Clint Byrum writes:
> Dreamhost is a hosting company. It actually is quite possible that all
> 20,000 machines mentioned are unique snowflakes in this case. Though it
> is probably more likely that there at most 10,000 unique machines, with
> some customers having only one, but others having 3 or
Excerpts from Russ Allbery's message of 2013-08-27 13:47:01 -0700:
> Clint Byrum writes:
>
> > Perhaps you missed the blog post [1] details?
>
> > "About ten months ago, we realized that the next installation of Debian
> > was upcoming, and after upgrading about 20,000 machines since Debian 6
>
Excerpts from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz's message of 2013-06-01 03:52:51 -0700:
> On 06/01/2013 12:24 PM, Vincent Bernat wrote:
> > I don't know how systemd behaves in this way (so this is not something
> > to hold against upstart), but there are so many daemons that need to be
> > started after th
Excerpts from Vincent Bernat's message of 2013-06-01 03:24:02 -0700:
> ❦ 1 juin 2013 00:44 CEST, Steve Langasek :
>
> >> start on (local-filesystems and net-device-up IFACE!=lo)
> >> stop on runlevel [016]
> >
> > FYI, it's strongly recommended to use 'start on runlevel [2345]' here as the
> >
Package: wnpp
Owner: gregor herrmann
Severity: wishlist
X-Debbugs-CC: debian-devel@lists.debian.org,debian-p...@lists.debian.org
* Package name: libmodule-reader-perl
Version : 0.002000
Upstream Author : Graham Knop
* URL : https://metacpan.org/release/Module-Reader
*
Package: wnpp
Owner: gregor herrmann
Severity: wishlist
X-Debbugs-CC: debian-devel@lists.debian.org,debian-p...@lists.debian.org
* Package name: libapp-fatpacker-perl
Version : 0.009018
Upstream Author : Karen Etheridge
* URL : https://metacpan.org/release/App-FatPack
The following is a listing of packages for which help has been requested
through the WNPP (Work-Needing and Prospective Packages) system in the
last week.
Total number of orphaned packages: 532 (new: 8)
Total number of packages offered up for adoption: 149 (new: 0)
Total number of packages request
On 13318 March 1977, Ondřej Surý wrote:
>> The open question is if having earlier (easy) access to uploads is
>> worthwhile or
> That would only make sense if buildds would be given access to i.d.o, and I
> consider this to be very dangerous (so I am not proposing this, juste
> mentioning it).
Yo
On 13318 March 1977, Uoti Urpala wrote:
>> So maybe 3293-3926 MB per day, i.e. about half of the actual package
>> changes.
> Could dinstall frequency vary by architecture? Most of the benefit in
> frequent dinstall runs comes from AMD64, but most of the cost comes from
> unimportant architectures
On 08/27/2013 06:53 AM, Pau Garcia i Quiles wrote:
>
> stable. Having a team of people like Mike, Michael, Gustavo, me, etc
> to take care of EVERY package is plain impossible, especially if we
> want 5 years
i didn't say EVERY package i say the packages we care about
we simply don't have the manp
On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 04:21:43PM +0200, Ondřej Surý wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 12:30 PM, Dmitrijs Ledkovs wrote:
> > I don't want to build packages using local apt repository of uploads,
> > since e.g. I don't want to upload something that was build against
> > earlier uploaded $foo, whi
Thanks for pointing this out, I have missed it on first read.
In that case I still don't see a strong reason why to have a public apt-getable
i.d.o.
Ondřej Surý
> On 29. 8. 2013, at 18:06, James McCoy wrote:
>
>
> On Aug 29, 2013 10:30 AM, "Ondřej Surý" wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 a
Holger Levsen schrieb:
> please start with helping supporting the current stable release better:
Indeed, actions speak louder than words. Here's four specific packages,
where the security team could need some help for an oldstable-security
update:
- mysql-5.1 needs to be updated to 5.1.71
- Seve
Ian Jackson writes:
> Jonas Smedegaard writes ("Re: UTF-8 in jessie"):
>> How about we simply mention explicitly that `arcane quoting' - even if
>> arguably related to UTF-8 encoding, should be classified not as
>> release-critical bugs but as spelling errors.
> I don't think it is a bug. What
Jonas Smedegaard writes ("Re: UTF-8 in jessie"):
> Quoting Ian Jackson (2013-08-29 18:03:22)
> > Jonas Smedegaard writes ("Re: UTF-8 in jessie"):
> >> I believe the underlying issue is the one summarized here:
> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Typewriter_apostrophe#ASCII_encoding
...
> My aim was
On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 12:33:26PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
> Users are part of the development and testing infrastructure of Debian.
>
> (Disparaging our users is another problem some of us seem to have..)
While I agree in general, this is *not* a slight against our users. I
would never dare. Seri
Quoting Ian Jackson (2013-08-29 18:03:22)
> Jonas Smedegaard writes ("Re: UTF-8 in jessie"):
>> I believe the underlying issue is the one summarized here:
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Typewriter_apostrophe#ASCII_encoding
>
> Yes.
>
>> How about we simply mention explicitly that `arcane quoti
Paul Tagliamonte wrote:
> Key word: we
>
> The issue is, users will think "Oh sure, this'll be a great way to get
> packages! Faster is better, right?"
Users are part of the development and testing infrastructure of Debian.
(Disparaging our users is another problem some of us seem to have..)
--
Ansgar Burchardt wrote:
> The more interesting part of the proposal has so far been ignored by
> most replies: we would make the incoming.d.o archive public. This would
> mean all new uploads are available after ~15 minutes via APT, a lot
> faster than the current interval between dinstall runs.
>
Joey Hess, le Thu 29 Aug 2013 12:08:09 -0400, a écrit :
> I am disturbed by the repeated use of this disparaging "versionitis" term
> in this thread.
>
> Wanting to be able to rapidly iterate as we develop a very complicated
> distribution is not "verionitis".
The word is not about that usage, bu
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Sylvestre Ledru
* Package name: iwsy
Version : 3.3
Upstream Author : Dean Sturtevant
* URL : http://code.google.com/p/include-what-you-use/
* License : University of Illinois/NCSA Open Source License
Programming Lang: C
On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 12:08:09PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
> I am disturbed by the repeated use of this disparaging "versionitis" term
> in this thread.
>
> Wanting to be able to rapidly iterate as we develop a very complicated
Key word: we
The issue is, users will think "Oh sure, this'll be a g
Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> Now there are those of us who think that this is against "the spirit" of
> having multiple dinstalls and that having apt-able incoming repositories
> will only lead to people with "versionitis" repeatedly abuse apt-get
> update, and not actually help development significantly
On Aug 29, 2013 10:30 AM, "Ondřej Surý" wrote:
>
> On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 2:39 PM, Ansgar Burchardt
wrote:
>>
>> The open question is if having earlier (easy) access to uploads is
>> worthwhile or
>
>
> That would only make sense if buildds would be given access to i.d.o, and
I consider this to
Jonas Smedegaard writes ("Re: UTF-8 in jessie"):
> I believe the underlying issue is the one summarized here:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Typewriter_apostrophe#ASCII_encoding
Yes.
> How about we simply mention explicitly that `arcane quoting' - even if
> arguably related to UTF-8 encoding,
Ansgar Burchardt writes ("Re: Less dinstall FTW?"):
> as I have seen some confusion what this change means in practice and
> most answers ignored the second part of the proposal, here are some more
> explanations:
Thank you for the clear explanation. I'm much less confused.
> The latter is proba
Ian Jackson wrote:
> Please let's not do this. Doing this would mean that after an upload
> there would be an even longer period where the archive database says
> that sid has version X but in fact it's difficult to find a copy of
> version X anywhere because the main archive and mirrors still hav
On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 2:08 PM, Michael Meskes wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 04:33:38PM +0200, Ondřej Surý wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 4:29 PM, Michael Meskes
> wrote:
> > > Anyhow, I doubt we can reasonably expect to maintain *all* packages
> for a
> > > longer
> > > period. How abou
Ansgar Burchardt wrote:
> In comparison the changing part of unstable:
>
> $ du -shc dists/unstable/*/{binary-*,source,Contents*.gz} | tail -1
> 665Mtotal
>
> So having two dinstall runs per day compared to four would reduce the
> amount of changes by roughly 1.3 GB per day. Mirrors also
On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 2:39 PM, Ansgar Burchardt wrote:
> The open question is if having earlier (easy) access to uploads is
> worthwhile or
That would only make sense if buildds would be given access to i.d.o, and I
consider this to be very dangerous (so I am not proposing this, juste
mention
On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 12:30 PM, Dmitrijs Ledkovs wrote:
> I don't want to build packages using local apt repository of uploads,
> since e.g. I don't want to upload something that was build against
> earlier uploaded $foo, which got rejected by ftp-masters for example.
> Currently, it's sometim
Quoting Ian Jackson (2013-08-29 13:56:09)
> Adam Borowski writes ("Re: UTF-8 in jessie"):
> > Let's take a look at some sheets.
>
> Last time I looked at this I found a copy of the actual ASCII
> standards document from 1968 or so and it did mention this usage.
>
> > > I don't think that better
Hi,
as I have seen some confusion what this change means in practice and
most answers ignored the second part of the proposal, here are some more
explanations:
dinstall and unchecked runs
---
The archive processes uploads every 15 minutes ("cron.unchecked"). At
this time
On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 04:33:38PM +0200, Ondřej Surý wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 4:29 PM, Michael Meskes wrote:
> > Anyhow, I doubt we can reasonably expect to maintain *all* packages for a
> > longer
> > period. How about starting with a defined list of packages that we do care
> > about in
Adam Borowski writes ("Re: UTF-8 in jessie"):
> Let's take a look at some sheets.
Last time I looked at this I found a copy of the actual ASCII
standards document from 1968 or so and it did mention this usage.
> > I don't think that better UTF-8 support should involve needlessly
> > converting 7-
Raphael Hertzog writes ("Re: Less dinstall FTW?"):
> It's probably a good idea to run dinstall more often but to push to
> mirrors only once or twice a day. That would probably imply keeping
> already processed packages for an entire day on incoming.d.o as well
> so that they don't disappear there
Steve Langasek writes ("Update policies for security bugs [Was, Re: Dreamhost
dumps Debian]"):
> I don't think this is incompatible with my contention that updates for
> security bugs should be driven by the security team. If we think a security
> fix should not be pushed *immediately* to users,
2013/8/29 Dominique Dumont :
> Are the package signatures verified at this point ?
Yes. Packages are listed in incoming.d.o after they have been accepted by dak.
Cheers,
Luca
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact lis
On Wednesday 28 August 2013 22:58:03 Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> * Have incoming.debian.org be an apt-able location (actually the buildd
>locations, so it is suite/archive specific, not one global queue)[1]
Are the package signatures verified at this point ?
All the best
--
https://github.com/
Hi,
please start with helping supporting the current stable release better:
http://udd.debian.org/bugs.cgi?release=wheezy&rc=1 shows 255 RC bugs in
wheezy, just four months after this counter was basically at zero.
Output from my (sadly currently still "internal") tool:
$ udd-tracker.sh
udd-
On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 11:59 AM, Martin Zobel-Helas wrote:
> I am raising my hand here. I am willing to support the debian security
> team. I will be able to do that during my paid work time, as my
> employer, credativ, is backing this.
>
> Mid-term goal should be a Debian LTS version, but we can
]] Dmitrijs Ledkovs
> Is incoming.debian.org mirrored?
No.
> Can incoming be mirrored on e.g. eu & jp UploadQueue boxes?
We'd probably not set up mirroring of it, no. We'd make it more easily
available through other means, as outlined in the initial mail.
--
Tollef Fog Heen
UNIX is user fri
Hi
Is incoming.debian.org mirrored? From my end (UK) it looks like it's
hosted in the USA, well 17 hops away with a ~10% packet loss along
the
way (could be blocked mtr/pings)
Its not, what should it be mirrored for currently. Thats part of this
thread,
if we make it apt-able, THEN it will
On 29 August 2013 10:55, Luca Falavigna wrote:
> 2013/8/29 Dmitrijs Ledkovs :
>> Can dinstall be run every hour please? For me, if anything dinstall is
>> not frequent enough.
>
> No, dinstall takes more than an hour to finish...
>
Ok.
>> If it takes longer than hour to execute, can it be optimi
Hi,
On Tue Aug 27, 2013 at 02:11:56 +0200, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> On 08/26/2013 12:33 PM, Neil McGovern wrote:
> > I'm hoping that these raising of hands are also offers to help do the
> > work to make it happen.
> >
> Guys, if you want it to happen, raise your hands *now* like Gustavo did.
> O
2013/8/29 Dmitrijs Ledkovs :
> Can dinstall be run every hour please? For me, if anything dinstall is
> not frequent enough.
No, dinstall takes more than an hour to finish...
> If it takes longer than hour to execute, can it be optimised and sped up?
... and even if it can be reduced, there are
On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 09:38:55 +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> The reason why we want to keep dinstall running often are notably:
> - closing bug earlier
bugs are closed in cron.unchecked, which runs every 15 minutes.
> - informing users/developers earlier that updates are available (even
>
Am 29.08.2013 09:38, schrieb Raphael Hertzog:
Can we separate dinstall and pushing to the mirrors ?
Yes we can, but I don't see the need for dinstall without pushing the
mirrors.
The reason why we want to keep dinstall running often are notably:
- closing bug earlier
Not needed. Happens
Bernd Zeimetz writes:
> On 08/29/2013 12:13 AM, Ansgar Burchardt wrote:
>> Lucas Nussbaum writes:
>>> Is there a reason why we couldn't have incoming.d.o apt-able without
>>> lowering the dinstall frequency?
>>
>> That is also possible, however fewer dinstall runs mean less data to
>> push to mi
Hi,
On Thu, 29 Aug 2013, Ansgar Burchardt wrote:
> Lucas Nussbaum writes:
> > Is there a reason why we couldn't have incoming.d.o apt-able without
> > lowering the dinstall frequency?
>
> That is also possible, however fewer dinstall runs mean less data to
> push to mirrors and to archive on sna
50 matches
Mail list logo
