On 05/05/25 at 22:14 +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
> In some cases, the bug is already known, because debian/rules
> has --max-parallel=1. Example: The alpine package.
>
> (I wonder how much feasible would be to skip those packages)
The alpine package is indeed a good example of a package that make
Hi Mo,
Am Mon, May 05, 2025 at 06:24:32PM -0400 schrieb M. Zhou:
> Hi Andreas,
>
> According to constitution A.1.6, would you mind helping us extend
> the discussion period by a week?
> https://www.debian.org/devel/constitution
I hereby extend the discussion period by a week.
I admit that I con
Hi Andreas,
According to constitution A.1.6, would you mind helping us extend
the discussion period by a week?
https://www.debian.org/devel/constitution
>From the feedbacks I've heard, there are a couple of problems we are
facing currently.
* Myself being confident in proposal A is one thing. Bu
On 06/05/2025 1:33 am, Bill Allombert wrote:
On Tue, May 06, 2025 at 01:12:43AM +0530, Pirate Praveen wrote:
I think we have to consider test target in rules differently from build
targets as the effect on these on the final binaries we ship is different.
I agree the current policy fit well wh
On Tue, May 06, 2025 at 01:12:43AM +0530, Pirate Praveen wrote:
> I think we have to consider test target in rules differently from build
> targets as the effect on these on the final binaries we ship is different.
>
> I agree the current policy fit well when applied to the build target. As we
> d
In some cases, the bug is already known, because debian/rules
has --max-parallel=1. Example: The alpine package.
(I wonder how much feasible would be to skip those packages)
Thanks.
Hi,
On 05/05/25 at 21:53 +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
> El 5/5/25 a las 21:26, Lucas Nussbaum escribió:
> > [...]
>
> Thanks a lot for this. I was never brave enough to go ahead
> and announce a MBF.
>
> May I know what kind of machines did you use to found those bugs?
> Machines with 8 CPUs only
On Mon, May 5, 2025 at 2:49 PM Mo Zhou wrote:
> On 5/5/25 11:44, Andrey Rakhmatullin wrote:
> >> It is too rush to start to vote for this within 3 weeks
> >
> > Does this maybe sound like the GR call was premature?
> > The project consensus, especially after
> > https://www.debian.org/vote/2021/vo
El 5/5/25 a las 21:26, Lucas Nussbaum escribió:
[...]
Thanks a lot for this. I was never brave enough to go ahead
and announce a MBF.
May I know what kind of machines did you use to found those bugs?
Machines with 8 CPUs only? (I ask because I found more than 800
packages with makefile issues
[adding -devel]
On 05/05/2025 2:49 pm, Bill Allombert wrote:
On Sat, May 03, 2025 at 09:11:21PM +0530, Pirate Praveen wrote:
Package: debian-policy
Version: 4.7.2.0
Dear Pirate,
Control: block 1104509 by -1
As a general policy, such block is inappropriate. Package are supposed to
comply wit
On Monday, May 5, 2025 12:26:00 PM Mountain Standard Time Lucas Nussbaum
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> GNU Make now has a --shuffle option that simulates non-deterministic
> ordering of target prerequisites. See
> https://trofi.github.io/posts/238-new-make-shuffle-mode.html and also
> previous work in Debian
Hi,
GNU Make now has a --shuffle option that simulates non-deterministic
ordering of target prerequisites. See
https://trofi.github.io/posts/238-new-make-shuffle-mode.html and also
previous work in Debian by Santiago Vila:
https://people.debian.org/~sanvila/make-shuffle/
While make always process
On 5/5/25 11:44, Andrey Rakhmatullin wrote:
It is too rush to start to vote for this within 3 weeks
Does this maybe sound like the GR call was premature?
The project consensus, especially after
https://www.debian.org/vote/2021/vote_003, seems to say that we don't
want multi-month GR discussio
Hi,
On Mon, 2025-05-05 at 16:13 +, Stefano Rivera wrote:
> Read section A.2 of the constitution: you can withdraw your ballot
> option, and the GR won't happen. Others may pick it up and carry it
> through to a GR, though.
There is that part though:
+---
| No new ballot options may be prop
Hi Mo (2025.05.05_15:15:01_+)
"The minimum discussion period is 2 weeks. The maximum discussion
period is 3 weeks."
This is surprising to me. Does that mean we must start to vote when we
reach the
maximum discussion period? I just thought I can go back and reply to
the detailed
issues in
Hi,
On Mon, 2025-05-05 at 11:15 -0400, Mo Zhou wrote:
> It is too rush to start to vote for this within 3 weeks as I'm
> completely not available for involving into discussions.
It is two weeks unless something specific happens, so discussion period
might already have ended by now...
Ansgar
On Mon, May 05, 2025 at 11:15:01AM -0400, Mo Zhou wrote:
More information can be found at:
https://www.debian.org/vote/2025/vote_002
I guess this is still in "discussion period"? When does that
period end and
the vote begin?
That's described in
https://www.debian.org/devel/constitution.en
On 5/5/25 01:58, Andrey Rakhmatullin wrote:
On Sun, May 04, 2025 at 09:24:45PM -0500, Steven Robbins wrote:
More information can be found at:
https://www.debian.org/vote/2025/vote_002
I guess this is still in "discussion period"? When does that period
end and
the vote begin?
That's descri
18 matches
Mail list logo
