* Marc Haber [Mon, 21 Mar 2005 08:03:21 +0100]:
> | Version Table:
> | 4.50-4 555
> |500 http://debian.debian.zugschlus.de sid/main Packages
> | *** 4.50-1 555
> |100 /var/lib/dpkg/status
> | 4.44-2 555
> |500 http://debian.debian.zugschlus.de sarge/main Packages
>
On Sun, Mar 20, 2005 at 02:35:56PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 20, 2005 at 12:11:07PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 18, 2005 at 05:05:07PM +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
>
> > > > And yes, i volunteer to help out NEW handling, if that help is wanted.
>
> > > Just for the r
On Sun, Mar 20, 2005 at 08:20:40PM +0100, David Schmitt wrote:
> On Sunday 20 March 2005 12:08, Sven Luther wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 18, 2005 at 02:40:34PM +0100, David Schmitt wrote:
> > > On Friday 18 March 2005 13:26, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > > And yes, i volunteer to help out NEW handling, if tha
Stephen Frost wrote:
* Gunnar Wolf ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Most (although not all) of the architectures facing being downgraded
are older, slower hardware, and cannot be readily found. Their build
speed is my main argument against John Goerzen's proposal [1]. Now, I
understand that up to now we
On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 12:43:52 -0800, Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>On Sun, 20 Mar 2005, Marc Haber wrote:
>> Is this documented somewhere? Pinning is such a powerful tool, and
>> nobody seems to really understand it.
>
>See apt_preferences(5) [specifically the "APT's Default Priority
>As
David Nusinow wrote:
[snip]
> > > If you have a single source package for 12 different architectures
> > > that's great, because when you have a security fix you can take
> > > care of that more easily. That's awesome.
> >
> > We have that already.
>
> Great to hear. Then what is this new plan th
On Sun, Mar 20, 2005 at 06:06:56PM +0100, Andreas Metzler wrote:
> On 2005-03-15 Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 10:56:51AM +0100, Aurélien Jarno wrote:
> [...]
> > > - there should be at least 2N buildd admins for this architecture. A lot
> > > of problems wi
Many Debian developers have been asking for a simple way to see the
current difference between their package and the equivalent in Ubuntu,
if any.
Ubuntu developers have been asking for patches to be updated when a new
Ubuntu upload is made, not just when a new Debian upload is made.
Hand me that
On Sun, Mar 20, 2005 at 05:46:44PM +0100, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
> Andreas Barth wrote:
> > * Marco d'Itri ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050319 03:50]:
> > > On Mar 18, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > > There would definitely be duplication of arch:all between ftp.debian.org
> > > > and p
On Sun, Mar 20, 2005 at 08:20:40PM +0100, David Schmitt wrote:
> kernel-latest-2.6-hppa 2.6.8-1
> source hppa unstable
> 1 month Kyle McMartin
>
> debian-kernel managed kernel-image tracker packages seem to be called
> kernel-image-$ver-$subarch (e.g. kernel-image-2.6-686). Debian should striv
On Sun, Mar 20, 2005 at 01:26:38PM -0500, Ben Collins wrote:
> speed. I don't recall any architecures falling behind miserably just
> because a buildd went down for an extended period, but I do recall some
Isn't that the situation with arm right now? Or at least that arm is
struggling to recover f
* Anthony Towns (aj@azure.humbug.org.au) wrote:
> >If this is the case, I think that needs to be made clearer to avoid
> >situations where people work to meet the criteria but are vetoed by the
> >release team because there are already too many architectures.
>
> The main issue is the port needs t
* Peter 'p2' De Schrijver ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 20, 2005 at 09:27:26AM +0100, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
> > Hi, Peter 'p2' De Schrijver wrote:
> >
> > > This is obviously unacceptable. Why would a small number of people be
> > > allowed to veto inclusion of other people's work ?
>
* Andreas Barth ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> * Steve Langasek ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050319 12:35]:
> > On Wed, Mar 16, 2005 at 12:20:34AM -0800, Blars Blarson wrote:
> > > - at least two buildd administrators
> >
> > > This allows the buildd administrator to take vacations, etc.
>
> > This is at o
On Sun, Mar 20, 2005 at 09:06:23PM +0100, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
> David Nusinow wrote:
> > You know, you keep saying this and I have a really hard time
> > believing it, although I don't follow the kernel list so please
> > enlighten me if I'm wrong.
>
> The plan is to profit from better upstream
On Sun, Mar 20, 2005 at 01:26:38PM -0500, Ben Collins wrote:
> I think they are designed too stringently. Guidelines should describe the
> level of stability an arch is required to meet, and let the implementation
> be whatever is needed, on a per arch basis, to meet those requirements.
> The guid
* Gunnar Wolf ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Most (although not all) of the architectures facing being downgraded
> are older, slower hardware, and cannot be readily found. Their build
> speed is my main argument against John Goerzen's proposal [1]. Now, I
> understand that up to now we have had the
> > 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 binaries as
> well as just compile them.
Umm, that is the _exactly_ the problem scr
Ben Collins wrote:
These are all rather moot points anyway. We don't have that kind of
redundancy for our own list server, or ftp-master for that matter.
I can't speak for the list server or archives, but for ftp-master and
bugs.d.o we do have redundancy -- the backups of both on merkel are
desig
I demand that Bill Gatliff may or may not have written...
> Not my preference to jump in the middle of something, but...
It's not my preference to be Cc'd, particularly when I'd set the
Mail-Followup-To header accordingly... :-\
[snip]
--
| Darren Salt | nr. Ashington, | d youmustbejoking,demon
* Ben Collins ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> The guidelines are aimed at the wrong thing is my point.
I agree with this. I also think that this is one of the reasons why
there's been so much uproar about them.
Stephen
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
I think they are designed too stringently. Guidelines should describe the
level of stability an arch is required to meet, and let the implementation
be whatever is needed, on a per arch basis, to meet those requirements.
The guidelines should not say something like "needs two buildds minimum",
but
On Sun, 20 Mar 2005, Marc Haber wrote:
> Is this documented somewhere? Pinning is such a powerful tool, and
> nobody seems to really understand it.
See apt_preferences(5) [specifically the "APT's Default Priority
Assignments" section.]
Don Armstrong
--
Cheop's Law: Nothing ever gets built on s
Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I don't think the possibility of something like that being abused is as
> strange as you seem to imply. As proof of that statement, I faintly
> remember someone doing a gratuitous source upload just to provoke the
> buildds...
Of course, there was no
On Fri, Mar 18, 2005 at 11:43:48PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> the "more" or "less" aspect of the urgency is relevant here. We
> obviously have a system for classifying the severity of bugs in
> packages, and it's possible to relate these bug severities to the
> urgency field in uploads; even a
Matthias Urlichs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> We can't. AFAIK: One or two rsync commands, and *that's*it*.
>
> Any required fanciness need to be done on the master server.
But that's your choice.
--I want to do this thing which you tell me not to do, and it hurts
when I do it.
--So stop d
On Thu, Mar 17, 2005 at 10:40:43AM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
> If we don't wait for an arch, it gets out-of-sync quite soon, and due to
> e.g. legal requirements, we can't release that arch. (In other words, if
> an arch is too long ignored for testing, we should remove it, as we
> can't release
Joerg Jaspert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 10234 March 1977, Thomas Bushnell wrote:
>
> > It appears that the following are all in NEW because they involve
> > such upgrades:
> > clanlib0.7
>
> At least this one looks like a hijack, not coordinated with the
> maintainer of clanlib. Atm I
David Nusinow wrote:
[snip]
> > This is a non-issue. The main problem was the kernel situation, which will
> > be
> > streamlined for etch into a single package, and maybe build issues, which
> > could be solved by a separate build queue or priority for d-i issues.
>
> You know, you keep saying t
On 10234 March 1977, Thomas Bushnell wrote:
> It appears that the following are all in NEW because they involve
> such upgrades:
> clanlib0.7
At least this one looks like a hijack, not coordinated with the
maintainer of clanlib. Atm I know of only one mail in a bugreport.
On the other side h
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Raphael Hertzog <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I believe everyone is supportive of the various ports, nobody has any
> interest in making a port fail... but it's clear that many maintainers
> are frustrated to be blocked because their package doesn't bu
Ben Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I think they are designed too stringently. Guidelines should describe the
> level of stability an arch is required to meet, and let the implementation
> be whatever is needed, on a per arch basis, to meet those requirements.
I think a reasonable requireme
On Sun, Mar 20, 2005 at 12:11:07PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 18, 2005 at 05:05:07PM +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> > > And yes, i volunteer to help out NEW handling, if that help is wanted.
> > Just for the record, not to anyone directly, it just fits here:
> > This is not how it wor
* Benjamin Herrenschmidt
| Have we any proper way of doing multiarch setups ? The "proper" way to
| do ppc64 is to have both archs libs and 32 bits userland for most
| things, as ppc64 native code is slightly slower.
Not at the moment, no. I'm working on multiarch and how to handle it
as my mas
On Sun, Mar 20, 2005 at 09:27:26AM +0100, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
> Hi, Peter 'p2' De Schrijver wrote:
>
> > This is obviously unacceptable. Why would a small number of people be
> > allowed to veto inclusion of other people's work ?
>
> Why not? (Assuming they do have a valid reason. For instanc
Guys:
Not my preference to jump in the middle of something, but...
I have a fairly reliable DSL line, with an unused Sun Blade 100 and a
number of ARM and MIPS boards behind it. If anyone wants to help me get
them set up for buildd, drop me an email.
b.g.
Darren Salt wrote:
I demand that Anthon
On Sun, Mar 20, 2005 at 07:22:07PM +0100, Bernd Eckenfels wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
> > Debian as a whole shouldn't suffer from minority arches. So we decide to
> > refuse most of the constraints imposed by the minority arches... this
> > way the release team shouldn't pest
On Sunday 20 March 2005 16:16, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Sven Luther wrote:
> > [...] and they hold us hostage [...]
> > Friendly,
>
> It seems odd to pretend to be friendly towards people you consider
> hostage takers. Or to call people you claim to be friendly towards
> "hostage takers".
it's call
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
> Debian as a whole shouldn't suffer from minority arches. So we decide to
> refuse most of the constraints imposed by the minority arches... this
> way the release team shouldn't pester porter until they setup an
> rbuilder for security uploads or a supple
On Mar 20, Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> One _might_ consider to have ports.d.o with the full package pool,
> whereas ftp.d.o only consists the most wanted architectures. As a mirror
> operator, you can than choose to either just have the most wanted
> architectures, all or both.
This
Ben Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Why does everyone have a sudden interest in the sparc buildds? It has
> always had one buildd until auric was no longer needed for ftp-master.
> Things were fine back then, and still fine now. No one complained then,
> why is everyone complaining now that
David Schmitt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Do you really want to know how many libraries in NEW currently are
> waiting for a binary with a new soname?
>
> One:
>
> liboil0.3 0.3.0-1
> source i386 unstable
> 2 months David Schleef #284486
>
> liboil 0.3.1-1
> source i386 unstable
> 2 d
On 19-Mar-05, 10:00 (CST), Matthias Urlichs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Umm, rp_filter is for rejecting packets whose *source* address is from the
> wrong network.
Right. I know this. But what Joel was originally talking about was
rejection of packets on interface A that are destined for an a
On Sun, Mar 20, 2005 at 10:05:15AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 18, 2005 at 12:06:15PM -0500, David Nusinow wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 18, 2005 at 05:43:26PM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > > [1] The installer might be a point, but since all sarge architectures
> > > will have a working in
On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 19:10:24 +0100, Adeodato Simó <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>* Marc Haber [Sun, 20 Mar 2005 17:40:46 +0100]:
>> On a development system, I'd like to have experimental and unstable in
>> the sources.list, and to have experimental pinned down to a priority
>> tha experimental is neve
On 2005-03-15 Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 10:56:51AM +0100, Aurélien Jarno wrote:
[...]
> > - there should be at least 2N buildd admins for this architecture. A lot
> > of problems with buildds are caused by buildd admins unavailable at the
> > same time fo
On Sunday 20 March 2005 12:08, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 18, 2005 at 02:40:34PM +0100, David Schmitt wrote:
> > On Friday 18 March 2005 13:26, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > And yes, i volunteer to help out NEW handling, if that help is wanted.
> >
> > Vapourware. I believe that for most packages
Andreas Barth wrote:
> * Marco d'Itri ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050319 03:50]:
> > 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
> > >
[Matthew Garrett]
> Constitutionally, I think it makes more sense to devolve it to the
> technical committee.
Not sure if I agree. Weighting different interests and prioritizing
betweeen hard choices is a political and not a techincal decition. As
such, it might be better to vetoing to the posit
On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 17:48:47 +0100, Bartosz Fenski aka fEnIo wrote:
[...]
> Description : interactive Imlib2 console for the X Window system
^
Spelling: should be X Window System, with capital 'S'
> [ grabbed from project's pa
Matthew Garrett wrote:
Anthony Towns wrote:
If they can all satisfy the criteria, they're likely to be doing well
enough that there's not much *point* to dropping them -- the reason 11
architectures are hard to manage is because they're not all being
supported at an adequate level. The criteria li
Why does everyone have a sudden interest in the sparc buildds? It has
always had one buildd until auric was no longer needed for ftp-master.
Things were fine back then, and still fine now. No one complained then,
why is everyone complaining now that I want to put a better single machine
in place?
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Torsten Werner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* Package name: mozilla-firefox-locale-ar
Version : 0.2
Upstream Author : Ayman Hourieh
* URL : http://www.arabeyes.org/project.php?proj=Mozilla
* License : MPL
Description : Mozill
On Mon, Mar 21, 2005 at 01:16:42AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Sven Luther wrote:
> >The ftp-masters are mandated by the DPL to handle the debian
> >infrastructure,
> >not to decide what arches debian should support or not.
>
> This is not the case; ftpmaster's role has historically included at
Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 20, 2005 at 09:56:05AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > On Sun, Mar 20, 2005 at 12:00:23PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > > But why would you spend over 1000 pounds on an arm Linux desktop box
> > > instead of a few hundred pounds on a random i386 desktop box?
> >
* Marc Haber [Sun, 20 Mar 2005 17:40:46 +0100]:
> Hi,
> On a development system, I'd like to have experimental and unstable in
> the sources.list, and to have experimental pinned down to a priority
> tha experimental is never considered. For certain packages, I'd like
> apt to consider experimenta
I demand that Anthony Towns may or may not have written...
> 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-suppo
Sven Luther wrote:
The ftp-masters are mandated by the DPL to handle the debian infrastructure,
not to decide what arches debian should support or not.
This is not the case; ftpmaster's role has historically included at what
point architectures can be included in the archive (and in sh's case, at
Le dimanche 20 mars 2005 à 12:45 +0100, Sven Luther a écrit :
> Hello,
Hi Sven,
> This is an attempt to do a vancouver-counter proposal in such a way that would
> be acceptable to all, including the folk who was at the vancouver meeting.
> Please be resonable when we post here, refrain from agres
On Sun, Mar 20, 2005 at 06:24:23PM +0100, Thomas Viehmann wrote:
> Sven Luther wrote:
> >The idea is that we don't want to hold up release, but we still want to
> >allow
> >for a future release at a later point, in a stable point release.
> >Especially
> >now that we are told that security is not
On Sunday 20 March 2005 11:04 am, cobaco (aka Bart Cornelis) wrote:
> I like this idea, any cons?
As a user, what I think doesn't count for much but I second this idea.
A very large part of what attracted me to Debian is the support for
multiple archs...
--
Reality continues to ruin my life.
On Sun, Mar 20, 2005 at 10:53:57PM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 20, 2005 at 09:56:05AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > On Sun, Mar 20, 2005 at 12:00:23PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > > But why would you spend over 1000 pounds on an arm Linux desktop box
> > > instead of a few hundre
Sven Luther wrote:
The idea is that we don't want to hold up release, but we still want to allow
for a future release at a later point, in a stable point release. Especially
now that we are told that security is not an issue.
This way, the security support of the additional arches would stay
larg
* Hamish Moffatt ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050320 15:25]:
> On Sun, Mar 20, 2005 at 09:56:05AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > On Sun, Mar 20, 2005 at 12:00:23PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > > But why would you spend over 1000 pounds on an arm Linux desktop box
> > > instead of a few hundred pounds on
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Bartosz Fenski aka fEnIo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
* Package name: adesklets
Version : 0.4.6
Upstream Author : Sylvain Fourmanoit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://adesklets.sourceforge.ne
On Sunday 20 March 2005 16:59, Thomas Viehmann wrote:
> Sven Luther wrote:
> > 7) the porter team has the possibility to providing arch-specific
> > overrides to solve the issue of a package not passing from unstable
> > into testing due to a tier1-specific RC bug or whatever. Should be used
> > s
On Sun, Mar 20, 2005 at 04:59:57PM +0100, Thomas Viehmann wrote:
> Sven Luther wrote:
>
> Problems with many arches:
> > - same for the security team.
> Hmm. I only saw Joey's message on the subject, which basically seemed to
> say "as long as it's only one source compiling on all arches, it's O
* Thiemo Seufer ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050320 12:15]:
> I don't regard my mips/mipsel porting work as just a hobby.
You're definitly doing a very professional job with mips*. In fact, I'm
personally more in favour of mips* as release archs than some others
because you're doing such a good job.
Che
* Marco d'Itri ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050319 18:40]:
> 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
* Steve Langasek ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050319 12:35]:
> On Wed, Mar 16, 2005 at 12:20:34AM -0800, Blars Blarson wrote:
> > - at least two buildd administrators
>
> > This allows the buildd administrator to take vacations, etc.
> This is at odds with what I've heard from some buildd maintainers tha
Hi,
On a development system, I'd like to have experimental and unstable in
the sources.list, and to have experimental pinned down to a priority
tha experimental is never considered. For certain packages, I'd like
apt to consider experimental as well, taking whatever is newer from
experimental and
* Gunnar Wolf ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050319 05:35]:
> "Architecture: any" means "build anywhere". We could introduce a
> second header, say, Not-deploy-for: or Not-required-for:. This would
> mean that KDE _would_ be built for m68k if the buildds are not too
> busy doing other stuff, and probably wou
* Marco d'Itri ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050319 03:50]:
> 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 mirror operator,
Sven Luther wrote:
Problems with many arches:
- same for the security team.
Hmm. I only saw Joey's message on the subject, which basically seemed to
say "as long as it's only one source compiling on all arches, it's OK"
7) the porter team has the possibility to providing arch-specific override
On Sun, Mar 20, 2005 at 09:34:01AM +0100, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
> Hi, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>
> > [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
On Sun, Mar 20, 2005 at 10:26:44PM +1100, Daniel Stone wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 20, 2005 at 09:07:52AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > On Sun, Mar 20, 2005 at 02:57:23AM +0100, Peter 'p2' De Schrijver wrote:
> > > > > * Three bodies (Security, System Administration, Release) are given
> > > > > indepen
On Sun, Mar 20, 2005 at 10:26:44PM +1100, Daniel Stone wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 20, 2005 at 09:07:52AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > On Sun, Mar 20, 2005 at 02:57:23AM +0100, Peter 'p2' De Schrijver wrote:
> > > This is obviously unacceptable. Why would a small number of people be
> > > allowed to veto
On Sunday 20 March 2005 05:42 am, Andrea Mennucc wrote:
> hi
>
> I have noticed a messy situation in BTS,
> regarding my source package libppd (*)
>
> my source package has this web page in BTS
> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?src=libppd
> where you see there are 4 bugs listed (resolv
Hi,
* Bill Allombert ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050319 01:05]:
> The idea is to have or each architecture $arch a '$arch release assistant'
> which is in charge of helping the release team with issue specific to a
> port.
Actually, if somebody wants to help, (s)he is always welcome. First of
all, being
On Sun, Mar 20, 2005 at 09:56:05AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 20, 2005 at 12:00:23PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > But why would you spend over 1000 pounds on an arm Linux desktop box
> > instead of a few hundred pounds on a random i386 desktop box?
> Because you don't want a 100+W
* Henning Makholm ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050319 22:05]:
> 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
Petter Reinholdtsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I tend to agree that the veto rights in the proposal are undemocratic.
> It is probably better to allow the DPL to veto the inclusion, and
> document that he is required to ask the porters, the ftp masters and
> the release team before making up his
On Sun, Mar 20, 2005 at 09:07:52AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 20, 2005 at 02:57:23AM +0100, Peter 'p2' De Schrijver wrote:
> > > > * Three bodies (Security, System Administration, Release) are given
> > > > independent veto power over the inclusion of an architecture.
> > > > A) Do
Anthony Towns wrote:
> If they can all satisfy the criteria, they're likely to be doing well
> enough that there's not much *point* to dropping them -- the reason 11
> architectures are hard to manage is because they're not all being
> supported at an adequate level. The criteria listed try to gi
Hi all you folks who have exercised your fingers and eyes because of
'vancouvor',
In my quest to see how things work, I have made some major revision to
my diagram.
http://debian.home.pipeline.com/
the new diagram is newdebian2.png
any comment appreciated (before the whole shebang is outdated)
Als
Christian Perrier wrote:
[snip]
> This is spring time (at least for half of the world...and probably for
> 90% of Debian world)so take a break, go for a walk in the forest,
> hear the birds singing, get one day off with no mail reading...and
> remember this is all about a hobby for most of us.
[Sven Luther]
>> This is obviously unacceptable. Why would a small number of people
>> be allowed to veto inclusion of other people's work ?
>
> And a non-elected, non-properly-delegated, self-apointed group of
> people at that.
I tend to agree that the veto rights in the proposal are undemocrati
On Sat, Mar 19, 2005 at 06:55:37PM +0100, Sergio Rua wrote:
> 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 t
On Sat, 19 Mar 2005, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Better have them restricted to developers and users who modify code
> than to have them happen randomly to people who just want to build the
> unmodified package.
Like, say, our security and QA teams. I would very much like their opinion
on this, they
Hello,
This is an attempt to do a vancouver-counter proposal in such a way that would
be acceptable to all, including the folk who was at the vancouver meeting.
Please be resonable when we post here, refrain from agressive behavior, and
provide argumentation to your proposed solutions.
We have th
On Sat, Mar 19, 2005 at 04:19:03AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> 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, anybo
On Fri, Mar 18, 2005 at 12:06:15PM -0500, David Nusinow wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 18, 2005 at 05:43:26PM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > [1] The installer might be a point, but since all sarge architectures
> > will have a working installer and I hope there's not another
> > installer rewrite plan
On Sat, Mar 19, 2005 at 01:48:42AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> 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
>
On Sat, Mar 19, 2005 at 11:25:22AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> 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 t
On Sun, Mar 20, 2005 at 12:00:23PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> 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-suppor
On Sat, Mar 19, 2005 at 11:24:14AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> beyond "unstable + snapshotting facility", and why? Debian developers
> manage to develop on unstable fairly well, eg, why isn't that enough? Is
> this just a PR issue, in that "unstable" and "snapshot" aren't something
> you can p
On Sat, Mar 19, 2005 at 01:01:44AM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
> Hello Debian-developer,
>
> I have a modest proposal to reduce the burden of the multiple
> architectures on the Release team. This is based on the following
> assumptions:
Yep, great proposal, i think this would also be a solution
On Fri, Mar 18, 2005 at 02:34:12PM +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> On 10232 March 1977, Sven Luther wrote:
>
> >> Would you be happy if the ftpmasters put everything on auto-veto if there
> >> was nobody available to monitor the auto-new queue for a few days?
> > If the NEW queue handling people can
On Fri, Mar 18, 2005 at 05:05:07PM +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
>
> > And yes, i volunteer to help out NEW handling, if that help is wanted.
>
> Just for the record, not to anyone directly, it just fits here:
> This is not how it works. Offering something randomly and then sitting
> back waiting,
On Fri, Mar 18, 2005 at 02:40:34PM +0100, David Schmitt wrote:
> On Friday 18 March 2005 13:26, Sven Luther wrote:
> > And yes, i volunteer to help out NEW handling, if that help is wanted.
>
> Vapourware. I believe that for most packages it is quite easy to see why they
> are not allowed into un
1 - 100 of 110 matches
Mail list logo
