On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 12:16:00PM +0200, Philipp Kern wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 11:55:39AM +0200, Bastian Blank wrote:
> > Why do you want one keyring per arch? What problem are you trying to
> > solve with this?
> I think it's called principle of least privilege. Of course we could also l
On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 11:55:39AM +0200, Bastian Blank wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 10:19:32PM +, Philipp Kern wrote:
> > I talked with Joerg at the meeting and we agreed that arch-based admin
> > keyrings aren't needed. If you feel so strongly about it, I think you
> > should take it up
On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 11:54:21AM +0200, Bastian Blank wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 10:50:31AM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> > At that point, exactly why should you not upload the entire thing?
>
> In most parts of the world you actually have to pay for data transfer.
> So why t
On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 10:19:32PM +, Philipp Kern wrote:
> I talked with Joerg at the meeting and we agreed that arch-based admin
> keyrings aren't needed. If you feel so strongly about it, I think you
> should take it up yourself and make [0] support one keyring per arch.
Why do you want on
On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 10:50:31AM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> At that point, exactly why should you not upload the entire thing?
In most parts of the world you actually have to pay for data transfer.
So why transfer something that is not going to be used at all?
Bastian
--
Supe
Joerg Jaspert writes:
> Additionally we will support new architectures like armhf, sparc64,
> powerpc64, sh4 and s390x in case someone does the neccessary
> groundwork needed prior to an inclusion, and gets all the needed
> preconditions settled. If porters want to discuss inclusion, the
> Note that it isn't entirely clear to me how splitting up keyrings per
> architecture would help there, so some explanation might help (if I want
> to make sure that whatever patch I come up with actually solves the
> issue at hand...).
You need to check on which site you luck. Lets take it that
On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 10:19:32PM +, Philipp Kern wrote:
> On 2011-03-28, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > But I'd think that "making sure this buildd host can still do uploads in
> > a timely manner when the key expires" is pretty well inside the realm of
> > the buildd admin's responsibility.
>
On Tue, 29 Mar 2011, Dominique Dumont wrote:
> On Monday 28 March 2011 19:43:52 Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> > So, we have to either accept source-only uploads with the knowledge that
> > some people will upload even more crap, or don't accept source-only
> > uploads at all. There is no "p
Bernd Zeimetz (29/03/2011):
> And as you have to test-build your packages anyway the only reason I
> see why you wouldn't be able to upload them is a very slow
> connection to the rest of the world.
One can test-build in her own, non-chroot environment, and still be
cautious about what changed in
On ti, 2011-03-29 at 09:52 +0200, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
> And as you have to test-build your packages anyway the only reason I see
> why you wouldn't be able to upload them is a very slow connection to the
> rest of the world.
Bandwidth quotas would be another reason. (I have no opinion on whether
On 03/28/2011 07:05 PM, Philipp Kern wrote:
> I think people who screw up repeatedly even after being told to be careful
> should have their upload privileges suspended at the discretion of the
> ftp-masters. We had that in the past as well. Then source-only uploads
> shouldn't be a problem.
Tha
On Monday 28 March 2011 19:43:52 Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> So, we have to either accept source-only uploads with the knowledge that
> some people will upload even more crap, or don't accept source-only
> uploads at all. There is no "punishment for the bad uploader" option,
> anyone prop
On 2011-03-28, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> But I'd think that "making sure this buildd host can still do uploads in
> a timely manner when the key expires" is pretty well inside the realm of
> the buildd admin's responsibility.
And manual signing wouldn't be timely?
I talked with Joerg at the meeti
On Mon, 28 Mar 2011, Mark Hymers wrote:
> The main decision which needs to be made is whether, as a project,
> we want source only uploads or to throw away DD built non-all debs.
There are two separate decisions here.
One is whether we throw away DD built debs (non-all, or
everything.[0])
The se
Hi Phil,
[ Note: re-reading, I find that my mail could be read as "heated", which
it wasn't meant to be. I'm firm in what I believe needs to be done, but
not angry :-) ]
On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 03:08:12PM +0200, Philipp Kern wrote:
> > So, AIUI, only members of the wbadm GID can change keys, not
On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 01:26:02PM +0200, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> Hi
>
> >> - The long standing project of enabling autosigning for the buildds also
> >> got finished. That means that packages successfully built can now be
> >> uploaded automatically, without waiting for the buildd admin to wak
On Mon, 28 Mar 2011, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
> On 03/28/2011 04:37 PM, Mark Hymers wrote:
> > The main decision which needs to be made is whether, as a project, we
> > want source only uploads or to throw away DD built non-all debs.
> > There's not entire agreement amongst the ftpmasters about this (I
On 2011-03-28, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
> On 03/28/2011 04:37 PM, Mark Hymers wrote:
>> The main decision which needs to be made is whether, as a project, we
>> want source only uploads or to throw away DD built non-all debs.
>> There's not entire agreement amongst the ftpmasters about this (I err on
On 03/28/2011 04:37 PM, Mark Hymers wrote:
> The main decision which needs to be made is whether, as a project, we
> want source only uploads or to throw away DD built non-all debs.
> There's not entire agreement amongst the ftpmasters about this (I err on
> the side of the source-only uploads to a
On Mon, 28, Mar, 2011 at 11:54:29AM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli spoke thus..
> Related to this, in your agendas you did mention the topic of "throwaway
> DD built .debs". I understand from the minutes that no specific hacking
> on that has been done (understandably given how much other stuff has
> be
On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 11:25:13AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 27, 2011 at 10:56:28AM +0200, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> > - The long standing project of enabling autosigning for the buildds also
> > got finished. That means that packages successfully built can now be
> > uploaded au
Hi
>> - The long standing project of enabling autosigning for the buildds also
>> got finished. That means that packages successfully built can now be
>> uploaded automatically, without waiting for the buildd admin to wake
>> up/come back from holiday/whatever. The rules for this are simple
On Sun, Mar 27, 2011 at 10:56:28AM +0200, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> Hello world,
>
> as previously announced[1] we had a FTPMaster meeting in the
> LinuxHotel[2] in Essen during the week from March 21st till 27th. While
> there have been[3] quite[4] a number[5] of blog[6] posts[7] about this
> meetin
On Sun, Mar 27, 2011 at 10:56:28AM +0200, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> - The long standing project of enabling autosigning for the buildds also
> got finished. That means that packages successfully built can now be
> uploaded automatically, without waiting for the buildd admin to wake
> up/come bac
On Sun, 27 Mar 2011, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> - As there have been intermittent problems with the current tool which
> generates the pdiff files (on occasion causing us to have to restart
> the whole diff series), we looked into improving the situation. We
> finally came up with the idea to sto
On Sun, Mar 27, 2011 at 12:27:15PM +0100, Roger Leigh wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 27, 2011 at 10:56:28AM +0200, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> > - The long standing project of enabling autosigning for the buildds also
> > got finished. That means that packages successfully built can now be
> > uploaded automa
On 2011-03-27, Roger Leigh wrote:
>> - The long standing project of enabling autosigning for the buildds also
>> got finished. That means that packages successfully built can now be
>> uploaded automatically, without waiting for the buildd admin to wake
>> up/come back from holiday/whatever.
Hi,
are there any news about leaf packages and the new field "mainpackage:"?
If so, will Wheezy contain packages using this new field?
Did you decide about throwing away DD built binaries?
* Joerg Jaspert [2011-03-27 10:56 +0200]:
> - We had some discussion about accepting ddebs into the archi
On Sun, Mar 27, 2011 at 10:56:28AM +0200, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
Just wanted to say congratulations to you all for for getting so much
great stuff done in such a short time, and many thanks for all your
hard work; it's much appreciated!
> - The long standing project of enabling autosigning for the
30 matches
Mail list logo
