provide the best software in the best distribution. That's partly
why we're all trying to slip a new revision of a package under the
On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 15:11:01 +0100, Tollef Fog Heen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* Hamish Moffatt
| OK, that makes sense. Can you buy those architectures new? (Surely yes
| in the case of s390 at least, probably mipsel also as the mips CPU
| manufacturers are alive and well.)
[EMAIL
On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 09:07:46AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
It's the job of w-b admins to add new buildds in a timely manner. If they
don't do that, they simply fail (one significant part of) their job.
This not only happens to s390 now but already happened in the past to m68k
On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 05:50:23PM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
[...]
- issues with space on ftp.debian.org and on mirrors
(especially hindering amd64)
It might be a better point to start moving non-released architectures
(GNU Hurd and sh) to a different location. Depending on what exactly
On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 11:04:09AM +0100, Julien BLACHE wrote:
Matt Zimmerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Details about Ubuntu and its goals can be found on the website. In many
respects there is more information available about Ubuntu activity, and the
goals of the project, than about
Scripsit David Schmitt [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tuesday 15 March 2005 17:08, Henning Makholm wrote:
Scripsit David Schmitt [EMAIL PROTECTED]
If a arch can show that it is able to support a
high-quality-Debian-stable as we all know and love, it can be
promoted to tier-1.
Um, isn't the
* Ben Collins ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 11:17:54AM -0500, Stephen Frost wrote:
* Martin Michlmayr - Debian Project Leader ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
* Stephen Frost [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005-03-15 11:04]:
Also, this will make two ultrasparc machines available for
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) Difficulty getting security releases out in time, given slow archs
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
architectures needs to happen on ftp-master?
For any architecture that builds
On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 04:12:51PM +0100, David Schmitt wrote:
Looking at the stats[1], the amount of compiled packages seems to be a
blocker: 250-300 need-build packages. At approximatly 9000 source packages,
around 8820 must be built to satisfy the 98% barrier. Looking at longer
timeframe
On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 11:25:23AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
So, what do you think? Could this work?
I like the idea a lot. What I'd like to see is a way to do a
cross-platform build for the small system targets. I do a lot of ARM
work: low-performance, resource limited targets.
Frankly,
Reinhard Tartler wrote:
On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 15:11:01 +0100, Tollef Fog Heen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* Hamish Moffatt
| OK, that makes sense. Can you buy those architectures new? (Surely yes
| in the case of s390 at least, probably mipsel also as the mips CPU
| manufacturers are alive
Hi, Henning Makholm wrote:
Nothing's going to prevent porters from adding stable-security (or
whatever) to their autobuilders,
True - for as long as they do not try to upload the result to the
Debian archive, which will carry only unstable.
I do not consider this to be set in stone.
The
On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 09:22:06AM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 11:04:09AM +0100, Julien BLACHE wrote:
And now you're pointing us to the Ubuntu website, but it's a bit
late.
As soon as a proper website was up and running, the URL in the announcement
above became a
* Marc Singer ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 11:25:23AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
So, what do you think? Could this work?
I like the idea a lot. What I'd like to see is a way to do a
cross-platform build for the small system targets. I do a lot of ARM
work:
On Tuesday 15 of March 2005 18:25, John Goerzen wrote:
[...]
More on srcinst:
[...]
So, what do you think? Could this work?
What's a difference between srcinst and apt-build ? ;-)
Regards.
--
Lech Karol Pawaszek ike
You will never see me fall from grace... [KoRn]
Hi, Julien BLACHE wrote:
The time it takes to do a release nowadays might very well be related
to the use of testing. I tend to think we did better before we
introduced testing.
Probably. On the other hand, I think that the coverage we get from testing
is a lot higher than from unstable, by
On Tue, 15 Mar 2005, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
Hi, Julien BLACHE wrote:
The time it takes to do a release nowadays might very well be related
to the use of testing. I tend to think we did better before we
introduced testing.
Probably. On the other hand, I think that the coverage we get
On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 12:42:54PM -0500, Stephen Frost wrote:
- Mirror only the popular archs.
- Support buildds for stable-enough archs that run them.
- Try to include everything in a release, but drop archs more
quickly than has been done in the past if there's a lack of
resources,
David Schmitt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tuesday 15 March 2005 17:08, Henning Makholm wrote:
Last but not least, nobody can prohibit you from assembling a
package pool for $tier-2-arch which mostly resembles Debian/stable
tier-1.
Of course. But they _are_ saying that if I do it, it has
Hi, John Goerzen wrote:
1) Difficulty with, and speed of, buildd systems
2) Difficulty of syncing testing across all archs given #1
2a) Bugs on small arch which blocks testing migration of big arch
There are not many people who can do in-depth debugging on most small
architectures,
On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 11:17:25 -0500, David Nusinow
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 08:04:31AM +0100, Marc Haber wrote:
From what is public visible, the security team has lost at least one
of the active members to ubuntu with no replacement up to today.
We didn't lose him to
Hi, Adam Heath wrote:
On Tue, 15 Mar 2005, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
Probably. On the other hand, I think that the coverage we get from testing
is a lot higher than from unstable, by the simple fact that more people
risk using testing as their day-to-day system. (I wouldn't dream of
101 - 200 of 455 matches
Mail list logo
