On Wed, May 25, 2005 at 11:11:09AM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
On Wed, May 25, 2005 at 07:39:30AM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
On Sun, May 22, 2005 at 03:56:35PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
Can anyone tell me what this means, and who is trying to upload this to
Debian without even sending
On Sun, May 22, 2005 at 10:02:06PM +0200, Francesco Paolo Lovergine wrote:
On Sun, May 22, 2005 at 12:35:59AM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
On Sat, May 21, 2005 at 10:04:02AM +0200, Francesco Paolo Lovergine wrote:
The check shown below is almost complete (but for a couple of 2.2 patches
On Sun, May 22, 2005 at 08:10:35PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Sun, May 22, 2005 at 12:46:09AM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
As far as I understood it, the missing infrastructure for
testing-security was the reason why the release of sarge was delayed by
more than half a year.
As far
On Fri, May 27, 2005 at 11:57:52PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
...
Timeline
...
1 June 2005
~15 RC bugs (excluding security bugs)
0 RC bugs not tagged sarge
...
How do you measure RC bugs?
If you only look at the output of the BTS - that's horribly wrong.
Why?
Because many
On Mon, May 30, 2005 at 11:04:51PM +1200, Nigel Jones wrote:
http://bts.turmzimmer.net/details.php?ignore=sidignsec=onfullcomment=onnew=7
thats a decent unoffical count...
... that doesn't (and can't) in any way address the problem I described
in my email.
N Jones
cu
Adrian
--
On Mon, May 30, 2005 at 12:47:14PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
On Mon, May 30, 2005 at 12:34:21PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
But setting up autobuilders doesn't require a new infrastructure
(and shouldn't require more than half a year).
In this case, it did because of scalability issues
On Mon, May 30, 2005 at 12:17:29PM +0100, Simon Huggins wrote:
Adrian, I've noticed lately that almost every post you send is about the
release; Pointing out problems with some feature or other of it or with
the actions of the hard working people who are trying to get sarge out
the door.
On Tue, May 31, 2005 at 01:40:33AM +1000, Paul TBBle Hampson wrote:
On Mon, May 30, 2005 at 01:19:48PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
On Mon, May 30, 2005 at 11:04:51PM +1200, Nigel Jones wrote:
http://bts.turmzimmer.net/details.php?ignore=sidignsec=onfullcomment=onnew=7
thats a decent
On Mon, May 30, 2005 at 05:53:31PM +0200, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote:
For http://www.wolffelaar.nl/~sarge, there are already diffs in a
database that are exactly the diffs between sarge sid changelogs.
Anyway, this problem is already long time known, and the solution will
be implemented
On Sat, May 21, 2005 at 08:33:20PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Sun, May 22, 2005 at 12:20:47AM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
...
Repairing this issue by simply renaming the non-free package back to
unrar and giving the free program a different name should be pretty
straightforward
On Sun, May 22, 2005 at 03:56:35PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
Can anyone tell me what this means, and who is trying to upload this to
Debian without even sending me a patch first?
This gpg key belongs to Jani Monoses (Cc'ed).
Perhaps he can tell what happened (looks like an accidental upload
On Wed, May 18, 2005 at 07:17:46PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Thu, May 19, 2005 at 12:55:12AM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
On Tue, May 17, 2005 at 04:42:35PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
...
According to http://bugs.debian.org/release-critical/, the official
count of release-critical
On Thu, May 19, 2005 at 10:12:43AM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
...
And all have problems:
package | danger
-+--
kernel-image*| kernel-source* update replaces source
| rebuild differs
| but old
On Wed, May 18, 2005 at 05:33:01PM -0400, sean finney wrote:
On Wed, May 18, 2005 at 11:00:29PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
...
Other issues like #308762 are also still possible on direct
mysql-server/woody - mysql-server-4.1/sarge upgrade paths - and
there will be users doing such upgrade
On Thu, May 19, 2005 at 02:49:13AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
...
I see the same three options. Joey has said he is working on a final woody
point release for the last weekend in May; you'll probably need to
coordinate with him and get something uploaded soon if you want to try for
this
On Thu, May 19, 2005 at 08:35:03AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Thu, May 19, 2005 at 05:08:28PM +0200, GOMBAS Gabor wrote:
On Thu, May 19, 2005 at 02:49:13AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
3 does not sound so bad to me; it's arguably user error anyway to replace
a
package-provided
On Fri, May 20, 2005 at 10:58:52PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
On Fri, May 20, 2005 at 03:45:10PM -0400, Roberto C. Sanchez wrote:
Quoting Nico Golde [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Why is the latest version in debian lower than the one before?
Regards Nico
Becuase it is, in fact, a different
On Sat, May 21, 2005 at 10:04:02AM +0200, Francesco Paolo Lovergine wrote:
The check shown below is almost complete (but for a couple of 2.2 patches
and per-arch patches).
I'm asking if mass bug report filing is opportune at this stage.
IMHO patches which cannot be applied to debian
On Sat, May 21, 2005 at 06:24:50PM -0400, Roberto C. Sanchez wrote:
Adrian Bunk wrote:
Repairing this issue by simply renaming the non-free package back to
unrar and giving the free program a different name should be pretty
straightforward and doable for sarge.
Package unrar
As far as I understood it, the missing infrastructure for
testing-security was the reason why the release of sarge was delayed by
more than half a year.
As far as I have seen, it seems most security updates go either through
unstable or through testing-proposed-updates.
Can anyone point me to
On Wed, May 18, 2005 at 11:23:35AM -0400, sean finney wrote:
...
the following upgrade paths work:
mysql-server/woody - mysql-server/sarge
mysql-server/woody - mysql-server/sarge - mysql-server-4.1/sarge
but this does not:
mysql-server/woody - mysql-server-4.1/sarge
so at this point,
On Tue, May 17, 2005 at 04:42:35PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
...
According to http://bugs.debian.org/release-critical/, the official
count of release-critical bugs affecting testing is 61. Since security
bugs are an, er, renewable resource, and can be fixed out-of-band, we
can exclude them
On Mon, May 16, 2005 at 05:58:24PM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
Short version:
Should users first upgrade dpkg and aptitude before upgrading the rest of
the system or can the upgrade safely be done using Woody's version of the
package tools?
Long version:
The current version of the release
On Mon, May 16, 2005 at 07:44:37PM +0200, Adeodato Simó wrote:
* Adrian Bunk [Mon, 16 May 2005 18:14:20 +0200]:
On Mon, May 16, 2005 at 05:58:24PM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
The current version of the release notes tells users to (simplified):
1. apt-get install aptitude
2. change
On Mon, May 16, 2005 at 09:49:01AM -0700, Adam McKenna wrote:
I am not sure whether the ipfwadm package should be removed. Kernels up to
2.4 still have support for ipfwadm filtering rules, so theoretically people
could still be using it with current kernels.
cc'ing debian-devel. If the
On Mon, May 16, 2005 at 08:12:04PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
On Mon, May 16, 2005 at 07:44:37PM +0200, Adeodato Simó wrote:
...
Note that in (4), the command is aptitude, not apt-get.
Does this make any difference?
...
It does.
My fault, I confused (4) with (3).
cu
Adrian
On Sat, May 14, 2005 at 11:07:36AM +0200, Thomas Hood wrote:
On Wed, 11 May 2005 12:30:21 +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
Completely MIA maintainers are one part of the problem.
But then there's the class of maintainers who manage to upload a new
upstream version and perhaps fix some RC bugs
On Wed, May 11, 2005 at 09:33:36PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Tue, May 10, 2005 at 11:10:10AM +0200, Rene Mayrhofer wrote:
Steve Langasek schrieb:
If that 2.3.x bug really only affects the newer ( 2.6.8) kernel, why
not just get 2.3.x pushed into sarge? Are there any other big issues
On Wed, May 11, 2005 at 09:50:48AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
On Tue, May 10, 2005 at 11:00:48PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
On Tue, May 10, 2005 at 10:42:43PM +0200, Andreas Tille wrote:
On Tue, 10 May 2005, Adrian Bunk wrote:
How often does a quick NMU that gives a fast improvement
On Wed, May 04, 2005 at 09:36:39AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Adrian Bunk [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
What's the syntax for the email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] for adding a second
submitter?
I believe
submitter [EMAIL PROTECTED],[EMAIL PROTECTED]
works just fine.
I'm quite
On Wed, May 11, 2005 at 12:39:04PM +0200, Thomas Schoepf wrote:
Hi,
Hi Thomas,
how important is it to have unzoo, now that zoo is in main?
unzoo is only able to list and extract files, not to add new ones.
the functionality of unzoo is a subset of the functionality of zoo?
In this case a
On Sun, May 08, 2005 at 03:54:46AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
Yes, it's called garbage in, garbage out. If people aren't going to file
bugs at the proper severity, and if package maintainers aren't going to
treat release-critical bugs with the appropriate urgency when they *are*
filed at
On Mon, May 09, 2005 at 04:02:58PM +0200, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
[Adrian Bunk]
The entry packages: was a bug in my quickdirty scripting...
Thanks for making a nice summary of the relevant packages. :)
Feel free to include the script to generate the list when you generate
dynamic list
On Tue, May 10, 2005 at 10:42:43PM +0200, Andreas Tille wrote:
On Tue, 10 May 2005, Adrian Bunk wrote:
Speaking as somebody who is quite unrelated to release issues (except
that I keep my packages bug free) I have some questions:
were at the correct severity and tagged correctly, your
On Sun, May 08, 2005 at 08:45:21AM +0200, Andreas Tille wrote:
On Sat, 7 May 2005, Joey Hess wrote:
bb
I did not checked your complete list but our most frequently used
programs at exhigition boothes. It currently has no RC bug (the only
grave bug was solved two weeks ago.
So something
On Sun, May 08, 2005 at 03:07:44PM +0200, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
[Joey Hess]
So here is a list (from update-excuses) of all 491 packages that is
being held out of sarge[1].
I would be even more interested in seeing which packages in woody are
now missing in sarge. Anyone have such a
At the bottom is a complete list of the 2070 binary packages present in
woody but not in sarge (including nun-US and contrib/non-free).
Correction: 2069 binary packages
The entry packages: was a bug in my quickdirty scripting...
cu
Adrian
--
Is there not promise of rain? Ling Tan
On Tue, May 03, 2005 at 12:40:21PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
...
On Tue, May 03, 2005 at 12:27:32PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
first of all, if you downgrade a bug only a good hour after I upgraded
it, it would be nice if you would:
- Cc me
- send a better explanation than
On Tue, May 03, 2005 at 09:24:34AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Adrian Bunk [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
You seem to confuse this with bug closing. It's common practice to
adjust the severity of a bug to a RC one if a RC issue was mistakenly
reported as non-RC, and neither your
On Tue, May 03, 2005 at 12:46:32PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
...
30 May 2005
Release
And if everything goes well, we'll be ready to release at the end of the
month.
...
Setting goals is the easy part of release management.
Ensuring that the goals are met is the hard part of the work
On Tue, May 03, 2005 at 01:54:46PM -0500, Adam M. wrote:
Adrian Bunk wrote:
grave - serious isn't worth a discussion since there's not a big
difference between them (both are RC)
You are 100% wrong here. Why do we have bug severities then? Severities
are there to inform the developer
On Wed, May 04, 2005 at 03:05:24PM +0200, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote:
On Wed, May 04, 2005 at 02:42:15PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
Can you tell about the possible risks that may affect your release plan
and what you have done to ensure that they will not delay your release
plan?
Can
On Tue, May 03, 2005 at 12:15:43AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Tue, May 03, 2005 at 03:54:10AM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
On Fri, Apr 29, 2005 at 09:10:10PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Fri, Apr 29, 2005 at 10:52:02PM -0500, Adam M. wrote:
Ideally, we would have agreement
severity 306015 grave
thanks
Hi Steve,
first of all, if you downgrade a bug only a good hour after I upgraded
it, it would be nice if you would:
- Cc me
- send a better explanation than This is not a missing dependency, feh
I know that downgrading RC bugs makes your RC bugs metric look better,
On Tue, May 03, 2005 at 11:26:19AM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
On Tue, May 03, 2005 at 04:04:44AM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
On Mon, Apr 25, 2005 at 07:57:13PM +0200, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
And then there is this yada packaging you used.
Not that I was a friend of yada, but AFAIK it's
On Tue, May 03, 2005 at 07:08:50AM -0400, sean finney wrote:
On Tue, May 03, 2005 at 10:22:04AM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
BTW: The interaction between the two MySQL server packages in
unstable/sarge at purge time is *ahem* interesting.
They are really time bombs ready to explode
On Tue, May 03, 2005 at 08:30:22AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Adrian Bunk [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
severity 306015 grave
thanks
Hi Steve,
first of all, if you downgrade a bug only a good hour after I upgraded
it, it would be nice if you would:
- Cc me
- send a better
On Fri, Apr 29, 2005 at 09:10:10PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Fri, Apr 29, 2005 at 10:52:02PM -0500, Adam M. wrote:
Ideally, we would have agreement to update all of the following packages to
libmysqlclient12 at the same time:
I would suggest that libmysqlclient14 should be used if
On Mon, Apr 25, 2005 at 07:57:13PM +0200, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
On 10270 March 1977, Piotr Roszatycki wrote:
1. The ftpmaster was a member of pkg-php project, he boycotts my work and
don't offer something else.
Im not a member of the php project and I would have rejected it too, I
dont
On Sat, Apr 30, 2005 at 11:50:30AM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
Adrian Bunk [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Sorry, but I still don't understand it:
You could continue to offer the complete archive as it is today, and it
shouldn't be a big amount of work to offer one or more partial
On Sun, May 01, 2005 at 12:38:41AM +0200, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote:
On Sat, Apr 30, 2005 at 06:45:26PM -0300, Otavio Salvador wrote:
But you remove the package from testing doesn't mean we won't have
users with it installed since it was present there so, IMHO, the
Conflict is
On Mon, May 02, 2005 at 07:55:23PM -0700, Mashilamani Sambasivam wrote:
Hello,
I just want to get the opinion/comments of
developers on some 10 slides I made, if you have time:
'Brief Analysis and Generalisation of Closed-Source
Software Business Model to All Maximum-Profit Based
On Fri, Apr 29, 2005 at 03:50:37PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
* Martin Waitz ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050429 15:40]:
On Mon, Apr 25, 2005 at 05:22:53PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
Why not? removing arm from testing does not change at all the number of
binary arm packages being pushed each
On Sat, Apr 23, 2005 at 12:26:45AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
Well, the other big ones would be the installer, being synced up on sources,
and the ability to do point releases. It seems the first two are addressed,
and the third seems to be more or less the same question as that of
On Sat, Apr 23, 2005 at 11:40:03AM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
On Sat, 23 Apr 2005, Adrian Bunk wrote:
A silly question to you as release manager:
Silly indeed. Use the list archives. You cannot miss the monstruous threads
about it.
I didn't miss the threads, but much
On Sat, Apr 23, 2005 at 01:20:42PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Sat, Apr 23, 2005 at 04:24:28PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
A silly question to you as release manager:
What exactly are the technical reasons why amd64 can't simply be shipped
as 12th architecture with sarge?
We
On Sun, Apr 24, 2005 at 12:12:42AM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
Le samedi 23 avril 2005 à 13:20 -0700, Steve Langasek a écrit :
We are already running into size constraints (on an ongoing basis) with our
mirrors due to the size of the archive.
Given that - if I believe the security team
On Sun, Apr 24, 2005 at 12:24:44AM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
* Josselin Mouette ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050424 00:15]:
Le samedi 23 avril 2005 à 13:20 -0700, Steve Langasek a écrit :
We are already running into size constraints (on an ongoing basis) with
our
mirrors due to the size of
On Fri, Apr 22, 2005 at 12:21:49PM -0400, Patrick Ouellette wrote:
On Wed, Apr 20, 2005 at 04:56:32AM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
The rules and goals of testing are clear.
The more interesting points are the problems of testing that several
years of using it have shown.
If package
On Fri, Apr 22, 2005 at 12:02:39PM -0400, Patrick Ouellette wrote:
On Thu, Apr 21, 2005 at 01:04:34AM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
Let my try to explain it:
The debian stable == obsolete is a release management problem of
Debian. One release every year and it would be suitable for most
On Fri, Apr 22, 2005 at 02:54:38PM -0400, Patrick Ouellette wrote:
On Fri, Apr 22, 2005 at 07:16:30PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
The problem is that for many transitions, slowly means never, since
the criteria you set are unlikely to be fulfilled for all parts of such
a transition
On Wed, Apr 20, 2005 at 01:22:06AM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Wed, Apr 20, 2005 at 06:24:51AM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
The nice thing about 3:1 majorities is, that once you've tricked
something as Editorial amendments into it, a 25% minority is enough to
block reverting
On Wed, Apr 20, 2005 at 09:39:23AM -0400, Daniel Burrows wrote:
Adrian,
I believe that you are misrepresenting the outcome of -004. The proposal
to
postpone the changes till after the release, then reinstate them, defeated
option D (rescind -003) by a 2:1 majority. The only
On Wed, Apr 20, 2005 at 02:06:12PM -0700, Jeff Carr wrote:
Adam M wrote:
Why? Why is there RHEL 2.0, 3.0.. Why not just RHEL 2005-01-01,
2005-01-02, etc..?
Because redhat makes money selling releases.
The releases are there to provide interface stability. Everyone does
this.
On Wed, Apr 20, 2005 at 03:18:52PM -0700, Jeff Carr wrote:
Adrian Bunk wrote:
...
Debian stable is comparable to the enterprise products of e.g. RedHat or
SuSE.
These distributions are usually installed on servers that are installed
and intensively tested once. Security fixes are a must
On Wed, Apr 20, 2005 at 04:23:02PM -0700, Jeff Carr wrote:
Adrian Bunk wrote:
Let me ask some questions:
- How many thousand people can't continue working if the server isn't
available?
- How many million dollar does the customer lose every day the server is
not available?
- How many
On Fri, Apr 15, 2005 at 04:45:17PM -0400, Patrick Ouellette wrote:
On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 11:59:52PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
On Wed, Apr 13, 2005 at 10:12:31AM -0400, Patrick A. Ouellette wrote:
...
The progression I see is:
unstable - testing - candidate - stable
On Fri, Apr 15, 2005 at 11:13:04PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
...
This makes it extremely clear that, as far as the Social Contract is
concerned, everything in Debian is software, covered by the DFSG. This
is a discussion that's done and complete, settled by GR2004-003, and
I'm not
On Sat, Apr 16, 2005 at 04:29:42AM +0200, Bernd Eckenfels wrote:
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED] you wrote:
Is this wanted?
This may not be wanted, but what is your alternative?
If you really want to retain your everything is software point of
view, think about the consequences and work on
On Tue, Apr 19, 2005 at 11:52:19PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Wed, Apr 20, 2005 at 05:06:16AM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
I've heard three different stories describing this GR:
1. it contained only Editorial amendments and didn't change anything
2. the Debian developers decided in this GR
On Tue, Apr 19, 2005 at 11:52:19PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
...
(GR2004-004 didn't make
any sense at all, nor does it make any sense that Sarge can ship
with non-free documentation, and at the time I found the posts of
the RM on the topic to make no sense at all, but I was satisfied with
On Sat, Apr 16, 2005 at 12:31:23AM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Sat, Apr 16, 2005 at 05:54:08AM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
...
Case 1: foo = nvidia binary modules
Answer: Because these modules are binary-nonly and therefore
undebuggable for everyone except Nvidia. They give you
On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 10:31:47PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 08:08:18PM -0400, sean finney wrote:
On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 11:47:26PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
Therefore, all GPL'd programs will have to go to non-free.
there's nothing that prevents us from re
On Fri, Apr 15, 2005 at 02:22:11PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Adrian Bunk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'd also say that for a user, access to documentation is an unavoidable
requirement for using the software (e.g. for most non-trivial uses it
will be a pain to work with a gcc without
On Fri, Apr 15, 2005 at 05:30:15PM +0200, Jacobo Tarrio wrote:
Adrian, you're deliberately wasting the project's time with a very old,
eternity-since-debunked argument. That's known as trolling. Unless
you have something of value to say, go away.
If you call me a troll, please tell me
On Fri, Apr 15, 2005 at 09:26:30PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 06:46:41PM -0500, John Hasler wrote:
Matthew Garrett writes:
In general, the law doesn't allow us to modify the license attached to a
piece of software.
That has nothing to do with creating a
On Fri, Apr 15, 2005 at 09:33:00PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
On Fri, Apr 15, 2005 at 03:44:04PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
The question remains whether a gcc or MySQL without documentation is of
any practical value.
There are MySQL documentation packages? Or at least, there have been
On Fri, Apr 15, 2005 at 11:58:52AM -0400, Hubert Chan wrote:
...
In fact, I've never looked at the gcc documentation other than to look
up machine-specific options and optimization flags. It's easy to use
gcc without the documentation.
Simple usage might work, but as soon as you reach any
On Fri, Apr 15, 2005 at 07:17:08PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Sat, Apr 16, 2005 at 12:05:42AM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
If you call people who don't know about it a troll you should ensure
that it's documented at the places where you'd expect to read it.
I call anyone who starts
On Sat, Apr 16, 2005 at 09:07:58AM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
On Sat, Apr 16, 2005 at 12:18:45AM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
On Fri, Apr 15, 2005 at 09:33:00PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
Cool. Didn't know that. Then again, I've only been using MySQL since a
few years, so maybe it's
On Fri, Apr 15, 2005 at 09:22:48PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Sat, Apr 16, 2005 at 02:51:32AM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
...
Please tell me where the document is I should have found that explains
Debian's position on this issue and then you have my publically stated
apology
On Fri, Apr 15, 2005 at 10:35:36PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
...
What do you win by moving things to non-free?
You inform people that what they're using is not Free. That's a fundamental
purpose of non-free: to be able to make some important but non-free pieces
available to users, while
On Fri, Apr 15, 2005 at 11:15:29PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Sat, Apr 16, 2005 at 04:29:42AM +0200, Bernd Eckenfels wrote:
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED] you wrote:
Is this wanted?
This may not be wanted, but what is your alternative?
Well, it's not that we don't want gcc's
The following might sound absurd, but it seems to follow directly from
Debian's current interpretation of the DFSG:
All GPL'ed programs have to go to non-free.
Proof:
You are only allowed to distribute verbatim copies of the GPL license
text.
In Debian, documents are considered software
On Wed, Apr 13, 2005 at 10:12:31AM -0400, Patrick A. Ouellette wrote:
...
The progression I see is:
unstable - testing - candidate - stable
The existing rules for promotion from unstable to testing continue to be
used.
Promotion from testing to candidate requires meeting the same rules
On Thu, Apr 07, 2005 at 09:21:06PM +0200, Christian BAYLE wrote:
Hi all
Hi Christian,
I've found on www.cvsnt.org
a NT ported version of CVS with some nice extra features
http://www.cvsnt.com/cvspro/compare.htm like ssl, acl
I downloaded at http://www.cvsnt.org/wiki/Download and
It
On Tue, Apr 05, 2005 at 04:15:40PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
* Adrian Bunk ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050401 23:35]:
On Fri, Apr 01, 2005 at 03:48:00PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
...
Major changes in etch
-
If you intend to make major changes (like a C++ ABI bump
On Wed, Apr 06, 2005 at 01:17:54AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
On Tue, Apr 05, 2005 at 04:52:29PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
Why do you need to know about all transitions this month if Debian 3.2
is scheduled for the end of 2006 or 2007?
... so that the release team can plan ahead a bit
On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 05:19:41PM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote:
Adrian Bunk wrote:
The milestone that included the start of the official security support
for sarge was only 6 days after the announcement, but is was missed by
more than 6 months.
Whyever it was expected to get testing
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
On Sat, Apr 02, 2005 at 12:35:55AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Adrian Bunk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It doesn't need to be an exact date, but someting like
third quarter of 2005 or mid-2008 would help to avoid situations
like the sarge C++ transition that was too early [1] or the more
On Fri, Apr 01, 2005 at 03:48:00PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
...
Major changes in etch
-
If you intend to make major changes (like a C++ ABI bump) during the
development of etch, please speak with the release team as soon as
possible, describing the changes you're
On Fri, Apr 01, 2005 at 06:56:45PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Fri, Apr 01, 2005 at 07:59:01PM +0200, Frank Küster wrote:
Jeroen van Wolffelaar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Apr 01, 2005 at 07:28:35PM +0200, Frank K?ster wrote:
Right, but open for 47 days already. If for this
On Sun, Mar 27, 2005 at 03:00:07AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 01:39:27PM +0100, Peter 'p2' De Schrijver wrote:
| - the release architecture must have a working, tested installer
I hope that's obvious why. :)
As long as FAI or even raw debootstrap counts, I can
On Wed, Mar 23, 2005 at 11:30:51AM -0800, Karl Chen wrote:
On 2005-03-22 20:13 PST, Jeroen van Wolffelaar writes:
Jeroen I think it'd be good to ship sarge without such
Jeroen situations, but again, this needs to be looked into on
Jeroen a case-by-case basis, and I certainly
On Mon, Mar 21, 2005 at 05:28:51PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Mon, Mar 21, 2005 at 09:51:25PM +0100, Falk Hueffner wrote:
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
* the release architecture must be publicly available to buy new
Avoids a situation where Debian is keeping an
On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 07:45:00AM +, Alastair McKinstry wrote:
I think the point of this requirement is to support it we need buildds
in the future for security fixes. Hence while I might like my mips box,
etc. it would be irresponsible for us to do a release that we could not
support
On Mon, Mar 21, 2005 at 11:13:40PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
...
People are far too busy picking on small details of proposals they don't
like instead of coming up with a decent and comprehensive set of
solutions. If you don't like what's been proposed, produce something
better. For the
On Mon, Mar 21, 2005 at 06:50:22PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
...
The top three things I've spent release management time on that I shouldn't
have had to are, in no discernable order:
1) processing new RC bug reports to set sarge/sid tags appropriately, so
that the RC bug list for sarge
On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 02:55:17PM +, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 12:14:17 +0100, Adrian Bunk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Mar 21, 2005 at 06:50:22PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
...
The top three things I've spent release management time on that I
shouldn't
901 - 1000 of 1146 matches
Mail list logo
