> You could say
> * New Upstream release (Closes:#12345)
> - No more frobnication (Closes:#23456)
> - Fix random typos (Closes: #34567)
> - Fix random data loss (urgent) (Closes: #45678)
>
Thanks, Matthias.
I will remember this next time. This is the way critique should be given. No
> Bug #289643 was not a request for packaging the new upstream version: it
> was a bug report complaining about the program failing to start. "New
> upstream version" has nothing to do with why this bug was closed.
Does valknut start now? Maybe new upstream version fixed that? I know changes
in
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Paul Hampson) writes:
> That'll work. _All_ distcc sends to the crosscompiler is preprocessed c
> code to be compiled into object code. So the source-code building widget
> is compiled remotely, run locally, and the results are sent to compile
> remotely.
Oh, I see now. I was
Matthew Garrett wrote:
This, uh, sounds very much like "We need to drop architectures, and so
we have come up with these criteria that will result in us dropping
architectures". Which is a reasonable standpoint to take, but which also
seems to imply that if 12 architectures manage to fulfil all the
On Sat, Mar 19, 2005 at 08:21:18PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Karsten Merker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Fri, Mar 18, 2005 at 06:58:50PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> > > Peter 'p2' De Schrijver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > > A much faster solution would be to use dis
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes:
> That on some servers I'd like to mirror both archives, and I'd rather
> not waste a few GB on duplicated files.
So don't duplicate them and use fancier mirroring software.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe".
Karsten Merker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, Mar 18, 2005 at 06:58:50PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> > Peter 'p2' De Schrijver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > A much faster solution would be to use distcc or scratchbox for
> > > crosscompiling.
> >
> > Debian packages cannot
Bill Allombert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sat, Mar 19, 2005 at 09:13:07AM +0100, Karsten Merker wrote:
>> On Fri, Mar 18, 2005 at 06:44:46PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
>> > [cc:ed back to -devel, since these are technical questions being
>> > raised and answered]
>>
>> > > * Why is the pe
Darren Salt wrote:
I demand that Anthony Towns may or may not have written...
Put them behind a firewall on a trusted LAN, use them to develop software
for arm chips, and then just follow unstable or run non-security-supported
snapshots. Apart from writing software for embedded arm things, I can't
> > * Why is the permitted number of buildds for an architecture restricted to
> > 2 or 3?
>
> - Architectures which need more than 2 buildds to keep up with package
> uploads on an ongoing basis are very slow indeed; while slower,
> low-powered chips are indeed useful in certain application
Scripsit Matthias Urlichs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Hi, Marco d'Itri wrote:
>> That on some servers I'd like to mirror both archives, and I'd rather not
>> waste a few GB on duplicated files.
> This may be a stupid question, but if you already mirror full-monty, what
> would you gain by also mirrorin
On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 09:56:10AM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> >> I would like to see some stats showing on how many days in the last
> >> year an arch reached 0 needs-build. I highly doubt that any arch
> >> managed to do it every day troughout the last year.
> > You know why goals are
I demand that Anthony Towns may or may not have written...
> Michael K. Edwards wrote:
[snip]
>> I think Sarge on ARM has the potential to greatly reduce the learning
>> curve for some kinds of embedded development, especially if Iyonix
>> succeeds in its niche (long live the Acorn!).
> So, I loo
Hi, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Mar 19, Daniel Kobras <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> What's wrong with splitting into ftp-full-monty.d.o, carrying all archs,
>> including the popular ones, and ftp.d.o, carrying only the most popular
>> subset? This way, there's no need to mirror from both of them,
Hi, Steve Langasek wrote:
>> TTBOMK, m68k has no such problem.
>
> TTBOMK, even m68k has one buildd admin per buildd -- the most they
> generalley have in terms of buildd admin redundancy is that if the admin
> for a machine that has built a certain package is unavailable, another
> admin can was
On Sat, Mar 19, 2005 at 07:03:07PM +0100, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
> There are two security teams in effect now. The debian/stable team,
> working to make sure the stable release of debian get security fixes
> as soon as possible. They get security warnings before the issues
> become public kno
On Sat, Mar 19, 2005 at 04:37:05PM +0100, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
> Hi, Steve Langasek wrote:
> >> This allows the buildd administrator to take vacations, etc.
> > This is at odds with what I've heard from some buildd maintainers that
> > having multiple buildd maintainers makes it hard to avoid
On Sat, 2005-03-19 at 09:54 -0600, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
> Ola Lundqvist dijo [Wed, Mar 16, 2005 at 09:18:33PM +0100]:
> > Hello
> >
> > On Fri, Feb 25, 2005 at 07:45:47PM -0600, Ron Johnson wrote:
> > > On Sat, 2005-02-26 at 00:53 +0100, Santiago Vila wrote:
> > > > Hello.
> > > >
> > > > I have se
On Sat, Mar 19, 2005 at 04:19:03AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
>
> > Which delays are expected for etch, that are not only imposed by the
> > usage of testing for release purposes? [1]
>
> > I do still doubt that testing actually is an improvement compared to the
> > former method of freezing
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Lucas Di Pentima <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* Package name: gwp
Version : 0.3.6
Upstream Author : Lucas Di Pentima <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://gwp.lunix.com.ar
* License : GPL
Description : GNOME War Pad (GWP) is a
Henning Makholm wrote:
> Scripsit David Weinehall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > That said, I'm a firm believer of the suggestion posed by Jesus
> > Climent[1], that we should have base set of software (where base is
> > probably a bit bigger than our current base) released for all
> > architectures th
Scripsit David Weinehall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> That said, I'm a firm believer of the suggestion posed by Jesus
> Climent[1], that we should have base set of software (where base is
> probably a bit bigger than our current base) released for all
> architectures that have a working installer, and th
Scripsit Gunnar Wolf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> Some people tend to have really large inboxes. I have had a number of
>> customers that have several GB inbox. They tend to get quite a lot
>> of attachments (reports etc) and do not have the time to delete mail.
>> It will grow quite fast.
> Ummm... An
Scripsit Junichi Uekawa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> > To a certain degree, those would have been fixed if people
>> > build-depended on auto*, as they would have picked up fixed versions
>> > of the .m4 files.
>> But that has to be offset against the huge number of bugs that would
>> occur if we ran a
Scripsit Anthony Towns
> Henning Makholm wrote:
>> The question is whether the *porters* think they have a sufficiently
>> good reason to do the work of maintaining a separate testing-esque
>> suite. If the porters want to do the work they should be allowed to do
>> it.
> If they don't need any
Scripsit Daniel Kobras <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Sat, Mar 19, 2005 at 01:21:15AM +0100, Marco d'Itri wrote:
>> On Mar 18, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > There would definitely be duplication of arch:all between ftp.debian.org
>> > and ports.debian.org (let's call it ports), as well
Hi,
On Sat, 2005-03-19 at 18:55 +0100, Sergio Rua wrote:
> My GPG was compromissed before Xmas and since then, I was unable to get
> a new key.
Bad thing. :( Hope you will get a new one soon.
> Two of my packages are getting full of bugs which I can fix and
> close so I decided to orphan them a
I am taking this to -devel. Please remove -vote from all replies.
... and sorry for the late reply.
also sprach Martin Schulze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005.03.14.0826 +0100]:
> When the code is public, rtfm is the proper answer.
This answer seems logical to you and I. It is, however, not the
didact
Hello,
My GPG was compromissed before Xmas and since then, I was unable to get
a new key. Two of my packages are getting full of bugs which I can fix and
close so I decided to orphan them and if I'm be able to get new
key in the future, I'll find new packages to mantain.
They are:
openwe
[Gunnar Wolf]
> The answer is simple:
For every problem there is a simple and obvious answer which just
happen to be wrong. I believe you ran into one of those. :)
> Not everybody can become a security team member, the required
> technical skills are quite high. There is a VERY high commitment
On Mar 19, Daniel Kobras <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What's wrong with splitting into ftp-full-monty.d.o, carrying all archs,
> including the popular ones, and ftp.d.o, carrying only the most popular
> subset? This way, there's no need to mirror from both of them, and
> duplication is kept to a m
Anthony Towns wrote:
[snip]
> So, I'd just like to re-emphasise this, because I still haven't seen
> anything that counts as useful. I'm thinking something like "We use s390
> to host 6231 scientific users on Debian in a manner compatible to the
> workstations they use; the software we use is ..
On Sat, Mar 19, 2005 at 01:21:15AM +0100, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Mar 18, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > There would definitely be duplication of arch:all between ftp.debian.org
> > and ports.debian.org (let's call it ports), as well as duplication of the
> > source.
> As a mirro
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Dafydd Harries <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* Package name: ruby-zoom
Version : 0.1.0
Upstream Author : Laurent Sansonetti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://ruby-zoom.rubyforge.org/
* License : LGPL
Description : Ruby ZOOM A
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Maykel Moya <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* Package name: gruler
Version : 0.6
Upstream Author : Ian McIntosh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://linuxadvocate.org/projects/gruler
* License : GPL
Description : a customizable sc
Steve Langasek dijo [Fri, Mar 18, 2005 at 11:32:08PM -0800]:
> > There are packages we recognize will be of little use in certain
> > architectures - say, KDE on m68k, qemu on a !i386, etc. They should be
> > built anyway on all architectures where expected to run be buildable,
> > anyway, as a QA
martin f krafft dijo [Fri, Mar 18, 2005 at 12:57:54PM +0100]:
> > The security team is under-staffed *now*, AFAICT; and you want to increase
> > their workload for etch on the assumption that nothing bad will come of it?
>
> No, I said we should stock the security team, which I meant to read
> as:
Hi, Steve Greenland wrote:
> On 18-Mar-05, 03:28 (CST), Blars Blarson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >Linux fails this. Even with forwarding disabled, it will accept packets
>> >for an address on interface A via interface B.
>>
>> Enable rp_filter and it does reject such packets.
>>
>> echo 1 >/p
Hi, Steve Langasek wrote:
>> This allows the buildd administrator to take vacations, etc.
>
> This is at odds with what I've heard from some buildd maintainers that
> having multiple buildd maintainers makes it hard to avoid stepping on one
> another's feet,
I assume that that's a problem if the
Ola Lundqvist dijo [Wed, Mar 16, 2005 at 09:18:33PM +0100]:
> Hello
>
> On Fri, Feb 25, 2005 at 07:45:47PM -0600, Ron Johnson wrote:
> > On Sat, 2005-02-26 at 00:53 +0100, Santiago Vila wrote:
> > > Hello.
> > >
> > > I have several reports saying procmail does not support mbox folders
> > > larg
Ola Lundqvist dijo [Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 09:19:45PM +0100]:
> > And would a larger discussion at debconf'05 not have been more appropriate
> > than handing done a couple of taken decision disguised as proposal ?
> >
> > It is not too late for this yet, but there needs to be a real discussion
> >
Hi, Pasi Savilaakso wrote:
> There is nothing else changed in
> package than new source so I don't really know what else I could say.
You could say
* New Upstream release (Closes:#12345)
- No more frobnication (Closes:#23456)
- Fix random typos (Closes: #34567)
- Fix random data los
On Fri, Mar 18, 2005 at 11:32:08PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
[snip]
> As pointed out in a recent thread, most of the core hardware portability
> issues are picked up just by building on "the big three" -- i386, powerpc,
> amd64. If we know the software isn't going to be used, is it actually
> u
> Yes, but the argument against cross-compiling has always been stronger
> - If you are compiling under an emulator, you can at least test the
> produced binaries under that same emulator, and you have a high degree
> of confidence that they work reliably (this is, if an emulator bug
> leads to gcc
On Fri, Mar 18, 2005 at 06:58:50PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Peter 'p2' De Schrijver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > A much faster solution would be to use distcc or scratchbox for
> > crosscompiling.
>
> Debian packages cannot be reliably built with a cross-compiler,
> because they v
On Fri, Mar 18, 2005 at 05:43:26PM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 17, 2005 at 09:47:42PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 07:59:43PM +, Alastair McKinstry wrote:
> > > > AFAI can tell, anybody can host an archive of packages built from
> > > > stable
> > > > s
On Wed, Mar 16, 2005 at 12:20:34AM -0800, Blars Blarson wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> >- the release architecture must have N+1 buildds where N is the number
> > required to keep up with the volume of uploaded packages
> If we are going to require redundancy,
El sÃb, 19-03-2005 a las 04:13 -0600, Bill Allombert escribiÃ:
> On Sat, Mar 19, 2005 at 09:13:07AM +0100, Karsten Merker wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 18, 2005 at 06:44:46PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > > [cc:ed back to -devel, since these are technical questions being raised
> > > and
> > > answere
On Mar 19, Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > There would definitely be duplication of arch:all between ftp.debian.org
> > > and ports.debian.org (let's call it ports), as well as duplication of the
> > > source.
> > As a mirror operator, I think that this sucks. Badly.
> So don'
On 18 Mar 2005 18:58:50 -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > A much faster solution would be to use distcc or scratchbox for
> > crosscompiling.
>
> Debian packages cannot be reliably built with a cross-compiler,
> because they very frequently need to execute the compiled bin
On Sat, Mar 19, 2005 at 09:13:07AM +0100, Karsten Merker wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 18, 2005 at 06:44:46PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > [cc:ed back to -devel, since these are technical questions being raised and
> > answered]
>
> > > * Why is the permitted number of buildds for an architecture restr
On Sat, Mar 19, 2005 at 06:34:26AM +0200, Pasi Savilaakso wrote:
> Kirjoitit viestissäsi (lähetysaika lauantai, 19. maaliskuuta 2005 02:53):
> > Hi Pasi,
> > On Friday, 18 Mar 2005, you wrote:
> > > Changes:
> > > valknut (0.3.7-1) unstable; urgency=high
> > > .
> > >* New upstream release (
Hi Greg,
On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 02:10:47PM -0500, Greg Folkert wrote:
> > > BTW, I am not sure this is really a good way to measure the use of an
> > > architecture, mainly because users could use a local mirror if they have
> > > a lot of machines of the same architecture. How about using popc
On Fri, Mar 18, 2005 at 03:23:18AM -0800, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> Just because a full Debian doesn't usually
> fit today's embedded footprint doesn't mean it won't fit tomorrow's,
> and in the meantime Debian's toolchain, kernel, and initrd-tools are
> probably the best embedded Linux developm
[cc to you - I don't know if you read the list]
On Friday 18 March 2005 17.22, Ritesh Raj Sarraf wrote:
> As for example, it's been now around 7 years for me now using Linux and I
> do have a fair amount of knowledge now. It would be great if DD's here
> could harness the skills in "wannabe contr
Kirjoitit viestissäsi (lähetysaika lauantai, 19. maaliskuuta 2005 02:53):
> Hi Pasi,
>
> On Friday, 18 Mar 2005, you wrote:
> > Changes:
> > valknut (0.3.7-1) unstable; urgency=high
> > .
> >* New upstream release (Closes: #289643, #269952, #265284, #270096,
> > #286234)
>
> is there any reas
56 matches
Mail list logo
