This one time, at band camp, Sven Luther said:
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 05:03:30PM +0100, David Schmitt wrote:
Thus the problem is less in the development and more in the support
of testing requirements (all arches in sync) and stable support
(security response time). Therefore the N=2
On Monday 14 March 2005 07:49 am, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
Sure. Who's doing that on anything but i386/amd64/powerpc?
Yes, I'm sure all those s390 users are running it on a machine in their
basements... ;-)
Daniel
--
/--- Daniel Burrows [EMAIL PROTECTED] --\
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sun, Mar 13, 2005 at 10:47:15PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The sh and hurd-i386 ports don't currently meet the SCC requirements, as
neither has a running autobuilder or is keeping up with new
Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The point is that the ftpmasters don't want to play host to various
ports that *aren't* yet matured to the point of usability, where being
able to run a buildd is regarded as a key element of usability in
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 02:57:25PM +0100, Marc Haber wrote:
Considered that ftbfs bugs for scc architectures are not going to be
RC any more, people will stop fixing them, thus the scc architectures
Some may, but some would continue to be helpful. My experience doing
porting work was that
[Sven, pPlease teach you and your mutt the use of reply-to-list]
On Monday 14 March 2005 14:06, Sven Luther wrote:
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 01:02:34PM +0100, David Schmitt wrote:
[...]
No, you didn't understand.
You are right.
let's tell the plan again :
1) people upload to unstable
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I don't really understand that point though, since the plan is to drop mirror
support for all minor arches, what does it cost to have a 3 level archive
support :
1) tier 1 arches, fully mirrored and released.
One full set of sources, 10G.
2) tier
On Monday 14 March 2005 14:06, Sven Luther wrote:
My answer is that I don't care enough for tow out of 15 boxes for the
hassle, I will update them to sarge, be grateful for the gracetime given
and - iff nobody steps up to do the necessary porting and security work -
donate them to Debian
On Monday 14 March 2005 18:11, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Speaking of the mirror network is a red-herring. Mirrors are not
forced to distribute every arch; they can and should eliminate archs
they aren't interested in distributing.
They are.
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi Andreas,
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 07:37:51AM +0100, Andreas Tille wrote:
On Sun, 13 Mar 2005, Steve Langasek wrote:
IMHO all these facts with exception of those social facts I marked (?)
are fullfilled by Sparc.
For reference, the killer for
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 04:44:27PM +0100, David Schmitt wrote:
In my reading of the proposal, not-tier-1 arches will receive appropriate
space and resources off the main mirror network if they can demonstrate
viability (working buildd, basic unix functionality, compiled 50%, 5
developers,
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 stabilise is
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 04:51:30PM +0100, Marc Haber wrote:
On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 15:41:16 +, Scott James Remnant
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Are you thinking of any particular developers here?
For example, it suspiciously looks like the Security Team only has one
public active member,
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 02:12:48AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
BTW, how much of the human intervention needed for buildd signing
plays in the delays you see, and did you discuss the possibiliity of
a fully
Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Op ma, 14-03-2005 te 12:38 +0100, schreef David Schmitt:
On Monday 14 March 2005 11:28, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
In this case, it was a bug that required human intervention, a package
upload that accidentally would hose a chroot, which required
On Monday 14 March 2005 18:37, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
This point is *not* about supported architectures, only about
architectures carried by the primary mirror network. We did consider
having a single set of requirements for both release
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 04:04:45PM +0100, Roland Mas wrote:
- d-i, especially the kernel problems: okay, so there the
arch-specific kernels have played a role.
Future (post sarge) kernels will have one kernel package only, which will
build all arches, and possibly even all .udebs, like the
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
implies (including security support until sarge is archived), but they
would no longer
Rene Engelhard [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi,
Am Montag, 14. März 2005 08:36 schrieb Steve Langasek:
wanna-build stats:
i386: 99.83% up-to-date, 99.83% if also counting uploaded pkgs
ia64: 97.39% up-to-date, 97.41% if also counting uploaded pkgs
powerpc: 97.99%
On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 11:27:11 -0500, David Nusinow
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 04:06:39PM +, Alastair McKinstry wrote:
will Security releases be available?
Explicitly no, unless the porters themselves handle them.
Will early-release information be available to the
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
take into account that there are reasons for it: The people doing the
On Monday 14 March 2005 17:46, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
John Goerzen wrote:
[snip]
- the release architecture must have N+1 buildds where N is the
number required to keep up with the volume of uploaded packages
- the value of N above must not be 2
It seems to me that if an arch can
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 01:51:02PM -0300, Humberto Massa wrote:
Matthias Urlichs wrote:
With a decent toolset, doing a security package for 10 architectures
should be a nearly-constant amount of work, no matter which base the
number 10 is written in.
Speaking of which, can anyone here
Hamish Moffatt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 10:10:32AM +0100, Ingo Juergensmann wrote:
All the work and support over all those years by all those users and porters
will be vanished with that stupid idea, imho.
Ingo, obviously you are pissed off. But really, is there
Hi,
Am Montag, 14. März 2005 18:58 schrieben Sie:
Rene Engelhard [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
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.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/archive/pure64$
On Monday 14 March 2005 12:45, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
Op ma, 14-03-2005 te 12:38 +0100, schreef David Schmitt:
On Monday 14 March 2005 11:28, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
In this case, it was a bug that required human intervention, a package
upload that accidentally would hose a chroot,
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 07:03:52PM +0100, Marc Haber wrote:
Will early-release information be available to the porters? Or do
porters only start building their security updates once the official
advisory has gone out?
Why can't porters join the security team?
Not necessarily. I imagine it
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 06:20:23PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I don't really understand that point though, since the plan is to drop
mirror
support for all minor arches, what does it cost to have a 3 level archive
support :
1) tier 1
Thiemo Seufer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Thiemo Seufer wrote:
Hamish Moffatt wrote:
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 12:06:18PM +, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
* Hamish Moffatt [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005-03-14 23:00]:
But really, is there much benefit in making *releases* for the SCC
Tollef Fog Heen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
* 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 PROTECTED]:~# uname -a
Linux eetha 2.4.29
Hamish Moffatt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 01:17:03PM +0100, Ingo Juergensmann wrote:
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 11:00:22PM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
But really, is there much benefit in
making *releases* for the SCC architectures?
What will happen is something
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 06:43:21PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Where human delay did come into play was in getting the xfree86 mess
cleaned; in theory it should have taken one or two days, but in
practice it took much longer.
Why not fully
Based on the last few hours only, I think you'll have lots of comments
to meditate on :-)
Only if considering that a few dozen of people making a lot of noise
and thus making the thread absolutely impossible to read for people
with a normal life and health, represents the feeling of near 1000
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 project.
First, the news for sarge. As mentioned in the last release team
It
Thiemo Seufer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hamish Moffatt wrote:
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 01:33:16PM +0100, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
Hamish Moffatt wrote:
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 10:10:32AM +0100, Ingo Juergensmann wrote:
All the work and support over all those years by all those users and
* John Goerzen
| That makes sense, but it doesn't preclude, say, alpha making an etch
| release once the main 4-arch etch release is made. They'd use the same
| set of source packages as the main release, even if they didn't track
| testing along the way. When there are divergences, they
Goswin von Brederlow [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The point is that the ftpmasters don't want to play host to various
ports that *aren't* yet matured to the point of usability, where being
able to run
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Ingo Juergensmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Moreover, the criterias given in your mail are just so oriented
towards/against some architectures, that it's a bad joke (I was going
to write disgusting, really).
It's a total change of direction: from
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
John Goerzen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Indeed. I am one such user. I have always felt fortunate that I don't
have to really care what architecture a machine is, because of course
it runs Debian. I have run Debian on Alpha, x86, amd64, powerpc,
* Roland Mas
| - Assuming porting teams haven't left in disgust, they still do their
| porting jobs and submit bugs and patches. These patches are very
| likely to rot in the BTS, since the maintainer is now able to *say*
| go away, you're not released, you don't interest me instead of
|
Op ma, 14-03-2005 te 19:21 +0100, schreef David Schmitt:
A current pbuilder chroot takes 121 MB (containing build-essential already).
How long does a '(mv $chroot foo; rm -Rf foo cp $stash $chroot)' take for
121 MB on $small-arch?
I'm guessing about half an hour. Didn't try it, though.
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 09:09:09AM +0100, Adrian von Bidder wrote:
On Monday 14 March 2005 05.45, Steve Langasek wrote:
Architectures that are no longer being considered for stable releases
are not going to be left out in the cold. The SCC
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 06:45:28PM +0100, David Schmitt wrote:
On Monday 14 March 2005 18:37, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
To highlight Steves most important sentence:
| This point is *not* about supported architectures, only about
| architectures carried by the primary mirror network.
And
* Sven Luther
| So you mean that all the tier-2 arches should go and take over alioth as
| distribution media ? You read the answer of wiggy about this almost bringing
| alioth to his knees ?
Please don't confuse «wanna-build access» and «distributed through the
normal (or SCC) mirror
Stephen Gran schrieb:
This one time, at band camp, Ingo Juergensmann said:
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 12:47:58PM +0100, Julien BLACHE wrote:
Moreover, the criterias given in your mail are just so oriented
towards/against some architectures, that it's a bad joke (I was going
to write disgusting,
Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
[snip]
A release for an scc arch could come weeks or month later than the
main archs and be done by the porters alone. The only requirement for
it would be that only stable sources can be used (with a few
exceptions maybe for arch specific sources). Stable sources
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 11:54:32AM -0500, Stephen Gran wrote:
This one time, at band camp, Sven Luther said:
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 05:03:30PM +0100, David Schmitt wrote:
Thus the problem is less in the development and more in the support
of testing requirements (all arches in sync)
Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
Tollef Fog Heen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
* Hamish Moffatt
| OK, that makes sense. Can you buy those architectures new? (Surely yes
| in the case of s390 at least, probably mipsel also as the mips CPU
| manufacturers are alive and well.)
[EMAIL
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 01:23:43PM -0500, David Nusinow wrote:
Not necessarily. I imagine it such that the porters set up their own pull
from
unstable, the same way amd64 does now. They can set up testing themselves
(remember, dak is in the archive now) so they can run their own testing
Robert Millan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 11:26:07AM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
* Sven Luther ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050314 11:20]:
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:
- the
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.
Greetings
Marc
--
-- !! No courtesy
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 machine for a compromise and always detect them before signing ?
Not really.
Sven Luther wrote:
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 03:52:54PM -0300, Humberto Massa wrote:
Sven Luther wrote:
Speaking of which, can anyone here explain to me why does a two-line
security fix on, say, KDE, makes things need to be recompiled for 12
days long? (!!!) One could think that there are
Julien BLACHE [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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 candidates signed the proposal.
I
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hamish Moffatt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I guess the = 2 buildds requirement might be an issue for the embedded
CPUs like mips as unstable continues to grow.
Should it become a problem for MIPS, then I have a MIPS machine
sitting on my desk. I
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 03:32:40PM +0100, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote:
Note that porter patches for kFreeBSD and amd64 so far seem, as far as I
can see, to be relatively swiftly applied anyway by maintainers, despite
those patches not being RC either. This suggests to me that also in the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Stephen Gran [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thus the problem is less in the development and more in the support
of testing requirements (all arches in sync) and stable support
(security response time). Therefore the N=2 requirement is only
needed
Andreas Barth [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
* Tollef Fog Heen ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050314 10:55]:
* Steve Langasek
| If you are planning any other transitions that will affect a lot of
| packages, please let us know in advance. We will need to complete the
| larger transitions as fast as
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 12:27:25PM +0100, Ingo Juergensmann wrote:
To me this decision sounds like a very good idea. Catering to some very
specialised architectures can be good, but should not be a great burden on
the total project. Trying to include everything in one big distribution is
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.
Well, if the archive isn't in Debian then
Hi, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
If scc is split into a seperate archive
(seperate hostname and all) and is strictly voluntary it in no way affects
the size or mirrors of the main archs.
As I understand it, SCC *binaries* get their own domain / mirrors /
everything, but the *source* shall be
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Stephen Gran [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well, under this proposal, even if people do a lot of good work, they
could be relegated to SCC for non-technical economic reasons (such as
no new hardware being sold), and thus doomed to a slow, painful death
Hi Martin,
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 12:18:33PM +, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
* Tollef Fog Heen [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005-03-14 13:10]:
| I have yet to see a proposal how to do multiarch in the right way.
What is lacking in the proposals out there?
The following is what I (as DPL) sent to the
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 proposed architectures?
amd64, s390z, powerpc64, netbsd-i386 and other variants,
Hi, Julien BLACHE 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 interests in Debian.
On the other hand, at least these people are employed working on
-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. Nevertheless, we must
take into account that there are reasons for it: The people doing
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Removing unimportant buggy packages from testing is *easy* -- much
easier than trying to craft guidelines for declaring a set of core
packages. Getting all of the packages that are considered too important
to release without is *hard*. Hand-holding
Matthias Urlichs [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
If scc is split into a seperate archive
(seperate hostname and all) and is strictly voluntary it in no way affects
the size or mirrors of the main archs.
As I understand it, SCC *binaries* get their own domain /
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 but not do releases, so the
porters can do their own stable releases
Andres Salomon [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Additionally, they are being excluded from having access to important
resources, and the possibility of filing RC bugs which is the only way
to get lazy maintainers moving is being taken away.
That's an awfully pessimistic view. All porters need is
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
No it isn't. (a) the disk space requirements are humungous. (b) currently
we do not
Jeroen van Wolffelaar [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 09:19:27AM -0500, Andres Salomon wrote:
On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 15:15:16 +0100, Marc Haber wrote:
Additionally, they are being excluded from having access to important
resources, and the possibility of filing RC bugs which
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
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 interests in Debian.
On the
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 02:23:36PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Andreas Schuldei [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 11:58:06AM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Uhm. You knew that conclusions from that meeting would be likely to
contradict the answers from other DPL candidates,
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 before Ubuntu existed. Our mirror network was
already strained before Ubuntu
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:
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.
The FSF
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 only has 3
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 interests in
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 from
[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 just a
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 machine
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
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 because ubuntu did
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 random
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 proposed
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 snapshot is a
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 of
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 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 agenda on the Project.
Sarge was already very late before
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 thing, isn't it? And it
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
No it isn't.
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 do they
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.
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 do
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 project.
* 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.
|
| Well,
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
* 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
601 - 700 of 791 matches
Mail list logo
