On Wed, May 06, 2015 at 11:39:29AM +0100, Neil Williams wrote:
On Wed, 6 May 2015 18:18:34 +0800
Paul Wise p...@debian.org wrote:
On Wed, May 6, 2015 at 6:11 PM, Neil Williams wrote:
You've admitted that the port cannot keep pace because it needs
changes to be made by maintainers
On Wed, 6 May 2015 10:11:02 +0200
Samuel Thibault sthiba...@debian.org wrote:
Neil Williams, le Wed 06 May 2015 08:56:38 +0100, a écrit :
Ports which take so long to develop that a stable release is
deemed unlikely will also struggle. That is a problem caused by that
port, not by the
Neil Williams, le Wed 06 May 2015 09:47:36 +0100, a écrit :
Lack of widespread interest in any particular port is a problem with
that port not having widespread appeal.
And lack of helping maintainers will entail a lack of working stuff in
the port, and thus a more difficult appeal, and the
On Wed, May 6, 2015 at 6:11 PM, Neil Williams wrote:
You've admitted that the port cannot keep pace because it needs changes
to be made by maintainers who do not see the port as a particular
priority and that this blocks or impedes further changes. You've
tried and failed to increase the
On Wed, 6 May 2015 11:35:45 +0200
Samuel Thibault sthiba...@debian.org wrote:
Neil Williams, le Wed 06 May 2015 09:47:36 +0100, a écrit :
Lack of widespread interest in any particular port is a problem with
that port not having widespread appeal.
And lack of helping maintainers will
On Tue, 05 May 2015 23:36:32 +0100
peter green plugw...@p10link.net wrote:
Perhaps we need a political decision here?
When considering maintainers not directly involved in the port,
motivation for doing work which only helps a particular port tends to
be easier to find when the objective
Neil Williams, le Wed 06 May 2015 08:56:38 +0100, a écrit :
Ports which take so long to develop that a stable release is
deemed unlikely will also struggle. That is a problem caused by that
port, not by the project or other maintainers.
Not only. A typical scenario that does happen and can
On Wed, 6 May 2015 12:49:44 +0200
Samuel Thibault sthiba...@debian.org wrote:
Neil Williams, le Wed 06 May 2015 11:39:29 +0100, a écrit :
It's not at all that the maintainers are lazy or that those
maintainers could have done anything differently. Those maintainers
have their workloads and
Neil Williams, le Wed 06 May 2015 11:39:29 +0100, a écrit :
It's not at all that the maintainers are lazy or that those
maintainers could have done anything differently. Those maintainers
have their workloads and have made an assessment of their priorities.
I'm sorry I have to disagree here.
On Wed, 6 May 2015 18:18:34 +0800
Paul Wise p...@debian.org wrote:
On Wed, May 6, 2015 at 6:11 PM, Neil Williams wrote:
You've admitted that the port cannot keep pace because it needs
changes to be made by maintainers who do not see the port as a
particular priority and that this blocks
On Wed, May 6, 2015 at 7:03 PM, Neil Williams wrote:
Maintainers should help porters for release architectures wherever
possible - for non-release architectures, that really isn't something
you can do anything about except do the work yourselves.
One could argue the same for the official
[ with my m68k buildd maintainer and (ex-?) porter hat ]
Aurelien Jarno dixit:
- debian-ports uses mini-dak instead of dak. It uses less resources and
brings some features that are useful for new architectures like
accepting binary uploads when it improves the version even if it is
not the
Neil Williams, le Wed 06 May 2015 11:39:29 +0100, a écrit :
If the wave simply moves on, leaving the port behind, it is harder to
accept, very hard to regain momentum and high time that the porters
ask themselves the hard question of whether it is worthwhile to
continue, as the crest of the
Neil Williams, le Wed 06 May 2015 20:34:15 +0100, a écrit :
On Wed, 6 May 2015 20:36:25 +0200
Samuel Thibault sthiba...@debian.org wrote:
Neil Williams, le Wed 06 May 2015 12:03:30 +0100, a écrit :
If the patch *is* trivial and testable then it is up to the porters
to arrange a fully
On 2015-05-06 10:44, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
[ with my m68k buildd maintainer and (ex-?) porter hat ]
Aurelien Jarno dixit:
- debian-ports uses mini-dak instead of dak. It uses less resources and
brings some features that are useful for new architectures like
accepting binary uploads
On May 06 2015, Neil Williams codeh...@debian.org wrote:
You can continue expecting others to do the work for you (which leads
to bugs sliding down the priority list of some of the maintainers) or
you can do the work.
It seems to me that you don't (want to?) realize that in some cases the
Neil Williams, le Wed 06 May 2015 12:03:30 +0100, a écrit :
If the patch *is* trivial and testable then it is up to the porters to
arrange a fully tested NMU.
How can a porter fully test a package? Only maintainers really know
their package well, testing a package is rarely documented.
On Wed, 6 May 2015 20:36:25 +0200
Samuel Thibault sthiba...@debian.org wrote:
Neil Williams, le Wed 06 May 2015 12:03:30 +0100, a écrit :
If the patch *is* trivial and testable then it is up to the porters
to arrange a fully tested NMU.
How can a porter fully test a package? Only
On Tue, 05 May 2015 09:17:02 +0200, Samuel Thibault wrote:
(replying only to -devel)
* Appearing on packages' and maintainers' PTS
pages like http://buildd.debian.org/bash and
https://buildd.debian.org/sthiba...@debian.org
This makes people aware of portability issues; when hurd-i386 moved
On Tue, 2015-05-05 at 09:17 +0200, Samuel Thibault wrote:
[Speaking for the debian-hurd team]
Lucas Nussbaum, le Mon 04 May 2015 08:28:22 +0200, a écrit :
Maybe it's just about supporting and advertising debian-ports as
Debian's official way to host second-class architectures. Maybe
Richard Braun, le Tue 05 May 2015 12:27:10 +, a écrit :
On Tue, May 05, 2015 at 01:36:57PM +0200, Arne Babenhauserheide wrote:
Given that the package coverage of the Hurd continuously increased and
that it just released 0.6 of its core components[1] along with releasing
Debian
Am Montag, 20. April 2015, 00:22:08 schrieb Joerg Jaspert:
hurd-i386
=
Well before wheezy was released, we talked with the HURD porters, and
they agreed to re-check their archive status just after the wheezy
release[1]. The plan was to move the HURD port off ftp-master if it
wasn't
Svante Signell, le Tue 05 May 2015 15:38:27 +0200, a écrit :
On Tue, 2015-05-05 at 15:09 +0200, Samuel Thibault wrote:
Svante Signell, le Tue 05 May 2015 15:00:55 +0200, a écrit :
One of the main problems with debian-ports is that the Sources.gz file
is empty:
Svante Signell, le Tue 05 May 2015 15:00:55 +0200, a écrit :
One of the main problems with debian-ports is that the Sources.gz file
is empty:
http://ftp.debian-ports.org/debian/dists/unreleased/main/source/
No, this is really a corner issue: unreleased is a very small part of
the picture.
On Tue, 2015-05-05 at 15:09 +0200, Samuel Thibault wrote:
Svante Signell, le Tue 05 May 2015 15:00:55 +0200, a écrit :
One of the main problems with debian-ports is that the Sources.gz file
is empty:
http://ftp.debian-ports.org/debian/dists/unreleased/main/source/
No, this is really a
On Tue, May 05, 2015 at 09:17:02AM +0200, Samuel Thibault wrote:
[Speaking for the debian-hurd team]
Lucas Nussbaum, le Mon 04 May 2015 08:28:22 +0200, a écrit :
Maybe it's just about supporting and advertising debian-ports as
Debian's official way to host second-class architectures. Maybe
On Tue, May 05, 2015 at 01:36:57PM +0200, Arne Babenhauserheide wrote:
Given that the package coverage of the Hurd continuously increased and
that it just released 0.6 of its core components[1] along with releasing
Debian GNU/Hurd[2], this strikes me as an odd time to throw the Hurd off
Hello,
Paul Wise, le Tue 05 May 2015 15:49:36 +0800, a écrit :
I haven't seen any resistance to the idea of merging more Debian ports
services with the equivalent Debian services, apart from the work
needed to do so.
Ok.
I'm actually realizing one thing: can buildd.debian.org perhaps be made
+++ Samuel Thibault [2015-05-05 09:17 +0200]:
* Getting binNMUs from d-release transitions
This saves porters a lot of tedious work that would otherwise be just
duplicated. We are not talking about fine-grain binNMUs here, but
coarse-grain well-known planned binNMUs. Wanna-build supports
Perhaps we need a political decision here?
I think it's mostly a practical one, as I don't see much disagreement
about the objectives here: What is the best way to arrange things to
support 'released, supported, all-equal' ports vs 'best-effort, let
them get out of sync' 2nd-class ports (both
Samuel Thibault, le Tue 05 May 2015 15:09:29 +0200, a écrit :
Svante Signell, le Tue 05 May 2015 15:00:55 +0200, a écrit :
One of the main problems with debian-ports is that the Sources.gz file
is empty:
http://ftp.debian-ports.org/debian/dists/unreleased/main/source/
No, this is really
[Speaking for the debian-hurd team]
Lucas Nussbaum, le Mon 04 May 2015 08:28:22 +0200, a écrit :
Maybe it's just about supporting and advertising debian-ports as
Debian's official way to host second-class architectures. Maybe
there's more to it. What are the current downsides of moving
On 05/05/15 at 09:17 +0200, Samuel Thibault wrote:
* Appearing on packages' and maintainers' PTS
pages like http://buildd.debian.org/bash and
https://buildd.debian.org/sthiba...@debian.org
* Being considered as second-class citizen
Note that our developer dashboards (DDPO, Tracker, DMD) are
On Tue, May 5, 2015 at 3:38 PM, Paul Wise wrote:
...
Apologies for the contentless reply.
I haven't seen any resistance to the idea of merging more Debian ports
services with the equivalent Debian services, apart from the work
needed to do so.
--
bye,
pabs
https://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise
On Tue, May 5, 2015 at 3:17 PM, Samuel Thibault sthiba...@debian.org wrote:
[Speaking for the debian-hurd team]
Lucas Nussbaum, le Mon 04 May 2015 08:28:22 +0200, a écrit :
Maybe it's just about supporting and advertising debian-ports as
Debian's official way to host second-class
[ With my debian-ports admin hat ]
On 2015-05-04 11:48, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
Lucas Nussbaum lu...@debian.org (2015-05-04):
I'm wondering if we could find a way to accomodate those architectures
in an official way, while still limiting the impact on ftpmasters and
other teams. I'm not
On 20/04/15 at 00:22 +0200, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
Hi,
As the jessie release approaches, the ftp-team have been reviewing the
status of the architectures in unstable.
Neither sparc nor hurd-i386 are going to release with jessie and we are
therefore looking at their future in unstable.
Lucas Nussbaum lu...@debian.org (2015-05-04):
I'm wondering if we could find a way to accomodate those architectures
in an official way, while still limiting the impact on ftpmasters and
other teams. I'm not entirely clear on the status of debian-ports.org,
and of what the current downsides of
On Mon, May 4, 2015 at 5:48 PM, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
Lucas Nussbaum lu...@debian.org (2015-05-04):
I'm wondering if we could find a way to accomodate those architectures
in an official way, while still limiting the impact on ftpmasters and
other teams. I'm not entirely clear on the status of
On 04/05/15 at 18:04 +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
On Mon, May 4, 2015 at 5:48 PM, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
Lucas Nussbaum lu...@debian.org (2015-05-04):
I'm wondering if we could find a way to accomodate those architectures
in an official way, while still limiting the impact on ftpmasters and
+++ Lucas Nussbaum [2015-05-04 12:47 +0200]:
On 04/05/15 at 18:04 +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
On Mon, May 4, 2015 at 5:48 PM, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
Lucas Nussbaum lu...@debian.org (2015-05-04):
I'm wondering if we could find a way to accomodate those architectures
in an official way,
On 13931 March 1977, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
That pad says: As a result of current state, d-ports cannot accept more
ports. If that's still true, it would make sense to postpone dropping
hurd and sparc until this is fixed...
Hurd is already on d-p, so hurd actually has double infrastructure
Joerg Jaspert, le Mon 04 May 2015 18:11:29 +0200, a écrit :
On 13931 March 1977, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
That pad says: As a result of current state, d-ports cannot accept more
ports. If that's still true, it would make sense to postpone dropping
hurd and sparc until this is fixed...
Was that before or after arm64 and ppc64el migrated off ports to the
main archive?
I'm pretty sure ppc64el was never on debian-ports, it went straight from
an IBM run repository to the main archive.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of
Hello,
Joerg Jaspert, le Mon 20 Apr 2015 00:22:08 +0200, a écrit :
hurd-i386
=
Well before wheezy was released, we talked with the HURD porters, and
they agreed to re-check their archive status just after the wheezy
release[1]. The plan was to move the HURD port off ftp-master if it
Hi,
As the jessie release approaches, the ftp-team have been reviewing the
status of the architectures in unstable.
Neither sparc nor hurd-i386 are going to release with jessie and we are
therefore looking at their future in unstable.
SPARC
=
46 matches
Mail list logo
