Hi,
FIRST CALL FOR VOTES FOR THE DEBIAN PROJECT LEADER ELECTION 2005
= === = === === == === ==
Votinge period starts 00:00:01 UTC on March 21st, 2005.
Votes must be received by 23:59:59 UTC on April 10th, 2005.
This vote is being
Hi,
The ballot neglected to mention that it should not be
encrypted, since devotee does not yet deal with encrypted
ballots. Encrypting your ballot will just result in it being
rejected. Sorry for not mentioning this earlier.
manoj
--
A fool must now and then be right by
[no enrico, non imparero' mai a premere L invece che r :)]
On Sun, Mar 20, 2005 at 08:20:51PM +0100, Enrico Zini wrote:
Ciao,
Aggregatevi!
Andreas Schuldei [EMAIL PROTECTED], nonché candidato DPL, si trova a
Riccione per uno stage internazionale professionale di Beach Volley.
Io e Zack
On Sun, Mar 20, 2005 at 09:19:56PM +0100, Filippo Giunchedi wrote:
On Sun, Mar 20, 2005 at 08:20:51PM +0100, Enrico Zini wrote:
Io e Zack partiamo domani (luned) ore 18:00 da Bologna (davanti alla
facolt di Matematica) per recarci a Riccione a cenare e far baldoria
con lui. Ritorno in
Hi Ben,
On Wed, Mar 16, 2005 at 07:32:37PM -0500, Ben Collins wrote:
On Wed, Mar 16, 2005 at 06:11:39PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Ben Collins [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The requirement sucks, lets leave it at that. If the machine dies, I can
have two to replace it within a day or
Hi Pasi,
On Saturday, 19 Mar 2005, you wrote:
Kirjoitit viestissäsi (lähetysaika lauantai, 19. maaliskuuta 2005 02:53):
On Friday, 18 Mar 2005, you wrote:
Changes:
valknut (0.3.7-1) unstable; urgency=high
.
* New upstream release (Closes: #289643, #269952, #265284, #270096,
Hi Andrea,
On Wed, Mar 16, 2005 at 12:02:48PM +0100, A Mennucc wrote:
I am the mantainer of 'lpr-ppd'
'lpr-ppd' is a daemon similar to 'lpr' ;
it was developed as part of project GNULPR
(see http://lpr.sf.net )
unfortunately, after the dot-com crisis ,
the project died
I have been
So drop this bullshit veto thing. There is no reason to have this.
I read this thread very occasionnally and I usually pick up posts my
people I respect for their ability to express their opinions quietly
and without the need of flaming.
Hence, I have to admit that I'm really surprised by this
hi
I have noticed a messy situation in BTS,
regarding my source package libppd (*)
my source package has this web page in BTS
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?src=libppd
where you see there are 4 bugs listed (resolved)
but then there is this web page
On Fri, Mar 18, 2005 at 06:44:46PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
[cc:ed back to -devel, since these are technical questions being raised and
answered]
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 10:48:10PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
The next stage in the process is to actually sell the proposed changes for
On Sun, Mar 20, 2005 at 02:57:23AM +0100, Peter 'p2' De Schrijver wrote:
* Three bodies (Security, System Administration, Release) are given
independent veto power over the inclusion of an architecture.
A) Does the entire team have to exercise this veto for it to be
effective,
Hi, Peter 'p2' De Schrijver wrote:
This is obviously unacceptable. Why would a small number of people be
allowed to veto inclusion of other people's work ?
Why not? (Assuming they do have a valid reason. For instance, I probably
wouldn't allow an MMIX port into the archive even if it sat up
Hi, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes:
That on some servers I'd like to mirror both archives, and I'd rather
not waste a few GB on duplicated files.
So don't duplicate them and use fancier mirroring software.
We can't. AFAIK: One or two rsync commands,
On Fri, Mar 18, 2005 at 09:22:11PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
Sven Luther wrote:
I think the main reply is for developers using said archs.
Developers *developing* on those architectures need to use unstable
But it could be an unstable chroot, while their day-to-day work is done with
On Fri, Mar 18, 2005 at 02:40:34PM +0100, David Schmitt wrote:
On Friday 18 March 2005 13:26, Sven Luther wrote:
And yes, i volunteer to help out NEW handling, if that help is wanted.
Vapourware. I believe that for most packages it is quite easy to see why they
are not allowed into
On Fri, Mar 18, 2005 at 05:05:07PM +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
And yes, i volunteer to help out NEW handling, if that help is wanted.
Just for the record, not to anyone directly, it just fits here:
This is not how it works. Offering something randomly and then sitting
back waiting, later
On Fri, Mar 18, 2005 at 02:34:12PM +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
On 10232 March 1977, Sven Luther wrote:
Would you be happy if the ftpmasters put everything on auto-veto if there
was nobody available to monitor the auto-new queue for a few days?
If the NEW queue handling people can't get
On Sat, Mar 19, 2005 at 01:01:44AM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
Hello Debian-developer,
I have a modest proposal to reduce the burden of the multiple
architectures on the Release team. This is based on the following
assumptions:
Yep, great proposal, i think this would also be a solution.
On Sat, Mar 19, 2005 at 11:24:14AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
beyond unstable + snapshotting facility, and why? Debian developers
manage to develop on unstable fairly well, eg, why isn't that enough? Is
this just a PR issue, in that unstable and snapshot aren't something
you can put on a
On Sun, Mar 20, 2005 at 12:00:23PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
Darren Salt wrote:
I demand that Anthony Towns may or may not have written...
Put them behind a firewall on a trusted LAN, use them to develop software
for arm chips, and then just follow unstable or run non-security-supported
On Sat, Mar 19, 2005 at 11:25:22AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
Henning Makholm wrote:
The question is whether the *porters* think they have a sufficiently
good reason to do the work of maintaining a separate testing-esque
suite. If the porters want to do the work they should be allowed to do
On Sat, Mar 19, 2005 at 01:48:42AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
Hi Greg,
On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 02:10:47PM -0500, Greg Folkert wrote:
BTW, I am not sure this is really a good way to measure the use of an
architecture, mainly because users could use a local mirror if they
have
On Fri, Mar 18, 2005 at 12:06:15PM -0500, David Nusinow wrote:
On Fri, Mar 18, 2005 at 05:43:26PM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
[1] The installer might be a point, but since all sarge architectures
will have a working installer and I hope there's not another
installer rewrite planned
On Sat, Mar 19, 2005 at 04:19:03AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Fri, Mar 18, 2005 at 05:43:26PM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
On Thu, Mar 17, 2005 at 09:47:42PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 07:59:43PM +, Alastair McKinstry wrote:
AFAI can tell, anybody can
Hello,
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 agressive behavior, and
provide argumentation to your proposed solutions.
We have
On Sat, 19 Mar 2005, Henning Makholm wrote:
Better have them restricted to developers and users who modify code
than to have them happen randomly to people who just want to build the
unmodified package.
Like, say, our security and QA teams. I would very much like their opinion
on this,
On Sat, Mar 19, 2005 at 06:55:37PM +0100, Sergio Rua wrote:
Hello,
My GPG was compromissed before Xmas and since then, I was unable to get
a new key. Two of my packages are getting full of bugs which I can fix and
close so I decided to orphan them and if I'm be able to get new
key in the
[Sven Luther]
This is obviously unacceptable. Why would a small number of people
be allowed to veto inclusion of other people's work ?
And a non-elected, non-properly-delegated, self-apointed group of
people at that.
I tend to agree that the veto rights in the proposal are undemocratic.
It
Christian Perrier wrote:
[snip]
This is spring time (at least for half of the world...and probably for
90% of Debian world)so take a break, go for a walk in the forest,
hear the birds singing, get one day off with no mail reading...and
remember this is all about a hobby for most of us.
I
Hi all you folks who have exercised your fingers and eyes because of
'vancouvor',
In my quest to see how things work, I have made some major revision to
my diagram.
http://debian.home.pipeline.com/
the new diagram is newdebian2.png
any comment appreciated (before the whole shebang is outdated)
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au wrote:
If they can all satisfy the criteria, they're likely to be doing well
enough that there's not much *point* to dropping them -- the reason 11
architectures are hard to manage is because they're not all being
supported at an adequate level. The
On Sun, Mar 20, 2005 at 09:07:52AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
On Sun, Mar 20, 2005 at 02:57:23AM +0100, Peter 'p2' De Schrijver wrote:
* Three bodies (Security, System Administration, Release) are given
independent veto power over the inclusion of an architecture.
A) Does the
Petter Reinholdtsen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I tend to agree that the veto rights in the proposal are undemocratic.
It is probably better to allow the DPL to veto the inclusion, and
document that he is required to ask the porters, the ftp masters and
the release team before making up his
* Henning Makholm ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050319 22:05]:
Scripsit David Weinehall [EMAIL PROTECTED]
That said, I'm a firm believer of the suggestion posed by Jesus
Climent[1], that we should have base set of software (where base is
probably a bit bigger than our current base) released for all
On Sun, Mar 20, 2005 at 09:56:05AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
On Sun, Mar 20, 2005 at 12:00:23PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
But why would you spend over 1000 pounds on an arm Linux desktop box
instead of a few hundred pounds on a random i386 desktop box?
Because you don't want a 100+W
Hi,
* Bill Allombert ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050319 01:05]:
The idea is to have or each architecture $arch a '$arch release assistant'
which is in charge of helping the release team with issue specific to a
port.
Actually, if somebody wants to help, (s)he is always welcome. First of
all, being a
On Sunday 20 March 2005 05:42 am, Andrea Mennucc wrote:
hi
I have noticed a messy situation in BTS,
regarding my source package libppd (*)
my source package has this web page in BTS
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?src=libppd
where you see there are 4 bugs listed (resolved)
On Sun, Mar 20, 2005 at 10:26:44PM +1100, Daniel Stone wrote:
On Sun, Mar 20, 2005 at 09:07:52AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
On Sun, Mar 20, 2005 at 02:57:23AM +0100, Peter 'p2' De Schrijver wrote:
This is obviously unacceptable. Why would a small number of people be
allowed to veto
On Sun, Mar 20, 2005 at 10:26:44PM +1100, Daniel Stone wrote:
On Sun, Mar 20, 2005 at 09:07:52AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
On Sun, Mar 20, 2005 at 02:57:23AM +0100, Peter 'p2' De Schrijver wrote:
* Three bodies (Security, System Administration, Release) are given
independent veto
On Sun, Mar 20, 2005 at 09:34:01AM +0100, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
Hi, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes:
That on some servers I'd like to mirror both archives, and I'd rather
not waste a few GB on duplicated files.
So don't duplicate them and use
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
* Marco d'Itri ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050319 03:50]:
On Mar 18, Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There would definitely be duplication of arch:all between ftp.debian.org
and ports.debian.org (let's call it ports), as well as duplication of the
source.
As a mirror operator, I think
* Gunnar Wolf ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050319 05:35]:
Architecture: any means build anywhere. We could introduce a
second header, say, Not-deploy-for: or Not-required-for:. This would
mean that KDE _would_ be built for m68k if the buildds are not too
busy doing other stuff, and probably would not
Hi,
On a development system, I'd like to have experimental and unstable in
the sources.list, and to have experimental pinned down to a priority
tha experimental is never considered. For certain packages, I'd like
apt to consider experimental as well, taking whatever is newer from
experimental and
* Steve Langasek ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050319 12:35]:
On Wed, Mar 16, 2005 at 12:20:34AM -0800, Blars Blarson wrote:
- at least two buildd administrators
This allows the buildd administrator to take vacations, etc.
This is at odds with what I've heard from some buildd maintainers that
* Marco d'Itri ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050319 18:40]:
On Mar 19, Daniel Kobras [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What's wrong with splitting into ftp-full-monty.d.o, carrying all archs,
including the popular ones, and ftp.d.o, carrying only the most popular
subset? This way, there's no need to mirror
* Thiemo Seufer ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050320 12:15]:
I don't regard my mips/mipsel porting work as just a hobby.
You're definitly doing a very professional job with mips*. In fact, I'm
personally more in favour of mips* as release archs than some others
because you're doing such a good job.
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
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Bartosz Fenski aka fEnIo [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
* Package name: adesklets
Version : 0.4.6
Upstream Author : Sylvain Fourmanoit [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* URL : http://adesklets.sourceforge.net
*
* Hamish Moffatt ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050320 15:25]:
On Sun, Mar 20, 2005 at 09:56:05AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
On Sun, Mar 20, 2005 at 12:00:23PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
But why would you spend over 1000 pounds on an arm Linux desktop box
instead of a few hundred pounds on a
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 Sun, Mar 20, 2005 at 10:53:57PM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
On Sun, Mar 20, 2005 at 09:56:05AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
On Sun, Mar 20, 2005 at 12:00:23PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
But why would you spend over 1000 pounds on an arm Linux desktop box
instead of a few hundred pounds
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
Sven Luther wrote:
The ftp-masters are mandated by the DPL to handle the debian infrastructure,
not to decide what arches debian should support or not.
This is not the case; ftpmaster's role has historically included at what
point architectures can be included in the archive (and in sh's case, at
I demand that Anthony Towns may or may not have written...
Darren Salt wrote:
I demand that Anthony Towns may or may not have written...
Put them behind a firewall on a trusted LAN, use them to develop software
for arm chips, and then just follow unstable or run
non-security-supported
* Marc Haber [Sun, 20 Mar 2005 17:40:46 +0100]:
Hi,
On a development system, I'd like to have experimental and unstable in
the sources.list, and to have experimental pinned down to a priority
tha experimental is never considered. For certain packages, I'd like
apt to consider experimental as
Hamish Moffatt wrote:
On Sun, Mar 20, 2005 at 09:56:05AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
On Sun, Mar 20, 2005 at 12:00:23PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
But why would you spend over 1000 pounds on an arm Linux desktop box
instead of a few hundred pounds on a random i386 desktop box?
Because
On Mon, Mar 21, 2005 at 01:16:42AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
Sven Luther wrote:
The ftp-masters are mandated by the DPL to handle the debian
infrastructure,
not to decide what arches debian should support or not.
This is not the case; ftpmaster's role has historically included at what
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Torsten Werner [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* Package name: mozilla-firefox-locale-ar
Version : 0.2
Upstream Author : Ayman Hourieh
* URL : http://www.arabeyes.org/project.php?proj=Mozilla
* License : MPL
Description : Mozilla
Why does everyone have a sudden interest in the sparc buildds? It has
always had one buildd until auric was no longer needed for ftp-master.
Things were fine back then, and still fine now. No one complained then,
why is everyone complaining now that I want to put a better single machine
in place?
Matthew Garrett wrote:
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au wrote:
If they can all satisfy the criteria, they're likely to be doing well
enough that there's not much *point* to dropping them -- the reason 11
architectures are hard to manage is because they're not all being
supported at an adequate
On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 17:48:47 +0100, Bartosz Fenski aka fEnIo wrote:
[...]
Description : interactive Imlib2 console for the X Window system
^
Spelling: should be X Window System, with capital 'S'
[ grabbed from project's
[Matthew Garrett]
Constitutionally, I think it makes more sense to devolve it to the
technical committee.
Not sure if I agree. Weighting different interests and prioritizing
betweeen hard choices is a political and not a techincal decition. As
such, it might be better to vetoing to the
Andreas Barth wrote:
* Marco d'Itri ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050319 03:50]:
On Mar 18, Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There would definitely be duplication of arch:all between ftp.debian.org
and ports.debian.org (let's call it ports), as well as duplication of the
source.
As
On Sunday 20 March 2005 12:08, Sven Luther wrote:
On Fri, Mar 18, 2005 at 02:40:34PM +0100, David Schmitt wrote:
On Friday 18 March 2005 13:26, Sven Luther wrote:
And yes, i volunteer to help out NEW handling, if that help is wanted.
Vapourware. I believe that for most packages it is
On 2005-03-15 Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 10:56:51AM +0100, Aurélien Jarno wrote:
[...]
- there should be at least 2N buildd admins for this architecture. A lot
of problems with buildds are caused by buildd admins unavailable at the
same time for a
On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 19:10:24 +0100, Adeodato Simó [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
* Marc Haber [Sun, 20 Mar 2005 17:40:46 +0100]:
On a development system, I'd like to have experimental and unstable in
the sources.list, and to have experimental pinned down to a priority
tha experimental is never
On Sun, Mar 20, 2005 at 10:05:15AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
On Fri, Mar 18, 2005 at 12:06:15PM -0500, David Nusinow wrote:
On Fri, Mar 18, 2005 at 05:43:26PM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
[1] The installer might be a point, but since all sarge architectures
will have a working installer
On 19-Mar-05, 10:00 (CST), Matthias Urlichs [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Umm, rp_filter is for rejecting packets whose *source* address is from the
wrong network.
Right. I know this. But what Joel was originally talking about was
rejection of packets on interface A that are destined for an
David Schmitt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Do you really want to know how many libraries in NEW currently are
waiting for a binary with a new soname?
One:
liboil0.3 0.3.0-1
source i386 unstable
2 months David Schleef #284486
liboil 0.3.1-1
source i386 unstable
2 days David
Ben Collins [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Why does everyone have a sudden interest in the sparc buildds? It has
always had one buildd until auric was no longer needed for ftp-master.
Things were fine back then, and still fine now. No one complained then,
why is everyone complaining now that I
On Mar 20, Andreas Barth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
One _might_ consider to have ports.d.o with the full package pool,
whereas ftp.d.o only consists the most wanted architectures. As a mirror
operator, you can than choose to either just have the most wanted
architectures, all or both.
This
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 Sunday 20 March 2005 16:16, Anthony Towns wrote:
Sven Luther wrote:
[...] and they hold us hostage [...]
Friendly,
It seems odd to pretend to be friendly towards people you consider
hostage takers. Or to call people you claim to be friendly towards
hostage takers.
it's called
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
Guys:
Not my preference to jump in the middle of something, but...
I have a fairly reliable DSL line, with an unused Sun Blade 100 and a
number of ARM and MIPS boards behind it. If anyone wants to help me get
them set up for buildd, drop me an email.
b.g.
Darren Salt wrote:
I demand that
On Sun, Mar 20, 2005 at 09:27:26AM +0100, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
Hi, Peter 'p2' De Schrijver wrote:
This is obviously unacceptable. Why would a small number of people be
allowed to veto inclusion of other people's work ?
Why not? (Assuming they do have a valid reason. For instance, I
* Benjamin Herrenschmidt
| Have we any proper way of doing multiarch setups ? The proper way to
| do ppc64 is to have both archs libs and 32 bits userland for most
| things, as ppc64 native code is slightly slower.
Not at the moment, no. I'm working on multiarch and how to handle it
as my
On Sun, Mar 20, 2005 at 12:11:07PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
On Fri, Mar 18, 2005 at 05:05:07PM +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
And yes, i volunteer to help out NEW handling, if that help is wanted.
Just for the record, not to anyone directly, it just fits here:
This is not how it works.
Ben Collins [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I think they are designed too stringently. Guidelines should describe the
level of stability an arch is required to meet, and let the implementation
be whatever is needed, on a per arch basis, to meet those requirements.
I think a reasonable requirement
-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
On 10234 March 1977, Thomas Bushnell wrote:
It appears that the following are all in NEW because they involve
such upgrades:
clanlib0.7
At least this one looks like a hijack, not coordinated with the
maintainer of clanlib. Atm I know of only one mail in a bugreport.
On the other side he
David Nusinow wrote:
[snip]
This is a non-issue. The main problem was the kernel situation, which will
be
streamlined for etch into a single package, and maybe build issues, which
could be solved by a separate build queue or priority for d-i issues.
You know, you keep saying this and I
Joerg Jaspert [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On 10234 March 1977, Thomas Bushnell wrote:
It appears that the following are all in NEW because they involve
such upgrades:
clanlib0.7
At least this one looks like a hijack, not coordinated with the
maintainer of clanlib. Atm I know of
On Thu, Mar 17, 2005 at 10:40:43AM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
If we don't wait for an arch, it gets out-of-sync quite soon, and due to
e.g. legal requirements, we can't release that arch. (In other words, if
an arch is too long ignored for testing, we should remove it, as we
can't release it
Matthias Urlichs [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
We can't. AFAIK: One or two rsync commands, and *that's*it*.
Any required fanciness need to be done on the master server.
But that's your choice.
--I want to do this thing which you tell me not to do, and it hurts
when I do it.
--So stop doing
On Fri, Mar 18, 2005 at 11:43:48PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
the more or less aspect of the urgency is relevant here. We
obviously have a system for classifying the severity of bugs in
packages, and it's possible to relate these bug severities to the
urgency field in uploads; even assuming
Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I don't think the possibility of something like that being abused is as
strange as you seem to imply. As proof of that statement, I faintly
remember someone doing a gratuitous source upload just to provoke the
buildds...
Of course, there was no abuse
On Sun, 20 Mar 2005, Marc Haber wrote:
Is this documented somewhere? Pinning is such a powerful tool, and
nobody seems to really understand it.
See apt_preferences(5) [specifically the APT's Default Priority
Assignments section.]
Don Armstrong
--
Cheop's Law: Nothing ever gets built on
I think they are designed too stringently. Guidelines should describe the
level of stability an arch is required to meet, and let the implementation
be whatever is needed, on a per arch basis, to meet those requirements.
The guidelines should not say something like needs two buildds minimum,
but
* Ben Collins ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
The guidelines are aimed at the wrong thing is my point.
I agree with this. I also think that this is one of the reasons why
there's been so much uproar about them.
Stephen
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
I demand that Bill Gatliff may or may not have written...
Not my preference to jump in the middle of something, but...
It's not my preference to be Cc'd, particularly when I'd set the
Mail-Followup-To header accordingly... :-\
[snip]
--
| Darren Salt | nr. Ashington, | d
Ben Collins wrote:
These are all rather moot points anyway. We don't have that kind of
redundancy for our own list server, or ftp-master for that matter.
I can't speak for the list server or archives, but for ftp-master and
bugs.d.o we do have redundancy -- the backups of both on merkel are
A much faster solution would be to use distcc or scratchbox for
crosscompiling.
Debian packages cannot be reliably built with a cross-compiler,
because they very frequently need to execute the compiled binaries as
well as just compile them.
Umm, that is the _exactly_ the problem
* Gunnar Wolf ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Most (although not all) of the architectures facing being downgraded
are older, slower hardware, and cannot be readily found. Their build
speed is my main argument against John Goerzen's proposal [1]. Now, I
understand that up to now we have had the
On Sun, Mar 20, 2005 at 01:26:38PM -0500, Ben Collins wrote:
I think they are designed too stringently. Guidelines should describe the
level of stability an arch is required to meet, and let the implementation
be whatever is needed, on a per arch basis, to meet those requirements.
The
On Sun, Mar 20, 2005 at 09:06:23PM +0100, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
David Nusinow wrote:
You know, you keep saying this and I have a really hard time
believing it, although I don't follow the kernel list so please
enlighten me if I'm wrong.
The plan is to profit from better upstream
1 - 100 of 259 matches
Mail list logo
