On Fri, Oct 08, 2010 at 10:58:24AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
I was acually meditating on Joerg's answer for the past two weeks, wondering
that if my some of my packages are bullshit, I should look for another place
to
distribute them instead of letting them be a burden for everybody.
I
Hi all,
I was acually meditating on Joerg's answer for the past two weeks, wondering
that if my some of my packages are bullshit, I should look for another place to
distribute them instead of letting them be a burden for everybody.
Since he sent his anwer again, I will reply again. Let's hope it
Hi,
On Sun, 26 Sep 2010, Luk Claes wrote:
I think that having an official rolling release always available would
reduce the pressure of maintainers to always push the latest into the next
stable release precisely because there's an alternative... so it would
rather help concerning this
On Sun, Sep 26, 2010 at 05:17:36PM +0200, Luk Claes wrote:
I'm not against having a constant useable testing, on the contrary. I
just don't see why we want to choose for working around the problems we
currently have with testing instead of fixing them for everyone.
You seem to be basing your
Hi Raphael
On 09/23/2010 02:30 PM, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
On Thu, 23 Sep 2010, Luk Claes wrote:
Raphael's article is now published, and is probably a good basis for
discussing CUT on -de...@.
Free link: http://lwn.net/SubscriberLink/406301/bd522adc828b3461/
Personally I have the feeling
Hi Luk,
On 26/09/10 at 15:55 +0200, Luk Claes wrote:
I think this is completely the wrong question, we'd better ask the
question: Why do freezes have to take that long?
I would be interested in hearing your answer to that question. It would
help to understand the rest of your mail. It seems to
Hey,
On Sun, Sep 26, 2010 at 10:55 AM, Luk Claes l...@debian.org wrote:
IMHO, what is missing from rolling should be added to testing, not
worked around by introducing another suite:
I believe it's the other way around, actually. To me, adding stuff to
testing is the workaround. Testing is not
On 09/26/2010 04:40 PM, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
Hi Luk,
Hi Lucas
Note that this is my personal opinion and does not represent the opinion
of the Release Team perse.
On 26/09/10 at 15:55 +0200, Luk Claes wrote:
I think this is completely the wrong question, we'd better ask the
question: Why do
On 09/26/2010 05:02 PM, Fernando Lemos wrote:
On Sun, Sep 26, 2010 at 10:55 AM, Luk Claes l...@debian.org wrote:
Why would non-frequent snapshots help more than frequent snapshots?
Because in that case they could really be used and supported for
installing, better user testing, security...
Hi Luk,
thanks for your valuable comments.
On Sun, 26 Sep 2010, Luk Claes wrote:
Of course there are multiple reasons. Though I think one of the most
obvious ones is that we as a project don't do a genuine stable release
often so sometimes delay the freeze willingly or not. Another reason
Hi Raphael
On 09/26/2010 08:40 PM, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
On Sun, 26 Sep 2010, Luk Claes wrote:
Of course there are multiple reasons. Though I think one of the most
obvious ones is that we as a project don't do a genuine stable release
often so sometimes delay the freeze willingly or not.
On 22/09/10 at 15:01 +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
Hi all,
On Tue, 21 Sep 2010, Yaroslav Halchenko wrote:
CUT discussions at debconf10 and recent news of the birth of Linux Mint
discussions on CUT have continued after debconf on the CUT mailing. I
wrote a summary of the discussion that
the addition of new suites has the disadvantage of dispersing our userbase.
Here is a proposition that conserves the current flow of package migration for
packages released in Stable, and that makes Testing the meeting point for all
the packages.
We could introduce a new priority level,
Le Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 09:17:02AM +0200, Joerg Jaspert a écrit :
So what backports priority actually says is my package is such a
bullshit that I don't want it ever released, but I am fine with putting
burden on the people keeping backports running instead. I think we have
a way already
On 09/23/2010 09:00 AM, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
Raphael's article is now published, and is probably a good basis for
discussing CUT on -de...@. Free link:
http://lwn.net/SubscriberLink/406301/bd522adc828b3461/
It's still looks weired to me to have to read this article there (I
mean, _only_
On 23/09/10 at 10:40 +0200, Mehdi Dogguy wrote:
On 09/23/2010 09:00 AM, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
Raphael's article is now published, and is probably a good basis for
discussing CUT on -de...@. Free link:
http://lwn.net/SubscriberLink/406301/bd522adc828b3461/
It's still looks weired
On Thu, 23 Sep 2010, Mehdi Dogguy wrote:
On 09/23/2010 09:00 AM, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
Raphael's article is now published, and is probably a good basis for
discussing CUT on -de...@. Free link:
http://lwn.net/SubscriberLink/406301/bd522adc828b3461/
It's still looks weired to me
On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 17:12:49 +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
Le Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 09:17:02AM +0200, Joerg Jaspert a écrit :
So what backports priority actually says is my package is such a
bullshit that I don't want it ever released, but I am fine with putting
burden on the people
Hi,
On Wed, 22 Sep 2010, Yaroslav Halchenko wrote:
hm... did you mean
http://lwn.net/Articles/406301/
A constantly usable testing distribution for Debian?
Yes.
if indeed, taken on the reasoning that testing is a bad name and rolling
is
better, then it goes similar to what I saw behind
On 09/23/2010 09:00 AM, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
On 22/09/10 at 15:01 +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
Hi all,
On Tue, 21 Sep 2010, Yaroslav Halchenko wrote:
CUT discussions at debconf10 and recent news of the birth of Linux Mint
discussions on CUT have continued after debconf on the CUT mailing.
Hi Luk,
thanks for your comment!
On Thu, 23 Sep 2010, Luk Claes wrote:
Raphael's article is now published, and is probably a good basis for
discussing CUT on -de...@.
Free link: http://lwn.net/SubscriberLink/406301/bd522adc828b3461/
Personally I have the feeling that if we would choose
On Thu, 23 Sep 2010 14:30:30 +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
Personally I would like to have snapshots every 2 or 3 months. Colin
Watson pointed out in an LWN comment (http://lwn.net/Articles/406597/):
| There's a good chance that CUT could serve a dual purpose of making it
| easier to prepare
Marc Haber mh+debian-de...@zugschlus.de writes:
The ftp team has a history of strongly discouraging uploads that they
don't feel like accepting (such as a package that would download
eicar.com from the internet and place it in a defined place where other
packages might find and use it) and of
On Tue, 21 Sep 2010 20:52:09 -0400
Yaroslav Halchenko deb...@onerussian.com wrote:
Hi All,
CUT discussions at debconf10 and recent news of the birth of Linux
Mint Debian Edition (LMDE) [1] show how valuable and unique Debian's
rolling distribution (testing) is. But every freeze in the
On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 07:31:45AM +0100, Neil Williams wrote:
Then unstable/testing would roll further as usual
How does a major, disruptive, transition get done?
I think his proposal boils down to this: we *always* have unstable and
testing to upload whatever we want and handle transitions
On Wed, 22 Sep 2010 08:47:31 +0200
Mike Hommey m...@glandium.org wrote:
On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 07:31:45AM +0100, Neil Williams wrote:
Then unstable/testing would roll further as usual
How does a major, disruptive, transition get done?
I think his proposal boils down to this: we
On 09/22/2010 08:47 AM, Mike Hommey wrote:
On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 07:31:45AM +0100, Neil Williams wrote:
Then unstable/testing would roll further as usual
How does a major, disruptive, transition get done?
I think his proposal boils down to this: we *always* have unstable
and testing to
On Wed, 22 Sep 2010 07:31:45 +0100
Neil Williams codeh...@debian.org wrote:
So when and where are library transitions meant to occur? Transitions
are always disruptive, always cause some packages to be non-functional
or non-installable. There has to be somewhere (unstable) where libfoo2
can
On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 08:26:22AM +0100, Neil Williams wrote:
On Wed, 22 Sep 2010 08:47:31 +0200
Mike Hommey m...@glandium.org wrote:
On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 07:31:45AM +0100, Neil Williams wrote:
Then unstable/testing would roll further as usual
How does a major, disruptive,
Hi,
On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 08:52:09PM -0400, Yaroslav Halchenko wrote:
NB I am having some deja vu that 'frozen' used to be used explicitly
in the archive... is that so?
Indeed. That was before testing was introduced.
Then unstable/testing would roll further as usual, and pending-frozen
On 09/22/2010 02:52 AM, Yaroslav Halchenko wrote:
[...]
[experimental/]unstable(sid)/testing(e.g squeeze)/stable
*constantly* present and functioning all the time the same way.
Then upon freeze we just copy the state of
unstable - pending
testing(squeeze) - frozen(squeeze, e.g
Hi all,
On Tue, 21 Sep 2010, Yaroslav Halchenko wrote:
CUT discussions at debconf10 and recent news of the birth of Linux Mint
discussions on CUT have continued after debconf on the CUT mailing. I
wrote a summary of the discussion that will be published in Linux Weekly
News before tomorrow.
On 22/09/2010 15:01, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
I think that if you concentrate on preparing the next release like you
do, volunteers that are not interested in the stable release (except
for their own package) will show up and deal with migrations to
rolling.
It won't happen but I'd be
Hi,
On Mittwoch, 22. September 2010, Mike Hommey wrote:
PS: for my personal needs, some way to get random packages autobuilt
would already be helpful (call that ppa if you want).
I seem to recall, ftpmaster was planning something like that. Or wanted to?
If so, what the status? If not, shall
On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 16:24:44 +0200, Holger Levsen wrote:
Hi,
On Mittwoch, 22. September 2010, Mike Hommey wrote:
PS: for my personal needs, some way to get random packages autobuilt
would already be helpful (call that ppa if you want).
I seem to recall, ftpmaster was planning
Dear Yaroslav and everybody,
the addition of new suites has the disadvantage of dispersing our userbase.
Here is a proposition that conserves the current flow of package migration for
packages released in Stable, and that makes Testing the meeting point for all
the packages.
We could
On September 22, 2010 01:35:14 am Mehdi Dogguy wrote:
On 09/22/2010 08:47 AM, Mike Hommey wrote:
On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 07:31:45AM +0100, Neil Williams wrote:
Then unstable/testing would roll further as usual
How does a major, disruptive, transition get done?
I think his proposal
On 2010-09-22, Bruce Sass bms...@shaw.ca wrote:
I've heard that Testing cycles between good/installable and
bad/un-installable--do those good times correspond to times when it
would be possible to freeze a set of packages?
You're wrong. That's FUD you've read.
Cheers
Philipp Kern
--
To
On Wed, 22 Sep 2010, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
Anyway, I'd like to ask you all to hold off the discussion for a few hours
until everybody can read the summary of the CUT discussions and have a
clearer ideas of the proposals and the implications.
hm... did you mean
http://lwn.net/Articles/406301/
A
Hi All,
CUT discussions at debconf10 and recent news of the birth of Linux Mint
Debian Edition (LMDE) [1] show how valuable and unique Debian's rolling
distribution (testing) is. But every freeze in the preparation to
upcoming stable release in effect, eliminates 'testing' (and actually
40 matches
Mail list logo
