On Tue, May 22, 2001 at 08:02:17PM +0100, Julian Gilbey wrote:
If you have the time to sit down and do the jobs you've just listed,
fantastic, please do it [...]
Well, I already have my hands full with release trivia, but there are
definitely some things I can do. My concern has been that the
On Mon, May 21, 2001 at 07:24:35PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
But, basically, you don't need to waste time getting permission for doing
this: if it's the right thing to do (and a superficial study seems to
indicate that it is) just go ahead and do it.
On Tue, May 22, 2001 at 09:48:32AM
On Tue, May 22, 2001 at 01:28:08AM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
Personally, I'd've thought policy was the exact list to discuss this
on and get consensus: it's implementation of a technical change that
effects a number of packages and has a real need to be documented (since
not having it
On Tue, May 22, 2001 at 01:28:08AM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
I don't think that you should ever consider policy to completely cover
all release issues. Use it as a checklist, certainly, but its value
comes from its stability -- making last minute changes to policy makes
about as much
You are the release manager. File the bugs, declare them
release critical [...]
Anthony Towns wrote:
Okay. Whatever. I really don't have the patience for -policy anymore.
On Sun, May 20, 2001 at 10:17:48PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
You know, neither do I. Manoj, have fun waiting until
On Sun, 20 May 2001, Anthony Towns wrote:
You are the release manager. File the bugs, declare them
release critical [...]
Okay. Whatever. I really don't have the patience for -policy anymore.
I agree with Manoj on this. task packages exist potato and woody. That means
we have to
On Sun, May 20, 2001 at 11:55:21AM -0500, Adam Heath wrote:
On Sun, 20 May 2001, Anthony Towns wrote:
You are the release manager. File the bugs, declare them
release critical [...]
Okay. Whatever. I really don't have the patience for -policy anymore.
I agree with Manoj on this. task
On Mon, 21 May 2001 18:04:42 +1000
Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, May 20, 2001 at 11:55:21AM -0500, Adam Heath wrote:
Upgrading from potato to woody and beyond works fine, nothing breaks,
you merely don't get your tasks to upgrade cleanly by simply using apt.
Isn't that
On Mon, May 21, 2001 at 01:10:41AM -0700, Alexander Hvostov wrote:
On Sun, May 20, 2001 at 11:55:21AM -0500, Adam Heath wrote:
Upgrading from potato to woody and beyond works fine, nothing breaks,
you merely don't get your tasks to upgrade cleanly by simply using apt.
Isn't that generally
Joey == Joey Hess [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Joey Anthony Towns wrote:
You are the release manager. File the bugs, declare them
release critical [...]
Okay. Whatever. I really don't have the patience for -policy anymore.
Joey You know, neither do I.
Ah. The Things aren't
Raul == Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Raul That's what change logs are for. Perhaps there should be a
Raul release-oriented changelog?
Raul It does seem reasonable that we should have some sort of
Raul queuing mechanism to park proposed policy changes as they're
Raul tried out, but
On 19.V.2001 at 11:27 Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Anton Zinoviev [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
For example what display manager we will choose: gdm, kdm, wdm or xdm?
Maybe gdm, because it provides session menu, but it looks to me a little
buggy. I'm giving this only as an example. Surely
On Mon, May 21, 2001 at 06:04:42PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
Please go back and reread the thread about this immediately after
potato's release: the problem with tasks as they existed for potato
was that they make it very hard to cope with RC bugs in packages in
a task. If any one package
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hi,
Anthony == Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Anthony Because tasks are an important component of making the
Anthony installer usable, and they're currently completely broken
Anthony (in that around half of the existing tasks in sid simply
Anthony
You are the release manager. File the bugs, declare them
release critical [...]
Okay. Whatever. I really don't have the patience for -policy anymore.
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail
Anthony Towns wrote:
You are the release manager. File the bugs, declare them
release critical [...]
Okay. Whatever. I really don't have the patience for -policy anymore.
You know, neither do I. Manoj, have fun waiting until woody + 2 or
whenever you want and then documenting
On 16.V.2001 at 22:43 Joey Hess wrote:
+
+ p
+ You should not tag any packages as belonging to a task before
+ this has been discussed on the `debian-devel' mailing list and
+ a consensus about doing that has been reached.
+ /p
A consensus is
Anton Zinoviev [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
For example what display manager we will choose: gdm, kdm, wdm or xdm?
Maybe gdm, because it provides session menu, but it looks to me a little
buggy. I'm giving this only as an example. Surely there will be
conflicts.
What does it mean that gdm
On Sat, May 19, 2001 at 07:55:13PM +0300, Anton Zinoviev wrote:
A maintainer can and may not be aware of the needs of some task. An
example: why the maintainer of recode should know that some of the
filters of magicfilter needs recode and that magicfilter belongs to the
task printing?
Hmm...
Hi,
Joey == Joey Hess [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Mind you, I like the proposal, and were it not for the issue
of timing, I would probably have seconded this.
Joey It's all about timing, unfortunatly -- we have to get this done before
Joey woody base is frozen, and that includes getting the
On Sat, May 19, 2001 at 03:32:17PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
But what's the driving necessity to get this into policy in a
hurry?
Because tasks are an important component of making the installer usable,
and they're currently completely broken (in that around half of the
existing
Hi Joey!
You wrote:
After a lot of discussion, AJ and I have settled on a compromise that is
acceptable to both of us about what to do to fix Debian's broken[1] task
system.
snip
Looks great to me. I second it.
--
Kind regards,
On Wed, May 16, 2001 at 10:43:31PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
After a lot of discussion, AJ and I have settled on a compromise that is
acceptable to both of us about what to do to fix Debian's broken[1] task
system.
imageryDusk. A siren squealing in the distance, maybe police, maybe
ambulance,
On Wed, 16 May 2001, Joey Hess wrote:
--- policy.sgml.orig Tue May 15 21:57:25 2001
+++ policy.sgml Tue May 15 22:14:28 2001
@@ -1024,6 +1024,38 @@
/p
/sect1
+sect1
+ headingTasks/heading
+
+ p
+ The Debian install process allows the
[Sorry if I'm talking nonsense here; I've only recently started reading
debian-policy again, so I may be further out of touch than I think.]
On Thu, May 17, 2001 at 05:46:48PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
Rather than having task packages any more, individual packages that
belong to a task
Hi,
Should we not wait until we have a working system before we
write this down in stone? It seems likely that we shall have design
tweaks as we work through implementing this, and once the design and
the interfaces have stabilized would be the time to propose this as
policy. This is
On Thu, May 17, 2001 at 11:18:17PM +0100, Charles Briscoe-Smith wrote:
Since the task wouldn't actually be installed in any permanent sense
(there's no task package to install), upgrading a task would probably
just consist of selecting it again with tasksel.
Well, it depends how/if you want
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Should we not wait until we have a working system before we
write this down in stone? It seems likely that we shall have design
tweaks as we work through implementing this, and once the design and
the interfaces have stabilized would be the time to propose
Package: debian-policy
Severity: wishlist
Introduction:
After a lot of discussion, AJ and I have settled on a compromise that is
acceptable to both of us about what to do to fix Debian's broken[1] task
system.
Essentially, we propose throwing out all existing task packages, no
longer using
29 matches
Mail list logo
