Believe what you like about what I said. I could not care less.
What was apparently blatantly obvious to you about the nature of the
post was not to me, and I wanted to step forward to be sure that Sven's
points (which are near to my heart as a SPARC user) were not discarded
over a triviality.
On Thu, Mar 24, 2005 at 06:56:31PM -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Believe what you like about what I said. I could not care less.
What was apparently blatantly obvious to you about the nature of the
post was not to me, and I wanted to step forward to be sure that Sven's
points (which are
On Mon, Mar 21, 2005 at 04:31:44PM -0800, Mike Fedyk wrote:
Sven Luther wrote:
Ok, this is the easy part, and also what the vancouver-proposal included,
the
difference comes in how the minority-arches are handled, and my proposal
is a
'including' proposal, while the vancouver-proposal
On Sun, Mar 20, 2005 at 08:48:45PM +0100, Julien BLACHE wrote:
Raphael Hertzog [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I believe everyone is supportive of the various ports, nobody has any
interest in making a port fail... but it's clear that many maintainers
are frustrated to be blocked because their
Hamish Moffatt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Our users and developers might want a distribution which
1. Runs on every platform; OR
2. Is 100% free, but only needs to run on their mainstream desktop; OR
3. Is technically the best at any cost; OR
4. Suitable for production use on modern hardware;
Sven Luther wrote:
On Mon, Mar 21, 2005 at 04:31:44PM -0800, Mike Fedyk wrote:
Sven Luther wrote:
Ok, this is the easy part, and also what the vancouver-proposal included,
the
difference comes in how the minority-arches are handled, and my proposal
is a
On Mon, Mar 21, 2005 at 12:26:13AM -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It's not so fair to perpetrate a straw man attack against Sven's whole
proposal just because he can't spell perfectly. Give the man credit
where it's due for trying to better Debian.
This is stupid. The very phrasing was
On Sun, Mar 20, 2005 at 12:45:33PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
discussion forward in such a way that we can get a resonable discussion at the
helsinski debconf'05 meeting.
That's Helsinki, you ignoramus, you.
http://www.helsinki.fi/eng/index.html
--
Tapio Lehtonen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
GPG
It's not so fair to perpetrate a straw man attack against Sven's whole
proposal just because he can't spell perfectly. Give the man credit
where it's due for trying to better Debian.
BTW, Sven and the Vancouver crew, I appreciate your collective thinking
about what's right for Debian and the
On Mon, Mar 21, 2005 at 12:26:13AM -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It's not so fair to perpetrate a straw man attack against Sven's whole
proposal just because he can't spell perfectly. Give the man credit
where it's due for trying to better Debian.
Hehe, no offense taken, and i can understand
Sven Luther wrote:
Ok, this is the easy part, and also what the vancouver-proposal included, the
difference comes in how the minority-arches are handled, and my proposal is a
'including' proposal, while the vancouver-proposal was 'excluding'.
4) each non-tier1 arches will have its own testing
Sven Luther wrote:
Problems with many arches:
- same for the security team.
Hmm. I only saw Joey's message on the subject, which basically seemed to
say as long as it's only one source compiling on all arches, it's OK
7) the porter team has the possibility to providing arch-specific overrides
On Sun, Mar 20, 2005 at 04:59:57PM +0100, Thomas Viehmann wrote:
Sven Luther wrote:
Problems with many arches:
- same for the security team.
Hmm. I only saw Joey's message on the subject, which basically seemed to
say as long as it's only one source compiling on all arches, it's OK
Yep,
On Sunday 20 March 2005 16:59, Thomas Viehmann wrote:
Sven Luther wrote:
7) the porter team has the possibility to providing arch-specific
overrides to solve the issue of a package not passing from unstable
into testing due to a tier1-specific RC bug or whatever. Should be used
sparingly
Sven Luther wrote:
The idea is that we don't want to hold up release, but we still want to allow
for a future release at a later point, in a stable point release. Especially
now that we are told that security is not an issue.
This way, the security support of the additional arches would stay
On Sunday 20 March 2005 11:04 am, cobaco (aka Bart Cornelis) wrote:
I like this idea, any cons?
As a user, what I think doesn't count for much but I second this idea.
A very large part of what attracted me to Debian is the support for
multiple archs...
--
Reality continues to ruin my life.
On Sun, Mar 20, 2005 at 06:24:23PM +0100, Thomas Viehmann wrote:
Sven Luther wrote:
The idea is that we don't want to hold up release, but we still want to
allow
for a future release at a later point, in a stable point release.
Especially
now that we are told that security is not an issue.
Le dimanche 20 mars 2005 à 12:45 +0100, Sven Luther a écrit :
Hello,
Hi Sven,
This is an attempt to do a vancouver-counter proposal in such a way that would
be acceptable to all, including the folk who was at the vancouver meeting.
Please be resonable when we post here, refrain from
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED] you wrote:
Debian as a whole shouldn't suffer from minority arches. So we decide to
refuse most of the constraints imposed by the minority arches... this
way the release team shouldn't pester porter until they setup an
rbuilder for security uploads or a
On Sun, Mar 20, 2005 at 07:22:07PM +0100, Bernd Eckenfels wrote:
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED] you wrote:
Debian as a whole shouldn't suffer from minority arches. So we decide to
refuse most of the constraints imposed by the minority arches... this
way the release team shouldn't pester
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Raphael Hertzog [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I believe everyone is supportive of the various ports, nobody has any
interest in making a port fail... but it's clear that many maintainers
are frustrated to be blocked because their package doesn't build
21 matches
Mail list logo
