Hi Roland,
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 04:04:45PM +0100, Roland Mas wrote:
Steve Langasek, 2005-03-13 20:45:09 -0800 :
It's also not clear how much benefit there is from doing stable
releases for all of these architectures, because they aren't
necessarily useful to the communities surrounding
* Tollef Fog Heen [Wed, 16 Mar 2005 16:15:01 +0100]:
* Wouter Verhelst
| In practice, the fact that wanna-build runs on ftp-master means it gets
| updated right after the Debian Installer (the one that sends you the
| ACCEPTED or REJECTED mails, not the other one that'll be used for Sarge)
* Aurélien Jarno [Mon, 14 Mar 2005 14:38:01 +0100]:
Another example, I have uploaded lineakd yesterday, it is already built
on all arches, except arm and ia64 [2]. In that case, I consider ia64 as
a slow arch.
ia64 and hppa seem to have had some kind of trouble this week, but I
see
On Thu, 17 Mar 2005, Karsten Merker wrote:
Some, maybe. Are there lots of people running servers on m68k and arm?
^^^
Perhaps not on m68k, but at least I do on sparc and mipsel, and I doubt
that I am the only one.
Well, at least the Debian
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 05:09:02PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 04:38:35PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The inclusion of ia64 in the release count is a projection, based on
where I believe things are today. Nothing
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 10:39:24AM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
On Sun, Mar 13, 2005 at 08:45:09PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
To be eligible for inclusion in the archive at all, even in the
(unstable-only) SCC archive, ftpmasters have specified the following
architecture requirements:
I do not understand why the Nybbles team mixed their good news about
sarge with their foreseeably controversial plans or proposal for etch.
This may have been a strategical error, yes.
For me, the Vancouver meeting goal was obviously the sarge release and
IMHO, they achieved their goal very
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 11:23:48PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 10:32:57AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 12:23:12AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Sun, Mar 13, 2005 at 11:21:29PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Steve Langasek [EMAIL
Hi Aurélien,
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 10:56:51AM +0100, Aurélien Jarno wrote:
Steve Langasek a écrit :
The much larger consequence of this meeting, however, has been the
crafting of a prospective release plan for etch. The release team and
the ftpmasters are mutually agreed that it is not
On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 20:04, Sven Luther wrote:
On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 07:32:12AM +0100, Marc Haber wrote:
On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 22:51:40 +0100, Sven Luther
Do not expect mirror admins to run Debian, and to be willing to
pull smart mirroring tricks.
What do they use now ?
I know
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 that coordination between Martin Pitt, the
Ubuntu kernel team, and
On Monday 14 March 2005 22:30, Bdale Garbee wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (David Schmitt) writes:
On Monday 14 March 2005 11:10, Rene Engelhard wrote:
pcc is barely at 98%. I don't think that barrier should be that high. We
*should* at last release with the tree most important archs: i386,
Sven Luther wrote:
There is this vendor-specific-security-announce-with-embargo thingy.
The debian kernel team mostly handles the unstable and testing kernel, is not
in the loop for getting advance advice on those problems, so we cannot build
fixed versions until the vulnerability gets
On Monday 14 March 2005 19:36, Sven Luther wrote:
Well, as long as the discussion is on dropping from the mirror network,
yes, you may be right, but the proposal is to drop from stable/testing
altogether, isn't it ?
Quoting from the Nybbles proposal:
[...] the list of release candidate
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 11:00:12AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
There are a few problems with trying to run testing for architectures
that aren't being kept in sync. First, if they're not being kept in
sync, it increases the number of matching source packages that we need
to keep around
On Tuesday 15 March 2005 07:49, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
Don't get me wrong, I'd love to have eternal security support for m68k
(or whatever compiles the kernel most slowly), but if I don't get that
choice, given late or never I'll happily take the former.
Then read the Nybbles proposal as a
On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 04:21:21AM -0500, Joey Hess wrote:
Sven Luther wrote:
There is this vendor-specific-security-announce-with-embargo thingy.
The debian kernel team mostly handles the unstable and testing kernel, is
not
in the loop for getting advance advice on those problems, so
On Monday 14 March 2005 19:25, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
I think the only criteria m68k fails are the 2 buildds have to
suffice to keep up with etch and the 10% download shares.
The second criterion is only for the mirror network, not for tier-1. Please
read the Nybbles proposal again:
the
On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 01:21:59AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 11:00:12AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
There are a few problems with trying to run testing for architectures
that aren't being kept in sync. First, if they're not being kept in
sync, it increases the
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 10:39:24AM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
On Sun, Mar 13, 2005 at 08:45:09PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
- binary packages must be built from the unmodified Debian source
(required, among other reasons, for license compliance)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Andres Salomon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I hereby ask the people involved in this proposal to step down
immediately from their positions in the Project. You've violated a
couple of rules already, and you've violated the spirit of this Project.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And keeping IA64 in the loop is just another joke from the release
team. It'd be interesting to find out, but I bet more m68ks were sold
than IA64 last year.
Which of these two architectures are you more
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 10:06:35AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
I also have no objection to releasing stable later on some archs, or not
at all, of nobody from those archs works to do it.
I do object to preventing those archs from releasing stable, and
On Tuesday 15 March 2005 10:41, Sven Luther wrote:
On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 01:21:59AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 11:00:12AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
There are a few problems with trying to run testing for architectures
that aren't being kept in sync. First,
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
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 there.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Matthew Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I hereby ask the people involved in this proposal to step down
immediately from their positions in the Project. You've violated a
couple of rules already, and you've violated the spirit of this
Project.
On Monday 14 March 2005 20:24, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
If it weren't for sarge blocking us we would have submitted multiarch
patches as early as one year ago. Should we start submitting / NMUing
them for _experimental_ now to get this change running and tested? Or
should we keep waiting
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au schrieb:
Alastair McKinstry wrote:
The question is: how do you release a SCC arch, if at all?
AFAIK, the terminology is FCC/SCC for mirror split, and release-arch
and non-release-arch for which arches get released as stable. So the
question is how do you
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
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 work there.
* Steve Langasek ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050315 00:00]:
Colin mentioned the possibility of adding an Architecture: field
instead. That seems better than an etch-ignore tag anyway, for what you
want to achieve here.
Yes, that sounds well.
Cheers,
Andi
--
http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/
On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 11:18:54AM +0100, David Schmitt wrote:
On Tuesday 15 March 2005 10:41, Sven Luther wrote:
Could you be more clear about this ? which issues are those ?
Sven, Steve is referring to the first part of his mail, where he says that
building from testing will lose any of
On Monday 14 March 2005 17:02, Marc Haber wrote:
On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 10:21:39 -0500, Stephen Gran [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
So far as I can tell, the governing rule in Debian thus far has always
been that the people doing the work get to make the decisions about
their corner of the project.
On Tuesday 15 March 2005 11:10, Julien BLACHE wrote:
Matthew Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
towards making Debian, and the ftpmasters are doing a decent chop of
things too.
Sure, and I won't say the contrary. But having a great infrastructure
(which is the case) and great people doing
On Tue, 15 Mar 2005, Julien BLACHE 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. Only a
handful of patches up on no-name-yet.
I think we
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 02:59:29PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 05:59:21PM -0500, Joey Hess wrote:
Somewhere else in this vast thread, someone suggested that they be
serious and etch-ignore instead. Or perhaps serious bugs that are only
tagged with a SCC arch should
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Christian Perrier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
OK, the architecture handling is controversial. Fine...this will
probably delay etch more than we would like. But could we please focus
on releasing sarge first? By focus, I also mean avoidn wasting
On Monday 14 March 2005 16:23, John Goerzen wrote:
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 12:47:58PM +0100, Julien BLACHE wrote:
Basically, you're just leaving a number of Debian users out in the
cold. Users who choose Debian because we were the only distribution
out of there to provide serious support
On Monday 14 March 2005 17:18, Sven Luther wrote:
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 11:12:29AM -0500, David Nusinow wrote:
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 09:54:49AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
It is not unstable that I am (most) worried about.
It is the lack of any possibility of a stable release that
On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 10:45:59AM +0100, Julien BLACHE wrote:
I hereby ask the people involved in this proposal to step down
immediately from their positions in the Project. You've violated a
couple of rules already, and you've violated the spirit of this Project.
*blink*. Are you high?
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 you get moved across over a month or
so, and become a tier-1 arch.
On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 10:51:24AM +0100, Julien BLACHE wrote:
You do know that m68k is the only architecture still carrying around
2.*2* kernels in sarge?
Yes. But there are 2.4 kernels available too, don't forget to mention
that fact. No 2.6, though, but that's not a problem right now.
Scripsit Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In this instance, the current blocker is only an issue at all because
ftp-master is not scaling well to handle all of the wanna-build ssh
connections that are implied by the activation of another build queue...
Is there an underlying reason why the
Scripsit Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au
Mark Brown wrote:
Would it also be possible for porters to update the snapshots in some
manner beyond having an apt source equivalent to the security archive
added by d-i?
It'd be possible, certainly -- cf proposed-updates and stable.
The
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 05:38:30PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 04:10:30PM +0100, Eduard Bloch wrote:
#include hallo.h
* Colin Watson [Mon, Mar 14 2005, 02:40:56PM]:
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 03:31:30PM +0100, Christoph Berg wrote:
I'd propose to use a less
On Tue, 15 Mar 2005, David Schmitt wrote:
And if the security team is not able to support those arches as-is, someone
will have to step up and do the work. Overly long delays for security updates
also diminish the usefulness of $arch.
I guess I missed the Call for help on security issues on
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 08:58:46AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
On Sun, Mar 13, 2005 at 08:45:09PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
Therefore, we're planning on not releasing most of the minor architectures
starting with etch. They will be released with sarge, with all that
That doesn't. I see
On 2005-03-15, Julien BLACHE [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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
On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 12:22:34PM +0100, David Schmitt wrote:
On Monday 14 March 2005 17:18, Sven Luther wrote:
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 11:12:29AM -0500, David Nusinow wrote:
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 09:54:49AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
It is not unstable that I am (most) worried about.
On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 10:51:24AM +0100, Julien BLACHE wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And keeping IA64 in the loop is just another joke from the release
team. It'd be interesting to find out, but I bet more m68ks were sold
Scripsit Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I would add as for the core set architecture:
- there must be a developer-accessible debian.org machine for the
architecture.
This gets a little tricky for non-RC architectures, because if it's not
already (or currently) a released architecture, we
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.
Building stable once it is released does look indeed like a
On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 12:30:59PM +0100, Ingo Juergensmann wrote:
On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 10:51:24AM +0100, Julien BLACHE wrote:
You do know that m68k is the only architecture still carrying around
2.*2* kernels in sarge?
Yes. But there are 2.4 kernels available too, don't forget to
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Matthew Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why they don't ask for help?
They do so now. Are you (all) prepared to take up the call?
Yes, we are. There are enough interested people here to replace the
current people in charge.
A coup. Yep,
* Colin Watson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050315 12:55]:
I wonder if we could simply use the current support in britney for
declaring that an architecture isn't keeping up to date and that any
problems with it shouldn't block the rest of testing.
In that case, it might be better in the long term to
On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 11:47:37AM +, Colin Watson wrote:
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 05:38:30PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
I have proposed tier-1 ports for the main arches, tier-2 ports for the other
ready ports but dropped from official support, and tier-3 ports for
in-development ports.
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
projects, because Debian wouldn't appreciate his work to bring up another
public
On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 11:54:24AM +, Henning Makholm wrote:
If you wanted to make the decision _with_ the input of developers, why
did all the powers that be vehemently deny that the number of
architectures was a problem for the release schedule, right until
everyone turned on a platter
On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 12:45:13PM +, Mark Brown wrote:
If you wanted to make the decision _with_ the input of developers, why
did all the powers that be vehemently deny that the number of
architectures was a problem for the release schedule, right until
everyone turned on a platter
On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 11:11:11 +0100, Frank Küster [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
In the long run, it might be even possible to get along with the stable
sources alone, plus a second, tier-2-specific diff.gz - if I'm not
mistaken it is planned to enable dpkg to work with a more flexible
format for source
On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 11:54:51 +0100, David Schmitt
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Monday 14 March 2005 17:02, Marc Haber wrote:
The problem is that it is extremely hard to be allowed to do any work
for Debian, and I think that should change. I know of two core teams
in Debian which have more than
On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 10:26:33AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
Mark Brown wrote:
Would it also be possible for porters to update the snapshots in some
manner beyond having an apt source equivalent to the security archive
added by d-i?
It'd be possible, certainly -- cf proposed-updates and
* Henning Makholm ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050315 12:45]:
Scripsit Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In this instance, the current blocker is only an issue at all because
ftp-master is not scaling well to handle all of the wanna-build ssh
connections that are implied by the activation of
On 15 Mar 2005 12:01:40 GMT, Michael Ablassmeier [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On 2005-03-15, Julien BLACHE [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
By destroying the Project ? Interesting approach.
As this is just a _proposal_, you are free to suggest alternative
approaches on how to solve the Problems the Project
On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 12:17:59 +0100, David Schmitt
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Monday 14 March 2005 16:23, John Goerzen wrote:
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 12:47:58PM +0100, Julien BLACHE wrote:
Basically, you're just leaving a number of Debian users out in the
cold. Users who choose Debian because
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 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
-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+
-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
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
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
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 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.
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
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
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
-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
-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.
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 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 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 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
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 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
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
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
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
201 - 300 of 791 matches
Mail list logo
