Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Granted if it is a real issue, then why not use perl? Yes, I hate
>> perl too, but really, the argument "hey, people like Python too"
>> implies that we should have a scheme interpreter, a perl, a python,
>> emacs lisp, and well, everything anyone mi
Joe Wreschnig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> There's nothing that prevents us saying "we aren't going to support
> every high-level language" and stick to more than one (we already stick
> to two -- sh and Perl). It just means "I'd like to write scripts in X"
> alone isn't a good enough reason.
Ye
Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>>> No, not yet. The promotion to Essential needed to happen prior to
>>> writing any such scripts.
>
>
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sat, Jan 21, 2006 at 01:53:26AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>> Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > In practice, it doesn't work out to mean the same thing, however. Most of
>> > t
Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> And unsurprisingly, it, too, doesn't have a straightforward answer. If a
> user reports such a bug to Ubuntu, it is approximately the domain of the
> MOTU team, in that they triage those bugs (on a time-available prioritized
> basis, across the entire
Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> In practice, it doesn't work out to mean the same thing, however. Most of
> the packages in universe are maintained only by the Debian maintainer, and
> propagated unmodified into Ubuntu. It is only when there is a specific
> motive to change the pack
Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Scripsit Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>> If they are also compiled with a toolchain unchanged from Debian,
>> the binaries can legitimately have the same Maintainer: field as in
>> Debian, because they are essentially the same package.
>
>> I
Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hey, "without any warranty" is at least a step up from "ABSOLUTELY NO
> WARRANTY", and the latter is even yelling at you.
Unfortunately, there are apparently genuine legal reasons for the all
caps. :(
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTE
Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 09:40:55AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
>> I asked this question earlier, and no one answered. Are there .config
>> scripts being written in python today in Ubuntu? (Hmm, where are the python
>> bindings for debconf, and what e
Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> One example is .config maintainer scripts, some of which are quite complex
> and worth writing in a higher-level language than shell.
This is surely true; Steve Langasek asked if this was a real issue in
Ubuntu or merely a potential issue.
Granted if
Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 08:42:57PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>> Programs that want to use python can assume that python-minimal is
>> there (since it's Essential), and since python-minimal is never
>> install
Brian Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Brian Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>>> I completely agree, and hereby question whether the secretary is capable
>>> of being impartia
Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The problem also isn't our machines but some mirror in
> low-diskspace-land.
The amount of disk it takes to carry a complete Debian copy is simply
going to be increasing. We have to tradeoff dropping a mirror or two
against the costs of weakenin
Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 06:47:22PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>> In any case, I want to note what has just happened here. You received
>> a clear, easily implemented, request about what would be a wonderful
>> contr
Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 06:38:55PM -0500, David Nusinow wrote:
>> On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 03:18:48PM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
>> > On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 05:58:20PM -0500, David Nusinow wrote:
>> > > That said, I don't really understand why it's Ok
Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > Why is it now important to you that the version numbers be changed,
>> > though? This is only an issue when mixing packages between different
>> > derivatives, which already breaks in other subtle ways, so I'm not very
>> > much inclined to try to u
Peter Samuelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Do you really think users who fail to notice an "Origin" tag from
> apt-cache, and believe they're above using reportbug, will notice an
> "-ubuntuN" suffix in the version number? I don't. I think you are
> arguing on abstract philosophical grounds r
Brian Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I completely agree, and hereby question whether the secretary is capable
> of being impartial in this case given his personal interests[1] in this
> issue.
You may question it, but it doesn't affect the case.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECT
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 06:47:22PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>> Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> > I believe there are still packages which break when bin-NMU'd (e.g.,
>> > Depend
Ian Murdock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Fact is, the potential for confusion here never even occurred to
> me when we started doing this at Progeny. Quite the contrary to what
> Matthew suggests, it seems to me that changing the Maintainer
> field is a perfectly reasonable thing to do now that I
Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I believe there are still packages which break when bin-NMU'd (e.g.,
> Depends: = ${Source-Version}), and there are parts of our infrastructure
> which do not support them (Ubuntu doesn't do bin-NMUs).
That's correct. These are bugs, and should be r
Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> >> Don't you run wanna-build, buildd and sbuild? It is easy enough to
>> >> change the maintainer field with that.
>> >
>> > Not in the source package, which is what was being discussed in that
>> > context.
>>
>> Huh? Actually, you'll find, they do!
Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 08:57:51PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
>> Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > I don't agree. This isn't even the case within Debian. Binary-only NMUs
>> > don't modify the source package, even though the bin
Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 10:18:22AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>> Reinhard Tartler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > Oh. There might be a misunderstanding: No binary package is taken from
>> >
Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> You can't stop that; you can't say "here's the package, but nobody
>> should use it".
>
> Fortunately, no one attempted to do that. What we did do was discuss our
> plan with Python upstream and ensure that our treatment of the package
> satisfied the
Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 11:21:32AM +0100, Thomas Hood wrote:
>> Steve Langasek wrote:
>> > Given that python-minimal is Essential: yes in Ubuntu, the *only*
>> > use for this package in Debian (given that there would be no
>> > packages in the wild that
Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 08:57:51PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
>> Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > I don't think you can speak to what tools we do or do not have. The fact
>> > is, we import most Debian source packages unmodif
Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 05:29:40PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>> Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > I don't agree. This isn't even the case within Debian. Binary-only NMUs
>> >
Raphael Hertzog <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I'm in line with David. Thomas, if you care about the topic, you must be
> interested in convincing the one who can make a change on Ubuntu's policy.
> And the person in question is Matt. If you scare your only interlocutor
> with Ubuntu, then you can
Paul Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tuesday 17 January 2006 16:54, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
>> > You have not ever shown a serious interest in what Debian would like.
>>
>> This is, again, insulting, and nonsensical in the face of the repeated
>> dialogues I have initiated and participated
Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 04:54:36PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>> Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > Besides which, do you honestly know which packages other Debian derivatives
>>
Reinhard Tartler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Oh. There might be a misunderstanding: No binary package is taken from
> debian, only source packages. This means that EVERY package is being
> rebuilt in ubuntu on buildds, including arch: all packages. The output
> of apt-cache shows the field 'Orig
Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Have they modified these packages?
>
> Some of them, yes. Mostly the backports.
What happens to the maintainer field in these cases?
Certainly, if they are modifying the packages, I would think the same
there here applies as in the case of Ubuntu: t
Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Interestingly, the DCC Alliance says that it wants to become part of
>> Debian.
>>
>> Do you have information on their plans with respect to the issues
>> discussed in this thread?
>
> The DCCA distribution is a mixture of packages from Sarge plus
Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> No other Debian derivative, as far as I'm aware, says that it
>> cooperates fully with Debian.
>
> Other than, say, the DCC Alliance?
I wasn't aware
David Nusinow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 04:58:40PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>> Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > If that were true, you wouldn't be having this conversation with me. It is
>>
Mike Bird <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, 2006-01-17 at 17:29, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>> Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > I don't agree. This isn't even the case within Debian. Binary-only NMUs
>> > don't m
Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I don't think you can speak to what tools we do or do not have. The fact
> is, we import most Debian source packages unmodified, and do not have any
> such tool for modifying them.
It's really a very short perl script, or a simple modification in C to
Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> If that were true, you wouldn't be having this conversation with me. It is
> costing me an unreasonable amount of time to deal with this trivial issue,
> and I've spent a disproportionate amount of it going in circles with you.
> I'm quickly losing int
Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Besides which, do you honestly know which packages other Debian derivatives
> rebuild? As a rule, they are far less communicative about their practices
> than Ubuntu.
How does the behavior of other Debian derivatives matter?
As a rule, those other
Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> You quite obviously haven't read
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2005/05/msg00260.html yet, where I
> wrote (among other important things), "it would be fairly straightforward
> for Ubuntu to override the Maintainer field in binary packages". I
Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 12:37:15PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>> Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > In my opinion, it's much more practical and reasonable for there to be an
>> >
Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> It is important, in particular, to account for the fact that Ubuntu is not
> the only Debian derivative, and that proposals like yours would amount to
> Debian derivatives being obliged to fork *every source package in Debian*
> for the sake of changing
Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> In my opinion, it's much more practical and reasonable for there to be an
> agreement on consistent treatment of all packages, than for each Debian
> derivative to try to please individual maintainers with differing tastes on
> this subject.
Your strat
Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The ratio of Debian developers to upstream developers is *much* closer to
> 1:1 than the ratio of Ubuntu developers to Debian developers, but even so,
> my guess (based on at least some empirical observation of packages I'm
> familiar with) is that many
Theodore Ts'o <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, Jan 16, 2006 at 12:44:01AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>> I think this is not quite true. In any case, my recollection was that
>> the bad cooperation was a two-way street, with you being extremely
>> reluc
Theodore Ts'o <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sun, Jan 15, 2006 at 03:12:33PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>> Actually, upstream maintainers have no voice before the technical
>> committee, which exists to resolve disputes between Debian developers,
>> n
Theodore Ts'o <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> While I don't disagree with this sentiment, keep in mind that Debian
> itself is sometimes guilty of adding changes to packages when the
> upstream may or may not approve. Of course, we'll justify by saying
> that "users want it", or that it is in "the
Kevin Mark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> would it be usefull if the Ubuntu Maintainer would add a
> 'ubuntu-specific' usertag to those bugs in the Ubuntu BTS as a way of
> telling Debian folks (as well as others) that they should not address
> this bugs.
You aren't listening. Do not submit irrel
Raphael Hertzog <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, 13 Jan 2006, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>> Um, I have said nothing against crediting maintainers in the
>> packages. I have only said that I would like Ubuntu to clearly label
>> which is the Debian maintai
Christian Perrier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> While I'm sure there'll be some people who'll complain no matter what,
>> I don't see what the problem with mailing patches directly to the BTS
>> is. As far as tracking is concerned, making use of "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
>> usertags or similar would se
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Every time you find a bug in an Ubuntu package, make some effort to
>> determine if it is Ubuntu-specific or might rather affect all Debian
>> users. If it is not Ubuntu-specific, then file a bug report, and
>> optionally, a patch, in the Debian BTS.
Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> It doesn't say that Ubuntu fixes ALL Debian bugs, or any other absolute. It
> does say that Ubuntu submits bug fixes to Debian through the BTS, and there
> are in fact hundreds of such fixes in debbugs today.
Does Ubuntu do so for every bug it fixes,
Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I can't agree. From the sound of this and other threads, there are a number
> of folks who are unlikely to be satisfied with any behavior on the part of
> the Ubuntu project or its members. Fortunately, there are others who are
> actively cooperating
David Nusinow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> http://www.ubuntulinux.org/ubuntu/relationship
>
> "Sponsored by Canonical, the Ubuntu project attempts to work with
> Debian to address the issues that keep many users from using Debian."
> ...
> "When Ubuntu developers fix bugs that are also pr
Reinhard Tartler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 1/11/06, Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> No, I think it's because Ubuntu doesn't cooperate well with Debian,
>> >> while pretending to cooperate.
>> >
>> >
Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, Jan 11, 2006 at 02:34:31PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>> Ubuntu could report in the BTS all the bugs it finds, and submit patches
>> via the BTS.
>
> As you know, most bugs are reported by users, not discovere
Daniel Ruoso <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Em Qua, 2006-01-11 às 14:36 -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG escreveu:
>> Gustavo Franco <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > It was already discussed[0], and there's no consensus on this idea of
>> > "every Ubu
Benjamin Seidenberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Oh, it gets even better. The fun part is that the one who wants to
> receive the list may not be the one who actually transmits the signal
> (and hence would be at fault). That'd be the transmitting station. for
> those who are having trouble follo
Gustavo Franco <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> It was already discussed[0], and there's no consensus on this idea of
> "every Ubuntu changeset, a patch in Debian BTS" between DDs.
Right. I want Ubuntu to exercise judgment, and not just give a big
pile of patches, some of which are Debian-relevant
Jan Nieuwenhuizen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Thomas Bushnell writes:
>
>> No, I think it's because Ubuntu doesn't cooperate well with Debian,
>> while pretending to cooperate.
>
> Does Debian want to cooperate with Ubuntu, and how well does Debian
> do? What steps could Ubuntu and Debian reaso
Gustavo Franco <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> It's up to Canonical how they will contribute back to the community,
> IMHO. I don't the same rant over others Debian related companies so
> i'm assuming that we're wasting time shooting Canonical, (mainly)
> because Ubuntu is sucessful.
No, I think it
Stephan Hermann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> - Do not use foul language; besides, some people receive the lists
> via packet radio, where swearing is illegal.
Are you saying some people are transmitting the lists via radio
without taking personal responsiblity for their transmissions? Shame
on
Anthony Towns writes:
> On Sat, Jan 07, 2006 at 02:32:20AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
>> This is inconsistent with Debian's past policies wrt stable releases,
>> namely, that it should be possible for a user to skip all point releases and
>> security updates (at the peril of their system's secu
James Vega <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The aptitude in unstable and testing has a feature that lists suggested
> ways to fix broken packages.
Unfortunately, the feature doesn't work very well.
Frequently I say "aptitude remove XXX" and the first several
suggestions that aptitude comes up with
Anthony Towns writes:
> On Fri, Jan 06, 2006 at 12:12:50AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>> Anthony Towns writes:
>> > No, a key is only as good as (a) how hard it is to break; and (b) how
>> > easy it is to trust. Key rotation helps make it harder to break (since
Anthony Towns writes:
> No, a key is only as good as (a) how hard it is to break; and (b) how
> easy it is to trust. Key rotation helps make it harder to break (since
> the 2004 key won't do you much good now); and also forces us to consider
> how to make new keys easy to trust, which we otherwis
Anthony Towns writes:
> Oh, the explanation for current practice is that if the key doesn't
> change in practice, apps that look at the keys won't cope well with the
> key changing, and when that becomes important, such as in the event of
> a compromise, we'll have major difficulties in coping.
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> For a user with a compromised local network, the only safe solution is to
> validate the new key via some web of trust. This is the feature that's
> missing today, to give Joe User some reasonable method of checking keys
> against the web of trust befo
Anthony Towns writes:
> How so? In the long term you end up with "aj signed 2005, aj and 2005
> signed 2006, 2005 is expired"; I don't think there's anything broken in
> that situation.
So I do trust aj's keys, and the keys he signs. Unfortunately, I
don't have any way to indicate that to apt-
Nick Phillips <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, Jan 05, 2006 at 04:43:13PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>
>> If the key is compromised, which is the only way the non-expiring key
>> method can be broken, then the expiring key doesn't seem to be
>>
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> AIUI, Ubuntu isn't rotating their archive keys -- something else that their
> centralized model more readily affords them.
I'm a little confused about why we do rotate the keys. I'm not
experienced in thinking through the subtle issues concerned, so I
Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Oh, come on. vim-tiny entered the archive this week. The fact that we
> have some slow buildds and ports like hurd-i386 that are perennially
> behind is irrelevant to this discussion unless you can point to a build
> failure log.
Maybe we shouldn't switch t
Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Spare disk space isn't available to add amd64 to mirrors.
> Spare bandwith isn't available to add amd64 to mirrors.
I see. Can we please have the numbers? Exactly how much disk space
is needed? Perhaps we can simply go ahead and buy more disks
Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> Anand Kumria <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>>>> A simple assurance that your package will be reje
Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Anand Kumria <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> A simple assurance that your package will be rejected from the NEW queue
>> if no ftp-master approves it within 2 weeks would actually be a benefit.
>
> Why?
>
> It seems like, if that's the way that you want
Anthony Towns writes:
> Generally, experimental fits the above role. Unstable's for uploading new
> development of packages that will hopefully work, but might turn out not
> to. In particular, though, they need to be fixed pretty quickly -- six
> months in experimental, and another two so far in
Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, Dec 14, 2005 at 03:51:06PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>> Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > Rather, it seems much more likely that we would want to push such packages
>> > *out* of uns
A Mennucc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 1) people who express kudos to FTP-masters for express accepting new
> packages due to the C++ name transitions
>
> 2) Anand Kumria and Thaddeus Black criticizing FTP-masters for never
> addressing 'mplayer' 'xvidcap' 'rte' and such
Once again, I think t
Petter Reinholdtsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I assume the DPL has been working in the background to try to resolve
> this, as an public and open power struggle between the DPL and the
> people in key privileged positions would soon become very ugly, and
> affect the Debian project badly. How
"Thaddeus H. Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 3. If James' imperial rules are unacceptable to
> us, then the alternative is to change the person
> in James' position. It has been years since any
> other option was credible. We all know this.
> This means dismissing James
Anthony Towns writes:
> On Wed, Dec 14, 2005 at 12:26:50PM -0500, Joe Smith wrote:
>> It sounds to me like what is needed as a tag for bugs that tells QA (you
>> post noted that the release team
>> would ignore RC bugs on packages not in testing) that it can ignore those
>> bugs.
>
> If your pa
"Steinar H. Gunderson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> In my entire involvement with Debian from the development side, I've never
> seen the NEW queue being processed as quickly as it is these days. It used to
> be irritating to me -- it isn't today.
I have the same feeling. I would rather give *g
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I'm pretty sure I saw him do this already, by noting that it increases the
> number of packages that the release and QA teams have to keep track of.
Seems to me that packages which aren't in testing should not occupy
the release team's time at all. Ju
Anthony Towns writes:
> Then you're not maintaining your packages properly, and you're making
> life more difficult for the rest of the project out of spite.
Notice that in disagreeing with your statement, I have also gone out
of my way to answer the specific questions you asked.
Now, can we ex
Anthony Towns writes:
> On Sat, Dec 10, 2005 at 03:51:36PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>> Anthony Towns writes:
>> > (a) seeing if the FTBFS can be fixed immediately, and finding it can't
>> > (b) documenting (this is the transparent bit, so pay attent
Marc Haber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> (BTW, I see #335981 and #336371 haven't received a response since late
>>> October; or has raptor been down that entire time, so that you haven't been
>>> able to diagnose it further -- it certainly seems down now?)
>>
>>Upstream is working on #335981 and
Anthony Towns writes:
> (a) seeing if the FTBFS can be fixed immediately, and finding it can't
> (b) documenting (this is the transparent bit, so pay attention) that
> fact by not having s390 incorrectly listed as a supported arch in
> the source and ensuring it does not incorrect
Anthony Towns writes:
> FTBFS issues are the most common though, as well as the easiest to
> resolve; your point would carry more weight if you took the time to fix
> yours first. (Looking through -private, I saw someone remark that 1000
> bugs was too many -- we have got 1400 _RC_ bugs at the mo
Anthony Towns writes:
> On Fri, Dec 09, 2005 at 09:44:59PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>> Anthony Towns writes:
>> >> Upstream is working on #335981 and #336371. In fact, scm has *never*
>> >> supported s390;
>> >scm |5d9-4.1 |
Anthony Towns writes:
>> So why was the request ignored for a month? Why did my email result
>> in no action, twice, not even a response?
>
> I've told you what I'd need to answer that question already.
>
>> Perhaps you don't know the answer to these questions. But then how
>> can you so surely
Anthony Towns writes:
>> Upstream is working on #335981 and #336371. In fact, scm has *never*
>> supported s390;
>
>scm |5d9-4.1 | unstable | s390
And yet, it didn't actually run successfully on s390. Support is not
just a matter of compiling.
>> when I took over maintenance
Anthony Towns writes:
> The job of the buildd admin is to make sure packages are built. Mostly
> that's automated, which is great, which means the buildd admin's job is
> mostly to keep the automation working.
So when the build admin is not doing that job, what should we do?
Thomas
--
To UN
Anthony Towns writes:
> On Fri, Dec 09, 2005 at 07:25:14PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>> Anthony Towns writes:
>> > The major task of buildd maintenance (aiui) is handlings logs though,
>> > and that's certainly what was being complained about earlier.
Anthony Towns writes:
> The major task of buildd maintenance (aiui) is handlings logs though,
> and that's certainly what was being complained about earlier.
No. What I was complaining about was totally ignoring of requeue
requests sent to the @buildd.debian.org advertised addresses.
Thomas
Anthony Towns writes:
> On Thu, Dec 08, 2005 at 10:16:37PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>> Anthony Towns writes:
>> > That's non-sensical. Everything the buildds do is logged pretty much
>> > immediately onto http://buildd.debian.org/, which also provides
Anthony Towns writes:
> That's non-sensical. Everything the buildds do is logged pretty much
> immediately onto http://buildd.debian.org/, which also provides long
> running statistics on how effective the buildds are, and even a schedule
> of what the buildds will be working on next.
That tells
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Er, did you even *read* this thread? We got on the topic of buildds because
> *someone refused to help diagnose build failures because they consider it the
> buildd admin's job*.
NO. We got on the topif of this because I said that I was not
interes
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, 7 Dec 2005 23:46:07 +1000, Anthony Towns
> said:
>
>> On Tue, Dec 06, 2005 at 05:21:46PM -0800, Blars Blarson wrote:
>>> I can do the analyzing, but what should I do with the results?
>
>> Put them on a webpage so anyone can see them, and i
Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Le lundi 05 décembre 2005 à 16:19 -0500, Clint Adams a écrit :
>> > The buildd maintainer is one of the 'notoriously difficult to reach'
>> > people in Debian. If you were interested in trying, contacting the
>> > mailing list for the port is the obv
401 - 500 of 1229 matches
Mail list logo
