Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Nick Price <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* Package name: nvu
Version : 0.90
Upstream Author : Linspire, Inc. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://www.nvu.com/
* License : MPL/LGPL/GPL tri-license
Description : Nvu is a complet
Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
Perhaps this could be solved with some kind of ticket system handling
email to the official roles in debian? I'm not sure if BTS is the
best option to handle emails to ftpmaster, leader and others. Perhaps
request-tracker is a better option? We use it at work, and it s
hoi :)
On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 11:11:01PM +0100, Pierre THIERRY wrote:
> + elsif ($dh{MOVE}) {
> + doit("mv", "", $src, "$tmp/$dest/");
> + }
this doesn't look right.
I think you should drop the empty argu
On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 08:58:41PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > Now, if we face dropping one or more of our architectures (i.e. m68k)
> > because new hardware can not be found anymore (the Vancouver proposal
> > mentions that "the release architecture must be publicly available to
> > buy new"
On Mon, Mar 21, 2005 at 12:26:13AM -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> It's not so fair to perpetrate a straw man attack against Sven's whole
> proposal just because he can't spell perfectly. Give the man credit
> where it's due for trying to better Debian.
This is stupid. The very phrasing was lig
Miros/law Baran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The font is included in the tetex-base package, along with other Type1
> GUST-sponsored fonts (Antykwa ToruÅska etc.) - I think such a package
> will be redundant.
Somebody shouldn't have to install tetex (tetex-base alone is 81MB) to
get a ttf font!
Hi Gunnar,
On Fri, Mar 18, 2005 at 08:06:47PM -0600, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
> And I am sure we can find more examples like these - I have not really
> checked, but I would be surprised if architectures as popular as
> Sparc, Alpha or ARM wouldn't have an emulator (although probably not
> currently as
On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 06:34:58PM -0800, Karl Chen wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm doing something that involves building every Debian package,
> and I'm finding (usually minor) discrepancies between what I build
> from source packages, and the binary packages uploaded by
> maintainers. I'm building each
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Ivan Kohler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* Package name: libfax-hylafax-client-perl
Version : 1.01
Upstream Author : Alex Rak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://search.cpan.org/dist/Fax-Hylafax-Client/
* License : Perl
Descriptio
Hi,
I'm doing something that involves building every Debian package,
and I'm finding (usually minor) discrepancies between what I build
from source packages, and the binary packages uploaded by
maintainers. I'm building each package in its own chroot which
contains only the minimum packages (bo
Scribit Bas Zoetekouw dies 15/03/2005 hora 10:37:
> I find it a bit hard to believe that Debian isn't able to support 11
> architectures while for example FreeBSD and NetBSD seem to manage
> fine.
- FreeBSD: 6 ports, 12646 packages
- Debian: 11 ports, 9157 packages (sarge) [17593 in sid]
- NetBSD:
On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 03:20:04PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 12:14:17PM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 21, 2005 at 06:50:22PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > >...
> > > The top three things I've spent release management time on that I
> > > shouldn't
> > >
Scripsit Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> The problem is that you are both looking at the process in reverse. As I
> explained, Ubuntu imports a subset of bugs from the Debian bug tracking
> system, and those are the bugs which are relevant to the process I
> described.
You make it sound lik
On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 12:14:17PM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 21, 2005 at 06:50:22PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> >...
> > The top three things I've spent release management time on that I shouldn't
> > have had to are, in no discernable order:
> > 1) processing new RC bug reports t
On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 02:55:17PM +, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 12:14:17 +0100, Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 21, 2005 at 06:50:22PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > >...
> > > The top three things I've spent release management time on that I
> >
On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 10:25:51PM +0100, Frans Pop wrote:
> On Tuesday 22 March 2005 22:08, Alexander Schmehl wrote:
(...)
> > AFAIK we don't have a good "What you can do to help us" documentation
> > (please correct me, if I am wrong).
No, we don't have one.
>
> How about http://www.debian.org
Sven Luther wrote:
On Mon, Mar 21, 2005 at 04:31:44PM -0800, Mike Fedyk wrote:
Sven Luther wrote:
Ok, this is the easy part, and also what the vancouver-proposal included,
the
difference comes in how the minority-arches are handled, and my proposal
is a
'includin
Thanks ;-)
Tue, 22 Mar 2005 18:31:18 +0100,
Isaac Clerencia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tuesday, 22 de March de 2005 15:15, Arnaud Vandyck wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> As you can read[1] I changed my blog. But I don't remember who can
>> change the RSS feed on planet.d.o.
>>
>> The new blog is h
On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 07:36:50PM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> Le mardi 22 mars 2005 à 17:46 +0100, Bernhard R. Link a écrit :
> > * Matthew Wilcox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [050322 16:51]:
> > > Debian has already decided to destroy what it is by giving in to the
> > > crackpots who insist that ever
tag 296917 +patch
thanks
Hi,
following the discussion about this bug on debian-devel, with some late,
I looked quickly in the code of the debhelper package, and I think I
could understand it very fast (proof that it is written in a very
maintainable way), so I tried to write this patch. I don't m
On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 12:32:30PM +, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 09:06:19AM -0300, Humberto Massa wrote:
> > And I believe that the Vancouver proposal, if implemented as intended up
> > to now, will not only affect what Debian really *is*, but in some ways
> > will *destroy
Le mardi 22 mars 2005 à 17:46 +0100, Bernhard R. Link a écrit :
> * Matthew Wilcox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [050322 16:51]:
> > Debian has already decided to destroy what it is by giving in to the
> > crackpots who insist that everything is software.
>
> You mean some people failed to destroy Debian th
On Tuesday 22 March 2005 22:08, Alexander Schmehl wrote:
> < cc-ing to -doc, since most part of the mail is more relevant there >
>
> Hi!
>
> * Nico Golde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [050318 18:59]:
> > [...]
> >
> > > I've been thinking of contributing to Debian for a long time since
> > > I started using
Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Our users and developers might want a distribution which
>
> 1. Runs on every platform; OR
> 2. Is 100% free, but only needs to run on their mainstream desktop; OR
> 3. Is technically the best at any cost; OR
> 4. Suitable for production use on modern ha
< cc-ing to -doc, since most part of the mail is more relevant there >
Hi!
* Nico Golde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [050318 18:59]:
> [...]
> > I've been thinking of contributing to Debian for a long time since I
> > started
> > using it. The problem is that I've not been able to find a good
> > com
> i386 doesn't get hit by it often because most people upload i386
> binaries and the wanna-build queue is almost always empty. Race
> conditions are exposed by parallel architectures.
Why can't we rebuild all packages even on i386 ?
It would help the buildd system by adding manpower from i386 por
Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[snip]
> A buildd host does not need much to work safely, so writing a security
> standard should be possible. How about a security standard like the
> following:
>
> * A buildd host must not have any port open, except for one SSH port
> (preferably p
On Mon, Mar 21, 2005 at 07:55:18AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> having a common kernel package will greatly simplify the parts of this process
> which involve the kernel-team, and let you just do the security fix, build and
> upload (either auto-built or hand-built), and then pass the baby to the
On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 12:14:17 +0100, Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 21, 2005 at 06:50:22PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> >...
> > The top three things I've spent release management time on that I shouldn't
> > have had to are, in no discernable order:
> >
> > 1) processing new
* Arnaud Vandyck ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050322 18:20]:
> As you can read[1] I changed my blog. But I don't remember who can
> change the RSS feed on planet.d.o.
Any DD can. Log into gluck, and take a look at
/org/planet.debian.org/README
Cheers,
Andi
--
http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/
P
On Tuesday, 22 de March de 2005 15:15, Arnaud Vandyck wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> As you can read[1] I changed my blog. But I don't remember who can
> change the RSS feed on planet.d.o.
>
> The new blog is here:
> http://www.edev.be.blog/
Hi Arnaud, you should be able to do it yourself, just read:
[EMAIL
Hi all,
As you can read[1] I changed my blog. But I don't remember who can
change the RSS feed on planet.d.o.
The new blog is here:
http://www.edev.be.blog/
Thanks to Cc me, I'm not subscribed on [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[1]
http://www.edev.be/blog/index.php/archives/2005/02/07/new-blog-definitive-lo
* Matthew Wilcox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [050322 16:51]:
> Debian has already decided to destroy what it is by giving in to the
> crackpots who insist that everything is software.
You mean some people failed to destroy Debian though loudly and very
often repeating the claim that some types of software
> I don't know why you're asking me; I've already said that I would consider
> this configuration acceptable for a release architecture, but that I
> wouldn't recommend it to the Sparc porters.
What do you mean "wouldn't recommend it to the sparc porters"? And what
does your recommendation count f
On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 12:55:16AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 21, 2005 at 08:08:57PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 18, 2005 at 06:44:46PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > > - Architectures which need more than 2 buildds to keep up with package
> > > uploads on an o
On Sun, Mar 20, 2005 at 08:48:45PM +0100, Julien BLACHE wrote:
> 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 becaus
On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 09:06:19AM -0300, Humberto Massa wrote:
> And I believe that the Vancouver proposal, if implemented as intended up
> to now, will not only affect what Debian really *is*, but in some ways
> will *destroy* what Debian is.
Debian has already decided to destroy what it is by g
On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 01:51:57PM +, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 14:15:13 +0100, Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [snip]
> > Except that arm doesn't *have* a large number of slow autobuilders,
> > working in parallel. They have four, and are having problems keep
On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 05:31:58AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 01:13:15PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 01:11:32AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
>
> > > You didn't answer the question I asked. Do you believe that DSA should be
> > > spending i
On Mon, Mar 21, 2005 at 06:50:22PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
>...
> The top three things I've spent release management time on that I shouldn't
> have had to are, in no discernable order:
>
> 1) processing new RC bug reports to set sarge/sid tags appropriately, so
> that the RC bug list for sar
The questions below were posted at long time in the DDTP-Coors list, but
weren't replied :(((
IMHO the ddts code needs a revision to correct bugs, I am wrong? This
revision is possible? I can help.
#
Hi,
there are questions
On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 14:07:32 +0100, Simon Richter
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> That sounds more like a case of too-loose build-dependencies to me
> rather than architecture specific problems. This can also hit i386, the
> fact that it hit ARM this time is sheer coincidence.
Should the uim maintain
On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 14:15:13 +0100, Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip]
> Except that arm doesn't *have* a large number of slow autobuilders,
> working in parallel. They have four, and are having problems keeping up
> right now.
Precisely. And four is already pushing the point of di
* Sven Luther
| And what is the size of the fan, and how much noise does it generate ?
My home box is a 92mm which generates < 20dB. The other one I'm not
sure about, but probably a noisy 60mm (since it's in a server room and
I don't care about noise there).
--
Tollef Fog Heen
On Mon, Mar 21, 2005 at 11:23:05PM +0100, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
> * Wouter Verhelst
> | Because it's cool. In both senses of the word (have you ever had to
> | measure the temperature of an i386 box?)
>
> (amd64, but I guess the point still applies):
Not exactly, as I assume the amd64 designers
On Mon, Mar 21, 2005 at 01:44:37PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 21, 2005 at 06:23:30PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > On Sat, Mar 19, 2005 at 02:12:50PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > > TTBOMK, even m68k has one buildd admin per buildd
>
> > False. There are some of us who curre
On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 01:13:15PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 01:11:32AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > You didn't answer the question I asked. Do you believe that DSA should be
> > spending its limited resources keeping hardware running for dead
> > architectures?
Simon Richter wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Michael K. Edwards:
> >The latest uim FTBFS twice on ARM because of the removal of howl
> >dependencies from gnome packages. The rebuilt gnome-vfs2 still hadn't
> >made it to unstable as of the second try, so the archive wasn't in a
> >state that any package depende
Mike Fedyk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> I was thinking of having support in the buildd to fetch source, check
> a local patch archive for fixes, patch source, build package, add
> patch to each debs /usr/share/doc/package/.
>
> Would that satisfy the GPL or othe
On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 04:58:33 -0800, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Eh, not particularly. This inspection can be done on any machine, and
> there's no reason not to just use the fastest one available to you (whether
> that's by CPU, or network); what's needed here is to first identify
On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 12:45:56PM +, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 11:02:47 +0100, David Schmitt
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [snip]
> > As Steve mentioned in another mail[1], one of the points where arches
> > offload
> > work onto the release team is
> >
> > "3) chasing
Hi,
Michael K. Edwards:
The latest uim FTBFS twice on ARM because of the removal of howl
dependencies from gnome packages. The rebuilt gnome-vfs2 still hadn't
made it to unstable as of the second try, so the archive wasn't in a
state that any package dependent on one of its binary packages could
b
On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 12:45:56PM +, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 11:02:47 +0100, David Schmitt
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > As Steve mentioned in another mail[1], one of the points where arches
> > offload
> > work onto the release team is
> > "3) chasing down, or ju
On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 11:02:47 +0100, David Schmitt
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip]
> As Steve mentioned in another mail[1], one of the points where arches offload
> work onto the release team is
>
> "3) chasing down, or just waiting on (which means, taking time to poll the
> package's status to f
* Wouter Verhelst ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050322 13:35]:
> On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 01:28:18PM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > * Wouter Verhelst ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050322 13:05]:
> > > In the general case, as I have said before, I don't think anyone would
> > > take offense at a security announcement
On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 01:28:18PM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
> * Wouter Verhelst ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050322 13:05]:
> > In the general case, as I have said before, I don't think anyone would
> > take offense at a security announcement being sent out containing
> > MD5sums for packages for i386,
* Wouter Verhelst ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050322 13:05]:
> In the general case, as I have said before, I don't think anyone would
> take offense at a security announcement being sent out containing
> MD5sums for packages for i386, sparc, powerpc, alpha, ia64 and s390,
> with a message like 'packages f
On Mon, Mar 21, 2005 at 07:29:24PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > The only distinction here is between merely publishing the patches on our
> > website, and pushing the patch to the Debian maintainer immediately. We
> > publish all of our patches
On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 01:11:32AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 09:36:46AM +0100, Falk Hueffner wrote:
> > This is too vague for me.
>
> Does the release team now have to do price shopping on replacement
> parts for buildds before it can say that it doesn't want to suppo
Sven Luther wrote:
>Still i believe i have made some constructive proposals, and even if my
>first posts may have been a bit too aggressive, for which i apologize,
>or too many, i think it is also a prove of the passion which lies on
>this issue. Something which has the potential to affect many of
On Mon, Mar 21, 2005 at 05:28:51PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> This adds up to a lot of effort for a dead-end architecture. Do you believe
> that such ports are going to command enough interest to be able to keep up
> with Debian's stable support requirements for more than 2 1/2 years (18mo.
>
On Mon, Mar 21, 2005 at 11:13:40PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>...
> People are far too busy picking on small details of proposals they don't
> like instead of coming up with a decent and comprehensive set of
> solutions. If you don't like what's been proposed, produce something
> better. For th
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The problem is when they actively oppose work.
I have not seen the release team actively oppose useful work. I don't
/think/ I've seen them actively oppose useless work, either. I'm fairly
sure I've seen them actively oppose work that would delay the relea
On Mon, Mar 21, 2005 at 08:08:57PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 18, 2005 at 06:44:46PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 10:48:10PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > > The next stage in the process is to actually sell the proposed changes for
> > > etch to the
On Tue, 22 Mar 2005, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 21, 2005 at 08:39:58PM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> > On Tue, 22 Mar 2005, Peter 'p2' De Schrijver wrote:
> > > No. There needs to be some override procedure like we have for
> > > maintainers not
> > > doing their job. But that
>
> The only sarge architectures that are likely of being affected by your
> "must be publicly available to buy new" rule during the next 10 years
> are hppa and alpha (dunno about s390).
>
Given IBM's track record in backwards compatibility I don't expect s390
to die at all :) Even the latest
On Mon, Mar 21, 2005 at 07:29:24PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>
> Um, so these patches, are they bugfixes?
Not necessarily, many of Ubuntu patches are just enhancements that _could_
be made in Debian. See for example http://bugs.debian.org/246935, they
might or might not have the corres
On Sat, Mar 19, 2005 at 09:52:18AM -0600, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
> 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 a
On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 07:45:00AM +, Alastair McKinstry wrote:
> On Máirt, 2005-03-22 at 00:11 +0100, Peter 'p2' De Schrijver wrote:
> > > If Debian is keeping an arch alive so much that one can still buy it new,
> > > I
> > > certainly can't see why we should not continue releasing for that
On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 04:43:56AM -0600, Marcos Pinto wrote:
> i'm trying to package vmwaredsp-1.1, which allows vmware to use
> esd/arts as a means to access sound. the problem i'm having is when i
> run dpkg-buildpackage -rfakeroot instead of installing the libraries
> in debian/tmp, it tries
On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 07:45:00AM +, Alastair McKinstry wrote:
>
> I think the point of this requirement is to support it we need buildds
> in the future for security fixes. Hence while I might like my mips box,
> etc. it would be irresponsible for us to do a release that we could not
> suppo
On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 11:02:47AM +0100, David Schmitt wrote:
> On Tuesday 22 March 2005 08:22, Sven Luther wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 21, 2005 at 08:39:58PM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> > > On Tue, 22 Mar 2005, Peter 'p2' De Schrijver wrote:
> > > > No. There needs to be some override
On MÃirt, 2005-03-22 at 00:11 +0100, Peter 'p2' De Schrijver wrote:
> > If Debian is keeping an arch alive so much that one can still buy it new, I
> > certainly can't see why we should not continue releasing for that arch,
> > however. So I'd say Matthew's explanation is not perfect. But the
> >
i'm trying to package vmwaredsp-1.1, which allows vmware to use
esd/arts as a means to access sound. the problem i'm having is when i
run dpkg-buildpackage -rfakeroot instead of installing the libraries
in debian/tmp, it tries to put them straight into /usr/lib, which
obviously fails. below is t
On Mon, Mar 21, 2005 at 05:28:51PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 21, 2005 at 09:51:25PM +0100, Falk Hueffner wrote:
> > Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > > * the release architecture must be publicly available to buy new
>
> > > Avoids a situation where Debian is keep
On Tuesday 22 March 2005 08:22, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 21, 2005 at 08:39:58PM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> > On Tue, 22 Mar 2005, Peter 'p2' De Schrijver wrote:
> > > No. There needs to be some override procedure like we have for
> > > maintainers not doing their job. But t
Hi Joerg!
Joerg Friedrich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> reading larger parts of the recent threads triggered by the
> 'Vancouver proposal' brought me to write this mail.
>
> Over the last two years testing became more and more a second
> (almost) stable distribution instead of being a preparation area fo
On Mon, Mar 21, 2005 at 11:23:05PM +0100, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
> * Wouter Verhelst
>
> | 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,
On Mon, Mar 21, 2005 at 04:31:44PM -0800, Mike Fedyk wrote:
> Sven Luther wrote:
>
> >Ok, this is the easy part, and also what the vancouver-proposal included,
> >the
> >difference comes in how the minority-arches are handled, and my proposal
> >is a
> >'including' proposal, while the vancouver-
On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 09:36:46AM +0100, Falk Hueffner wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 21, 2005 at 09:51:25PM +0100, Falk Hueffner wrote:
> >> Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> > * the release architecture must be publicly available to buy new
> >> > Avoids a situation where Debian is kee
Petter Reinholdtsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [Sven Luther]
>> No, he is not, as far as i am concerned, unless he presents his
>> apologies first.
>
> For what? Commenting on your wast amount of email posted the last few
> days, and his suggestion that the amount of email could make the
> ftpm
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, Mar 21, 2005 at 09:51:25PM +0100, Falk Hueffner wrote:
>> Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> > * the release architecture must be publicly available to buy new
>
>> > Avoids a situation where Debian is keeping an architecture alive
On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 09:12:45AM +0100, Benjamin Mesing wrote:
> Hello,
>
> > The Vancouver proposals satisfy all of these, potentially at the cost of
> > removing some architectures from the set released by Debian. If we want
> > to avoid that cost, can we come up with another proposal that sol
Hello,
> The Vancouver proposals satisfy all of these, potentially at the cost of
> removing some architectures from the set released by Debian. If we want
> to avoid that cost, can we come up with another proposal that solves the
> same problems in a way that satisfies the release team?
There w
On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 07:57:34AM +, Paul Hedderly wrote:
> I can happily provide two Sun SS20's , one or two U1's and an Acorn RiscPC
> to help build ARM and Sparc. I'd happily give them a basic install, provide
> broadband
> access to them and hand over control to the buildd team.
32-bit S
85 matches
Mail list logo
