On Tue, Nov 16, 2004 at 01:10:41PM +0900, Mike Hommey wrote:
On Mon, Nov 15, 2004 at 12:24:38PM +, Colin Watson wrote:
On Wed, Nov 10, 2004 at 10:51:39AM +0100, Jordi Mallach wrote:
The GNOME team have been talking about what the chances are of having
GNOME 2.8 uploaded to unstable
On Mon, Nov 22, 2004 at 03:34:07 -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Tue, Nov 16, 2004 at 01:10:41PM +0900, Mike Hommey wrote:
and they also got a lot of testing (at least libxml2), considering how
many times the libxml2 2.6.15 breakage has been reported.
What breakage is that?
A version of
hoi :)
On Tue, Nov 16, 2004 at 08:07:40PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
On Tue, Nov 16, 2004 at 02:17:10PM +0100, Jordi Mallach wrote:
- due to Sarge's official kernel being 2.4.x, we'll keep magicdev as the
default device mounting program for now, despite it's clearly inferior
to
On Wed, Nov 17, 2004 at 03:56:37PM +0100, Martin Waitz wrote:
hoi :)
On Tue, Nov 16, 2004 at 08:07:40PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
On Tue, Nov 16, 2004 at 02:17:10PM +0100, Jordi Mallach wrote:
- due to Sarge's official kernel being 2.4.x, we'll keep magicdev as the
default device
On Wed, Nov 17, 2004 at 04:13:46PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
Can this not be made arch conditional ? I don't know how such alternatives
live with arch conditional things. is this :
magicdev | g-v-m [!powerpc], g-v-m | magicdev [powerpc] allowed ?
It is for build-depends, but not for
Wouter Verhelst wrote:
magicdev | g-v-m [!powerpc], g-v-m | magicdev [powerpc] allowed ?
It is for build-depends, but not for plain depends. If you need that,
you need to generate your depends header at build time, and need
arch:any packages instead of arch:all ones (which isn't
On Tue, Nov 16, 2004 at 01:10:41PM +0900, Mike Hommey wrote:
Alternatively, if someone with a sparc could make the build, i'd be very
happy (joshk tried (many thanks), but has not enough memory,
unfortunately).
Forget the firefox thing, joshk did succeed (many many thanks).
Mike
Op di, 16-11-2004 te 00:51 +0100, schreef Sven Luther:
I was also under the impression (from joeyh, but he did speak about .udebs),
that it also affected priority of the autobuilders in some way, that is
higher urgency packages get prioritized higher in the autobuilder queues.
But naturally,
Wouter Verhelst wrote:
Op di, 16-11-2004 te 00:51 +0100, schreef Sven Luther:
I was also under the impression (from joeyh, but he did speak about .udebs),
that it also affected priority of the autobuilders in some way, that is
higher urgency packages get prioritized higher in the
On Tue, 2004-11-16 at 13:12 +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
Op di, 16-11-2004 te 12:57 +0100, schreef Martin Schulze:
Wouter Verhelst wrote:
It is. This is a myth which orignated due to the fact that my
wanna-build documentation at
http://people.d.o/~wouter/wanna-build-states used to say
Hi!
On Mon, Nov 15, 2004 at 04:21:20AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
For the benefit of those following the discussion who haven't already heard
via IRC or otherwise, I suppose I should mention here that the release team
is running out of objections to GNOME 2.8 in unstable that the GNOME team
Op di, 16-11-2004 te 06:44 -0600, schreef Ron Johnson:
On Tue, 2004-11-16 at 13:12 +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
Op di, 16-11-2004 te 12:57 +0100, schreef Martin Schulze:
Wouter Verhelst wrote:
It is. This is a myth which orignated due to the fact that my
wanna-build documentation at
On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 14:17:10 +0100, Jordi Mallach wrote:
Hi!
On Mon, Nov 15, 2004 at 04:21:20AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
*nod*. For -gtk-gnome readers, this involves a few things for meta-gnome2.
Why don't you have a 'meta-gnome2.6' and a 'meta-gnome2.8' with
meta-gnome2 itself
On Tue, Nov 16, 2004 at 02:17:10PM +0100, Jordi Mallach wrote:
- due to Sarge's official kernel being 2.4.x, we'll keep magicdev as the
default device mounting program for now, despite it's clearly inferior
to gnome-volume-manager. g-v-m depends on hal/dbus/udev, and would
also make
El mar, 16-11-2004 a las 14:25 +0100, Wouter Verhelst escribió:
Op di, 16-11-2004 te 06:44 -0600, schreef Ron Johnson:
On Tue, 2004-11-16 at 13:12 +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
Op di, 16-11-2004 te 12:57 +0100, schreef Martin Schulze:
Wouter Verhelst wrote:
It is. This is a myth
Steve Langasek wrote:
For the benefit of those following the discussion who haven't already heard
via IRC or otherwise,
Thanks for that.
Second, KDE in unstable is not a good model to follow. Between longstanding
FTBFS bugs that ensured KDE 3.3 could not migrate to testing regardless
On Mon, Nov 15, 2004 at 07:38:59PM +0200, Martin-Éric Racine wrote:
On Mon, 15 Nov 2004, Colin Watson wrote:
* Please make sure to get all the libraries through as quickly as
possible to reduce the impact on the rest of the distribution.
Upload with urgency=low to start with, but
On Mon, 15 Nov 2004, Colin Watson wrote:
* Please make sure to get all the libraries through as quickly as
possible to reduce the impact on the rest of the distribution.
Upload with urgency=low to start with, but we may be willing to
speed things up once we see that things are
On Mon, Nov 15, 2004 at 05:48:44PM +, Colin Watson wrote:
On Mon, Nov 15, 2004 at 07:38:59PM +0200, Martin-Éric Racine wrote:
On Mon, 15 Nov 2004, Colin Watson wrote:
* Please make sure to get all the libraries through as quickly as
possible to reduce the impact on the rest of
On Tue, Nov 16, 2004 at 12:51:27AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
On Mon, Nov 15, 2004 at 05:48:44PM +, Colin Watson wrote:
On Mon, Nov 15, 2004 at 07:38:59PM +0200, Martin-Éric Racine wrote:
This point is self-contradictory and spells disaster:
1) You cannot have a rapid deployment
On Mon, Nov 15, 2004 at 12:24:38PM +, Colin Watson wrote:
On Wed, Nov 10, 2004 at 10:51:39AM +0100, Jordi Mallach wrote:
The GNOME team have been talking about what the chances are of having
GNOME 2.8 uploaded to unstable since it was released upstream early in
September.
All right,
Some comments from someone external to debian :
Jordi Mallach wrote:
Hello release team,
The GNOME team have been talking about what the chances are of having
GNOME 2.8 uploaded to unstable since it was released upstream early in
September.
Might personnal wishes would be to have the most
On Sat, Nov 13, 2004 at 12:52:12PM +0100, Fabrice LORRAIN (home) wrote:
This is wrong. Debian IS stable. The current debian users are the one
using woody. People using experimental are in limbo. The ones using sid
are alpha-testers. The ones using sarge are beta-testers. If DDs ever
forget
On Wed, 10 Nov 2004, Jordi Mallach wrote:
The GNOME team have been talking about what the chances are of having
GNOME 2.8 uploaded to unstable since it was released upstream early in
September.
While two months ago we never consider this to be a real possibility for
various reasons, today
, aliviating most of these
problems, but the reality is that there isn't a fixed freeze date yet.
We've tested upgrades and migrations, both complete and partial, from
2.6 to 2.8 and apparently everything is solid, so we'd like to get
permission to upload GNOME 2.8 to unstable, and try to get it in Sarge
[ Small suggestion ahead ]
Jordi Mallach wrote:
Debian users _are_ using GNOME 2.8, and while it's available in
experimental, it's a pain for them as there's no optimal way of
maintaining an up to date GNOME 2.8 dekstop easily unless completely
upgrading to experimental.
A Componentized
On Wed, 2004-11-10 at 10:51 +0100, Jordi Mallach wrote:
Debian users _are_ using GNOME 2.8, and while it's available in
experimental, it's a pain for them as there's no optimal way of
maintaining an up to date GNOME 2.8 dekstop easily unless completely
upgrading to experimental.
I mostly
is solid, so we'd like to get
permission to upload GNOME 2.8 to unstable, and try to get it in Sarge
as quick as possible.
If we get your OK to do the upload, my personal opinion is that once 2.8
is in unstable, it'd be difficult to not end up shipping with GNOME 2.8
in sarge, as the new
28 matches
Mail list logo
