Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> That's a bad example. X is a client/server system for a reason.
>
> E.g., there is no graphical hardware for s390, yet it can still be a
> good idea to use X software on s390 hardware with X terminals.
Yeah, that's the thing -- while maintainers are us
On Sun, Oct 15, 2006 at 09:33:51AM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> not others (like gnome) should not be allowed. If the port decides
> that they don't need any X, e.g. there is no hardware capable of
> running X applications, then they could remove all X stuff as a
> whole. That would be diff
On Sun, Oct 15, 2006 at 01:13:53AM -0500, Ron Johnson wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 10/15/06 00:03, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> > "Roberto C. Sanchez" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> >> On Sat, Oct 14, 2006 at 07:30:15PM +0200, Holger Levsen wrote:
> [snip]
>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 10/15/06 14:28, Mike Hommey wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 15, 2006 at 01:10:33PM -0400, Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Ron Johnson wrote:
>>> Why *shouldn't* KDE, GNOME, Firefox/Iceweasel, Tbird, and anything
>>> that requires Mesa/OpenGL, and all o
On Sun, Oct 15, 2006 at 01:10:33PM -0400, Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ron Johnson wrote:
> > Why *shouldn't* KDE, GNOME, Firefox/Iceweasel, Tbird, and anything
> > that requires Mesa/OpenGL, and all of Charles Plessy's scientific
> > packages be marked do_not_build on 68k/Coldfire & ARM
Ron Johnson wrote:
> Why *shouldn't* KDE, GNOME, Firefox/Iceweasel, Tbird, and anything
> that requires Mesa/OpenGL, and all of Charles Plessy's scientific
> packages be marked do_not_build on 68k/Coldfire & ARM?
Well, just for example, I know of people who run firefox on arm.
--
see shy jo
On Sun, Oct 15, 2006 at 09:33:51AM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> > If an Amiga (using the unaccelerated fb driver?) is running as an X
> > Terminal for a powerful, modern box, the Amiga would need to process
> > the OpenGL commands, no?
>
> There are no amigas with unaccelerated FB driver I
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 10/15/06 04:24, Ingo Juergensmann wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 15, 2006 at 03:16:04AM -0500, Ron Johnson wrote:
>
[snip]
> I don't think this is good. Basically a user should be able to choose if
> s/he would like to use Gnome or KDE. Wookeys proposal was
* Kevin Mark
| IIRC the buildds do not have a weight attached to each package to
| determine its order in the buildd queue. Would the introduction of a
| weight, where resource intensive packages get put on the bottom and are
| built at 'slow' periods help?
This will easily cause problems for
Ron Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 10/15/06 02:33, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
>> Ron Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>>> On 10/15/06 00:03, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
"Roberto C. Sanchez" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sat, Oct 14, 2006 at 07:30:15PM +0200, Holg
On Sat, Oct 14, 2006 at 05:35:57PM -0400, Kevin Mark wrote:
> > However there are some packages which are clearly not sensible on some
> > arches. Numerical analysis software in general on arm is a good
> > example of this class. Arm hardware is generally slow and more
> > seriously has no floatin
On Sun, Oct 15, 2006 at 03:16:04AM -0500, Ron Johnson wrote:
> > Because it is perfectly fine to run kde on such a system. Anything
> > that can run gnome can run kde. Anything that can run X can run kde I
> > would even say. Kicking one alternative for something (like kde) but
> > not others (lik
On Sun, Oct 15, 2006 at 07:03:59AM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> I think it should be in the porters control what packages to build for
> an arch with some guidelines what sort of packages can be removed
> without loosing release status. For example removing KDE would not be
> OK. Removal s
On Sat, Oct 14, 2006 at 07:30:15PM +0200, Holger Levsen wrote:
> On Saturday 14 October 2006 12:51, Wookey wrote:
> > Nevertheless I think it is clear that we do need mechanisms to keep
> > the load and package set appropriate for slower arches. If we design
> > the mechanism properly I would hope
On Sat, Oct 14, 2006 at 11:51:49AM +0100, Wookey wrote:
> On 2006-10-14 12:06 +0200, Ingo Juergensmann wrote:
> > It doesn't make much sense to build all Desktop related packages for an arch
> > that is mainly used remotely or as an embedded device. I don't think that
> > anyone will run KDE on to
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 10/15/06 02:33, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> Ron Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> On 10/15/06 00:03, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
>>> "Roberto C. Sanchez" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>>
On Sat, Oct 14, 2006 at 07:30:15PM +0200, Holger
Carlo Segre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sun, 15 Oct 2006, Charles Plessy wrote:
>
>> The interest with debtags is that it allows to change the policy for a
>> package without needing an upload or the intervention of the maintainer.
>> This way, the decision of not building could be taken by t
Ron Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 10/15/06 00:03, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
>> "Roberto C. Sanchez" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>>> On Sat, Oct 14, 2006 at 07:30:15PM +0200, Holger Levsen wrote:
> [snip]
>> I think it should be in the porters control what packages to
>> build for
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 10/15/06 00:03, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> "Roberto C. Sanchez" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> On Sat, Oct 14, 2006 at 07:30:15PM +0200, Holger Levsen wrote:
[snip]
> I think it should be in the porters control what packages to
> build for an
On Sun, 15 Oct 2006, Charles Plessy wrote:
The interest with debtags is that it allows to change the policy for a
package without needing an upload or the intervention of the maintainer.
This way, the decision of not building could be taken by the maintainer,
and it could be reverted quickly by
"Roberto C. Sanchez" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sat, Oct 14, 2006 at 07:30:15PM +0200, Holger Levsen wrote:
>>
>> Isn't it up to the maintainer to say $package is not suited for
>> $architecture?
>> And aren't maintainers happy to receive hints (e.g. from porters or users of
>> a certain
Le Sat, Oct 14, 2006 at 11:51:49AM +0100, Wookey a écrit :
>
> Perhaps debtags could be used as an appropriate classification
> mechanism.
Hi all,
As a maintainer of scientific packages, I agree with this idea. I
always feel sorry to see my packages sitting in the queue of slow arches
while I a
On Sat, Oct 14, 2006 at 02:30:14AM +0100, Wookey wrote:
> In general debian builds everything for every architecture. This is a
> very good plan and finds a lot of bugs.
Hi Wookey,
endian bugs, 32/64 bit bugs, int size bugs, more eyes on bad code, more
users on bad code, low-mem compiling, low-mem
On Sat, Oct 14, 2006 at 07:30:15PM +0200, Holger Levsen wrote:
>
> Isn't it up to the maintainer to say $package is not suited for
> $architecture?
> And aren't maintainers happy to receive hints (e.g. from porters or users of
> a certain package), which specific package is not suited for a spe
Hi,
On Saturday 14 October 2006 12:51, Wookey wrote:
> Nevertheless I think it is clear that we do need mechanisms to keep
> the load and package set appropriate for slower arches. If we design
> the mechanism properly I would hope it could be useful for various
> categorisation/subsetting purpose
On Sat, Oct 14, 2006 at 12:21:35PM +0200, Toni Mueller wrote:
> I agree with most of what Wookey and you said, but would like some
> clarification on this:
> On Sat, 14.10.2006 at 12:06:20 +0200, Ingo Juergensmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > But sadly, I have very little hope that Debian wil
On 2006-10-14 12:06 +0200, Ingo Juergensmann wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 14, 2006 at 02:30:14AM +0100, Wookey wrote:
> I believe the Vancouver proposal went into wrong direction by excluding
> (slower) archs from releases. Of course, dropping archs is a quick and easy
> way to lighten the load for a rele
Hello,
I agree with most of what Wookey and you said, but would like some
clarification on this:
On Sat, 14.10.2006 at 12:06:20 +0200, Ingo Juergensmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> But sadly, I have very little hope that Debian will change anything it's
> release structure soon. *sigh*
Best
On Sat, Oct 14, 2006 at 02:30:14AM +0100, Wookey wrote:
> In general debian builds everything for every architecture. This is a
> very good plan and finds a lot of bugs.
Agreed.
> However there are some packages which are clearly not sensible on some
> arches. Numerical analysis software in gene
In general debian builds everything for every architecture. This is a
very good plan and finds a lot of bugs.
However there are some packages which are clearly not sensible on some
arches. Numerical analysis software in general on arm is a good
example of this class. Arm hardware is generally slow
30 matches
Mail list logo
