On Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 06:45:30PM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> Le Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 09:59:01AM +0200, Ingo Juergensmann a écrit :
> > I believe that changing the release scheme to not release the whole archive
> > in one release but do some sort of subreleases (base, X, da
On Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 11:07:08AM +0300, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
> pe, 2008-08-15 kello 09:59 +0200, Ingo Juergensmann kirjoitti:
> > True. I would rather like to see the m68k porters to spend their time on
> > real porting issues than on establishing the infrastructure that is nee
On Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 05:51:00AM +0200, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> > Is this a unanimous decision of the ftp team? You say that discussions were
> > had at DebConf 8, but not all of the ftp team (or even all of the ftp
> > masters) are present there...
> I know that not all of us have been here. Wh
On Thu, Aug 14, 2008 at 05:56:33PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> If we aren't really running
> into resource constraints linked to the architecture count, it's a poor use
> of people's time to have to redeploy all of the ftp-master infrastructure on
> a separate host.
True. I would rather like t
On Thu, Jun 28, 2007 at 09:13:07AM +0400, Sergei Golovan wrote:
> Could someone explain me (or point to a manual) what 'Uploaded' means
> in http://people.debian.org/~igloo/status.php?packages=erlang ?
> The package was initially uploaded for amd64 architecture. It was
> built for i386 and stays i
On Mon, Jun 11, 2007 at 02:46:08PM -0600, Warren Turkal wrote:
> I personally have 6 or 7 U320 73GB 10K RPM SCSI drives that I am not using
> for
> anything interesting. Can anyone tell me if these would be useful to Debian
> or recommend another free software group to donate them?
The m68k po
> On Sat, 28 Oct 2006, Charles Plessy wrote:
> >I think that what happend to clustalw shows that the current unofficial
> >autobuilding process is very fragile. As if I understand correctly one
> >release manager is implicated in buildd.net,
Well, not directly...
Andreas Barth is managing the un
On Sat, Oct 14, 2006 at 05:35:57PM -0400, Kevin Mark wrote:
> > However there are some packages which are clearly not sensible on some
> > arches. Numerical analysis software in general on arm is a good
> > example of this class. Arm hardware is generally slow and more
> > seriously has no floatin
On Sun, Oct 15, 2006 at 03:16:04AM -0500, Ron Johnson wrote:
> > Because it is perfectly fine to run kde on such a system. Anything
> > that can run gnome can run kde. Anything that can run X can run kde I
> > would even say. Kicking one alternative for something (like kde) but
> > not others (lik
On Sun, Oct 15, 2006 at 07:03:59AM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> I think it should be in the porters control what packages to build for
> an arch with some guidelines what sort of packages can be removed
> without loosing release status. For example removing KDE would not be
> OK. Removal s
On Sat, Oct 14, 2006 at 07:30:15PM +0200, Holger Levsen wrote:
> On Saturday 14 October 2006 12:51, Wookey wrote:
> > Nevertheless I think it is clear that we do need mechanisms to keep
> > the load and package set appropriate for slower arches. If we design
> > the mechanism properly I would hope
On Sat, Oct 14, 2006 at 11:51:49AM +0100, Wookey wrote:
> On 2006-10-14 12:06 +0200, Ingo Juergensmann wrote:
> > It doesn't make much sense to build all Desktop related packages for an arch
> > that is mainly used remotely or as an embedded device. I don't think that
&
On Sat, Oct 14, 2006 at 12:21:35PM +0200, Toni Mueller wrote:
> I agree with most of what Wookey and you said, but would like some
> clarification on this:
> On Sat, 14.10.2006 at 12:06:20 +0200, Ingo Juergensmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > But sadly, I have very
On Sat, Oct 14, 2006 at 02:30:14AM +0100, Wookey wrote:
> In general debian builds everything for every architecture. This is a
> very good plan and finds a lot of bugs.
Agreed.
> However there are some packages which are clearly not sensible on some
> arches. Numerical analysis software in gene
On Fri, Jul 28, 2006 at 03:28:13PM +1000, Drew Parsons wrote:
> As I understand it, buildds (or is it a separate set of servers?) are
> now autocompiling packages in experimental.
Experimental is using a different buildd infrastructure than the official
buildds and so do sarge-backports, non-free,
On Thu, Jul 06, 2006 at 11:58:28PM +0200, Adam Borowski wrote:
> > > program X consist of a number of C files; it seems like compiling
> > > every file takes around 24MB,
> > Like I said, there's just too many variables. Also, I wouldn't be
> > interested in figuring out how much RAM the build tak
On Fri, Jun 30, 2006 at 03:26:15AM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> > Still, the buildd admin has no way to estimate how much a sub-process
> > of a package is going to use, the maintainer has at least a rough
> > idea. Since the maintainer's action is needed anyway, he can as well
> > provid
On Fri, Jun 30, 2006 at 03:22:48AM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> The same can't be said for upstream makefiles though. Many sources
> don't build with -j option. I'm not sure if debian/rules should
> somehow enforce -j1 in those cases or if only packages that benefit
> from -jX should add s
On Wed, Jun 28, 2006 at 01:37:37PM +0200, Adam Borowski wrote:
> > Well, make -jX is not everywhere faster on UPs. It depends on other factors
> > as well. If you specify -j2 and the second make is causing lots of swapping,
> > you won't gain much if anything at all.
> Exactly, just like I said:
On Wed, Jun 28, 2006 at 02:06:26AM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
> Why not just have some ENV variable (CONCURRENCY_LEVEL?) which
> specifies the maximum -j; the package maintainer is free to choose any
> level equal to or below that.
> [...]
> This has the disadvantage of not automatically using -
On Wed, Jun 28, 2006 at 10:31:54AM +0200, Adam Borowski wrote:
> On the other hand, making builds significantly faster is not
> something that you can shake a stick at. Typically make -jX is faster
> even on uniprocessor, and I don't need to tell you why it's much
> faster on SMP.
Well, make -jX
On Sun, Jun 25, 2006 at 06:51:31PM +0200, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
> [Lars Wirzenius]
> > As far as I can see, using make's -j option is only useful if you
> > have multiple processors. Packages should not make such assumptions
> > of the build environment.
> Actually, I've seem speedup with -j2
On Fri, Jun 02, 2006 at 10:15:53AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > So I guess if the current dip doesn't look out of the ordinary to any of the
> > porters, we can wait and see.
> Currently, I'm suspecting a pre-freeze upload frenzy, since there's a
> dip for almost every architecture (though mo
On Wed, May 31, 2006 at 04:16:47PM +0200, Thomas Weber wrote:
> is it possible for a 'building' package to send a mail to the buildd
> admin of the current buildd machine (i.e. something like
> [EMAIL PROTECTED])?
Usually (at least for most m68k buildds) the buildd runs under *surprise*
the use "
On Tue, May 30, 2006 at 02:01:19PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> BTW, can you tell me anything about the dip in
> http://buildd.debian.org/stats/graph2-quarter-big.png for m68k? Seems to be
> heading in the wrong direction again for being a release candidate. I see
> 12 buildds actively uploadi
On Tue, May 30, 2006 at 05:52:43PM +0200, Ingo Juergensmann wrote:
>
> > >I tried it on akire, but was interrupted by real world issues.
> > >When you could give a more detailed HowTo (sbuild, dpkg-buildpackage,
> > >whatever) I would retry...
> > Very eas
On Tue, May 30, 2006 at 04:44:49PM +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> >I tried it on akire, but was interrupted by real world issues.
> >When you could give a more detailed HowTo (sbuild, dpkg-buildpackage,
> >whatever) I would retry...
> Very easy:
> dget http://people.debian.org/~aurel32/glibc/gli
On Tue, May 30, 2006 at 04:31:33PM +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> I haven't done a build on m68k yet.
I tried it on akire, but was interrupted by real world issues.
When you could give a more detailed HowTo (sbuild, dpkg-buildpackage,
whatever) I would retry...
--
Ciao...//
On Tue, May 23, 2006 at 01:23:49PM +0400, Nikita V. Youshchenko wrote:
> I just found that my package, libetpan, was not updated for m68k.
> [1] states that it is out of date on m68k.
> But [2] states that latest version was successfully built on m68k long ago
> - on Apr17.
> What's going on?
A
Hi!
Since my last update on Buildd.Net [0] features here [1] many new features
were added to Buildd.Net. I'll try to some them up:
* a new design - the layout and structure of Buildd.Net changed.
* devel systems - to support developers in their porting work, Buildd.Net
donates accounts on s
On Fri, Jan 13, 2006 at 02:09:19PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> Additionally, Ingo told me when the mail about that meeting had come out
> that he'd already tried such a setup in the past (I didn't know that
> when we were in Helsinki, but it was before that), and that his setup,
> IIRC, was in
On Thu, Jan 12, 2006 at 09:41:28PM +0100, Ionut Georgescu wrote:
> On Wednesday 14 December 2005 19:25, Adeodato Simó wrote:
> > * Jens Peter Secher [Wed, 14 Dec 2005 18:50:26 +0100]:
> > > I need to test that a package can be built with g++ >= 4:4.0.2-2 on
> > > HPPA, Arm, or M68k. Is there a DD
free, regardless of what
> theoretical license is attached to the theoretical source that no one has
> access to.
http://www.buildd.net/index.html - at the end of the page it states:
"This service is donated to the Developers of the Debian Project by Ingo
Juergensmann."
It's a service,
On Fri, Dec 16, 2005 at 04:02:01PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> > (The contact addresses and machine up/down statuses are a valuable part of
> > buildd.net which *isn't* there, but that's another matter entirely, which
> > requires different and additional work.)
> The graphs are also no
On Mon, Dec 12, 2005 at 10:46:10AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Even if the current software isn't publically available for whatever
> reason (personally, I'm putting my money on "hacked into place over time
> and not particularly easy to massage into a form someone else could run,"
That's one pa
On Sun, Dec 11, 2005 at 05:30:24AM -0500, Kevin Mark wrote:
> has anyone every considered a check in the buildd infrastructure to
> alert someone (buildd admin and/or others) if a build is taking too long
> (eg openoffice usually takes between 2-3 hours to build and the current
> build has been bu
On Sat, Dec 10, 2005 at 06:29:03PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> I would like to note that I have made a practical and *new* suggestion
> for dealing with some of these problems
> (contrary to suggestions that I'm just flaming), because nobody's picked
> up on my idea.
Well, it's hard to sug
On Sat, Dec 10, 2005 at 08:22:24AM +0100, Bernd Eckenfels wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
> > If a package is failing to build or to function on some architecture,
> > your job as that package's maintainer is see if it can be fixed (talking
> > to porters and/or upstream if it's
On Fri, Dec 09, 2005 at 04:08:55PM -0500, Erinn Clark wrote:
> > Where is the buildd.net software located? I poked around on the site but
> > I couldn't find it except for the update-buildd.net script.
> (Replying to myself after getting an answer on IRC from Ingo...)
> The short summary to my ans
On Thu, Dec 08, 2005 at 10:32:40PM +0100, Frank Küster wrote:
> > Feature requests and other things are always welcome! I can't know what you
> > want until you tell it to me. ;)
> Nothing - these the questions I was mainly interested in regarding
> buildd's:
> - is my package already built everyw
On Thu, Dec 08, 2005 at 06:45:09PM +0100, Frank Küster wrote:
> >> http://bugs.debian.org/342548
> >> Why hasn't that been done before? Where else should this be documented?
> > Well, Steve wrote lately about the [EMAIL PROTECTED] mails:
> > "AIUI, the @buildd.debian.org addresses have a ridicul
On Thu, Dec 08, 2005 at 04:35:14PM +0100, Frank Küster wrote:
> >> > What problems are there today with buildd administration, please?
> >> One obvious problem is that there is no documented contact address (just
> >> search for "buildd" on http://www.debian.org/intro/organization). One
> >> has
On Thu, Dec 08, 2005 at 01:39:27PM +0100, Frank Küster wrote:
> > What problems are there today with buildd administration, please?
> One obvious problem is that there is no documented contact address (just
> search for "buildd" on http://www.debian.org/intro/organization). One
> has to know by s
Hi!
After buildd.net is fully working again, I thought it might be worthwhile to
let you know and write a small mail about its new features:
* buildd.net now supports unstable, non-free, sarge-volatile, experimental
and etch-secure targets
* after the inclusion of armeb, hurd-i386, kfreebsd
On Thu, Sep 22, 2005 at 01:52:06AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 21, 2005 at 02:52:57PM +0200, Ingo Juergensmann wrote:
> > Although it was discussed several times, I have still no idea how those
> > users should be counted?
> > Who has to show those numbers? T
Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
> [Ingo Juergensmann]
>> As I tried to say: there need more exact quidelines for
>> this. Currently they are very vague in my eyes.
> You failed to say why the guidelines need to be more exact. In my
> view, the guidelines are good enough. This i
On Wed, Sep 21, 2005 at 04:28:07PM +0200, Steinar H. Gunderson wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 21, 2005 at 04:22:27PM +0200, Ingo Juergensmann wrote:
> > That's not only "must have 50 users" but more a "must have 50 users that do
> > stuff on those machines".
>
On Wed, Sep 21, 2005 at 03:37:25PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > > | * Developer availability: The architecture must have a
> > > |developer-available (i.e. debian.org) machine that contains the
> > > |usual development chroots (at least stable, testing, unstable).
> > > This criterion
On Wed, Sep 21, 2005 at 03:46:14PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > Well, I'm already running popcon on my two m68ks, but that doesn't say much
> > about how many users are using that machines, as you state yourself. ;)
> Well, it's up to the porters to count the users, but of course, if you
> stat
On Wed, Sep 21, 2005 at 03:19:16PM +0200, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
> [Ingo Juergensmann]
> > Although it was discussed several times, I have still no idea how those
> > users should be counted?
> Two ideas.
> - Get them to install popularity-contest. This will make their
On Tue, Sep 20, 2005 at 11:41:13PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> Now, looking more into details, the criteria are:
> | * Availability:
> | The architecture needs to be available for everybody, i.e.
> The reason for this should be obvious
The requirement of "available as new" has been dropped
On Sun, Aug 21, 2005 at 03:58:24AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> 1. The requirement that 'an architecture must be publically available to
>buy new'.
>
>It was explained that this requirement was not made to be applied
>retroactively to already existing ports; rather, it was designed
On Tue, Jun 07, 2005 at 03:27:42PM -0700, Blars Blarson wrote:
> It looks like this software could use some redesign to put less work
> on the buildd maintainers and scale better to more buildds.
There was one in the make, but it got stuck for some unknown reasons (mostly
because involved people
On Mon, Jun 06, 2005 at 04:50:35PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 06, 2005 at 02:00:47PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> > Then what do you mean? There are several architectures with porters
> > ready to do huge amounts of porting work. For example, would you dare to
> > say m68k is l
On Wed, May 18, 2005 at 04:25:02PM +0200, Benjamin Mesing wrote:
> > You would rather have silence than know why you are being ignored?
> > Then silence you shall have.
> Well, its the tone that makes the music we use to say here in Germany.
> Certainly there would have been ways to tell Bluefutur
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 Wed, Mar 16, 2005 at 04:37:13PM -0500, Roberto C. Sanchez wrote:
> >For example both public debian m68k machines are located on the same window
> >sill at the Univ. of Duesseldorf. IMHO not the best place to position
> >important infrastructure.
> I agree. A sturdy table, or even a shelf or se
On Wed, Mar 16, 2005 at 10:00:15AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> > Either you trust me as a person or you trust some kind of software snippet,
> > aka gpg key.
> I don't know who you are. The snippet tells me who you are.
even with that snippet you don't know me. You just know, that there
On Wed, Mar 16, 2005 at 04:14:22PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> The step for you to become trusted is easy: apply for NM. A few years
> ago, I would've happily become your advocate. This /must/ mean you're
> trustworthy, even though you're not trusted yet. After all, trustworthy
> means 'deserv
On Wed, Mar 16, 2005 at 01:55:47PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> I can understand these concerns, and they are valid; but there are
> better ways to tackle them. Requiring that the machines are owned and
> hosted by Debian Developers, rather than random non-developers, for
> example, could be a
On Wed, Mar 16, 2005 at 12:50:31PM +0100, Martin Schulze wrote:
> Done.
Well said.
--
Ciao... //
Ingo \X/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, Mar 17, 2005 at 12:09:28AM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> > So, you call me not trustworthy, [...]
> No. I said you aren't trusted, not that you aren't trustworthy.
> Those are quite different things. As I am not the DAM, I don't
> decide whether or not to trust you on behalf of Debian.
I
On Wed, Mar 16, 2005 at 12:20:34AM -0800, Blars Blarson wrote:
> If we are going to require redundancy, I think we should do it better
> and add:
> - at least two buildd administrators
*nod*
> - systems located in at least two different facilities (different
> cities and backbones if at all po
On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 11:54:31PM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > What will happen is something like this:
> > A: "Oh, let's see what we got here a nice Alpha server..."
> > B: "Let us install Debian on it!"
> > *browsing the web*
> > A: "Oh, no release of Debian for Alpha... it's unsupported.
On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 07:34:16PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > Again, without a proper communication there's no chance of cooperation.
> > Otherwise those kinds of "I've heard that you've done..."-stories would have
> > happen again and again...
> Ingo, stop being such a cock. Even if you'd
On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 06:31:03PM +, Henning Makholm wrote:
> > If his job is keeping him from working on Debian, he should step down
> > from his post.
> My job is keeping me from working on Debian as much as I'd like.
> Should I resign as a DD?
> Do you think that only people who are either
On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 10:44:03AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> > > > It's the job of w-b admins to add new buildds in a timely manner. If
> > > > they
> > > > don't do that, they simply fail (one significant part of) their job.
> > > > This not only happens to s390 now but already happen
On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 09:07:46AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> > It's the job of w-b admins to add new buildds in a timely manner. If they
> > don't do that, they simply fail (one significant part of) their job.
> > This not only happens to s390 now but already happened in the past to m68
On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 05:14:54PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> When he declined (after seriously considering the option), and, because
> he didn't receive a pledge from you (and thus couldn't in any reasonable
> way trust you) locked you out of Debian hardware, you rambled on and
> screamed th
On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 05:14:54PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > And I could still do - but I'm not allowed anymore. Great Job, Mr.
> > Troup!
> Oh, come on, this isn't fair.
> You're not allowed to anymore because you stubbornly refused to pledge
> you would not compromise Debian's security u
On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 02:44:10PM +, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> *yawn* Ingo, please go away. I'm asking you nicely. Don't come back
> until you have something constructive to say - at the moment you're
> not helping anyone.
My dearest, beloved Steve,
although I understand that not everyone lik
On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 03:22:44PM +0100, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
> > Has the kernel team made any advances to the m68k kernel team for a closer
> > cooperation? Or did they just yelled "Hey! We are now taking over the kernel
> > development, no matter if more capable people are outside of the pro
On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 02:38:44PM +0100, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
> | So, you call me not trustworthy, although it was *me* to first help out m68k
> | when kullervo was unable to keep up with package building?
> You are not a DD, so Debian does not have a trust relationship with
> you. It has not
On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 12:45:13PM +, Mark Brown wrote:
> > If you wanted to make the decision _with_ the input of developers, why
> > did all the powers that be vehemently deny that the number of
> > architectures was a problem for the release schedule, right until
> > everyone turned on a pl
On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 11:34:58PM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 10:41:12AM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> > Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > If the s390 team is unhappy with w-b, they can simply set up their own
> > > autobuilding and do it thems
On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 12:59:43PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > With the new proposal of de facto dropping m68k support, I'm this -><- close
> > to recommend to Roman, that he better should invest his time into other
> > projects, because Debian wouldn't appreciate his work to bring up another
>
On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 10:51:24AM +0100, Julien BLACHE wrote:
> > You do know that m68k is the only architecture still carrying around
> > 2.*2* kernels in sarge?
> Yes. But there are 2.4 kernels available too, don't forget to mention
> that fact. No 2.6, though, but that's not a problem right no
On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 10:45:59AM +0100, Julien BLACHE wrote:
> >> I hereby ask the people involved in this proposal to step down
> >> immediately from their positions in the Project. You've violated a
> >> couple of rules already, and you've violated the spirit of this Project.
> > *blink*. Are
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 11:37:31PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> > >The s390 porting team can perfectly well do what the hurd-i386 porting
> > >team does: build them themselves. I mean, umm, you don't have to be
> > >hooked into w-b to upload packages.
> > Why are some architectures refused
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 08:43:40PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> For s390 and sparc, it appears that only one machine is in place
> building these archs.
As Bastian Blank said yesterday on IRC, w-b admins are idly refusing to add
a new buildd for s390 to the ACLs. So, blame neuro and/or elm
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 02:53:53PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> And arm as a badly buildd-maintained one ? :)
Yes, when it's rejecting machine offers or other help.
--
Ciao... //
Ingo \X/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscrib
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 02:44:52PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > There were offers of help in man power and machines for archs that had
> > problems in keeping up. Those were rejected. Punishing those archs for the
> > mistakes of those buildd admins rejecting helping hands is just plain
> > stupi
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 02:38:01PM +0100, Aurélien Jarno wrote:
> Sven Luther a écrit :
> > - Not having slower arches hold up testing.
> Slower arches don't hold up testing. Arches with buildd not well managed do.
> If you look at the current needs-build graph [1], m68k the slowest arch
> we s
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 support for the architectures they
> care for, for various rea
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 11:00:22PM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 10:10:32AM +0100, Ingo Juergensmann wrote:
> > All the work and support over all those years by all those users and porters
> > will be vanished with that stupid idea, imho.
> Ingo, obviou
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 12:47:20PM +0100, David Schmitt wrote:
> 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 deci
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 12:25:13PM +0100, Andreas Tille wrote:
> >Sorry for using "stupid", "braindead" and others. But there are no other
> >words for crap like this, imho.
> Hmm, while I'm in principle share your point of keeping the architectures
> it does not sound very sane to be that harsh.
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 10:56:51AM +0100, Aurélien Jarno wrote:
> That let me raise a problem I see with such an infrastructure. Imagine
> an FTBFS on an SCC architecture (let's say arch X needs an autotools
> update). If it is not possible to have a high severity for this bug
> (because it is
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 10:49:20AM +0100, Thijs Kinkhorst wrote:
> On Mon, March 14, 2005 10:10, Ingo Juergensmann said:
> > It would be better when the project would be honest and state that it want
> > to become a x86-compatible only distribution (with the small tribute to
&g
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 10:50:41AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > IMHO scc.d.o will result in focussing on those archs, making it worse and
> > worse for the other archs. Implementing scc.d.o is equally to dropping those
> > older archs in my eyes. It's just another wording.
> Notice, that there i
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 08:50:15PM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> How about geda-gschem? Waiting on arm for a couple of weeks now.
> Holding up migration of all of geda* on all architectures.
> I couldn't work out where wanna-build CVS is hosted so I couldn't
> actually check the order to see wher
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 07:37:51AM +0100, Andreas Tille wrote:
> In general I would like to say that supporting a lot of architectures was
> an important difference between Debian and other distributions. I know the
In fact it was one of the 2 main reasons for my choice. apt-get was the other
ma
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 11:49:34AM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> Given how low hamradio (and the like) are prioritised, I suggest that we
> get smarter about 'tesing' and omit some sections on some architectures.
> Frankly there are not likely to be any users for hamradio on s390, mips*
> arm, or
On Sun, Mar 13, 2005 at 11:25:33PM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > More machines can catch up faster than few can do.
> > When one machine out of a dozen machines is unavailable, it has less impact
> > than one machine failure out of two machines, although the chances will
> > raise that a machin
On Sat, Mar 12, 2005 at 02:26:43PM +0100, Martin Zobel-Helas wrote:
> > > As it has been said earlier, the machines are back, but just need to
> > > catch up. So just waiting might be the easiest thing to do.
> > More machines can catch up faster than few can do.
> > When one machine out of a doz
On Sat, Mar 12, 2005 at 02:06:24PM +0100, Martin Zobel-Helas wrote:
> As it has been said earlier, the machines are back, but just need to
> catch up. So just waiting might be the easiest thing to do.
More machines can catch up faster than few can do.
When one machine out of a dozen machines is
On Tue, Mar 08, 2005 at 10:22:33PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> Op di, 08-03-2005 te 10:33 -0800, schreef Clint Byrum:
> > How much would it help with the current problems if we just picked 3
> > arches(mipsel, s390, ???)
> This argument has been brought up so many times by now that I'm amazed
On Sat, Feb 26, 2005 at 05:27:48PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> and if we relax this to only require "within 10 days of any source upload,
> assuming the source isn't buggy, there must be a binary upload for this
> security bug", we would be kicking out
> alpha arm mips mipsel powerpc sparc
I
On Thu, Feb 24, 2005 at 08:44:04PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> For example, if even *one* buildd maintainer doesn't requeue with some
> kind of promptness, then the only way to deal with it will be to make
> a new upload, which will force a recompile everywhere.
This is only valid on arch
On Wed, Feb 23, 2005 at 10:56:06PM +0100, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
> > or mail the appropriate buildd admin listed on http://buildd.net/ -
> > maybe the addresses are not uptodate anymore, but that's because not
> > all buildd admins cooperate...
> Why not list this address at the end of each ar
1 - 100 of 151 matches
Mail list logo
