Hi, Matthew Palmer wrote:
>> However, I consider an update whose $ARCH binaries are released a week
>> later not to be a problem.
>
> I think a lot of users would consider it a problem. Imagine, would you be
> happy with a highly visible public announcement of every vulnerability
> against your
On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 08:50:04 +1000, Anthony Towns
wrote:
> From the announcement:
>
>---
>Architectures that are no longer being considered for stable releases
>are not going to be left out in the cold. The SCC infrastructure is
>intended as a long-term option for these other architectures, and t
On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 11:46:51 +1100, Matthew Palmer
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I think a lot of users would consider it a problem. Imagine, would you be
>happy with a highly visible public announcement of every vulnerability
>against your servers, a week before you got the fix?
If the alternative
On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 22:51:40 +0100, Sven Luther
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 08:04:53PM +0100, Marc Haber wrote:
>> On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 19:11:01 +0100, Sven Luther
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >Well, it just calls for smarther mirroring tricks.
>>
>> Do not expect mirror
Hi Dann,
On Sun, Mar 13, 2005 at 11:51:30PM -0700, dann frazier wrote:
> > - the release architecture must be publicly available to buy new
> I'd like to see if we can clarify this text. I can see some of the
> problems this requirement would solve, such as guaranteed availability
> of replacem
Anthony Towns writes:
> If there was an arch that was five times more popular than powerpc,
> and no one was able to just donate boxes, I'd expect we'd buy
> some. We'd already need to have /some/, just to have built the
> packages that people are downloading.
Oh, right, of course! I was just s
Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Anthony Towns writes:
Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Ok, I think I understand. Suppose that we have an arch that does have
enough download share, and meets every requirement but the existence
of sufficient buildds to keep up and developer machines, and that only
because har
Anthony Towns wrote:
[snip]
> >The "stabilise" is the missing part in the proposal. Stabilization and
> >security would need to be done outside Debian.
>
> From the announcement:
>
> ---
> Architectures that are no longer being considered for stable releases
> are not going to be left out in the
Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 02:41:35PM +0100, Frank Küster wrote:
> > Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb:
> > > On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 01:33:16PM +0100, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
> > >> For anyone who uses Debian as base of a commercial solution it is a
> > >> requirement. G
Anthony Towns writes:
> Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> > Ok, I think I understand. Suppose that we have an arch that does have
> > enough download share, and meets every requirement but the existence
> > of sufficient buildds to keep up and developer machines, and that only
> > because hardware ha
Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Ok, I think I understand. Suppose that we have an arch that does have
enough download share, and meets every requirement but the existence
of sufficient buildds to keep up and developer machines, and that only
because hardware hasn't come available.
Who's downloading it,
Daniel Jacobowitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The only differentiating requirement for scc, as opposed to the other
> "part of Debian" architectures, seems to be download share. That won't
> suddenly change.
You are incorrect, and my example remains, and I'm wondering how the
procedure would w
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 05:12:31PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > > How can they be, since they will be off in another archive? You can't
> > > decide now to put an arch in scc and at the same time say you won't
> > > know whether it's in tier
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > How can they be, since they will be off in another archive? You can't
> > decide now to put an arch in scc and at the same time say you won't
> > know whether it's in tier1 or tier2 until etch is close to release.
>
> Please re-read the proposal. N
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 the release team is doing
> > ensures that ia64 is going to be a
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 06:53:14PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 11:46:51AM +1100, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 04:27:50PM +0100, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
> > > If I had to think of a rationale for it, the only one I could think of
> > > would be "the arch
Matthew Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 02:14:52PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> > "Brian M. Carlson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > This is a problem. No one will fix the portability bugs that plague, for
> > > example, sparc (memory alignment SIGBUS) wi
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 02:14:52PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> "Brian M. Carlson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > This is a problem. No one will fix the portability bugs that plague, for
> > example, sparc (memory alignment SIGBUS) without them being severity
> > serious.
>
> Can the po
On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 11:46:51AM +1100, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 04:27:50PM +0100, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
> > If I had to think of a rationale for it, the only one I could think of
> > would be "the architecture needs to be fast enough not to block security
> > updates".
>
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 08:49:31PM +0100, Julien BLACHE wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> David Schmitt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >> > - First of all, we should take the details as a starting point for
> >> > discussion, not as a decision that has made. Neverthe
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 the Debian kernel team has been an invaluable
> > resource for De
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 02:44:52PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> Notice that one of the main arch having problem some time back was arm, and
> the buildd where maintained by who ? elmo.
Which, considering he was one of the people who signed off on the proposal,
makes me think that the problem can't
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 04:27:50PM +0100, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
> Hi, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
>
> > especially given the requirement that you need <= 2 buildds.
>
> I consider that requirement to be not warranted, and indeed unjustified.
>
> If I had to think of a rationale for it, the only one
On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 01:14:30 +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 06:10:30PM -0500, Andres Salomon wrote:
>> On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 09:42:20 -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
>> [...]
>> >
>> > - Both in public[0] and in private, Martin Pitt (acting in an Ubuntu role)
>> > and others fro
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 03:57:40PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 10:06:35AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
>
> > I have no objection to releasing security updates for the 4 "main" archs
> > with announcements, and the rest as soon as they're compiled (which
> > should be just
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 release a non-release arch?"
Once you get ove
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 03:15:34PM +0100, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
> * Thiemo Seufer
>
> | For anyone who uses Debian as base of a commercial solution it is a
> | requirement. Grabing some random unstable snapshot is a non-starter.
>
> You do realise this is exactly what Ubuntu is doing? (Grab ?r
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 02:24:47PM +0100, Aur?lien Jarno wrote:
> Hamish Moffatt a ?crit :
> >I see it as more a practical consideration. If you can't buy the
> >hardware new then you will have trouble keeping up with a growing unstable,
> >especially given the requirement that you need <= 2 buildd
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 the release team is doing
> ensures that ia64 is going to be a viable port, a year from now when
> we're trying to release etch; and nothin
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 09:12:42PM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Mar 2005, Sven Luther wrote:
> > Where are the minutes of the discussion, where are detailed explanation of
> > the
> > problems trying to be sovled ? Where is a call to alternative solution ?
> > Where
> >
On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 08:47:08AM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 02:41:35PM +0100, Frank K?ster wrote:
> > Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb:
> > > On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 01:33:16PM +0100, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
> > >> For anyone who uses Debian as base of a commerc
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 06:10:30PM -0500, Andres Salomon wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 09:42:20 -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> [...]
> >
> > - Both in public[0] and in private, Martin Pitt (acting in an Ubuntu role)
> > and others from the Ubuntu community have been collaborating with the
> > D
Mark Brown wrote:
On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 08:50:04AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
What that actually means is that when porters want to stabilise, they'll
be able to simply stop autobuilding unstable, fix any remaining problems
that are a major concern, and request a snapshot be done. That'll resu
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 07:19:32PM +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.
You're going to purge a
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 03:57:40PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> Hi John,
>
> On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 10:06:35AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 10:52:29AM -0500, Stephen Gran wrote:
> > > Let me try to be clear. I am not necessarily in favor of dropping
> > > arches. I a
On Tue, 15 Mar 2005, Sven Luther wrote:
> Where are the minutes of the discussion, where are detailed explanation of the
> problems trying to be sovled ? Where is a call to alternative solution ? Where
> is a call for help from the arch porters for security and infrastructure
> issues ? Given that
On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 12:45:14AM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 10:20:00PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > But you would notice all this just the same if the signing where automated,
> > don't you ?
>
> Possibly; however, it wouldn't buy us much (signing successful build
>
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 11:42:10PM +0100, Julien BLACHE wrote:
> Scott James Remnant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > There's no particular reason for Ubuntu developers to try and impose
> > Canonical's agenda on Debian; we have our own distro for (and because we
> > have) our own agenda.
>
> How c
Joey Hess wrote:
Steve Langasek wrote:
Considered that ftbfs bugs for scc architectures are not going to be
RC any more,
Right, they'll be important instead of serious, the traditional severity
for FTBFS on non-RC archs
Somewhere else in this vast thread, someone suggested that they be
serious and
On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 17:03:46 -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
[...]
> There is no longer going to be any such thing as a standard Debian
> installation. Each box, and each snapshot, could have different
> versions of important packages -- everything from glibc to KDE or Gnome.
> The user experience will
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 11:38:29PM +0100, Julien BLACHE 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 likely to be able to run
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 07:44:03PM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Mar 2005, Sven Luther wrote:
> > Yes, but the utherly arrogant and despreciating way in how this announcement
>
> Chill out. It was a RFC, and it was labelled as such. It may not be perfect,
> and obviously i
Hi John,
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 10:06:35AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 10:52:29AM -0500, Stephen Gran wrote:
> > Let me try to be clear. I am not necessarily in favor of dropping
> > arches. I am opposed to having portability issues make new releases
> > drag on forever
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 05:32:44PM -0500, Joey Hess wrote:
> Frank Küster wrote:
> > I do not understand why the Nybbles team mixed their good news about
> > sarge with their foreseeably controversial plans or proposal for etch.
> > I fear that we will have a huge, long flamewar. And many competen
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
David Nusinow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> That's very Ubuntu-centric. What about the others ? I'm not
>> specifically speaking of Ubuntu here. You can add Project Scud to the
>> list, if you'd like.
>
> Got a more specific example or are you just go
On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 19:19:32 +0100, Julien BLACHE wrote:
[...]
>
> You'll figure out that the timing for this new policy is absolutely
> perfect; we're a week away from the voting period for the new DPL
> term. The current DPL can't (and won't, obviously) do anything about
> it, and the candidate
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 10:20:00PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> But you would notice all this just the same if the signing where automated,
> don't you ?
Possibly; however, it wouldn't buy us much (signing successful build
logs currently takes me 10 seconds for the first log, and less than a
second
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 11:38:29PM +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 agenda on the Project.
> >
> > Sarge was already very late before Ubuntu existed. Our mirror network was
> > already stra
On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 09:42:20 -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
[...]
>
> - Both in public[0] and in private, Martin Pitt (acting in an Ubuntu role)
> and others from the Ubuntu community have been collaborating with the
> Debian security team on patches for a wide range of vulnerabilities
>
Yes,
Steve Langasek wrote:
> 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.
Indeed, that sounds exactly like what I was thinking of.
--
see shy jo
signature.asc
Description: Digita
On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 16:45:10 +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 10:16:19AM -0500, David Nusinow wrote:
[...]
>>
>> What about the *massive* issues with releasing d-i due to syncing on all
>> arch's? What about the various arch-specific kernel issues that have popped
>> up
>
> T
On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 08:50:04AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> What that actually means is that when porters want to stabilise, they'll
> be able to simply stop autobuilding unstable, fix any remaining problems
> that are a major concern, and request a snapshot be done. That'll result
...
>
On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 08:50:04AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> What that actually means is that when porters want to stabilise, they'll
> be able to simply stop autobuilding unstable, fix any remaining problems
> that are a major concern, and request a snapshot be done. That'll result
> in a n
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Scott James Remnant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > On the other hand, at least these people are employed working on
>> > Debian-related stuff, and some of them are allowed to spend some/all of
>> > their work time on it. IMHO that's a Good Thing.
>>
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 05:59:21PM -0500, Joey Hess wrote:
> Steve Langasek wrote:
> > > Considered that ftbfs bugs for scc architectures are not going to be
> > > RC any more,
> >
> > Right, they'll be important instead of serious, the traditional severity
> > for FTBFS on non-RC archs
> Somewhe
Steve Langasek wrote:
> > Considered that ftbfs bugs for scc architectures are not going to be
> > RC any more,
>
> Right, they'll be important instead of serious, the traditional severity
> for FTBFS on non-RC archs
Somewhere else in this vast thread, someone suggested that they be
serious and e
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
David Nusinow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Sure that's good. It stops to be that good when they're obviously
>> trying hard to impose their employer's agenda on the Project.
>
> Sarge was already very late before Ubuntu existed. Our mirror network wa
Thiemo Seufer wrote:
Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
* Thiemo Seufer
| For anyone who uses Debian as base of a commercial solution it is a
| requirement. Grabing some random unstable snapshot is a non-starter.
You do realise this is exactly what Ubuntu is doing? (Grab «random»
snapshot; stabilise)
The "st
Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Remember that the relevant tools include arbitrary ftp clients.
Yes, but it's easy to put the README file telling people the location
for the source.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact
* Alexander Zangerl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [050314 14:06]:
> >Sure. Who's doing that on anything but i386/amd64/powerpc?
>
> I am doing that on (ultra)sparcs, and I don't think I'm the only one.
Just for the record, I think sparc is (at least currently) quite
a good example. As old ultrasparcs are o
Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> It's not clear that an FTP site really satisfies that, and it's also the
>> case that this is the FSF's interpretation rather than being the one
>> that all GPL copyright holders hold. I'd worry that
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 02:57:25PM +0100, Marc Haber wrote:
> On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 23:36:47 -0800, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >Well, sparc is not in any danger of being dropped from SCC. :) As I
> >said, none of the current sarge candidate architectures are.
> Considered that ft
On Mon, 14 Mar 2005, Sven Luther wrote:
> Yes, but the utherly arrogant and despreciating way in how this announcement
Chill out. It was a RFC, and it was labelled as such. It may not be perfect,
and obviously it will see some (many?) changes yet. But it was NOT arrogant
or depreciating.
Some of
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the timeline went something like:
>
> - Sunday evening, meeting adjourns
> - Monday noon-ish, first real draft of the meeting report posted
> - Tuesday morning, everyone who needs to review it gets on a plane
> - Tue
Hi, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
> *shrug*; then we'll rebuild the archive. It's not hard to do and
> doesn't take long on an AMD64. We've done it a few times already.
Some of the other architectures don't have the luxury of being as fast as
your average amd64 box.
Anyway, after the rebuild+sign-by-
Tollef wrote:
>* Goswin von Brederlow
>
>| On that note I think amd64 fails the 5 DDs crtiteria. When we asked
>| for inclusion we had 1 DD working on amd64 and several NMs I think. I
>| think when we hit the 98% mark there were 2 DDs involved.
>
>I can easily think of five DDs who would vouch for
Frank Küster wrote:
> I do not understand why the Nybbles team mixed their good news about
> sarge with their foreseeably controversial plans or proposal for etch.
> I fear that we will have a huge, long flamewar. And many competent,
> active people will start coding implementations of alternative
Roland Mas wrote:
> - infrastructure: testing-security not doable because of bugs
> ("patches required") in the dak suite, britney, or whatever. That's
> independent from the number of released arches, I think.
AIUI, one of the main blockers for testing-security turns out to have
been that se
Hi, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> It's not clear that an FTP site really satisfies that, and it's also the
> case that this is the FSF's interpretation rather than being the one
> that all GPL copyright holders hold. I'd worry that we might fall foul
> of some (seemingly valid) GPL interpretations.
Th
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 08:02:49PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> On that note I think amd64 fails the 5 DDs crtiteria. When we asked
> for inclusion we had 1 DD working on amd64 and several NMs I think. I
> think when we hit the 98% mark there were 2 DDs involved.
Tada, you have my vote if
On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 19:59:43 +, Alastair McKinstry wrote:
> On Luan, 2005-03-14 at 16:16 +0100, David Schmitt wrote:
>> On Monday 14 March 2005 12:05, Robert Lemmen wrote:
>> > - there must be a way for a scc arch to get a stable release. why don't
>> > we either keep testing for scc archs b
On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 09:09:10AM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 06:27:04PM +0100, David Schmitt wrote:
> > On Monday 14 March 2005 14:06, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > There was no comment from the security team about this new plan, we don't
> > > know for sure that this is the
"Brian M. Carlson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> This is a problem. No one will fix the portability bugs that plague, for
> example, sparc (memory alignment SIGBUS) without them being severity
> serious.
Can the porters fix such bugs?
Do the porters promise me a machine running unstable so that
* Goswin von Brederlow
| On that note I think amd64 fails the 5 DDs crtiteria. When we asked
| for inclusion we had 1 DD working on amd64 and several NMs I think. I
| think when we hit the 98% mark there were 2 DDs involved.
I can easily think of five DDs who would vouch for the inclusion of
amd
Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> It's not clear that an FTP site really satisfies that, and it's also the
> case that this is the FSF's interpretation rather than being the one
> that all GPL copyright holders hold. I'd worry that we might fall foul
> of some (seemingly valid) GPL int
* Matthias Urlichs
| Hi, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
|
| > Another criterium amd64 fails is that packages must be DD build and
| > signed. That criterium seems realy silly. If the archive is not in Debian
| > but managed outside why should packages be exclusively DD build and
| > signed.
|
| We
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 07:23:33PM +0100, Christian Perrier wrote:
> Quoting Steve Langasek ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> > Hello all,
> >
> > As promised earlier on -project[0], after the release team/ftpmaster
> > team meeting-of-minds last weekend, we have some news to share with the
> > rest of the p
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 06:27:04PM +0100, David Schmitt wrote:
> On Monday 14 March 2005 14:06, Sven Luther wrote:
> > There was no comment from the security team about this new plan, we don't
> > know for sure that this is the problem, we don't even know in detail what
> > the problems are and how
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 04:27:50PM +0100, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
> Hi, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
>
> > especially given the requirement that you need <= 2 buildds.
>
> I consider that requirement to be not warranted, and indeed unjustified.
I would like to hear the rationale for the requirement. Cu
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 08:04:53PM +0100, Marc Haber wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 19:11:01 +0100, Sven Luther
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Well, it just calls for smarther mirroring tricks.
>
> Do not expect mirror admins to run Debian, and to be willing to pull
> smart mirroring tricks.
What
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 09:30:03PM +0100, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
> Hi, Humberto Massa wrote:
>
> >>They do not really, provided you keep about all the intermediate .o files of
> >>the preceding build, depending on the security fix naturally.
> >
> > My points are: (1) this is feasible/viable
>
>
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 04:10:23PM -0300, Humberto Massa wrote:
> Sven Luther wrote:
> >>incremental building supported? And finally, why isn't it considered a
> >>technical solution?
> >>
> >>
> >
> >Because it is not needed for the fast tier1 arches ?
> >
> >
> This is a chicken-and-egg thi
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 agenda on the Project.
>
> Sarge was already very late be
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 11:34:19AM -0500, Stephen Gran wrote:
> This one time, at band camp, Sven Luther said:
> > On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 09:27:25AM -0500, Stephen Gran wrote:
> > > This one time, at band camp, Ingo Juergensmann said:
> > > > On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 12:47:58PM +0100, Julien BLACHE
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 09:35:38PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> That suggests that FTBFS bugs for SCC archs will be ignored just as
> long, 1/2 - 3/4 of the planed release cycle. Now imagine a bug in fsck
> that destroys data being left open for so long.
In my experience doing this sort o
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 02:41:35PM +0100, Frank Küster wrote:
> Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb:
> > On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 01:33:16PM +0100, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
> >> For anyone who uses Debian as base of a commercial solution it is a
> >> requirement. Grabing some random unstable snap
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 09:08:15PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 10:16:20AM +, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
> >> * Aurélien Jarno <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-03-14 10:56]:
> >> > Would it be possible to have a list of such p
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 11:05:58PM +1000, Alexander Zangerl wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 23:49:44 +1100, Hamish Moffatt writes:
> >On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 01:33:16PM +0100, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
> >> For anyone who uses Debian as base of a commercial solution it is a
> >> requirement. Grabing some r
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 10:21:13PM +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> Sven Luther wrote:
>
> >> In fact I strongly suggest switching to source-only after Sarge is
> >> released.
> >seconded, and ubuntu has proven that it is possible.
>
> "Ubuntu this, ubuntu that, ubuntu there, ..."
>
> EH, just beca
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
architectures for the purposes of portability bugs and securi
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 08:07:03PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> Op ma, 14-03-2005 te 19:15 +0100, schreef Sven Luther:
> > so the buildd admin really examine all the packages for deviation that a
> > compromised buildd could have incorporated before signing them ? Or that
> > they
> > scan the
[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, amd64,
>> powerpc.
>
> Please, 98% is not high. It is j
On Sun, Mar 13, 2005 at 08:45:09PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> - the release architecture must have N+1 buildds where N is the number
> required to keep up with the volume of uploaded packages
> We project that applying these rules for etch will reduce the set of
> candidate architectures fr
On Mon, 2005-03-14 at 21:25 +0100, Julien BLACHE wrote:
> Matthias Urlichs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >> One the one hand, we have the Ubuntu cabal at key positions in the
> >> Project; on the other hand, we have Project Scud, which members are
> >> currently employed by companies having inte
Sven Luther wrote:
>> In fact I strongly suggest switching to source-only after Sarge is
>> released.
>seconded, and ubuntu has proven that it is possible.
"Ubuntu this, ubuntu that, ubuntu there, ..."
EH, just because ubuntu did it its good? Then why a no to the "drop
other arches" - ubuntu onl
On Mon, 2005-03-14 at 21:49 +0100, Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote:
> Matthew Garrett wrote:
> >> As I understand it, SCC *binaries* get their own domain / mirrors /
> >> everything, but the *source* shall be shared with the main archive.
> >
> > Uh. Not if you want to distribute any GPLed material.
>
>
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 11:36:22AM -0500, David Nusinow wrote:
> Aren't scc.debian.org (or perhaps various different hosts for each SCC) part
> of
> the plan in the email? I don't think anyone wants to break alioth further.
The plan for scc.debian.org was for unstable plus snapshots of that. If
Christian Perrier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ...but quite sad (or happy?) to see that nearly only the proposal to handle
> architectures differently got criticism...while this proposal contains
> several other key point.
I do not understand why the Nybbles team mixed their good news about
sarge
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 07:05:52PM +0100, David Schmitt wrote:
> On Monday 14 March 2005 17:31, Aurélien Jarno wrote:
> > Frank Küster a écrit :
> > > - First of all, we should take the details as a starting point for
> > > discussion, not as a decision that has made. Nevertheless, we must
> > >
Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> As I understand it, SCC *binaries* get their own domain / mirrors /
>> everything, but the *source* shall be shared with the main archive.
>
> Uh. Not if you want to distribute any GPLed material.
The FSF doesn't consider this a problem:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-fa
401 - 500 of 794 matches
Mail list logo
