On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 00:13:14 +0100
Guillem Jover wrote:
> On Sat, 2009-11-28 at 22:31:29 +, Neil Williams wrote:
> > On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 22:25:31 +0100 Guillem Jover wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2009-11-24 at 10:25:59 +, Neil Williams wrote:
> > > > I'll update deb-gview for its next release, alt
On Sat, 2009-11-28 at 22:31:29 +, Neil Williams wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 22:25:31 +0100 Guillem Jover wrote:
> > On Tue, 2009-11-24 at 10:25:59 +, Neil Williams wrote:
> > > I'll update deb-gview for its next release, although I'll need some
> > > real packages using data.tar.bz2 before
On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 22:25:31 +0100
Guillem Jover wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-11-24 at 10:25:59 +, Neil Williams wrote:
> > On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 03:01:06 +0100
> > Guillem Jover wrote:
> > > Well, IMO any program implementing .deb extraction w/o using something
> > > like --fsys-tarfile, --extract o
On Tue, 2009-11-24 at 10:25:59 +, Neil Williams wrote:
> On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 03:01:06 +0100
> Guillem Jover wrote:
> > Well, IMO any program implementing .deb extraction w/o using something
> > like --fsys-tarfile, --extract or --control from dpkg-deb (until we
> > have the upcoming libdpkg...
On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 03:01:06 +0100
Guillem Jover wrote:
> On Sun, 2009-11-15 at 22:22:52 +, Neil Williams wrote:
> > On Sun, 15, Nov, 2009 at 02:37:56PM -0500, Joey Hess spoke thus..
> > > Note that debootstrap does not support data.tar.bz2.
> > ar -p "./$pkg" data.tar.gz | zcat |
On Sun, Nov 22 2009, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 11:14:29PM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
>> You are member of the technical comittee, which means that I should trust
>> your experience. I want you and this list to understand that I take your
>> advice to orphan my packages ver
On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 11:14:29PM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> You are member of the technical comittee, which means that I should trust
> your experience. I want you and this list to understand that I take your
> advice to orphan my packages very seriously.
Well, that's unfortunate, because M
Hi!
On Sun, 2009-11-15 at 22:22:52 +, Neil Williams wrote:
> On Sun, 15, Nov, 2009 at 02:37:56PM -0500, Joey Hess spoke thus..
> > Note that debootstrap does not support data.tar.bz2.
>
> debootstrap-1.0.20/functions: extract
>
> progress "$p" "$#" EXTRACTPKGS "Extracting packa
Am 15.11.2009 16:15, schrieb Joerg Jaspert:
> multiple outstanding and intrusive patches got merged. We also discussed
> various outstanding topics, a few of which we can report about already,
> a few others where we still have to gather more information. This
> process, either asking our lawyers o
Luk Claes writes:
> Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
>> Philipp Kern writes:
>>
>>> On 2009-11-19, Luk Claes wrote:
This could only work if the built package is needed on the same buildd
it was built.
>>> That depends on the assumptions. If the assumption is that the buildds are
>>> trus
Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> Philipp Kern writes:
>
>> On 2009-11-19, Luk Claes wrote:
>>> This could only work if the built package is needed on the same buildd
>>> it was built.
>> That depends on the assumptions. If the assumption is that the buildds are
>> trusted (the same as for autosign
On 2009-11-19, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
>> This could only work if the built package is needed on the same buildd
>> it was built.
> What part of "require some coordination with wanna-build" did you not read?
Well, maybe because wanna-build wouldn't be involved except for an updated
data sourc
Philipp Kern writes:
> On 2009-11-19, Luk Claes wrote:
>> This could only work if the built package is needed on the same buildd
>> it was built.
>
> That depends on the assumptions. If the assumption is that the buildds are
> trusted (the same as for autosigning) it would also be easy to argue
Luk Claes writes:
> Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
>> Sune Vuorela writes:
>>
>>> On 2009-11-18, Gerfried Fuchs wrote:
I am a bit confused with respect to how buildd autosigning is required
for this. It makes it sound somehow like it would affect porter binary
>>> Basicalyl, the turnar
Andreas Tille writes:
> On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 05:52:21AM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
>> And then someone comes along and builds a Supercomputer cluster out of
>> game consoles.
>
> Well, it *might be* that *someone* does this or that. But didn't we say
> we give priority to our user_s_
* Felipe Sateler [091118 23:39]:
>> You apparently fail to see that building the packages on mips uncovers
>> bugs that would otherwise be there, but take a longer time to uncover on
>> the 'mainstream' platforms.
>
> This is not generally true. There are are classes of bugs that appear on
> diffe
On 2009-11-19, Mike Hommey wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 11:16:41PM +, Sune Vuorela wrote:
>> On 2009-11-18, Gerfried Fuchs wrote:
>> > I am a bit confused with respect to how buildd autosigning is required
>> > for this. It makes it sound somehow like it would affect porter binary
>>
>>
On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 05:52:21AM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> And then someone comes along and builds a Supercomputer cluster out of
> game consoles.
Well, it *might be* that *someone* does this or that. But didn't we say
we give priority to our user_s_ (mind the plural). So for the
th
On 2009-11-19, Luk Claes wrote:
> This could only work if the built package is needed on the same buildd
> it was built.
That depends on the assumptions. If the assumption is that the buildds are
trusted (the same as for autosigning) it would also be easy to argue that
setting up some kind of co
On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 11:16:41PM +, Sune Vuorela wrote:
> On 2009-11-18, Gerfried Fuchs wrote:
> > I am a bit confused with respect to how buildd autosigning is required
> > for this. It makes it sound somehow like it would affect porter binary
>
> Basicalyl, the turnaround time is too lon
Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> Sune Vuorela writes:
>
>> On 2009-11-18, Gerfried Fuchs wrote:
>>> I am a bit confused with respect to how buildd autosigning is required
>>> for this. It makes it sound somehow like it would affect porter binary
>> Basicalyl, the turnaround time is too long if we
On Mon, 16 Nov 2009, Steffen Joeris wrote:
On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 02:04:28 pm Carlo Segre wrote:
On Sun, 15 Nov 2009, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
The current "winning" opinion is to go with the source+throw away
binaries route. We are close to being able to achieve this, it is
simply that it has not ye
Sune Vuorela writes:
> On 2009-11-18, Gerfried Fuchs wrote:
>> I am a bit confused with respect to how buildd autosigning is required
>> for this. It makes it sound somehow like it would affect porter binary
>
> Basicalyl, the turnaround time is too long if we have to wait for manual
> buildd s
Felipe Sateler writes:
> Luk Claes wrote:
>
>> You apparently fail to see that building the packages on mips uncovers
>> bugs that would otherwise be there, but take a longer time to uncover on
>> the 'mainstream' platforms.
>
> This is not generally true. There are are classes of bugs that appea
Andreas Tille writes:
> On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 07:41:51AM +0100, Luk Claes wrote:
>>
>> I think one would be surprised how many packages get used on 'exotic'
>> architectures. Most users don't specifically search for a piece of
>> software, they want to have some specific task done by using a s
(Note: I am not a porter, so please correct anything wrong I say
below)
On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 08:29:53AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> How about the porters responsability towards the project ? For instance, hppa
> is blocking the testing migration of a couple of my packages, and probably the
>
On Wed, Nov 18 2009, Charles Plessy wrote:
> Le Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 02:49:46PM +, Mark Brown a écrit :
>>
>> The flip side of this is that it's just inviting maintainers to
>> decide they can't be bothered with porting effort and leaving ports
>> as second class citizens.
>
> It seems that t
Le Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 02:49:46PM +, Mark Brown a écrit :
>
> The flip side of this is that it's just inviting maintainers to decide
> they can't be bothered with porting effort and leaving ports as second
> class citizens.
It seems that the trend this year is to not trust the maintainers fo
On 2009-11-18, Gerfried Fuchs wrote:
> I am a bit confused with respect to how buildd autosigning is required
> for this. It makes it sound somehow like it would affect porter binary
Basicalyl, the turnaround time is too long if we have to wait for manual
buildd signings.
For example, when we u
On 2009-11-18, Felipe Sateler wrote:
> This is not generally true. There are are classes of bugs that appear on
> different platforms _due to being different platforms_, not just because
> they were latent bugs waiting to be discovered. I presume that packages
> that require as much efficiency as
Luk Claes wrote:
You apparently fail to see that building the packages on mips uncovers
bugs that would otherwise be there, but take a longer time to uncover on
the 'mainstream' platforms.
This is not generally true. There are are classes of bugs that appear on
different platforms _due to bein
On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 08:18:57PM +0100, Luk Claes wrote:
> > There are architectures for different issues. There are issues which
> > allways need the fastest available architecture and there are other
> > needs which are targeting at low power consumption etc. We should
> > probably not put a
Charles Plessy wrote:
> Le Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 10:54:18AM +, Philipp Kern a écrit :
>
>> there might not be clusters of arm yet but I saw offers for clusters of mips.
>
> Hi Philipp
>
> I also saw this cluster and got quite curious until I realised that most
> programs I package are not par
Gerfried Fuchs wrote:
> Hi!
>
> First of all, thanks for this great roundup. There are just some few
> questions that popped up in my mind that I hope haven't asked yet
> (wasn't able to check all the responses completely ...). Sorry if there
> are duplications, a reference to the answer fo
Clint Adams wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 07:41:51AM +0100, Luk Claes wrote:
>> I don't think it's good to waste buildd time on failing to build packages.
>> I also don't think anyone is stopped from setting up a service that
>> allows source-only uploads as a go-between.
>
> Do you mean set up
Andreas Tille wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 07:41:51AM +0100, Luk Claes wrote:
>> I think one would be surprised how many packages get used on 'exotic'
>> architectures. Most users don't specifically search for a piece of
>> software, they want to have some specific task done by using a specific
On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 11:40:52PM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> If we mean to attract such users, I do not think that the best strategy would
> necessarly be having a pre-existing MIPS support of bioinformatics, which I
> think is completely beyond our reach and expertise. I think that what woul
On Wed, Nov 18 2009, Clint Adams wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 07:41:51AM +0100, Luk Claes wrote:
>> I don't think it's good to waste buildd time on failing to build packages.
>> I also don't think anyone is stopped from setting up a service that
>> allows source-only uploads as a go-between.
>
On Wed, Nov 18 2009, Charles Plessy wrote:
> Le Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 12:42:47AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava a écrit :
>>
>> I beg to differ. This sounds like a maintainer that is not
>> providing the support for their package, and needs to orphan that
>> package; not building on some archi
Le Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 10:54:18AM +, Philipp Kern a écrit :
> there might not be clusters of arm yet but I saw offers for clusters of mips.
Hi Philipp
I also saw this cluster and got quite curious until I realised that most
programs I package are not parallelised…
The day we are contacted
Le Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 12:42:47AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava a écrit :
>
> I beg to differ. This sounds like a maintainer that is not
> providing the support for their package, and needs to orphan that
> package; not building on some architecture is often a symptom of
> problems elsewher
Hi!
First of all, thanks for this great roundup. There are just some few
questions that popped up in my mind that I hope haven't asked yet
(wasn't able to check all the responses completely ...). Sorry if there
are duplications, a reference to the answer for easier tracking would be
appre
On 2009-11-18, Andreas Tille wrote:
> Well, I do not think that you can do gene sequencing or number crunching
> on current mobile phones. So there are really programs which are not
> needed on all architectures and even if you find a binary package which
> claims to do the job it is just useless
On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 07:41:51AM +0100, Luk Claes wrote:
>
> I think one would be surprised how many packages get used on 'exotic'
> architectures. Most users don't specifically search for a piece of
> software, they want to have some specific task done by using a specific
> package. Not providi
On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 08:47:33AM +0100, Jean-Christophe Dubacq wrote:
> > If your package FTBFS on some architecture, then that is a bug. A bug
> > that was already there, it just was not noticed yet. In most cases the
> > bug is rather easy to fix, even for non porters as most of the
> > archite
On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 07:41:51AM +0100, Luk Claes wrote:
> I don't think it's good to waste buildd time on failing to build packages.
> I also don't think anyone is stopped from setting up a service that
> allows source-only uploads as a go-between.
Do you mean set up an unofficial upload queue
Luk Claes a écrit :
> Charles Plessy wrote:
>> Le Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 08:27:22AM +0100, Yves-Alexis Perez a écrit :
>>> Unless your proposal is just for unstable but doesn't want to change the
>>> policy for testing migration?
>> Hi,
>>
>> Testing migration works the way it should: if a package is
On Tue, Nov 17 2009, Charles Plessy wrote:
> Le Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 08:27:22AM +0100, Yves-Alexis Perez a écrit :
>>
>> Unless your proposal is just for unstable but doesn't want to change the
>> policy for testing migration?
>
> Hi,
>
> Testing migration works the way it should: if a package is
Charles Plessy wrote:
> Le Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 08:27:22AM +0100, Yves-Alexis Perez a écrit :
>> Unless your proposal is just for unstable but doesn't want to change the
>> policy for testing migration?
>
> Hi,
>
> Testing migration works the way it should: if a package is never built on an
> arc
Charles Plessy writes:
> Le Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 08:27:22AM +0100, Yves-Alexis Perez a écrit :
>>
>> Unless your proposal is just for unstable but doesn't want to change the
>> policy for testing migration?
>
> Hi,
>
> Testing migration works the way it should: if a package is never built on an
Le Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 08:27:22AM +0100, Yves-Alexis Perez a écrit :
>
> Unless your proposal is just for unstable but doesn't want to change the
> policy for testing migration?
Hi,
Testing migration works the way it should: if a package is never built on an
architecture, testing migration is n
On Tue, 17 Nov 2009, Charles Plessy wrote:
> To save everybody's time, I proposed earlier in this month's discussion to not
> report the build failures in our bug tracking system unless there is an
> interest
> from the porters or from the package maintainers to make the package available
> in the
On mar., 2009-11-17 at 14:07 +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> Although it sounds a bit sillogical, if for some architectures we do not build
> the packages that have no users, no user will complain. So why not ?
Well, I'm not really sure we can expect our user to follow unstable and
each and every
Le Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 09:38:38AM -0600, Steve Langasek a écrit :
> Debian only advances as fast as the slowest supported port
That is the key observation.
To save everybody's time, I proposed earlier in this month's discussion to not
report the build failures in our bug tracking system unless
Steve Langasek writes:
> On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 08:38:15AM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
>> > I'm not asserting that this problem is *not* significant, I simply don't
>> > know - and am interested in knowing if anyone has more data on this beyond
>> > some four-year-old anecdotes. Certainl
On Mon, 2009-11-16 at 09:38 -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
> I thought the nature of the problem was clear, but to be explicit:
> requiring binary uploads ensures that the package has been build-tested
> *somewhere* prior to upload, and avoids clogging up the buildds with
> preventable failures (so
On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 00:36, Kevin Mark wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 15, 2009 at 07:44:18PM +0100, Sandro Tosi wrote:
> >
>>
>> While I like the "source + trow away" solution, I'd also like to ask
>> you to please consider some methods to allow the "throw away" step on
>> the developer machine, for exam
On Sun, Nov 15, 2009 at 07:44:18PM +0100, Sandro Tosi wrote:
>
>
> While I like the "source + trow away" solution, I'd also like to ask
> you to please consider some methods to allow the "throw away" step on
> the developer machine, for example having dput/dupload not upload the
> .debs (so .chang
Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> Philipp Kern writes:
>
>> On 2009-11-16, Simon Huggins wrote:
>>> If you throw away the binaries, a DD can upload a binary package with a
>>> sole binary that prints out banana and a source package that builds the
>>> right thing presumably. Are there any checks to
Simon Richter wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 09:38:38AM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
>
>> requiring binary uploads ensures that the package has been build-tested
>> *somewhere* prior to upload, and avoids clogging up the buildds with
>> preventable failures (some of which will happen on
Hi,
On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 09:38:38AM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
> requiring binary uploads ensures that the package has been build-tested
> *somewhere* prior to upload, and avoids clogging up the buildds with
> preventable failures (some of which will happen only at the end of the
> build, wh
On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 08:38:15AM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> > I'm not asserting that this problem is *not* significant, I simply don't
> > know - and am interested in knowing if anyone has more data on this beyond
> > some four-year-old anecdotes. Certainly, Debian with its wider range
Philipp Kern writes:
> On 2009-11-16, Simon Huggins wrote:
>> If you throw away the binaries, a DD can upload a binary package with a
>> sole binary that prints out banana and a source package that builds the
>> right thing presumably. Are there any checks to prevent that?
>>
>> I'm trying to w
On 2009-11-16, Simon Huggins wrote:
> If you throw away the binaries, a DD can upload a binary package with a
> sole binary that prints out banana and a source package that builds the
> right thing presumably. Are there any checks to prevent that?
>
> I'm trying to work out if you get what you th
On Sun, Nov 15, 2009 at 04:15:35PM +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> source-only uploads
> ---
> After some discussion about this, there are two opinions within the
> ftp-team about this matter. Given that other distros experience has
> shown that allowing source only uploads results i
Steve Langasek writes:
> Hello,
>
> On Sun, Nov 15, 2009 at 04:15:35PM +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
>> source-only uploads
>> ---
>> After some discussion about this, there are two opinions within the
>> ftp-team about this matter. Given that other distros experience has
>> shown
On Sun, 2009-11-15 at 19:29 -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
> I'm not asserting that this problem is *not* significant, I simply don't
> know - and am interested in knowing if anyone has more data on this beyond
> some four-year-old anecdotes. Certainly, Debian with its wider range of
> ports is mor
On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 12:48:53AM +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> On 11936 March 1977, Charles Plessy wrote:
>
> >> source-only uploads
> > I am curious on how the rebuild of the architecture-independant packages
> > happens.
>
> That depends on what we get out with in the end.
> Probably all buil
Hello,
On Sun, Nov 15, 2009 at 04:15:35PM +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> source-only uploads
> ---
> After some discussion about this, there are two opinions within the
> ftp-team about this matter. Given that other distros experience has
> shown that allowing source only uploads r
On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 02:04:28 pm Carlo Segre wrote:
> On Sun, 15 Nov 2009, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> > The current "winning" opinion is to go with the source+throw away
> > binaries route. We are close to being able to achieve this, it is
> > simply that it has not yet been enabled. Before any versio
On Sun, 15 Nov 2009, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
The current "winning" opinion is to go with the source+throw away
binaries route. We are close to being able to achieve this, it is
simply that it has not yet been enabled. Before any version of this
can be enabled, buildd autosigning needs to be imple
On 11936 March 1977, Charles Plessy wrote:
>> source-only uploads
> I am curious on how the rebuild of the architecture-independant packages
> happens.
That depends on what we get out with in the end.
Probably all buildds can build arch:all (so the buildd maintainer wants it),
and there will be a
Le Sun, Nov 15, 2009 at 04:15:35PM +0100, Joerg Jaspert a écrit :
>
> source-only uploads
Hi Jörg and all the FTP team,
fist of all, I want to say a big thank you for all this work. I have given
harsh comments for part of it, but I am really grateful for most.
I am curious on how the rebuild of
On 11935 March 1977, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> NEW/Byhand
> --
> Due to the massive changes in the archive, NEW (and also Byhand) had to
> be disabled. Certain assumptions made by the processing tools no longer
> applied. The last week was used to work on this issue and we think this
> will
On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 19:53:02 +
Mark Hymers wrote:
> On Sun, 15, Nov, 2009 at 02:37:56PM -0500, Joey Hess spoke thus..
> > Andreas Metzler wrote:
> > > FWIW dpkg does the smart thing by default. It uses gzip (both
> > > for the debian packages and and debian.tar) but searches for both
> > > fo
On Sun, Nov 15, 2009 at 04:15:35PM +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> Tracking arch all packages
> --
> #246992 asked us to not delete arch all packages before the
> corresponding (if any) arch any packages are available for all
> architectures. Example: whenever a new source pa
> Then can you (or someone else) please explain what exactly is meant by the
> reference to bzip2 for binary packages in the following quote from the
> original mail:
> ! You can use either gzip as usual or bzip2 for the compression within
> ! the binary packages - and now also for the source fi
This one time, at band camp, Frans Pop said:
> Mark Hymers wrote:
> > I think there's some confusion here between source and binary formats.
> > The announcement was referring to bzip2 when used as part of a source
> > upload. As far as I can tell from looking in the git logs, dak has
> > supporte
Mark Hymers wrote:
> I think there's some confusion here between source and binary formats.
> The announcement was referring to bzip2 when used as part of a source
> upload. As far as I can tell from looking in the git logs, dak has
> supported data.tar.bz2 since 2005, so I'm surprised that this h
On Sun, 15, Nov, 2009 at 02:37:56PM -0500, Joey Hess spoke thus..
> Andreas Metzler wrote:
> > FWIW dpkg does the smart thing by default. It uses gzip (both
> > for the debian packages and and debian.tar) but searches for both
> > foo_42.orig.tar.bz2 and .gz. Explicitely passing an option is requir
On 2009-11-15, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> If Architecture: all is kept then maybe allow source+all uploads?
Those are already possible. If they're allowed is another question, though.
Kind regards,
Philipp Kern
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subje
Joey Hess wrote:
> > cu and- happliy using v3 for gnutls -reas
>
> Please avoid doing so for libtasn1-3.
Please ignore above; misread.
--
see shy jo
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Sandro Tosi writes:
> Hello Joerg,
> thanks for the updates.
>
> On Sun, Nov 15, 2009 at 16:15, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> ...
>> source-only uploads
>> ---
>> After some discussion about this, there are two opinions within the
>> ftp-team about this matter. Given that other distros
Andreas Metzler wrote:
> FWIW dpkg does the smart thing by default. It uses gzip (both
> for the debian packages and and debian.tar) but searches for both
> foo_42.orig.tar.bz2 and .gz. Explicitely passing an option is required
> to get bz2 compression for binary packages and/or debian.tar.
Note t
Hello Joerg,
thanks for the updates.
On Sun, Nov 15, 2009 at 16:15, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
...
> source-only uploads
> ---
> After some discussion about this, there are two opinions within the
> ftp-team about this matter. Given that other distros experience has
> shown that allowi
Frans Pop wrote:
> On Sunday 15 November 2009, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
>> dpkg v3 source format, compression
[...]
> Is there a policy for the use of bzip2?
> As discussed earlier bzip2 is *much* slower that gzip and really hurts on
> slower arches and systems, so I'd suggest that - especially for
On Sunday 15 November 2009, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> dpkg v3 source format, compression
> --
> As many already noticed, our archive now additionally supports 3.0
> (quilt) and 3.0 (native) source package formats. You can use either
> gzip as usual or bzip2 for the com
87 matches
Mail list logo
