On Fri, Nov 24, 2023 at 01:34:21AM +0100, Guillem Jover wrote:
> > Is that a feature that the Debian ARM32 porters and the security team really
> > want to support actively, despite the missing upstream support?
>
> According to https://bugs.debian.org/918914#73 there were no pending
> toolchain i
On Sun, Apr 24, 2016 at 09:55:10AM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> > https://wiki.debian.org/LTS/ makes it appear that LTS is an official Debian
> > effort.
>
> And it is. There are multiple Debian developers who have initiated this
> project, have been organizing it on debian-...@lists.debian.org
On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 06:54:49PM -0500, Rob Browning wrote:
>
> Feel free to downgrade this if you think appropriate, but given that 4.8
> is scheduled to be removed from stretch at some point, this will
> eventually become grave for guile-2.0. (The problem appears to affect
> gcc-4.9 as well.)
On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 08:53:07PM +0200, Sebastian Ramacher wrote:
> Source: yorick-av
> Version: 0.0.1-3
> Severity: serious
> Justification: FTBFS but built successfully in the past
> Tags: sid jessie
> Control: block 706798 by -1
>
> yorick-av currently fails to build on armhf:
> |dh_auto_
On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 07:44:30PM -0500, Joey Hess wrote:
> Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote:
> > We could just declare arm a second-class architecture for security updates,
> > i.e. DSAs being released once all archs are available except arm and arm
> > updates being released once
On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 06:12:10PM -0500, Joey Hess wrote:
> Riku Voipio wrote:
> > The security buildd is a different story. Parallell buildd's compiling
> > several packages at time don't help[1], they want single builds
> > completed fast, so they can release security advisories with minimal
> >
On Fri, Feb 08, 2008 at 12:17:23PM -0600, Bill Gatliff wrote:
> Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote:
>> Also there are four updates for iceweasel, xulrunner, icedove
>> and iceape coming very soon, which take 12-15 hours each, while
>> the second slowest arch requires ca. 4-5 hours, impo
On Fri, Feb 08, 2008 at 07:39:50PM +, Martin Guy wrote:
> 2008/2/8, Daniel Jacobowitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > On Fri, Feb 08, 2008 at 06:48:18PM +0100, Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote:
> > > So, these Intel boards are _badly_ needed. Or maybe the buildd
> > > c
On Mon, Feb 04, 2008 at 01:05:29PM +0200, Riku Voipio wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 03, 2008 at 11:01:01PM +0100, Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote:
> > I have a question wrt armel qualification for Lenny:
> > What type of machine is planned to be used as the
> > security buildd?
>
> Gen
Hi,
I have a question wrt armel qualification for Lenny:
What type of machine is planned to be used as the
security buildd?
The reason I'm asking is because the current arm security
buildd (toffee, a Thecus N2100) has become a bottleneck
for fast security updates (compilations take thrice the
time
Lennert Buytenhek wrote:
> > > - tofee: up, building packages, sometimes stable-security.
> > >
> > > I think it is time to changes things. Our faster build daemons have a
> > > 233MHz CPU with 256MB of RAM, while there are way faster ARM CPU today.
> >
> > How much faster is the fastest available
Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> - tofee: up, building packages, sometimes stable-security.
>
> I think it is time to changes things. Our faster build daemons have a
> 233MHz CPU with 256MB of RAM, while there are way faster ARM CPU today.
How much faster is the fastest available ARM CPU compared to toffee
12 matches
Mail list logo
