On Mon, Mar 05, 2007 at 06:18:56PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Anthony Towns writes:
> > I'd love to be proved wrong on kfreebsd's value to users and the project.
> I'd personally find it frustrating and demoralizing if, after working
> really hard on a project for quite some time, I asked for it
Anthony Towns writes:
> I'd love to be proved wrong on kfreebsd's value to users and the project.
I'm having a hard time figuring out, from this thread, what would
constitute proof for you. Are you looking specifically for high popcon
numbers? Lots of developers stepping forward and saying the
On Mon, Mar 05, 2007 at 10:33:40AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> kfreebsd is working at least as well as hurd.
I would have said better, currently.
Hurd's sat in the archive for almost a decade without without managing a
release or, as far as I've seen, being a feasible alternative operating
sys
Anthony Towns writes:
> On Mon, Mar 05, 2007 at 08:29:30AM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
>> And if you think that some of those goals are not reached,
> I would much rather be swept off my feet by how clearly the goals have
> been reached, beyond my wildest expectations. Surely if kfreebsd is
>
On Tue, Mar 06, 2007 at 12:29:58AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 05, 2007 at 08:29:30AM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> > > > Why did we do SCC for then ?
> > > So that we could cope with the increasing size of the archive.
> > The announce mentioned the possibility to add some suites d
On Mon, Mar 05, 2007 at 08:29:30AM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> > > Why did we do SCC for then ?
> > So that we could cope with the increasing size of the archive.
> The announce mentioned the possibility to add some suites due to that. It
> didn't mention the possibility to add new architecture
Hello,
On Mon, 05 Mar 2007, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 04, 2007 at 02:51:19PM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> > On Sun, 04 Mar 2007, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > > The other side is just making the Debian mirror network available for
> > > kfreebsd users. With only a couple of dozen apparent u
On Sun, Mar 04, 2007 at 02:51:19PM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> On Sun, 04 Mar 2007, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > The other side is just making the Debian mirror network available for
> > kfreebsd users. With only a couple of dozen apparent users, I'm not
> > really convinced that's particularly val
Anthony Towns a écrit :
> On Fri, Mar 02, 2007 at 09:50:24AM +0100, Petr Salinger wrote:
>>> seems to list under three DDs actively involved in the port,
>> OK, we miss one more current DD listed here.
>
> Yup, though that shouldn't be much of a challenge. The other problem
> is that the list does
On Sun, Mar 04, 2007 at 08:33:44PM +, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 04, 2007 at 09:58:48AM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> > Le dimanche 04 mars 2007 à 18:13 +1000, Anthony Towns a écrit :
>
> > > I'm not seeing why you need to be in the archive to do NMUs to improve
> > > packages?
>
> >
On Sun, Mar 04, 2007 at 09:58:48AM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le dimanche 04 mars 2007 à 18:13 +1000, Anthony Towns a écrit :
> > I'm not seeing why you need to be in the archive to do NMUs to improve
> > packages?
> Because some maintainers refuse such NMUs for unofficial architectures.
T
Steve McIntyre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi,
>>Hence, what is your position on including those new, non-Linux ports ?
>>What would the timeframe be like, according to you ?
>
> I have no problem with including them, but equally I don't see them as
> a very high priority *right* now. After Etch i
Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Le dimanche 04 mars 2007 à 18:13 +1000, Anthony Towns a écrit :
>> But what I mean is more that maintaining two simple Debian patches (one
>> for Linux, one for kFreeBSD) is probably simpler than maintaining one
>> complicated Debian patch (with some c
On Tue, Feb 27, 2007 at 05:17:01PM +0100, Julien BLACHE wrote:
>Hi DPL candidates,
Hi Julien,
>The kFreeBSD ports are now in a good enough shape to be included in
>unstable. Aurélien Jarno got ftpmaster's approval for that during an
>informal conversation at debconf5 [1] but so far, there's been
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
> The kFreeBSD ports are now in a good enough shape to be included in
> unstable. Aurélien Jarno got ftpmaster's approval for that during an
> informal conversation at debconf5 [1] but so far, there's been no
> progress on this front.
>
> Since then,
On Sun, 04 Mar 2007, Anthony Towns wrote:
> The other side is just making the Debian mirror network available for
> kfreebsd users. With only a couple of dozen apparent users, I'm not
> really convinced that's particularly valuable though. YMMV.
Why did we do SCC for then ?
I'm certainly uneasy w
On Sun, Mar 04, 2007 at 06:13:28PM +1000, Anthony Towns
wrote:
> But what I mean is more that maintaining two simple Debian patches (one
> for Linux, one for kFreeBSD) is probably simpler than maintaining one
> complicated Debian patch (with some conditional make cruft). And probably
> more impor
Le dimanche 04 mars 2007 à 18:13 +1000, Anthony Towns a écrit :
> Yup, though that shouldn't be much of a challenge. The other problem
> is that the list doesn't seem active, so it's not incredibly clear that
> people are actively maintaining the port.
The number of patches submitted for this port
On Fri, Mar 02, 2007 at 09:50:24AM +0100, Petr Salinger wrote:
> >seems to list under three DDs actively involved in the port,
> OK, we miss one more current DD listed here.
Yup, though that shouldn't be much of a challenge. The other problem
is that the list doesn't seem active, so it's not incre
Hi.
Anthony Towns wrote:
seems to list under three DDs actively involved in the port,
OK, we miss one more current DD listed here.
I don't really see how it would benefit from being added to the archive,
porters NMU, posibility to start negotiation with RM to be included with
lenny (aft
Anthony Towns wrote:
> Personally, due to things like [0], I tend to think having different
> sources for different OSes is likely to make sense; which isn't something
> we can manage with the main archive as it stands.
I disagree here.
Building for different OSes from the same source will impr
Anthony Towns wrote:
> Personally, due to things like [0], I tend to think having different
> sources for different OSes is likely to make sense; which isn't something
> we can manage with the main archive as it stands.
>
> Cheers,
> aj
>
> [0] http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2005/0
On Tue, Feb 27, 2007 at 05:17:01PM +0100, Julien BLACHE wrote:
> The kFreeBSD ports are now in a good enough shape to be included in
> unstable. Aur?lien Jarno got ftpmaster's approval for that during an
> informal conversation at debconf5 [1] but so far, there's been no
> progress on this front.
On 2/27/07, Julien BLACHE <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi DPL candidates,
The kFreeBSD ports are now in a good enough shape to be included in
unstable. Aurélien Jarno got ftpmaster's approval for that during an
informal conversation at debconf5 [1] but so far, there's been no
progress on this fron
On Tue, Feb 27, 2007, Julien BLACHE wrote:
> Hence, what is your position on including those new, non-Linux ports ?
Favourable.
> What would the timeframe be like, according to you ?
I see no reason to wait a single day more.
For newer ports not already mentioned, I would like to make
Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Ah, I expected the candidates to take the 5 minutes it takes to get up
to speed wrt the kFreeBSD ports by reading the appropriate status
pages.
I can't be expected to know everything about Debian; in this particular
case, I didn't even know there *wer
Julien BLACHE a écrit :
> Hi DPL candidates,
>
> The kFreeBSD ports are now in a good enough shape to be included in
> unstable. Aurélien Jarno got ftpmaster's approval for that during an
> informal conversation at debconf5 [1] but so far, there's been no
> progress on this front.
>
> Since then,
Frank Küster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Totally agreed. Also, I think it was both courteous and wise to try
>> to respond promptly; if you let a question sit, in my experience, it
>> becomes harder to answer.
>
> In particular if one wants to answer the rest of the mail at once.
> People start
Daniel Jacobowitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 27, 2007 at 07:05:02PM +0100, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote:
>> On Tue, Feb 27, 2007 at 06:51:24PM +0100, Julien BLACHE wrote:
>> > If you're not doing that when answering questions during the campaign,
>> > how can I assume that you'll actu
Jeroen van Wolffelaar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (27/02/2007):
> I'd rather have a DPL that can prioritize and spend his time on what
> would benefit the project the most [...]
Like talking about ponies?
--
Cyril Brulebois
pgpsMgHYKjhFF.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Tue, Feb 27, 2007 at 06:51:24PM +0100, Julien BLACHE wrote:
> Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Ah, I expected the candidates to take the 5 minutes it takes to get up
> >> to speed wrt the kFreeBSD ports by reading the appropriate status
> >> pages.
> >
> > I can't be expected to k
On Tue, Feb 27, 2007 at 07:05:02PM +0100, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 27, 2007 at 06:51:24PM +0100, Julien BLACHE wrote:
> > If you're not doing that when answering questions during the campaign,
> > how can I assume that you'll actually do when you'll be DPL ?
>
> The amount of que
On 2007-02-27, Julien BLACHE <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If an ftpmaster was to charge an amount of money to include the new
> architectures (as was the case for amd64), what would, according to
Huh? what has been the case for amd64? please enlighten me.
/Sune
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMA
On Tue, Feb 27, 2007 at 06:51:24PM +0100, Julien BLACHE wrote:
> If you're not doing that when answering questions during the campaign,
> how can I assume that you'll actually do when you'll be DPL ?
The amount of questions asked during a typical DPL campaign period is
nearly insane.
I'd rather h
Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Giving a reasonable time estimate would require me to know a *slight*
> bit more about the FreeBSD ports than I do at this point in time; so I
> won't try it.
Ah, I expected the candidates to take the 5 minutes it takes to get up
to speed wrt the kFree
On Tue, Feb 27, 2007, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> I would worry much more if ftpmasters refused patches implementing
> their projects when at the same time they are seeking funding. It's
> unlikely to ever happen IMO.
What do you think about them just "refusing patches" or ignoring them
(not commenti
Sune Vuorela <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 2007-02-27, Julien BLACHE <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> If an ftpmaster was to charge an amount of money to include the new
>> architectures (as was the case for amd64), what would, according to
> Huh? what has been the case for amd64? please enlighten
Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Ah, I expected the candidates to take the 5 minutes it takes to get up
>> to speed wrt the kFreeBSD ports by reading the appropriate status
>> pages.
>
> I can't be expected to know everything about Debian; in this particular
> case, I didn't even know
On Tue, Feb 27, 2007 at 05:17:01PM +0100, Julien BLACHE wrote:
> Hi DPL candidates,
>
> The kFreeBSD ports are now in a good enough shape to be included in
> unstable. Aurélien Jarno got ftpmaster's approval for that during an
> informal conversation at debconf5 [1] but so far, there's been no
> p
Hi Julien,
On Tue, 27 Feb 2007, Julien BLACHE wrote:
> Since then, the SCC split happened and ftp-master moved to ries, so
> adding more architectures to the archive is no longer a problem, AIUI.
>
> Hence, what is your position on including those new, non-Linux ports ?
I have no problem with th
On Tue, Feb 27, 2007 at 06:25:31PM +0100, Julien BLACHE wrote:
> Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Giving a reasonable time estimate would require me to know a *slight*
> > bit more about the FreeBSD ports than I do at this point in time; so I
> > won't try it.
>
> Ah, I expected t
On Tue, 27 Feb 2007, Mohammed Adnène Trojette wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 27, 2007, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> > I would worry much more if ftpmasters refused patches implementing
> > their projects when at the same time they are seeking funding. It's
> > unlikely to ever happen IMO.
>
> What do you think
On Tue, Feb 27, 2007 at 06:20:14PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 27, 2007 at 05:17:01PM +0100, Julien BLACHE wrote:
> > If an ftpmaster was to charge an amount of money to include the new
> > architectures (as was the case for amd64), what would, according to
> > you, be a reasonable
Hi DPL candidates,
The kFreeBSD ports are now in a good enough shape to be included in
unstable. Aurélien Jarno got ftpmaster's approval for that during an
informal conversation at debconf5 [1] but so far, there's been no
progress on this front.
Since then, the SCC split happened and ftp-master m
44 matches
Mail list logo
