On Fri, 2018-09-28 at 14:16 +0200, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
> So, it's not always a purely technical decision whether a port
> remains a release architecture. It's also often highly political and
> somehow also influenced by commercial entities.
Please don't make implications like that
On Fri, 2018-06-29 at 11:44 +0100, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
[...]
> On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 10:35 AM, Adam D. Barratt
> wrote:
>
> > > what is the reason why that package is not moving forward?
> >
> > I assume you're referring to the dpkg upload t
On Fri, 2018-06-29 at 10:20 +0100, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
[...]
> debian-riscv has been repeatedly asking for a single zero-impact
> line
> to be included in *one* file in *one* dpkg-related package which
> would
> allow riscv to stop being a NMU architecture and become part of
>
On Fri, 2016-09-30 at 19:04 +, Niels Thykier wrote:
> As for "porter qualification"
> =
>
> We got burned during the Jessie release, where a person answered the
> roll call for sparc and we kept sparc as a release architecture for
> Jessie. However, we ended up
On 2015-10-23 11:56, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
On Fri, 23 Oct 2015, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
I didn't say once per arch. I said once per package, which is worse. I
normally
schedule binNMUs for several dozens packages. Multiply that by several
But you need to look the number up anyway?
On 2015-10-23 13:28, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
[...]
On Fri, 23 Oct 2015, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
[...]
It's also not quite that simple, even working things out by hand - see
#599128
for example.
Hm, I’m still under the impression that the +bN suffix to the Debian
version of the package
On 2015-10-23 12:02, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
On Fri, 23 Oct 2015, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
wanna-build does, yes, but at least the Release Team tend to use the
"wb"
wrapper tool which automatically works out the next free number on
each
architecture.
Ah, cool – so we have onl
On Sat, 2014-05-31 at 00:42 +0200, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
On 30/05/14 17:57, Steven Chamberlain wrote:
On 16:01, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
Just a reminder: there are still various things depending on the removed
packages, preventing things from migrating to testing.
Do you
On 19.05.2012 19:04, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
Very quickly following up on a possible nomenclature issue and a
couple
of other things.
On Sat, 2012-05-19 at 17:29 +0200, Samuel Thibault wrote:
- We of course aim at tech preview for wheezy only, not a full
release. Our goal is to establish
annoyingly unthreaded. You also didn't copy -hurd on
your forward...
On Thu, 2012-05-24 at 18:08 +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
I'm not sure we've ever released with an architecture which was in
either broken or fucked, but hopefully someone will correct me if I'm
mistaken on that.
Anyone
Hi,
Very quickly following up on a possible nomenclature issue and a couple
of other things.
On Sat, 2012-05-19 at 17:29 +0200, Samuel Thibault wrote:
- We of course aim at tech preview for wheezy only, not a full
release. Our goal is to establish a testing distribution for wheezy
which does
Hi,
With the sound of the ever approaching freeze ringing loudly in our ears,
we're (somewhat belatedly) looking at finalising the list of release
architectures for the Wheezy release.
Comments on / additions and corrections to the content of
http://release.debian.org/wheezy/arch_qualify.html
On Fri, 19 Aug 2011 12:30:07 +0200, Samuel Thibault wrote:
reassign 627103 hurd
fixed 627103 20110519-2
thanks
It seems I had missed that bug report. This should be already fixed
since June actually.
Are you sure? hurd 20110519-3 still depends on random-egd, and that
package still doesn't
On Wed, 2011-03-02 at 02:34 +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
I'll make gcc-4.5 the default for (at least some) architectures within the
next
two weeks before more transitions start. GCC-4.5 is already used as the
default
compiler for almost any other distribution, so there shouldn't be many
14 matches
Mail list logo
