On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 01:51:41PM -0200, Gustavo Noronha Silva wrote:
> On Wed, 2009-11-11 at 09:58 +0100, Mike Hommey wrote:
> > I actually never experienced problems that were not due to my DSL
> > connection, which means they can happen at any time. In which case I'd
> > dcut the last file and
On Wed, 2009-11-11 at 09:58 +0100, Mike Hommey wrote:
> I actually never experienced problems that were not due to my DSL
> connection, which means they can happen at any time. In which case I'd
> dcut the last file and continue the upload. But when that happens in the
> middle of a file that takes
Le Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 03:20:38PM +0100, Luk Claes a écrit :
>
> I think it's very wrong to ask core teams to lower the standards of
> possible package uploads while noone invests time to create a building
> machine that would make source-only uploads possible, even with the
> current rules in pl
Charles Plessy (11/11/2009):
> my gut feeling (but maybe I start to sound like a broken disk) is
> that most “FTBFS” and RC bugs that stay unfixed are more the
> signature of abandonned packages than sloppy maintainers.
Abandoned packages may start to FTBFS due to changes in their
build-dependenc
Charles Plessy wrote:
> Le Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 10:45:57AM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli a écrit :
>> Personally, I think that the extreme trade-off of making source upload
>> the default (which seems to be what you are arguing for) would be too
>> risky in term of degraded package quality. Look for th
Le Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 10:45:57AM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli a écrit :
>
> Personally, I think that the extreme trade-off of making source upload
> the default (which seems to be what you are arguing for) would be too
> risky in term of degraded package quality. Look for the "FTBFS" string
> in th
On 2009-11-11 09:42:25 +0100, Michal Čihař wrote:
> Sandro Tosi napsal(a):
> > As a personal note, as one of those unlucky people with a very slow
> > network connection: if binary packages built by maintainer have to be
> > discarded, than *please* allow a way to actually not upload them.
> >
>
On 2009-11-11, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> Personally, I think that the extreme trade-off of making source upload
> the default (which seems to be what you are arguing for) would be too
> risky in term of degraded package quality. Look for the "FTBFS" string
> in the current RC bug list, do you th
On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 10:17:05PM -0600, Adam Majer wrote:
> It is *one* way of making sure the archive is consistent. But the idea
> behind source-only is to remove the necessity of uploading giant
> binaries if they are to be tossed anyway. For example, OpenOffice
> revisions, or Linux kernel re
On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 4:58 PM, Mike Hommey wrote:
> I actually never experienced problems that were not due to my DSL
> connection, which means they can happen at any time. In which case I'd
> dcut the last file and continue the upload. But when that happens in the
> middle of a file that takes
On 2009-11-11, Mike Hommey wrote:
>> Yes, you're missing at least the lintian checks that happen on ftp-master.
> You mean, the ones that should be running on buildd generated packages
> anyway ?
Sadly there is no easy way to let buildd cope with packages vanishing on
ftp-master and not being acc
On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 09:54:38AM +0100, Luk Claes wrote:
> Sandro Tosi wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 09:42, Michal Čihař wrote:
> >> Hi
> >>
> >> Dne Wed, 11 Nov 2009 09:39:38 +0100
> >> Sandro Tosi napsal(a):
> >>
> >>> As a personal note, as one of those unlucky people with a very slow
>
On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 09:52:12AM +0100, Luk Claes wrote:
> You don't have to start over if the upload did not fail in the middle of
> a file, but failed right after a file. It may seem unlikely, but I've
> had these failures way more often than failures in the middle of a file.
>
> So if it did
Sandro Tosi wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 09:42, Michal Čihař wrote:
>> Hi
>>
>> Dne Wed, 11 Nov 2009 09:39:38 +0100
>> Sandro Tosi napsal(a):
>>
>>> As a personal note, as one of those unlucky people with a very slow
>>> network connection: if binary packages built by maintainer have to be
>>
On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 09:48:13AM +0100, Luk Claes wrote:
> Michal Čihař wrote:
> > Hi
> >
> > Dne Wed, 11 Nov 2009 09:39:38 +0100
> > Sandro Tosi napsal(a):
> >
> >> As a personal note, as one of those unlucky people with a very slow
> >> network connection: if binary packages built by maintai
Mike Hommey wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 09:39:38AM +0100, Sandro Tosi wrote:
>> On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 08:30, Adam Majer wrote:
>>> On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 02:58:19PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Mon, Oct 26 2009, Adam Majer wrote:
> Or here's a radical idea - allow source only
On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 09:42, Michal Čihař wrote:
> Hi
>
> Dne Wed, 11 Nov 2009 09:39:38 +0100
> Sandro Tosi napsal(a):
>
>> As a personal note, as one of those unlucky people with a very slow
>> network connection: if binary packages built by maintainer have to be
>> discarded, than *please* al
Michal Čihař wrote:
> Hi
>
> Dne Wed, 11 Nov 2009 09:39:38 +0100
> Sandro Tosi napsal(a):
>
>> As a personal note, as one of those unlucky people with a very slow
>> network connection: if binary packages built by maintainer have to be
>> discarded, than *please* allow a way to actually not uplo
On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 09:39:38AM +0100, Sandro Tosi wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 08:30, Adam Majer wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 02:58:19PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >> On Mon, Oct 26 2009, Adam Majer wrote:
> >> > Or here's a radical idea - allow source only uploads of packages.
Hi
Dne Wed, 11 Nov 2009 09:39:38 +0100
Sandro Tosi napsal(a):
> As a personal note, as one of those unlucky people with a very slow
> network connection: if binary packages built by maintainer have to be
> discarded, than *please* allow a way to actually not upload them.
>
> I'm in favor of let
On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 08:30, Adam Majer wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 02:58:19PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> On Mon, Oct 26 2009, Adam Majer wrote:
>> > Or here's a radical idea - allow source only uploads of packages.
>>
>> And thus allow people to upload without ever building
On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 02:58:19PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 26 2009, Adam Majer wrote:
> > Or here's a radical idea - allow source only uploads of packages.
>
> And thus allow people to upload without ever building locally.
I would expect people to build packages local
On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 11:27:39PM +0100, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
> Adam Majer wrote:
> > People are lazy and like myself don't want to sync pbuilder and
> > related stuff every time I want to upload something. Since my box is
> > rarely up to date, this can result in dependencies lagging
> > somewhat
On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 07:12:15AM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 02:29:47PM -0500, Adam Majer wrote:
> > Or here's a radical idea - allow source only uploads of packages.
>
> He, radical, but not new :) It has been discussed to death various
> times. The most likely (a
Adam Majer wrote:
> People are lazy and like myself don't want to sync pbuilder and
> related stuff every time I want to upload something. Since my box is
> rarely up to date, this can result in dependencies lagging
> somewhat compared to official buildd. I generally don't check for any
> build-dep
On Wed, 2009-10-28 at 10:14 +0100, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
> [Luca Niccoli]
> > I think Petter meant "upload packages which don't build successfully
> > even on a single architecture".[1]
>
> That is exactly what I meant, yes. :) If the source do not compile on
> any architecture, I believe it
[Luca Niccoli]
> I think Petter meant "upload packages which don't build successfully
> even on a single architecture".[1]
That is exactly what I meant, yes. :) If the source do not compile on
any architecture, I believe it the maintainer must have failed to done
the minimum checks that should be
On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 02:29:47PM -0500, Adam Majer wrote:
> Or here's a radical idea - allow source only uploads of packages.
He, radical, but not new :) It has been discussed to death various
times. The most likely (and IMO better) alternative to that is uploading
binaries but trowing them away
2009/10/27 Ben Hutchings :
> On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 12:15:39PM +0100, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
>
>> I believe a better approach is to collect stats on who upload packages
>> which fail to build on all architectures, and add a process to
[...]
> Well you can kick out the kernel team then, becaus
On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 12:15:39PM +0100, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
>
> [Charles Plessy]
> > Why don’t we remove the key of the developers uploading “crap
> > packages” from the Debian keyring?
>
> I believe a better approach is to collect stats on who upload packages
> which fail to build on al
[Charles Plessy]
> Why don’t we remove the key of the developers uploading “crap
> packages” from the Debian keyring?
I believe a better approach is to collect stats on who upload packages
which fail to build on all architectures, and add a process to
review/requalify a Debian Developer if this h
Le Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 11:07:19PM +, Roger Leigh a écrit :
>
> While most developers are conscientious enough to make sure their
> packages build, one does see enough crap packages that IMO this
> (minimal) bar should probably be kept.
Hi all,
Why don’t we remove the key of the developers u
On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 02:29:47PM -0500, Adam Majer wrote:
> People are lazy and like myself don't want to sync pbuilder and
> related stuff every time I want to upload something. Since my box is
> rarely up to date, this can result in dependencies lagging
> somewhat compared to official buildd. I
On 2009-10-26, Adam Majer wrote:
> People are lazy and like myself don't want to sync pbuilder and
> related stuff every time I want to upload something. Since my box is
heard of cron?
/Sune
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Tro
On Mon, Oct 26 2009, Adam Majer wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 01:27:05PM +0200, Samuel Thibault wrote:
>> I confirm that usually not having the i386 or amd64 log is often a
>> problem.
>>
>> One idea that was floating around was to have buildd always recompile
>> the package, even on archs the
On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 01:27:05PM +0200, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> I confirm that usually not having the i386 or amd64 log is often a
> problem.
>
> One idea that was floating around was to have buildd always recompile
> the package, even on archs the uploader has provided a binary version
> for,
Wesley W. Terpstra, le Wed 21 Oct 2009 13:02:37 +0200, a écrit :
> What do other people think? Should this be possible? Should this be required?
I confirm that usually not having the i386 or amd64 log is often a
problem.
One idea that was floating around was to have buildd always recompile
the pa
I've long thought that would be a good idea. However, IIRC the plan is
to drop the .debs built by developers and build each upload on the
buildds. That will mean that the build logs are available for all
architectures. In the meantime, or if this doesn't go ahead after all,
it would be nice if ther
Wesley W. Terpstra wrote:
> However, I find there's one piece of data that
> is sadly missing: the log from my local build!
why is the buildlog of the maintainers local build of interest to anyone
when it was announced that ftp-master is planning to throw away the
uploaded binaries from the mainta
I find the buildd logs on https://buildd.debian.org/ to be extremely
useful. They are nicely organized and it's easy to look back in time
and see previous build problems and/or get a quick overview of the
current build status. However, I find there's one piece of data that
is sadly missing: the log
40 matches
Mail list logo
