On Tue, Jan 29, 2008 at 12:05:42PM +1100, Finn Thain wrote:
>
> I had thought that all relevant patches made it into one debian kernel or
> another.
I try to take whatever patches I find on Geerts page. Perhaps I missed
something or it is not listed there. I remember something about missing
head
On Tue, Jan 29, 2008 at 02:36:07AM +0100, Michael Schmitz wrote:
> > Having a smarter buildd queue is a long term goal and something that I
> > wouldn't burden on the shoulders of the m68k porters. I already made some
> > proposals to enhance the build process long ago. For example to not remove
>
Hi,
> Having a smarter buildd queue is a long term goal and something that I
> wouldn't burden on the shoulders of the m68k porters. I already made some
> proposals to enhance the build process long ago. For example to not remove
> all installed packages, just to install most of them right again,
Hi,
> > First off - is there any web site where I can get the status overview we
> > used to have on crest? May be time to revive crest's hourly package status
> > cronjob, if we can find it...
>
> Uhm, how about http://unstable.buildd.net/index-m68k.html then? ;)
Thanks, I knew I must have been
On Mon, 28 Jan 2008, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm having a bit of an issue: the EMILE packages have had RC bugs filed
> against them for a while now. They're small problems, but in order to be
> able to fix them, I need something which I don't appear to have: a
> machine able to run
Hi,
I'm having a bit of an issue: the EMILE packages have had RC bugs filed
against them for a while now. They're small problems, but in order to be
able to fix them, I need something which I don't appear to have: a
machine able to run unstable on a 2.6 kernel. What I have is this:
- a IIci, whic
Stephen R Marenka wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 28, 2008 at 02:52:25PM +0100, Ingo Juergensmann wrote:
>> On Mon, Jan 28, 2008 at 07:27:07AM -0600, Stephen R Marenka wrote:
>>
>>> Meanwhile, maybe we need to think about what a debian-m68k distribution
>>> should really have in it. We could probably release
On Mon, Jan 28, 2008 at 08:55:02AM -0600, Stephen R Marenka wrote:
> > I think we can take care for about 4000 source packages, but ~7000 packages
> > is was too much, especially when some of the porters are always trying to
> > bring coldfire support in...
> Actually, we generally stay caught up
On Mon, Jan 28, 2008 at 02:52:25PM +0100, Ingo Juergensmann wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 28, 2008 at 07:27:07AM -0600, Stephen R Marenka wrote:
>
> > Meanwhile, maybe we need to think about what a debian-m68k distribution
> > should really have in it. We could probably release a lenny-m68k without
> > kde
On Mon, Jan 28, 2008 at 07:27:07AM -0600, Stephen R Marenka wrote:
> Meanwhile, maybe we need to think about what a debian-m68k distribution
> should really have in it. We could probably release a lenny-m68k without
> kde, gnome, mathematical packages, and some of the other large packages
> that
On Sun, Jan 27, 2008 at 11:24:24PM +0100, Michael Schmitz wrote:
> Regarding the backlok - I had hoped to take down hobbes for a few days for
> kernel hacking, but that seems out of the question now?
We haven't been less than 800 needs-build for a month and we're not
likely to be without a fair a
11 matches
Mail list logo
