-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 2008-06-04 18:36, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> No it's not. A user that prefers to have broken software rather than
> no software (if the option "non broken" software is absent) should use
> unstable. I mean it.
>
> You can easily use testing by de
Le mercredi 04 juin 2008 à 10:30 -0700, Mike Bird a écrit :
> On Wed June 4 2008 09:36:07 Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> > Package: *
> > Pin: release a=testing
> > Pin-Priority: 990
> >
> > Package: *
> > Pin: release a=unstable
> > Pin-Priority: 500
>
> Downsides include:
>
>
Steve McIntyre wrote:
> We've made it abundantly clear over the years why our version of
> testing exists and how it's going to be managed. End of story.
I hope "this is why it is the way it is" is not the end of story forever!
http://kitenet.net/~joey/code/debian/cut
--
see shy jo
signature.
Mike Bird <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> An alternative approach would be for packages to be retained in
> Testing for the benefit of the hundreds of thousands of desktop and
> laptop users who need to use Testing, and for the few members of the
> release team to use a filtered package list. The fi
On Wed June 4 2008 13:53:58 Steve McIntyre wrote:
> If you're so keen on using your own version of testing as your own
> special distribution, then all the packages and tools are available to
> allow you to maintain it for yourself.
Steve,
We use simple cross-distro scripts, in some ways similar
Mike Bird wrote:
>
>An alternative approach would be for packages to be retained
>in Testing for the benefit of the hundreds of thousands of
>desktop and laptop users who need to use Testing, and for
>the few members of the release team to use a filtered package
>list. The filtered package list wo
On Wed June 4 2008 09:36:07 Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> Package: *
> Pin: release a=testing
> Pin-Priority: 990
>
> Package: *
> Pin: release a=unstable
> Pin-Priority: 500
Downsides include:
(1) Not something a newbie should be worrying about.
(2) Bug reports from Testing+Un
On Wed, Jun 04, 2008 at 02:11:51PM +, Johannes Wiedersich wrote:
> Arguments like
>
> On 2008-06-04 15:34, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> >> (2) To a user who wishes to use a working feature of an imperfect
> >> package, Debian is better with the imperfect package than
> >> without: MISSING
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 2008-06-04 16:11, Johannes Wiedersich wrote:
> [1] search +testing +lenny on
The searches were performed without the '+' to have 'testing or lenny' etc.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFIRqPFC1NzPRl9qEURAs70AJ
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 2008-06-03 19:59, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> It depends of your definition of usable. I don't think it's usable on
> a daily basis because:
FWIW, let the users decide what they use or want to use. I took a curde
estimate by counting what the reader
> On Mon June 2 2008 11:44:46 Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> > See it the other way around: it shows testing the way stable could be if
> > nothing is done. I'm all for removing buggy packages early in the
> > release cycle: it makes it less likely that we release without a package
> > that many users nee
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 2008-06-03 22:26, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le mardi 03 juin 2008 à 21:06 +0200, Johannes Wiedersich a écrit :
>> As I've understood it so far, testing is for 'people trying to help the
>> developers by testing the software prior to release'. If too
On Tue, Jun 03, 2008 at 10:26:32PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le mardi 03 juin 2008 à 21:06 +0200, Johannes Wiedersich a écrit :
> > As I've understood it so far, testing is for 'people trying to help the
> > developers by testing the software prior to release'. If too much of
> > testing bec
On Tue, Jun 03, 2008 at 08:26:32PM +, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le mardi 03 juin 2008 à 21:06 +0200, Johannes Wiedersich a écrit :
> > As I've understood it so far, testing is for 'people trying to help the
> > developers by testing the software prior to release'. If too much of
> > testing bec
Le mardi 03 juin 2008 à 21:06 +0200, Johannes Wiedersich a écrit :
> As I've understood it so far, testing is for 'people trying to help the
> developers by testing the software prior to release'. If too much of
> testing becomes _either_ unusable _or_ unavailable, it won't be possible
> to use it
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 2008-06-03 19:59, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 03, 2008 at 04:18:46PM +, Joey Hess wrote:
>> Pierre Habouzit wrote:
>>> No it's not. The principal goal of testing is to evaluate what would
>>> be our next stable if we tried to release
On Tue, Jun 03, 2008 at 04:18:46PM +, Joey Hess wrote:
> Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> > No it's not. The principal goal of testing is to evaluate what would
> > be our next stable if we tried to release *RIGHT NOW*. Packages with RC
> > bugs cannot be part of a release, so must be kept out. *I* d
On Tue, 3 Jun 2008 12:05:45 -0400, Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> I thought I had answered that. The only version that th project
>> releases for end users is stable.
> Debian has been releasing versions of testing for end users for years.
This is perha
Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> No it's not. The principal goal of testing is to evaluate what would
> be our next stable if we tried to release *RIGHT NOW*. Packages with RC
> bugs cannot be part of a release, so must be kept out. *I* don't really
> care about testing being fully usable all the time, I
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> I thought I had answered that. The only version that th project
> releases for end users is stable.
Debian has been releasing versions of testing for end users for years.
--
see shy jo
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Mon, Jun 02, 2008 at 04:16:51PM -0700, Mike Bird wrote:
> "Debian Desktop Edition" for most of the release cycle.
>
There is no Debian Desktop Edition. Perhaps you mean the Debian Desktop
subproject?
> This is a useful (but unintended) side-effect. The principal
> goal remains that Testing s
On Mon, Jun 02, 2008 at 11:16:51PM +, Mike Bird wrote:
> On Mon June 2 2008 17:38:53 Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> > On 02/06/08 at 15:04 -0700, Mike Bird wrote:
> > > "Don't create 20-day removal hints for packages with RC bugs
> > > except when its too late for a fix to be included in the
> > > for
On Tue, Jun 03, 2008 at 06:22:02AM +, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> b) They can run stable, but download and compile a recent kernel. I
> think you should be able to run a recent kernel on stable; and
> kernel drivers are what provide hardware support.
Or use backports.org (or the s
On Mon, 2 Jun 2008 21:19:16 -0700, Mike Bird <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Mon June 2 2008 20:52:03 Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> The version of Debian that is intended for general use is the one we
>> call stable.
>>
>> There are other distribution variants, which are a part of our
>> development
On lun, 2008-06-02 at 16:16 -0700, Mike Bird wrote:
> The principal goal remains that Testing should be usable for new
> desktop installations for most of the release cycle.
Are you sure?
--
Yves-Alexis
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Mike Bird <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> What do you recommend to actual or potential Debian users with
> recent desktop or laptop hardware?
I would find out what such a person wants to do.
Do they want to continue running whatever it is that came with their
hardware? Then they should do that.
A
On Mon June 2 2008 20:52:03 Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> The version of Debian that is intended for general use is the
> one we call stable.
>
> There are other distribution variants, which are a part of our
> development and release process -- and the primary goal of that is to
> h
On Mon, 2 Jun 2008 19:23:52 -0700, Mike Bird <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Mon June 2 2008 18:52:29 Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> On Mon, 2 Jun 2008 13:22:28 -0700, Mike Bird
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> > A thing is best characterized by what it does and how it is used
>> > rather than by the n
On Mon June 2 2008 18:52:29 Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Mon, 2 Jun 2008 13:22:28 -0700, Mike Bird <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> > A thing is best characterized by what it does and how it is used
> > rather than by the name we associate with it. For a moment let's
> > recall what Testing really is f
On Mon, 2 Jun 2008 13:22:28 -0700, Mike Bird <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Mon June 2 2008 11:44:46 Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
>> See it the other way around: it shows testing the way stable could be
>> if nothing is done. I'm all for removing buggy packages early in the
>> release cycle: it makes it
On Mon June 2 2008 17:38:53 Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> On 02/06/08 at 15:04 -0700, Mike Bird wrote:
> > "Don't create 20-day removal hints for packages with RC bugs
> > except when its too late for a fix to be included in the
> > forthcoming release".
>
> Your proposed solution doesn't allow testing
On 02/06/08 at 15:04 -0700, Mike Bird wrote:
> On Mon June 2 2008 14:39:01 Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> > Feel free to work on an alternative algorithm to manage testing in a
> > different way, fixing what you currently dont like.
> >
> > I am sure that, if you get the work done, the release team will ta
On Mon June 2 2008 14:39:01 Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> Feel free to work on an alternative algorithm to manage testing in a
> different way, fixing what you currently dont like.
>
> I am sure that, if you get the work done, the release team will take a
> look at it.
>
> Of course that involves actually
On 11404 March 1977, Mike Bird wrote:
>> > Artificially lowering the RC count in Testing is not always
>> > preferential to keeping Testing in a state amenable to testing.
>> You say yourself that it's not artificially as RC bugs in "new" packages
>> don't get that easily in testing anymore...
> R
On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 13:22:28 -0700, Mike Bird wrote:
> There are better processes for reducing RC counts and
> improving Debian without crippling "Debian Desktop Edition".
>
Thanks for sharing your experience about improving Debian.
Oh, wait...
Cheers,
Julien
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [
On Mon June 2 2008 11:44:46 Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> See it the other way around: it shows testing the way stable could be if
> nothing is done. I'm all for removing buggy packages early in the
> release cycle: it makes it less likely that we release without a package
> that many users need, because
On 02/06/08 at 11:32 -0700, Mike Bird wrote:
> On Mon June 2 2008 19:05:38 Luk Claes wrote:
> > Mike Bird wrote:
> > > A good idea but it doesn't go far enough. Personally I don't find
> > > d-i tasks to be any more important than "the packages I need", and
> > > I suspect millions of Debian users
On Mon June 2 2008 19:05:38 Luk Claes wrote:
> Mike Bird wrote:
> > A good idea but it doesn't go far enough. Personally I don't find
> > d-i tasks to be any more important than "the packages I need", and
> > I suspect millions of Debian users have equivalent opinions.
>
> That's what rc-alert is
Mike Bird wrote:
> On Mon June 2 2008 09:27:08 Raphael Hertzog wrote:
>> I think it's important that the release team supports the work done on
>> tasksel (by the d-i team) by not removing unilateraly packages which are
>> listed in tasks. They have been added there in the first place for a
>> reas
On Mon June 2 2008 09:27:08 Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> I think it's important that the release team supports the work done on
> tasksel (by the d-i team) by not removing unilateraly packages which are
> listed in tasks. They have been added there in the first place for a
> reason, it would be nice to
40 matches
Mail list logo
