Re: Request: Source for parts of GNU/Solaris

On Saturday 12 November 2005 05:09, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > >> To be more specific: I don't believe that the fact that software A > >> is being packaged with Debians tools is a derived work of said > >> tools, > > Hmm. What about software bits of the package (maintainer > scripts, added

Re: Request: Source for parts of GNU/Solaris

On Friday 11 November 2005 19:36, Erast Benson wrote: > > On Friday 11 November 2005 06:48, Anthony Towns wrote: > > Let's consider this dpkg binary from the GNU/Solaris LiveCD, which I have > > loop > > mounted: > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/gnusolaris/livecd-mnt/usr/bin$ ./dpkg > > bash: ./dpkg: No

Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program

On Friday 11 November 2005 21:19, George Danchev wrote: > On Tuesday 08 November 2005 00:53, Matthew Garrett wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 07, 2005 at 02:50:01PM -0800, Alex Ross wrote: > > > Here's the 2nd part of the answer: > > > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > > The question is, are you going to

Re: Request: Source for parts of GNU/Solaris

On Friday 11 November 2005 06:48, Anthony Towns wrote: > On Thu, Nov 10, 2005 at 06:07:33PM +0100, David Schmitt wrote: > > > [0] Presuming the FSF's claims about dynamic linking hold up in this > > > case, anyway. > > > > I consider a Debian-deri

Re: Request: Source for parts of GNU/Solaris

On Wednesday 09 November 2005 05:18, Anthony Towns wrote: > For those playing along at home, the CDDL isn't GPL compatible, and > OpenSolaris's libc is CDDL'ed -- so anything GPLed can't link to libc > since that would violate 3(a) [0]. The reason GPL'ed software is okay > for regular Solaris is th

Re: Request: Source for parts of GNU/Solaris

On Tuesday 08 November 2005 20:29, Erast Benson wrote: > > For example, I have found > > http://www.gnusolaris.org/apt/dists/elatte-unstable/main/binary-solaris-i > >386/base/apt_0.6.40.1-1.1_solaris-i386.deb which seems to be installed on > > the ISO image, but no corresponding source package unde

Re: Request: Source for parts of GNU/Solaris

On Tuesday 08 November 2005 17:17, Erast Benson wrote: > OK, for your convenient, http://www.gnusolaris.org/sources shold has > everything latest/not-committed tarballs of source code with our > modifications for every package we are using. > > We are preparing cron job, so, will update them every

Re: Request: Source for parts of GNU/Solaris

On Tuesday 08 November 2005 01:48, Erast Benson wrote: > www.gnusolaris.org is *the same place*. Oh, I expected some tar-ball to be linked from the same place as the ISOs (i.e. the Downloads page) not some point-and-click SVN-webinterface. > > this URL also does _neither_ offer access to the apt

Re: Request: Source for parts of GNU/Solaris

Dear Erast! On Tuesday 08 November 2005 01:01, Erast Benson wrote: > > Specifically requested were the source for libintl.so.3, > > libiconv.so.2, libc.so.1, libz.so, libbz2.so.1.0, and libgcc_s.so.1, > > which must be provided under terms no more restrictive than GPL > > sections one and two. > >

Re: Request: Source for parts of GNU/Solaris

Dear Alex! On Monday 07 November 2005 21:58, Alex Ross wrote: > John Hasler wrote: > > David Schmitt writes: > >> I have downloaded the elatte_live_prealpha1_x86.iso.gz[1] from your > >> website and found a dpkg binary on it. > >> > >> Much to my d

Re: Request: Source for parts of GNU/Solaris

On Monday 07 November 2005 21:29, John Hasler wrote: > David Schmitt writes: > > I have downloaded the elatte_live_prealpha1_x86.iso.gz[1] from your > > website and found a dpkg binary on it. > > > > Much to my dismay I was not able to locate the source for this b

Request: Source for parts of GNU/Solaris

to assume that other components on the CD are Free Software too. Therefore I again request you kindly to make the sources to the used libraries[4] available to me. Regards, David Schmitt [1] http://www.gnusolaris.org/elatte_live_prealpha1_x86.iso.gz, md5sum:17b70141a1c4a3d877af5271b1caf920 [2

Re: Derived distributions and the Maintainer: field

On Friday 06 May 2005 02:54, Matt Zimmerman wrote: [ thanks for this summary ] > Given the above, the relevant questions would seem to be: > > If a binary package is built by a third party from unmodified Debian > sources, should its Maintainer field be kept the same as the source > package,

Re: Should Debian use lsb init-functions?

On Wednesday 04 May 2005 23:21, Gunnar Wolf wrote: > Thomas Hood dijo [Wed, May 04, 2005 at 12:05:19AM +0200]: > > I have been looking at the lsb init functions and am beginning to feel > > that they are a bad idea. > > It will be a hard time converting to them, but in the end I think it > will be

"application" installation (was: Fwd: apt-get dist-upgrade will remove metapackages)

[since my comments are post-sarge, I dropped -release] On Wednesday 06 April 2005 04:33, Adeodato Simó wrote: > Anyway, that would be a solution local to the KDE metapackages (though > I believe other sets of metapackages are doing it like that), but it's > certainly suboptimal. > > I've w

Re: Bug#250202: Standardizing make target for 'patch' and 'upstream-source'

On Friday 01 April 2005 02:12, Scott James Remnant wrote: > I was initially thinking along these lines myself > , however I'm now starting to lean > towards not allowing arbitrary shell to just open up a source package; > it doesn't "feel" safe enough. > > I als

Re: Bug#250202: Standardizing make target for 'patch' and 'upstream-source'

[Cc:s trimmed. Probably should go to -dpkg] On Friday 01 April 2005 02:12, Scott James Remnant wrote: > On Wed, 2005-03-30 at 11:37 +0200, David Schmitt wrote: > > To prepare the sourcecode for inspection and/or minor modifications an > > additional argument for debian/rules woul

Re: CALL WwAVE cANCELATION

On Wednesday 30 March 2005 19:00, ERNRDT PODLUVKY wrote: > PLEASE UNSUBSUBSCRIBE ME AS OF TODAY---THANK YOU Please read and follow the instructions on http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2005/01/msg01444.html Regards, David -- - hallo... wie gehts heute? - *hust* gut *rotz* *keuch* - gott se

Re: Standard description file about maintainer groups

On Monday 28 March 2005 00:04, Eduard Bloch wrote: > I suggest debian/README.Debian.Maintainers as the filename. Hmm .. Following from README to README.Debian, wouldn't AUTHORS.Debian make more sense? Also, often this list is already present in debian/copyright ("packaged by ...") Regards, Da

Re: NEW handling: About rejects, and kernels

On Saturday 26 March 2005 20:25, David Nusinow wrote: > On Sat, Mar 26, 2005 at 03:59:49PM +, Henning Makholm wrote: > > Scripsit Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > On Thu, Mar 24, 2005 at 05:37:02PM +, Henning Makholm wrote: > > >> Do you have any arguments for this that do *not*

Re: Bug#295131: JFTR: sdl(glib2.0) vs. wx2.4(glib1.2) only affects scorched3d

On Thursday 24 March 2005 14:37, Bartosz Fenski aka fEnIo wrote: [analysis skipped] > I'm not sure what to do now. Is it possible to link our wxgtk2.4 against > glib2.0? Or unlink libsdl from using libglib? I found the cause: libSDL.so from libsdl1.2debian-all links against glib2.0 (and much othe

Re: Bug#301081: ITP: mutt-ng -- Mutt next generation (mutt-ng) is a fork of the well-known email client mutt

On Thursday 24 March 2005 00:09, Petri Latvala wrote: > On Wed, Mar 23, 2005 at 07:35:35PM +0100, Elimar Riesebieter wrote: > > Version : x.y.z > > Upstream Author : Name <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > * URL : http://www.example.org/ > > * License : (GPL, LGPL, BSD, MIT/X,

How to show $arch releaseability (was: Re: How to define a release architecture)

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

Re: NEW handling ...

On Monday 21 March 2005 02:19, Kyle McMartin wrote: > 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 pack

Re: NEW handling ...

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

Re: NEW handling ...

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 unstable. Compile this list+reasons so that everyone who is interested in

Re: Do not make gratuitous source uploads just to provoke the buildds!

On Friday 18 March 2005 11:35, Peter 'p2' De Schrijver wrote: > > Porters who have worked on getting an arch to REGUALR status are in a > > much better position (demonstrated commitment, technical aptness and > > experiencewise) to solve those problems than random-joe-developer. > > I have no idea

Re: Bits (Nybbles?) from the Vancouver release team meeting

On Friday 18 March 2005 07:27, Karsten Merker wrote: > On Fri, Mar 18, 2005 at 12:06:08PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > > m68k, mips, mipsel, hppa: I've got one in the basement, and I like > > to brag that I run Debian on it; also I occassionally get some work out > > of it, but it'd be trivial t

Re: Do not make gratuitous source uploads just to provoke the buildds!

On Thursday 17 March 2005 23:44, Peter 'p2' De Schrijver wrote: > On Thu, Mar 17, 2005 at 08:22:04PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > > Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > * Mike Fedyk ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050316 20:55]: > > >> Andreas Barth wrote: > > >> >If that happens for a too

idea for lintian/linda check (Re: NEW handling ...)

On Thursday 17 March 2005 23:06, Matthew Palmer wrote: > On Thu, Mar 17, 2005 at 10:15:50PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote: > > To know in how many packages to split or not to split the packages ? > > That would be one of the things that maintainers have gotten wrong in the > past, yes. Would it be poss

Re: .d.o machines which are down (Re: Questions for the DPL candidates)

On Thursday 17 March 2005 07:31, Joel Aelwyn wrote: > Don't even bother bringing up "redundant fiber". It may be, if it hasn't > been regroomed, and twenty plus years of network administrators have > learned the hard way that the gun is ALWAYS loaded. The best you can hope > for is a misfire. Debi

Re: NEW handling ...

On Thursday 17 March 2005 22:09, Joerg Jaspert wrote: > On 10231 March 1977, David Schmitt wrote: > >> > Collecting tidbits of > >> > information concerning the various packages rotting in NEW and making > >> > that information public. > >> > &

Re: Do not make gratuitous source uploads just to provoke the buildds!

On Thursday 17 March 2005 20:22, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: [very sensible suggestions removed] > Any problems with that? Not with the procedure in itself. I just want to chip in, that it is (not only) my opinion, that a REGULAR Debian release cannot allow delaying security updates and there

Re: arch-specific packages and the new SCC requirements

On Wednesday 16 March 2005 20:12, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: > What would really win, of course, is "Architecture: !hurd-i386". But > negative declarations are currently not yet supported. They should > be. Research the problem (especially on http://lists.debian.org/debian-{dpkg,release}/, but

Re: Dropping testing (was: Re: Bits (Nybbles?) from the Vancouver release team meeting)

On Thursday 17 March 2005 00:21, Adrian Bunk wrote: > On Wed, Mar 16, 2005 at 07:51:16PM +0100, David Schmitt wrote: > "libraries transitioned" is a big point against testing: > > Transitions of API-compatible libraries are a pain _only_ due to > testing. In unstable, suc

Re: NEW handling ...

On Thursday 17 March 2005 01:19, Matthias Urlichs wrote: > Hi, David Schmitt wrote: > > Collecting tidbits of > > information concerning the various packages rotting in NEW and making > > that information public. > > A list of packages-in-NEW is available on the Web,

Re: [RFC] OpenLDAP automatic upgrade

On Thursday 17 March 2005 02:59, Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote: > > That's for sure but I want to be able to do automatic upgrades for the > > simple cases. And at least help the admin by dumping the directory > > before starting the upgrade and taking care of the old database files in > > case he deci

Dropping testing (was: Re: Bits (Nybbles?) from the Vancouver release team meeting)

On Wednesday 16 March 2005 18:12, Adrian Bunk wrote: > I already sent two mails [1,2] where I expressed my opinion that dumping > testing might be an option since it's the main reason for the underlying > problems that seem to cause the proposed removal of two third of the > Debian architectures fr

Re: NEW handling ...

On Wednesday 16 March 2005 19:14, Matthias Urlichs wrote: > Hi, Matthew Palmer wrote: > > As far as a NEW-review team, when I raised this about a week ago, aj said > > that you'd effectively be ftpmasters, so why not be an ftpmaster? > > Umm, no. I presume ftpmaster has other duties. Besides, eyeba

summarising answers to Vancouver critique (was: Re: Bits (Nybbles?) from the Vancouver release team meeting)

Hi Martin, *! I spent a lot of my time reading the list in the last few days. The following is a short summary of the the answers I observed on d-devel in the last days. I'll amend that with observation I made in the last years from the sidelines as a interested non-DD. Thank you for providing

Re: *seconded* Re: Bits (Nybbles?) from the Vancouver release team meeting

On Wednesday 16 March 2005 13:55, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > Op wo, 16-03-2005 te 12:09 +1000, schreef Anthony Towns: > > The reason for the N = {1,2} requirement is so that the buildds can be > > maintained by Debian, which means that they can be promptly fixed for > > system-wide problems, and whic

etch release target: SELinux?? (was: Re: Bits (Nybbles?) from the Vancouver release team meeting)

On Monday 14 March 2005 05:45, Steve Langasek wrote: > Further plans for etch > -- [...] > Meanwhile, much of the release team's energy will be focused on > coordinating the many major changes that are sure to hit the archive > shortly after sarge's release. We already know o

Partial release idea for a given arch (was: Re: Bits (Nybbles?) from the Vancouver release team meeting)

On Tuesday 15 March 2005 20:10, Greg Folkert wrote: > On Tue, 2005-03-15 at 00:58 -0800, Steve Langasek wrote: > > This isn't being used to measure the use of the architecture; it's being > > used to measure the *download frequency* for the architecture, which is > > precisely the criterion that sh

Problems in the buildd network (was: Re: s390 not currently projected releasable)

On Wednesday 16 March 2005 06:20, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: > Blars Blarson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Another architecure that isn't keeping up to the 98% mark has a buildd > > mainainter who insists (to the point of threating) that I don't build > > and upload packages to help the build wit

Re: Bits (Nybbles?) from the Vancouver release team meeting

On Monday 14 March 2005 22:37, Brian M. Carlson wrote: > On Sun, 2005-03-13 at 20:45 -0800, Steve Langasek wrote: > > Architectures that are no longer being considered for stable releases > > are not going to be left out in the cold. > > I disagree. I feel that maintainers are going to ignore the S

Re: stable - yes or no?

On Tuesday 15 March 2005 17:08, Henning Makholm wrote: > Scripsit David Schmitt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > On Tuesday 15 March 2005 12:57, Henning Makholm wrote: > >> Scripsit Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> > >> > This really mak

Re: Bits (Nybbles?) from the Vancouver release team meeting

On Monday 14 March 2005 21:35, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > Looking just at the ones I reported: > > http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?which=submitter&data=brederlo% >40informatik.uni-tuebingen.de&archive=no > > #249397: FTBFS: amd64 missing in Architecture list > Package: mga-vid; Seve

Re: SCC proposal (was: Re: Questions for the DPL candidates)

On Tuesday 15 March 2005 02:02, John Goerzen wrote: > Simply making a snapshot -- or posting a set of .debs -- does not make > Debian stable. See #2, for instance. See below, please. > > > 2) Provides no way for such a stable release to be integrated into the > > >security build system; > >

discussing Debians qualities (was: Re: Bits (Nybbles?) from the Vancouver release team meeting)

On Tuesday 15 March 2005 14:34, Julien BLACHE wrote: > David Schmitt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Sure, and I won't say the contrary. But having a great infrastructure > >> (which is the case) and great people doing good work is of no help in > >> maki

stable - yes or no? (was: Re: Bits (Nybbles?) from the Vancouver release team meeting)

On Tuesday 15 March 2005 12:57, Henning Makholm wrote: > Scripsit Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > This really makes unstable snapshotting, or building stable once it's > > released as Anthony has also suggested in this thread, look like much > > better options than trying to build out of t

s390 not currently projected releasable (was: Re: Dropping from mirror network vs dropping from tier-1)

On Tuesday 15 March 2005 12:08, Frank Küster wrote: > >(exactly because of arches like s390 who > > should be able to reach tier-1 easily, but really have no reason to be on > > the mirror network). > > But it does *not* say that s390 is likely to be among the released > architectures. And I do no

Re: Bits (Nybbles?) from the Vancouver release team meeting

On Tuesday 15 March 2005 03:09, Anthony Towns wrote: > Soon everyone loves you, and you get a huge userbase, and hit 10% of > i386+amd64 downloads or five times powerpc's current userbase or so, and > say "I wanna be on ftp.d.o!!" Then you get moved across over a month or > so, and become a "tier-1

Security support for tier-2 (was: Re: Bits (Nybbles?) from the Vancouver release team meeting)

On Monday 14 March 2005 17:18, Sven Luther wrote: > On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 11:12:29AM -0500, David Nusinow wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 09:54:49AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote: > > > It is not unstable that I am (most) worried about. > > > > > > It is the lack of any possibility of a stable rel

Re: Bits (Nybbles?) from the Vancouver release team meeting

On Monday 14 March 2005 16:23, John Goerzen wrote: > On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 12:47:58PM +0100, Julien BLACHE wrote: > > Basically, you're just leaving a number of Debian users out in the > > cold. Users who choose Debian because we were the only distribution > > out of there to provide serious supp

Re: Bits (Nybbles?) from the Vancouver release team meeting

On Tuesday 15 March 2005 11:10, Julien BLACHE wrote: > Matthew Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > towards "making Debian", and the ftpmasters are doing a decent chop of > > things too. > > Sure, and I won't say the contrary. But having a great infrastructure > (which is the case) and great peopl

Re: Bits (Nybbles?) from the Vancouver release team meeting

On Monday 14 March 2005 17:02, Marc Haber wrote: > On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 10:21:39 -0500, Stephen Gran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > >So far as I can tell, the governing rule in Debian thus far has always > >been that the people doing the work get to make the decisions about > >their corner of the

amd64/multiarch transition (was: Re: Bits (Nybbles?) from the Vancouver release team meeting)

On Monday 14 March 2005 20:24, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > If it weren't for sarge blocking us we would have submitted multiarch > patches as early as one year ago. Should we start submitting / NMUing > them for _experimental_ now to get this change running and tested? Or > should we keep waiting

Building tier-2 against testing (was: Re: Bits (Nybbles?) from the Vancouver release team meeting)

On Tuesday 15 March 2005 10:41, Sven Luther wrote: > On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 01:21:59AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 11:00:12AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote: > > > > There are a few problems with trying to run testing for architectures > > > > that aren't being kept in sync.

Re: Call for help / release criteria

On Monday 14 March 2005 22:58, Christian Kurz wrote: > On [14/03/05 19:05], David Schmitt wrote: > > They do so now. Are you (all) prepared to take up the call? > > Pardon, but where do you see any public e-Mail from any of the "the > people doing release, ftpmaster, etc.

m68k (was: Re: Bits (Nybbles?) from the Vancouver release team meeting)

On Monday 14 March 2005 19:25, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > I think the only criteria m68k fails are the "2 buildds have to > suffice to keep up with etch" and the "10% download shares". The second criterion is only for the mirror network, not for tier-1. Please read the Nybbles proposal again:

Security support for tier-2 (was: Re: Bits (Nybbles?) from the Vancouver release team meeting)

On Tuesday 15 March 2005 07:49, Matthias Urlichs wrote: > Don't get me wrong, I'd love to have eternal security support for m68k > (or whatever compiles the kernel most slowly), but if I don't get that > choice, given "late" or "never" I'll happily take the former. Then read the Nybbles proposal a

Re: Vision for the future (was: Re: COUNT(buildd) IN (2,3))

On Monday 14 March 2005 19:38, Sven Luther wrote: > On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 07:17:08PM +0100, David Schmitt wrote: > > Both are currently "happening." The current release and security teams > > say that they cannot support the tier-2 arches for etch. The porters jump >

Security support on tier-2 (was: Re: COUNT(buildd) IN (2,3))

On Monday 14 March 2005 20:07, Julien BLACHE wrote: > Stephen Gran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > Thus the problem is less in the development and more in the support > >> > of testing requirements (all arches in sync) and stable support > >> > (security response time). Therefore the N<=2 require

Dropping from mirror network vs dropping from tier-1 (was: Re: Bits (Nybbles?) from the Vancouver release team meeting)

On Monday 14 March 2005 19:36, Sven Luther wrote: > Well, as long as the discussion is on dropping from the mirror network, > yes, you may be right, but the proposal is to drop from stable/testing > altogether, isn't it ? Quoting from the Nybbles proposal: "[...] the list of release candidate arc

Requireing 98% built sources (was: Re: Bits (Nybbles?) from the Vancouver release team meeting)

On Monday 14 March 2005 22:30, Bdale Garbee wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (David Schmitt) writes: > > On Monday 14 March 2005 11:10, Rene Engelhard wrote: > >> pcc is barely at 98%. I don't think that barrier should be that high. We > >> *should* at last release wi

Re: Supporting tier-2 (was Re: COUNT(buildd) IN (2,3))

On Monday 14 March 2005 19:18, David Nusinow wrote: > On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 05:57:05PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote: > > Reasonable security support requires some degree of cooperation with the > > current security team. Without that, vulnerabilities notifications won't > > be available. > > Why

Re: Bits (Nybbles?) from the Vancouver release team meeting

On Monday 14 March 2005 12:45, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > Op ma, 14-03-2005 te 12:38 +0100, schreef David Schmitt: > > On Monday 14 March 2005 11:28, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: > > > In this case, it was a bug that required human intervention, a package > > > upload tha

Vision for the future (was: Re: COUNT(buildd) IN (2,3))

On Monday 14 March 2005 17:16, John Goerzen wrote: > On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 05:03:30PM +0100, David Schmitt wrote: > > Thus the problem is less in the development and more in the support of > > testing requirements (all arches in sync) and stable support (security > > resp

Call for help / release criteria (was: Re: Bits (Nybbles?) from the Vancouver release team meeting)

On Monday 14 March 2005 17:31, Aurélien Jarno wrote: > Frank Küster a écrit : > > - First of all, we should take the details as a starting point for > > discussion, not as a decision that has made. Nevertheless, we must > > take into account that there are reasons for it: The people doing the

Supporting tier-2 (was Re: COUNT(buildd) IN (2,3))

On Monday 14 March 2005 17:39, Frank Küster wrote: > David Schmitt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb: > > On Monday 14 March 2005 16:27, Matthias Urlichs wrote: > >> Not when the alternate choice is to not have Debian support $ARCH at > >> all. > > > > Pl

Re: Bits (Nybbles?) from the Vancouver release team meeting

On Monday 14 March 2005 18:37, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > This point is *not* about supported architectures, only about > > architectures carried by the primary mirror network. We did consider > > having a single set of requirements for both "relea

Mirror Network (was: Re: Bits (Nybbles?) from the Vancouver release team meeting)

On Monday 14 March 2005 18:11, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Speaking of the mirror network is a red-herring. Mirrors are not > > forced to distribute every arch; they can and should eliminate archs > > they aren't interested in distributing. > >

Security Support and other reasoning (was: Re: Bits (Nybbles?) from the Vancouver release team meeting)

On Monday 14 March 2005 14:06, Sven Luther wrote: > > My answer is that I don't care enough for tow out of 15 boxes for the > > hassle, I will update them to sarge, be grateful for the gracetime given > > and - iff nobody steps up to do the necessary porting and security work - > > donate them to D

Package flow scenarios (was: Re: Bits (Nybbles?) from the Vancouver release team meeting)

[Sven, pPlease teach you and your mutt the use of reply-to-list] On Monday 14 March 2005 14:06, Sven Luther wrote: > On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 01:02:34PM +0100, David Schmitt wrote: [...] > No, you didn't understand. You are right. > let's tell the plan again : > > 1)

Re: Bits (Nybbles?) from the Vancouver release team meeting

On Monday 14 March 2005 14:50, Steve McIntyre wrote: > Lots of people on arm, for a start. Debian is (to my knowledge) the > only common distro that supports arm, so there are _lots_ of people > out there running embedded machines using bits from Debian. Look at > the emdebian project. Of course, m

COUNT(buildd) IN (2,3) (was: Re: Bits (Nybbles?) from the Vancouver release team meeting)

On Monday 14 March 2005 16:27, Matthias Urlichs wrote: > If I had to think of a rationale for it, the only one I could think of > would be "the architecture needs to be fast enough not to block security > updates". This is not the only one. Taking days to build some packages also leads to shlibs-

COUNT(buildd) IN (2,3) (was: Re: Bits (Nybbles?) from the Vancouver release team meeting)

On Monday 14 March 2005 14:24, Aurélien Jarno wrote: > Hamish Moffatt a écrit : > > I see it as more a practical consideration. If you can't buy the > > hardware new then you will have trouble keeping up with a growing > > unstable, especially given the requirement that you need <= 2 buildds. > > S

Re: Bits (Nybbles?) from the Vancouver release team meeting

On Monday 14 March 2005 14:29, Sven Luther wrote: > Obviously the aim is to have the tier 2 > arches dropped from the main ftp-servers of debian (do we still run some of > those on sun-donated sparc machines though ?), and going into alternate > solutions like the amd64 move on alioth or whatever,

Re: Do not make gratuitous source uploads just to provoke the buildds!

On Monday 14 March 2005 15:31, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > * Hamish Moffatt ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050314 01:45]: > >> On Sun, Mar 13, 2005 at 11:16:56PM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote: > >> > Our goal is that the queue gets empty from time to time, and so,

Re: Bits (Nybbles?) from the Vancouver release team meeting

On Monday 14 March 2005 12:05, Robert Lemmen wrote: > - there must be a way for a scc arch to get a stable release. why don't > we either keep testing for scc archs but not do releases, so the > porters can do their own stable releases of their arch or have > per-arch testing? (the latter mig

Re: Bits (Nybbles?) from the Vancouver release team meeting

On Monday 14 March 2005 10:56, Aurélien Jarno wrote: > I think that supporting a lot of architectures is an important > difference between Debian and other distributions. Changing that could > have a dramatically influence of what users think of Debian. IMHO, such > an important decision should not

Re: Bits (Nybbles?) from the Vancouver release team meeting

On Monday 14 March 2005 11:05, Sven Luther wrote: > > > > Andreas Schuldei (DPL candidate) > > > > Angus Lees (DPL candidate) > > > > Branden Robinson (DPL candidate) > > > > Jonathan Walther (DPL candidate) [...] > And how do you reconcile the fact that most of those told us recently on

Re: Bits (Nybbles?) from the Vancouver release team meeting

On Monday 14 March 2005 11:00, Sven Luther wrote: > On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 01:14:47AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote: > > There are a few problems with trying to run testing for architectures > > that aren't being kept in sync. First, if they're not being kept in > > sync, it increases the number of

Re: Bits (Nybbles?) from the Vancouver release team meeting

On Monday 14 March 2005 12:21, Ingo Juergensmann wrote: [...] > but in fact this is already a decission being > made by just a handful of people without asking those who will be affected > by that decision. I always thought those who do the work, also get to make the decisions. Regards, David -

Re: Bits (Nybbles?) from the Vancouver release team meeting

On Monday 14 March 2005 11:10, Rene Engelhard wrote: > pcc is barely at 98%. I don't think that barrier should be that high. We > *should* at last release with the tree most important archs: i386, amd64, > powerpc. Please, 98% is not high. It is just a call to porters to get their act together.

Re: Bits (Nybbles?) from the Vancouver release team meeting

On Monday 14 March 2005 11:28, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: > In this case, it was a bug that required human intervention, a package > upload that accidentally would hose a chroot, which required the > chroot to be repaired for each affected buildd. Even that can be mitigated by debootstrapping the

Re: Cron-standard package to replace current tasks in 'cron'

[Please don't confuse my procmail with Cc's] [http://www.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct] On Wednesday 09 March 2005 16:16, sean finney wrote: > On Wed, Mar 09, 2005 at 04:00:49PM +0100, David Schmitt wrote: > > Why {c,sh}ouldn't they be implemented as c

Re: Cron-standard package to replace current tasks in 'cron'

On Wednesday 09 March 2005 15:20, Javier FernÃndez-Sanguino PeÃa wrote: > - Basic system accounting (implement in sysstat) > - Basic logfile reporting (implemented through logcheck) > - Basic security checks (implemented through checksecurity and Tiger) > - Integrity file monitoring (through tr

Re: Key management using a USB key

On Wednesday 09 March 2005 01:42, David Härdeman wrote: > So the revocation could even be stored in cleartext on the usb key, > unless I'm mistaken? Depending on the strength of the crypto/passphrase protecting your key, this could lead at least to a DOS if the revocation is publicised without c

Re: [OT] maildir (was Re: procmail and Large File Support)

On Monday 28 February 2005 01:51, Ron Johnson wrote: > On Sun, 2005-02-27 at 18:19 -0500, sean finney wrote: [snip] > > figuring the average email is about 13-15k, i believe an ext2/ext3 > > That seems awfully huge. In my (Maildir) archive of d-u, the > average size is 4,959 bytes. Of course, the

Re: splitting a source package into 2 source packages

On Saturday 26 February 2005 08:45, sean finney wrote: > so i'm thinking these two packages should be generated from their own > respective tarballs (and i'm not sure why they weren't in the first > place). however, one thing that's not clear to me is whether or not the > new second source package

Re: Automatic building of (parts of) the archive

On Friday 25 February 2005 18:43, Frank Küster wrote: > in order to test whether packages that build-depend on tetex can still > be built with the upcoming version 3.0, I would like to automatically > build as many of these packages. Take a look at pbuilder. There are people recompiling the whole

Re: all new Debian diagram - now with less chaos!

Hi Kev, list! On Tuesday 15 February 2005 08:27, Kevin Mark wrote: > after my initial work on a diagram, and the comments and the work of > madduck, ÂI had some time to redo my diagram to produce a totally new > concept. any comment appreciated. Really nice and clean. Great to see such fundamenta

Re: runlevel and sequence point for gfs cluster infrastructure

On Sunday 13 February 2005 18:47, Bastian Blank wrote: > I currently try to get gfs and the cluster infrastructure into a usable > state. One of the problems are the runlevel and sequence point settings > for each step. Take a look at the NFS packages, while I'd venture that PCMCIA NICs are irre

Re: /etc under svk

On Friday 11 February 2005 18:50, Ricardo Mones wrote: > On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 18:36:04 +0100 > > Enrico Zini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > And a question: where do we collect this kind of tips? > > Create a debian-tips package :) Like fortunes-debian-hints? Description: Debian Hints for fortune

Bad Sig (was: Re: Diversion of APT tools by dpkg-cross (apt-get,apt-cache,apt-config))

On Wednesday 02 February 2005 10:21, Adrian von Bidder wrote: > On Tuesday 01 February 2005 21.49, Raphael Bossek wrote: > > Message was signed by [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Key ID: 0x376941AB835EB2FF). > > Warning: The signature is bad. > > Something's broken somewhere... > > Can anybody confirm so I can

Re: Service cancellation

On Sunday 30 January 2005 19:50, A L BRIGGS wrote: > Please remove my service to Callwave . Hi! Please take a look at the instructions at http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2005/01/msg01444.html Thanks, David Schmitt -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject

Re: scripts to download porn in Debian? [was: Re: RFS: dosage -- powerful webcomic downloader / archiver]

On Tuesday 25 January 2005 04:51, Sam Watkins wrote: > Dosage / mainline has a feature to download all supported comics, so it > is quite possible for someone (perhaps a child) to stumble across this > one by accident, as I did. Probably nearly everyone who tries dosage > will want to see the rang

Re: Reboot in postinst

On Friday 21 January 2005 11:03, Marc Haber wrote: > This prompts a question I have been wanting to ask for ages: When a > security update for, say, libc6, libssl or libz is installed, do I > need to restart services or not? That's one of the question you ask > three people and get five different a

Re: dselect survey

On Fri, Dec 10, 2004 at 12:03:03PM +0100, Florent Rougon wrote: > [1] I still use both versions and happen to often hit instead of > when I use sid's one, which doesn't have any bad > consequences (simply scrolls help). And the problem will disappear > automatically when I don't have

  1   2   >