* Helmut Grohne (hel...@subdivi.de) [150831 16:49]:
> On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 03:04:17PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > minutes from the "32bit architectures in Debian" bof right now.
>
> It is my understanding that it was also agreed that mips and mipsel
>
* Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) [150825 03:09]:
> Andreas Barth writes:
>
> > - for i386, there is still sold new hardware with 32bit-only. Are
> > there open issues for i386 (apart from the 32bit-generic ones)?
> > Discussion that we need to get rid of it o
* Florian Weimer (f...@deneb.enyo.de) [150823 17:02]:
> * Andreas Barth:
>
> > Specific issues:
> > - for i386, there is still sold new hardware with 32bit-only. Are
> > there open issues for i386 (apart from the 32bit-generic ones)?
>
> FWIW, for x32, the securit
Hi together,
minutes from the "32bit architectures in Debian" bof right now.
Andi
32bit architectures in Debian
- 32bit architectures are not going away for the forseeable
- Compiling/Linking is the memory-using issue
- We need a way to compile/link with more memory
Proposal A:
- Use "cross-c
* Daniel Pocock (dan...@pocock.pro) [141112 13:42]:
> On 12/11/14 13:12, zlatan wrote:
> > Please no.
> >
> > We need less and not more layers of governance/'political' complexity
> > in project. Lets stop acting like government and more like community.
>
>
> If a veto facility is created effect
* Steve Langasek (vor...@debian.org) [141110 23:06]:
> On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 09:33:07PM +, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> > [re-adding -devel@]
>
> > On Mon, 2014-11-10 at 21:20 +, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> > > On Mon, 2014-11-10 at 13:08 -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > > > Hi Jonathan,
>
> >
* Don Armstrong (d...@debian.org) [141109 22:22]:
> On Sun, 09 Nov 2014, Josh Triplett wrote:
> > (After repetition of the exact wording of the "We aren't convinced"
> > wording that ended up passing, and people pointing out that it *will* be
> > interpreted as TC opposition to the switch, which su
* Steve Langasek (vor...@debian.org) [141102 19:39]:
> On Sun, Nov 02, 2014 at 06:33:15PM +0100, Jakub Wilk wrote:
> > I found a number of arch!=all packages shipping /usr/share files that vary
> > with architecture in a way indicating an FHS violation.
>
> > Steve Langasek
> >systemd-shim
>
* Thorsten Glaser (t.gla...@tarent.de) [141016 09:39]:
> On Wed, 15 Oct 2014, Andreas Barth wrote:
>
> > Buildd administration — @buildd.debian.org
> > lists a couple of people. And also a working mail address. Contacting
> > people via a role account is always prefered.
* Paul Wise (p...@debian.org) [141015 17:22]:
> [ powerpc buildd admins ]
> According to LDAP it appears to be wouter, he, pkern.
This list is incomplete. There are more people, especially there is a
group who is buildd admin on all buildds, and tends to fix problems if
they are known. (However, t
* Thorsten Glaser (t...@mirbsd.de) [141013 12:05]:
> sbuild/buildd runs apt-get update, but not apt-get *upgrade,
> before each build. But I assume this should not be changed
> either…
>
> So we need either a technical, or a policy-ical, or a human,
> solution to this problem, right?
Or we just h
* Thorsten Glaser (t.gla...@tarent.de) [141015 16:20]:
> On Wed, 15 Oct 2014, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
>
> > Thorsten Glaser (2014-10-15):
> > > Who are powerpc buildd admins, again?
> >
> > Still listed at the same location since last time you asked:
>
> Yeah, I tend to forget it.
>
> > https
* Olav Vitters (o...@vitters.nl) [140808 19:12]:
> [ support for init systems bedside systemd ]
> There was also a question what should happen if *upstream* removes
> support. That's not up to Debian Developers to patch back. Such was
> discussed and clarified. One of the questions that was voted
* Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) [140727 21:51]:
> The timing of migration of the new version of systemd to testing, like
> questions about testing migration in general, is really a release team
> decision.
And the release team has done a decision for the normal case when
bugs are release critical
* Dimitri John Ledkov (x...@debian.org) [140429 23:34]:
> On 29 April 2014 21:02, Thomas Koch wrote:
> > On Tuesday, April 29, 2014 02:26:49 AM Scott Kitterman wrote:
> >> Recently there have been a number of questions about source requirements
> >> for the Debian archive. The FTP master view of
* Stephen Powell (zlinux...@wowway.com) [140329 15:05]:
> On Sat, 29 Mar 2014 01:34:27 -0400 (EDT), Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> >
> > Or connman.
>
> Frankly, I think that the claim that ifupdown is dysfunctional is an
> exaggeration at
> best and untrue at worst. I am not claiming that it is bug f
* Adam D. Barratt (a...@adam-barratt.org.uk) [140126 22:03]:
> On Sun, 2014-01-26 at 21:13 +0100, Karsten Merker wrote:
> > Most older documentation states something like "if
> > things are unclear, just log in and take a look at the official
> > Debian wanna-build installation", but that is of cou
Hi,
* John Paul Adrian Glaubitz (glaub...@physik.fu-berlin.de) [140118 18:26]:
> Unfortunately, this package currently fails to build on the buildds
> while it builds fine when building in a pbuilder environment [1].
Did you try to build it with dpkg-buildpackage -B (i.e. not building
binary-all-
* Niels Thykier (ni...@thykier.net) [131215 12:36]:
> In practise, it has not worked out so well. In my experience, many
> of the Wheezy release goals became "second-rate" goals - we simply
> failed to follow up on those goals as we promised, we would. To me,
> release goals became "that outsta
* Steve Langasek (vor...@debian.org) [120707 22:54]:
> On Fri, Jul 06, 2012 at 10:14:01AM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> > If OTOH we have to pay a fee just for our software to work on platforms
> > that just happen to be using Microsoft’s certificate, this is clearly
> > abusive. I would object
* David Kalnischkies (kalnischk...@gmail.com) [120612 18:03]:
> You need to upgrade to support MultiArch,
> but you need MultiArch to upgrade…
> (beside, how would the detection for such a message look like?)
We had discussed to export foreign-arch packages to the arches
packages files at debconf.
* Raphael Hertzog (hert...@debian.org) [120612 13:10]:
> 1/ we modify dpkg to ignore differences on /usr/share/doc/*/changelog.*gz
> for multi-arch: same packages
Doesn't sound too bad to me, at least for short-term (where I'd tend
to take the changelog-version of the main architecture on installa
* Guillem Jover (guil...@debian.org) [120612 09:00]:
> I disagree placing it in the dpkg database is not helpful, for a user
> or other programs wanting to access that structured package metadata
> it's obviously easier and better to do something like
> «dpkg --show-changelog foo» or «dpkg-query --
* Ian Jackson (ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk) [120611 13:21]:
> Guillem Jover writes ("Re: [xml/sgml-pkgs] Bug#676686: libxslt1.1: libxslt1.1
> binNMU broke multi-arch installability"):
> > As I mentioned in the long ref-counting thread, I strongly disagree this
> > is a correct solution, it ju
* Raphael Hertzog (hert...@debian.org) [120610 20:44]:
> On Sun, 10 Jun 2012, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
> > Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> >
> > > As such, I suggest that we handle "binary rebuild" differently:
> > > - debian/changelog is left unmodified since it's the source changelog
> > > => it define
* Philipp Kern (pk...@debian.org) [120610 14:06]:
> On Sun, Jun 10, 2012 at 01:52:24PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > Perhaps we could add the binNMU entry for the moment and fix the rest
> > later? Or whatever would make you more happy. Just I'd like to be able
> > to
* Guillem Jover (guil...@debian.org) [120610 10:08]:
> As I mentioned in the long ref-counting thread, I strongly disagree this
> is a correct solution, it just seems like a hack to me. Instead I
> think we should consider changelog (and copyright as long as it's in
> machine parseable format) as d
* Henrique de Moraes Holschuh (h...@debian.org) [120609 02:31]:
> We'd just have to teach the tool to binNMU all arches when the target
> package would need it due to multiarch. Release team requests a binNMU of a
> package for some arch, the tool notices it has to do them all because of
> multi-a
* Wouter Verhelst (wou...@debian.org) [120607 16:06]:
> On Fri, Jun 01, 2012 at 07:00:52PM +0300, Serge wrote:
> > 2012/6/1 Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> > > So tmpfs would basically never be used despite the benefits.
> >
> > Well, nobody named the benefits yet.
>
> - It speeds things up, especi
* Joey Hess (jo...@debian.org) [120605 17:53]:
> I've read over this entire bug, and while there are clearly some hard
> problems and a lot of good work shown here, I'm seeing a concerning
> trend throughout it.
I think the issues are now getting way better, with e.g. hillu
uploading new wine vers
* Marco d'Itri (m...@linux.it) [120520 17:31]:
> On May 20, Ben Hutchings wrote:
>
> > > > No, keep i386 userland only. Though we might consider reducing even
> > > > that to a 'partial architecture' that has only libraries (similar to
> > > > ia32-libs today, only cleaner).
> > > Don't you beli
* Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) [120517 19:53]:
> Tollef Fog Heen writes:
>
> > Pushing a signed tag and having source packages and binaries built from
> > that doesn't rely on 3.0 (git), though. «Just» a repository somewhere
> > with hooks that go «oh, a signed tag, let me build a source packa
* Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) [120513 18:52]:
> Carsten Hey writes:
> > * Andreas Barth [2012-05-13 11:06 +0200]:
> >> and let dpkg handle all of that?
>
> > This doesn't look like a task that should be done by dpkg itself;
> > instead debhelper or
* Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) [120512 23:06]:
> Charles Plessy writes:
>
> > Unless we expect that two different binary packages that can be
> > co-installed will distribute the same directory under different
> > ownership or permissions for a good reason, why not simply let dpkg
> > apply own
* Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) [120430 17:09]:
> Riku Voipio writes:
> > Exim in 2012 not supporting 8BITMIME and thus being the last Major MTA
> > forcing quoted-printable conversions to make emails "7bit clean" is
> > quite horribly wrong.
>
> I didn't realize that. I agree, that's an annoy
* Uoti Urpala (uoti.urp...@pp1.inet.fi) [120226 00:29]:
> Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> > Uoti Urpala (26/02/2012):
> > > Is there reason to believe this would be a particular problem with
> > > systemd? Most of the controversy I've seen surrounding Poettering has
> > > been due to people resisting the
* Neil Williams (codeh...@debian.org) [111015 22:23]:
> The problem with "Standard" is that it is currently (and heavily) biased
> towards multi-user servers and most of the replies in this thread which
> decry the absence of an MTA would appear to come from those principally
> concerned with serve
* Florian Weimer (f...@deneb.enyo.de) [111002 21:59]:
> Couldn't we get rid of static libraries altogether, replacing static
> linking with ahead-of-time dynamic linking?
Could you explain what this means for people not so deep into that?
(E.g. how is the linking done? When? What does that mean fo
* Kurt Roeckx (k...@roeckx.be) [110910 15:38]:
> We changed this some time ago and made $arch readable by anybody,
> the mbox's are at:
> buildd.debian.org:/org/buildd.debian.org/mbox/
>
> We've ask the security team to use wb-t...@buildd.debian.org
> instead, which is not public available.
Ok wi
* Stefano Zacchiroli (z...@debian.org) [110908 19:53]:
> On Thu, Sep 08, 2011 at 07:34:41PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > Yes. Because one of the most frequent users is the security team
> > asking where this and that security build is. We don't want that
> >
* Stefano Zacchiroli (z...@debian.org) [110908 19:22]:
> I think maintainers should be empowered more to fiddle with the
> Architecture list of their packages, but also that they should give
> some sort of explanation (as simple as bug report pointers) for the
> architectures they do not su
* Joerg Jaspert (jo...@debian.org) [110903 12:44]:
>
> > Yeah, yeah. We've beaten that horse to death, and our side lost. I also
> > advocate that all debs should be signed, but that was not the will of the
> > ftp-masters the last time the issue was up for discussion.
>
> Thats wrong.
> Since
* Lucas Nussbaum (lu...@lucas-nussbaum.net) [110831 12:07]:
> On 31/08/11 at 11:40 +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > * Lucas Nussbaum (lu...@lucas-nussbaum.net) [110831 07:34]:
> > > Being in the second set would be fine, and would not be a step towards
> > > being thrown
* Lucas Nussbaum (lu...@lucas-nussbaum.net) [110831 07:34]:
> Regarding architectures, we made releases with a semi-official status on
> two occasions at least (etch-m68k and kfreebsd in squeeze).
I hope you see the difference between etch-m68k and kbsd.
Kbsd is "too new", whereas etch-m68k was (
* Lucas Nussbaum (lu...@lucas-nussbaum.net) [110831 10:56]:
> Also, in the case of architectures targetted at embedded systems (I'm
> thinking about mips and mipsel), what is important is that Debian
> infrastructure supports the development of those architectures, but I
> don't think that there's
* Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) [110829 20:42]:
> Samuel Thibault writes:
> > Lucas Nussbaum, le Mon 29 Aug 2011 16:49:17 +0200, a écrit :
>
> >> Those packages should be set Not-For-Us anyway, no? So they still need
> >> an action from porters or buildd maintainers.
>
> > We want to avoid Not-
* Lucas Nussbaum (lu...@lucas-nussbaum.net) [110829 13:10]:
> If you take a list of packages that failed on $PORTER_ARCH, but built
> fine on at least two or three other architectures, do you really expect
> to get many false positives (i.e, non-arch-specific problems)?
If we have methods which pr
* Lucas Nussbaum (lu...@lucas-nussbaum.net) [110829 08:59]:
> I'd like to reinforce the fact that it's the porters' responsibility
> to investigate porters issues, and propose the following
> responsibilities:
> (1) It is the responsibility of porters to:
> - track architecture-specific bugs (
* Henrique de Moraes Holschuh (h...@debian.org) [110820 14:39]:
> Yes. And we can easily maintain a current one for Debian-packaged software,
> although the initial build of such a blacklist will take some work.
Actually, the existing interface net.ipv4.ip_local_port_range seems to
work quite wel
* Lars Wirzenius (l...@liw.fi) [110815 23:27]:
> On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 11:04:51PM +0200, Carsten Hey wrote:
> > * Lars Wirzenius [2011-08-15 18:33 +0100]:
> > > raw gz xz
> > > 584163 134 file sizes (MiB)
> > >0421 450 savings compared to raw (Mi
* Lars Wirzenius (l...@liw.fi) [110815 19:36]:
> 584163 134 file sizes (MiB)
Thanks for comparing these numbers. That tells me that at least in the
average case we just can continue with gz, and not care much about the
relativly small difference to xz.
Andi
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE,
* Joey Hess (jo...@debian.org) [110815 18:32]:
> Andreas Barth wrote:
> > Also, the binary packages in the debian/control template could have
> > Build-Depends specified which means that they should only be built if
> > those packages are actually installed (so we could do a
* Roger Leigh (rle...@codelibre.net) [110815 17:12]:
> Are these any other downsides we need to consider? One issue is the
> existence of badly broken programs³, which make stupid assumptions
> about lockfiles.
This will break all existing programms on an partial upgrades. There
are three ways to
* Carsten Hey (cars...@debian.org) [110815 14:36]:
> * Andreas Barth [2011-08-15 13:46 +0200]:
> > * Carsten Hey (cars...@debian.org) [110815 13:36]:
> > > An optional "Build-Depends:" field per binary package as you described
> > > is essentially the sa
* Carsten Hey (cars...@debian.org) [110815 13:36]:
> An optional "Build-Depends:" field per binary package as you described
> is essentially the same as the following, with the notable difference,
> that the below could appear as it is in the output of, i.e., apt-cache
> showsrc without requiring m
* Steve McIntyre (st...@einval.com) [110815 12:30]:
> Andreas Barth wrote:
> >Generic options are usually better IMHO, but well - YMMV.
>
> Often, yes. But also often at extra cost.
No doubt about that.
> Where is the added benefit
> here - i.e. what are the use cases?
* Steve McIntyre (st...@einval.com) [110815 12:27]:
> Eugene V. Lyubimkin wrote:
> >Source: fbreader
> >Build-Depends-Core: debhelper (>= 7), libbz2-dev
> >Build-Depends-Qt3: libqt3-mt-dev
> >Build-Depends-Qt4: libqt4-dev
> >Build-Depends-Gtk2: libgtk2.0-dev
> I can see this turning into a large m
* Joachim Breitner (nome...@debian.org) [110813 16:05]:
> Hi,
>
> just a minor note:
>
> Am Samstag, den 13.08.2011, 13:28 +0200 schrieb Andreas Barth:
> > To mark such packages and to be able to decide when to re-schedule the
> > build, all binary-packages get the ad
* Colin Watson (cjwat...@debian.org) [110813 15:27]:
> On Sat, Aug 13, 2011 at 01:28:36PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > During bootstraping a new architecture, there are sometimes ugly
> > build-dependency-loops (usually involving generating documentation
> > for the core
* Eugene V. Lyubimkin (jac...@debian.org) [110813 14:58]:
> On 2011-08-13 13:28, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > Building with core Dependencies only
> >
> > If doing an build of the core functionality only, norecommends is
> > added to the environment DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS. This
Hi,
During bootstraping a new architecture, there are sometimes ugly
build-dependency-loops (usually involving generating documentation
for the core build utilities means you need to have the architecture
already available; same with graphical tools). During DebConf, Wookey
had a talk which lead
* Simon McVittie (s...@debian.org) [110724 23:52]:
> On Sun, 24 Jul 2011 at 21:59:40 +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > even init.d has a documented (and what's
> > more, actually *working*) implementation of not starting daemons at
> > boot. It's called 'remove the *** symlink'.
>
> If you rem
* Joey Hess (jo...@debian.org) [110719 22:52]:
> Andreas Barth wrote:
> > The decision is already taken that Debian can run on BSD kernels. So
> > if someone wants to revert that decision, it'd need an GR. Not the
> > other way.
>
> That decision was made wit
* Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) [110719 01:36]:
> Uoti Urpala writes:
> > I know I would personally be a lot happier with a Debian that supports
> > systemd functionality than with a Debian that can run on a BSD kernel.
>
> Well, while we're putting stakes in the ground, I suppose I'll hammer mi
* Don Armstrong (d...@debian.org) [110607 18:11]:
> On Tue, 07 Jun 2011, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > * Don Armstrong (d...@debian.org) [110607 04:25]:
> > > On Mon, 06 Jun 2011, Philipp Kern wrote:
> > > > I.e. I think we should still allow non-buildd binaries, e.
* Don Armstrong (d...@debian.org) [110607 04:25]:
> On Mon, 06 Jun 2011, Philipp Kern wrote:
> > I.e. I think we should still allow non-buildd binaries, e.g. for
> > those cases you mentioned.
>
> Non-buildd binaries should still be allowed, but they should be
> followed immediately by a binNMU. [
* René Mayorga (rmayo...@debian.org) [110503 22:52]:
> On Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 12:56:15PM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> > On Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 12:07:24PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > >
> > > I think it would make quite sense to get something like e.g. ppa
* Lucas Nussbaum (lu...@lucas-nussbaum.net) [110503 11:47]:
> On 02/05/11 at 16:19 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > Lucas Nussbaum writes:
> >
> > > [ Note that my position is based on the assumption that we have a share
> > > of DDs interested in rolling similar to the share of DDs interested in
>
* Scott Kitterman (deb...@kitterman.com) [110502 19:32]:
> If one could do something like:
>
> wb gb libieee1284 mod-wsgi nflog-bindings zinnia . ia64 . !caballero
good idea. I'll consider how to do that.
Andi
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject o
* Jan Hauke Rahm (j...@debian.org) [110502 19:22]:
> On Mon, May 02, 2011 at 07:16:47PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > > I guess I'm misunderstanding you here, so please help me out. If a
> > > package is being worked on in different PPAs regarding different
&
* Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt (h...@ftwca.de) [110502 09:12]:
> Pierre Habouzit writes:
> > - PPA should focus on:
> > * co-installability when endurable;
> > * documented and working rollback to unstable (IOW downgrading a
> > package to unstable when co-installability is not pos
* Joey Hess (jo...@debian.org) [110501 22:36]:
> The problem with the moving target is that it means that d-i betas begin
> to be broken as time goes on after their release, starting with the
> smallest boot images and moving up to the netinst images.
We could e.g. create an copy of testing at the
* Jan Hauke Rahm (j...@debian.org) [110502 18:34]:
> On Sun, May 01, 2011 at 06:34:02PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > * Raphael Hertzog (hert...@debian.org) [110501 18:23]:
> > > - APT entry to add (i.e. URL of the PPA so that the buildd can fetch
> > > build-depe
* Roger Leigh (rle...@codelibre.net) [110501 19:04]:
> WRT the signing key, there would need to be some form of trust path
> or else the signature would be worthless. If packages are being
> uploaded to Debian infrastructure, and are under our control, can't
> we use a single signing key? We pres
* Roger Leigh (rle...@codelibre.net) [110501 18:46]:
> On Sun, May 01, 2011 at 06:34:02PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > * Raphael Hertzog (hert...@debian.org) [110501 18:23]:
> > > On Sun, 01 May 2011, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > > How can we submit jobs to a buildd?
&g
* Stéphane Glondu (glo...@debian.org) [110501 18:24]:
> Le 01/05/2011 17:16, Andreas Barth a écrit :
> > Well yes, but how many autobuilding suites should we add? 50? 100?
> > 200? How do we do key management so that we know that the autobuilder
> > build the packages that
* Raphael Hertzog (hert...@debian.org) [110501 18:23]:
> On Sun, 01 May 2011, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > However, to get that done right for multiple software is not so easy.
> > But please prove me wrong - as soon as 2. is done, I'm happy to help
> > setting up autobuil
* Stéphane Glondu (glo...@debian.org) [110501 17:00]:
> Le 01/05/2011 15:34, Andreas Barth a écrit :
> > 1. How to push from a vcs (git, svn, ...) to ppa? (This should be
> > coordinated with ftp-masters, so that the same method could be used
> > later on for uploading into
* Ian Jackson (ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk) [110501 16:39]:
> Steve Langasek writes ("Re: Bug#621833: System users: removing them"):
> > On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 09:31:47PM +0200, sean finney wrote:
> > > I second your original proposal though, that packages must not delete
> > > system users th
* Stefano Zacchiroli (z...@debian.org) [110501 16:12]:
> On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 06:05:35PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
> > > In the Squeeze release we have done better than before by calling for
> > > explicit upgrade testing (kudos to the Release Team!), but a specific
> > > plan of alpha/beta/... mi
* Pierre Habouzit (madco...@madism.org) [110501 01:32]:
> - link that PPA stuff to the main repository in a way that "merging"
> PPA into unstable is just a matter of one single command, or a few.
>
> - make it easy for users to subscribe to PPAs, meaning you have to
> have some kind o
* Roger Leigh (rle...@codelibre.net) [110501 15:08]:
> Even if the NSS situation changes, surely it's immediately obvious
> that a random library function should not tamper with the uid of a
> process as a side-effect? Unless the caller explicitly requested
> dropping of root privs, no library has
* Marc Haber (mh+debian-de...@zugschlus.de) [110501 14:16]:
> On Sat, 30 Apr 2011 16:48:24 +0200, Andreas Barth
> wrote:
> >Actually, it worked quite well for both volatile and backports to
> >start as a non-official service.
>
> Agreed for backports, violently disagree
* Roger Leigh (rle...@codelibre.net) [110501 12:02]:
> I just wanted to add that if you would like more statistics reporting
> for this purpose, I'll be happy to add that to sbuild.
I only worry about the ~20-40 packages that are currently sitting in
some no_auto_build on the buildds. Not more but
* Raphael Hertzog (hert...@debian.org) [110501 08:41]:
> Fixing RC bugs in testing and getting new upstream versions that are
> ready in testing is not a burden for developers, it's what we're
> supposed to do to ensure we can release as quickly as possible.
Who is the "we" you are speaking about
* Ingo Jürgensmann (i...@2011.bluespice.org) [110501 11:55]:
> On Sun, 1 May 2011 01:36:38 +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
>> Now, what I would like to do is to write that down in a central file
>> with categories.
>
> I would recommend to use a database, really.
Sorry, but
* Pierre Habouzit (madco...@madism.org) [110501 01:32]:
> back a few versions. I couldn't care about testing any less. And at
> work, every person I know either uses just stable or does the same as
> me. I know no testing user around me. Of course I'm not pretending I
> know the absolute Truth, but
Hi,
I have a problem I need to solve in perl within wanna-build:
Sometimes we have a few packages we don't want to build on a certain
buildds. Sometimes this is because this package needs lots of ram. Or
it takes quite long and would waste the parallel building a machine
supports. Or whatever els
* Raphael Hertzog (hert...@debian.org) [110430 20:51]:
> Hi Andreas,
>
> On Sat, 30 Apr 2011, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > Actually, it worked quite well for both volatile and backports to
> > start as a non-official service. As well as building packages in
> > non-free. An
* Mike Hommey (m...@glandium.org) [110430 17:57]:
> On Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 02:18:06PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > * Mike Hommey (m...@glandium.org) [110430 13:28]:
> > > On Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 01:06:57PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > > > * Mike Hommey (m.
* Arno Töll (deb...@toell.net) [110430 17:46]:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 30.04.2011 16:48, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > Actually, it worked quite well for both volatile and backports to
> > start as a non-official service. As well as building
* Arno Töll (deb...@toell.net) [110430 15:17]:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 30.04.2011 14:36, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > Feel free to use rolling.debian.net, set it up and have success. Like
> > aj did with setting up testing (after froz
* Raphael Hertzog (hert...@debian.org) [110430 14:28]:
> On Sat, 30 Apr 2011, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > * Raphael Hertzog (hert...@debian.org) [110430 09:46]:
> > > > Who is going to install a "rolling" release instead of "testing"?
> > >
> &
* Mike Hommey (m...@glandium.org) [110430 13:28]:
> On Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 01:06:57PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > * Mike Hommey (m...@glandium.org) [110430 12:16]:
> > > That being said, it would be really helpful to be able to get buildds
> > > to bui
* Mike Hommey (m...@glandium.org) [110430 12:16]:
> That being said, it would be really helpful to be able to get buildds
> to build the mozilla.d.n packages...
Would it work to build the packages in unstable? If so, why not
uploading them to experimental and re-branding them in mozilla.d.n?
And
* Stefano Zacchiroli (lea...@debian.org) [110430 12:56]:
> What we lack for that to become a reality is "just" the code. Marc and
> Tollef had set up a nice proposal [1] for GSoC this year and were
> willing to mentor it, but unfortunately no student has shown up. If
> there are people willing to c
* Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) [110430 09:54]:
> I think this is a fairly small portion of our developer base, and most
> developers do care about testing and pursue issues, particularly when
> informed of them by the excellent mail messages letting people know that
> packages haven't migrated as
* Philipp Kern (tr...@philkern.de) [110430 09:49]:
> It's not that it isn't meant. Of course we could also look at overlay
> solutions. (That said, while I'm very happy about mozilla.debian.net, I
> somehow still feel that those packages should be added in a co-installable way
> into some officia
* Raphael Hertzog (hert...@debian.org) [110430 09:46]:
> > Who is going to install a "rolling" release instead of "testing"?
>
> If we change our documentation to say that rolling can be used by anyone
> who likes a constantly evolving distribution (and can live with the
> occasionnal hiccup) and
* Stefano Zacchiroli (z...@debian.org) [110429 14:22]:
> In general we need to promote the reduction of (potential) bottlenecks
> in Debian rather than the contrary. ... and don't get me wrong: I'm very
> well aware that this specific "bottleneck" is a very good feature to
> have for the preparatio
1 - 100 of 669 matches
Mail list logo
