Re: Please build tpu vlc 0.8.6-svn20061012.debian-4
> > I plan to try to resolve more later, but from a glance there may be a > > few other tpu uploads that need to be built. There's also at least one > > package that has a version in testing that wasn't tried, but that has a > > later version built. > > I apparently dropped testing from zeus at some point, so I just added it > back. It seems like kullervo and q650 were also building testing, but > maybe not at the moment. I fixed the testing chroot on kullervo, and updated buildd.conf to place testing before unstable there. q650 has severe disk space problems so I'd rather not add testing there. Michael -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Please build tpu vlc 0.8.6-svn20061012.debian-4
On Thu, Mar 01, 2007 at 02:54:06PM +0100, Michael Schmitz wrote: > > > I plan to try to resolve more later, but from a glance there may be a > > > few other tpu uploads that need to be built. There's also at least one > > > package that has a version in testing that wasn't tried, but that has a > > > later version built. > > > > I apparently dropped testing from zeus at some point, so I just added it > > back. It seems like kullervo and q650 were also building testing, but > > maybe not at the moment. > > I fixed the testing chroot on kullervo, and updated buildd.conf to place > testing before unstable there. The caveat to having testing before unstable is that when the same version is pending both places, as happens to us on occasion, you end up getting a reject on the testing one. > q650 has severe disk space problems so I'd rather not add testing there. I could probably send you a disk if that would help. I'm sure I've got a 4 or 9GB lying around somewhere. -- Stephen R. Marenka If life's not fun, you're not doing it right! <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Future of m68k - Etch and beyond
On Thu, Mar 01, 2007 at 10:05:55AM +1100, Finn Thain wrote: > On Wed, 28 Feb 2007, Ingo Juergensmann wrote: > > I think most of the Debian m68k porters would prefer to stay with Debian > > instead of another distro. Just an assumption... ;) > > Yes, but I'll say it anyway: Gentoo gives you sufficient flexibility > > > Just the fact that they don't really have a "release cycle" makes it > attractive. And (apparently) it has already been ported to m68k. And it Only partially so. I once tried it, it wasn't even remotely useful. [...] > Well, until aranym gets faster, it may be insane to offer _certain_ > packages. And it seems to me that, when the archive doubles in size, then > the build farm must double too. But this isn't what killed the etch > release. > > The problem with the debian archive on small machines is the archive > itself: packages are ./configured --with-3-kinds-of-kitchen-sink, and the > reverse dependencies can expect that. This blows out the number of deps, > build time, run-time RAM and disk consumption etc. And, no, that isn't > what killed the etch release either, but I think it illustrates where the > aims of the project tend to diverge from the needs of one port. This sounds mostly true from my POV. -- Home is where you have to wash the dishes. -- #debian-devel, Freenode, 2004-09-22 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
