On Sun, Dec 14, 2003 at 10:58:53AM +1100, Brian May wrote:
> Otherwise, there is no way to filter out this bug report in BTS
> listings.
Not to mention the problem that if -1 is closed, XX needs to be
manually too, but the "owner" of XX is not informed that -1
has been closed (AFAIK).
--
On Tue, Dec 02, 2003 at 02:47:12PM -0700, Joel Baker wrote:
> For those playing along at home, I suspect this would look a lot like:
>
> clone XX
> severity -1 important
> retitle -1 Causes massive failures on package foo
> assign -1 bar
Would it be acceptable to add:
forwarded XX http:/
On Thu, 2003-12-11 at 12:41, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 01, 2003 at 02:45:09PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > We've often downplayed asking for help in favour of encouraging people
> > to *offer* to help, but since we're having problems, it's important to
> > try everything we can to over
On Mon, Dec 01, 2003 at 02:45:09PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> We've often downplayed asking for help in favour of encouraging people
> to *offer* to help, but since we're having problems, it's important to
> try everything we can to overcome them. One of the more effective way
> of getting usefu
On Thu, Dec 04, 2003 at 06:31:02PM +0100, Jan Nieuwenhuizen wrote:
> Peter S Galbraith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > another package's was using convert in the build stage to convert
> > some images and it was failing. The bug was elevated to
> > release-critical. I don't think it would be fair
On Sat, Dec 06, 2003 at 03:01:20PM +0100, Martin Pitt wrote:
> On 2003-12-01 14:45 +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > Another possibility is to just drop packages that aren't maintained well
> > enough. While this is somewhat attractive, it doesn't really serve our
> > users any better than saying "Wh
Hi aj, hi all others,
On 2003-12-01 14:45 +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Another possibility is to just drop packages that aren't maintained well
> enough. While this is somewhat attractive, it doesn't really serve our
> users any better than saying "Why don't we just lower our standards?"
Basical
Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 04, 2003 at 08:46:19PM -0500, Peter S Galbraith wrote:
> > Anyone know the answer to my second question?
> > : Does the OTA bug get filled against the package you are offering to help
> > : with, or against wnpp? I presume against the package you are offering
>
On Thu, Dec 04, 2003 at 08:46:19PM -0500, Peter S Galbraith wrote:
> Anyone know the answer to my second question?
> : Does the OTA bug get filled against the package you are offering to help
> : with, or against wnpp? I presume against the package you are offering
> : to help with, but then there
Frank Lichtenheld <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 04, 2003 at 10:38:10AM -0500, Peter S Galbraith wrote:
> > Anthony Towns wrote on debian-devel-announce:
> >
> > > I think the best way is to
> > > file a RFA (which we're redefining as "Requ
> On Dec 4, 2003, at 10:56, Peter S Galbraith wrote:
>
> > But another package's was using convert
> > in the build stage to convert some images and it was failing. The bug
> > was elevated to release-critical. I don't think it would be fair to
> > remove imagemagick from the distribution for su
On Dec 4, 2003, at 10:56, Peter S Galbraith wrote:
But another package's was using convert
in the build stage to convert some images and it was failing. The bug
was elevated to release-critical. I don't think it would be fair to
remove imagemagick from the distribution for such a case.
More impor
Peter S Galbraith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> another package's was using convert in the build stage to convert
> some images and it was failing. The bug was elevated to
> release-critical. I don't think it would be fair to remove
> imagemagick from the distribution for such a case.
>From the
On Thu, Dec 04, 2003 at 10:38:10AM -0500, Peter S Galbraith wrote:
> Anthony Towns wrote on debian-devel-announce:
>
> > I think the best way is to
> > file a RFA (which we're redefining as "Request For Assistance" instead
> > of just "Request For Ado
"Nikita V. Youshchenko" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Tue, Dec 02, 2003 at 05:32:59PM +1100, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
>>> Can "requesting removal from archive" be automated, to occur say after 3
>>> weeks of inactivity of rc/grave/serious bug?
>>>
>>> As a DD, I assume there is some pride and/ o
Anthony Towns wrote on debian-devel-announce:
> I think the best way is to
> file a RFA (which we're redefining as "Request For Assistance" instead
> of just "Request For Adoption") report against wnpp
[cut]
> Third, personnel deployment. As a complem
Anthony Towns wrote:
* #203339 - freeswan - Rene Mayrhofer
FTBFS, patch in the bug log since July, no further activity
I feel that I need to respond to that, after being mentioned here :)
I fully admit that I have simply overlooked this one, because it is very
easy to fix (and in
On Tue, Dec 02, 2003 at 09:33:39AM -0500, Sam Hartman wrote:
> > "aj" == Anthony Towns writes:
> aj> or overloaded with work, or, for that matter, fixing compromised Debian
> aj> servers -- do you think it's desirable and possible to:
>
> aj> * for confirmed bugs with a known fi
John Goerzen writes:
>On Tue, Dec 02, 2003 at 12:27:00PM -0500, Noah L. Meyerhans wrote:
>> release goal of December 1 didn't inspire any new activity. This gives
>> the appearance that the ARM port maintainers simply don't care if sarge
>> gets released at all. This is very discouraging.
>
>If t
On Wed, Dec 03, 2003 at 07:17:57AM +1100, Brian May wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 02, 2003 at 01:46:02PM +, Mark Howard wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 02, 2003 at 06:56:13PM +1100, Brian May wrote:
> > > A release critical bug in one package could be caused by a non-release
> > > critical bug in another package
On Tue, Dec 02, 2003 at 09:33:39AM -0500, Sam Hartman wrote:
> [...] It takes me about an
> afternoon to do a PAM or OpenAFS release even if I change one line.
> OK, for a one line change I can probably get that down to two hours or
> so.
>
> It's a lot easier for me if I batch bugs together and
On Tue, Dec 02, 2003 at 01:46:02PM +, Mark Howard wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 02, 2003 at 06:56:13PM +1100, Brian May wrote:
> > A release critical bug in one package could be caused by a non-release
> > critical bug in another package.
>
> How?
> If the bug is caused by a problem in another package
On Tue, Dec 02, 2003 at 12:27:00PM -0500, Noah L. Meyerhans wrote:
> release goal of December 1 didn't inspire any new activity. This gives
> the appearance that the ARM port maintainers simply don't care if sarge
> gets released at all. This is very discouraging.
If that is what happens, then I
Op di 02-12-2003, om 14:46 schreef Mark Howard:
> On Tue, Dec 02, 2003 at 06:56:13PM +1100, Brian May wrote:
> > A release critical bug in one package could be caused by a non-release
> > critical bug in another package.
>
> How?
A program could use some library for most of its core operation, an
On Tue, Dec 02, 2003 at 05:09:37PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > What happens if say there are simply not enough people interested in
> > GNOME for example, and the RC counts rise, and rise at an increasing
> > rate, and we never release again?
>
> That's not a very interesting hypothetical -- t
> "aj" == Anthony Towns writes:
aj> or overloaded with work, or, for that matter, fixing compromised Debian
aj> servers -- do you think it's desirable and possible to:
aj> * for confirmed bugs with a known fix, upload a fixed package
aj> within a day or two
On Mon, Dec 01, 2003 at 02:45:09PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Hello world,
Hello aj.
>* LSB 1.3 compatibility mostly achieved
>
> (LSB non-compliance issues are now Release Critical; bugs
> should be filed and addressed by the LSB team, which hangs
> aroun
On Tue, Dec 02, 2003 at 06:56:13PM +1100, Brian May wrote:
> A release critical bug in one package could be caused by a non-release
> critical bug in another package.
How?
If the bug is caused by a problem in another package then it should be
reassigned (and more importantly fixed). The bug is sti
On Tue, Dec 02, 2003 at 10:34:26AM +0200, Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
> That said, it has been too long since I last looked at grep-dctrl. I'll
> try to fix that "in a couple of days" :) I can only say that my
> teaching duties have exhausted me during the autumn.
And hey, if you manage to fix
On Tue, 2003-12-02 at 18:56, Brian May wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 02, 2003 at 05:32:59PM +1100, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
> > Can "requesting removal from archive" be automated, to occur say after 3
> > weeks of inactivity of rc/grave/serious bug?
> >
> > As a DD, I assume there is some pride and/ or utili
On Tue, 2003-12-02 at 18:09, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 02, 2003 at 05:32:59PM +1100, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
> ] $ grep Harkness /var/lib/apt/lists/*_*; echo $?
> ] 1
It's not much (directly) Debian related (yet), but:
I'd be in NM but for the keyservers and NM registration page being down
> On Tue, Dec 02, 2003 at 05:32:59PM +1100, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
>> Can "requesting removal from archive" be automated, to occur say after 3
>> weeks of inactivity of rc/grave/serious bug?
>>
>> As a DD, I assume there is some pride and/ or utility in having your
>> package in the archive. Thi
On Tue, 2003-12-02 at 18:12, Magosányi Árpád wrote:
> A levelezőm azt hiszi, hogy Zenaan Harkness a következőeket írta:
> > Can "requesting removal from archive" be automated, to occur say after 3
> > weeks of inactivity of rc/grave/serious bug?
> >
> > As a DD, I assume there is some pride and/ o
On 20031201T144509+1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> * #208646 - grep-dctrl - Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho
> unspecified problems with version in unstable, should take
> "a couple of days" to fix, no activity since September
The "unspecified problems" are mainly recorded in the other op
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Anthony Towns wrote:
>Without having evaluated null hypotheses or done exhaustive analyses,
>the correlation nevertheless seems fairly convincing. To put it bluntly,
>our regular package maintainers are doing such a bad job that without
>significant assistance from
On Tue, Dec 02, 2003 at 05:32:59PM +1100, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
> Can "requesting removal from archive" be automated, to occur say after 3
> weeks of inactivity of rc/grave/serious bug?
>
> As a DD, I assume there is some pride and/ or utility in having your
> package in the archive. This would g
On Tue, Dec 02, 2003 at 05:32:59PM +1100, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
Hrm.
] $ grep Harkness /var/lib/apt/lists/*_*; echo $?
] 1
> Can "requesting removal from archive" be automated, to occur say after 3
> weeks of inactivity of rc/grave/serious bug?
It could, but it shouldn't be -- requests for rem
A levelezőm azt hiszi, hogy Zenaan Harkness a következőeket írta:
> Can "requesting removal from archive" be automated, to occur say after 3
> weeks of inactivity of rc/grave/serious bug?
>
> As a DD, I assume there is some pride and/ or utility in having your
> package in the archive. This would
Anthony Towns wrote:
[...]
> Fallback plans are important though, and in this case if we're not able
> to get in a position where maintainers are able to keep control of their
> RC bug count (which is to say, keep it at zero), we'll have to consider
> more drastic measures. An obvious one is to tra
On Mon, 2003-12-01 at 15:45, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Having critical, grave or serious bugs open for an extended period is simply
> not acceptable.
>
> Nor is it excusable. While it's possible that you mightn't have the skill
> required to fix some security bug, or mightn't have the time to respond
On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 17:12:42 +0200
cobaco <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> KDE is not mission critical in the sense that when a user's KDE-instance
> crashes the KDE-instances of the other users will continue to run. Just
> like when -in that same organization with some thousands of X terminals-
> 1 X
On Thu, Sep 04, 2003 at 10:37:20AM +0200, Te?filo Ruiz Su?rez wrote:
> El 22-ago-2003 a las 10:03:47, Adrian von Bidder escribi?:
> > And what about postfix? 2.0 is in unstable quite a while and works ok. I
> > guess
> > it will make it to sarge.
> So, what do you think, since you wear the Postfi
El 22-ago-2003 a las 10:03:47, Adrian von Bidder escribió:
Content-Description: signed data
> On Wednesday 20 August 2003 09:49, Adrian von Bidder wrote:
>
> > ... what KDE, gcc, X,
> > gnome versions will be in sarge?
>
> And what about postfix? 2.0 is in unstable quite a while and works ok. I
On Thu, Aug 28, 2003 at 01:44:09PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 28, 2003 at 01:31:51PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 27, 2003 at 06:31:03PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > > IMO, people who can't keep up with debian-x in its current state
> > > probably don't have the tim
On Thu, Aug 28, 2003 at 01:31:51PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 27, 2003 at 06:31:03PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > IMO, people who can't keep up with debian-x in its current state
> > probably don't have the time to be the kind of committer who can
> > measurably help me get 4.3.0
On Wed, Aug 27, 2003 at 06:31:03PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 25, 2003 at 09:58:31PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 20, 2003 at 08:11:55PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > > Interested parties, please catch up on the last month's worth of traffic
> > > to the debian-x
On Mon, Aug 25, 2003 at 09:58:31PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 20, 2003 at 08:11:55PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > Interested parties, please catch up on the last month's worth of traffic
> > to the debian-x mailing list to get a feel for the environment.
>
> Maybe you could spli
At Mon, 25 Aug 2003 19:01:14 -0500 (CDT),
Adam Heath wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Aug 2003, GOTO Masanori wrote:
>
> > It was reported by joshk on IRC, but I'm not still clear where this
> > problem come from. Example:
> >
> > ultra30:~> dpkg -s libc6 | grep Version
> > Version: 2.3.2-3
> > ul
On Tue, 2003-08-26 at 01:01, Adam Heath wrote:
> Is there a debian machine I can access that has this problem?
Yes. You can use vore, unstable chroot.
p.
On Mon, Aug 25, 2003 at 07:36:05PM -0400, Neil Roeth wrote:
> On Aug 19, Anthony Towns (aj@azure.humbug.org.au) wrote:
> >* September 15th
> >Last major changes to major packages uploaded to unstable
> >* October 1st
> >1st test cycle, public request for comments
On Fri, 22 Aug 2003, GOTO Masanori wrote:
> It was reported by joshk on IRC, but I'm not still clear where this
> problem come from. Example:
>
> ultra30:~> dpkg -s libc6 | grep Version
> Version: 2.3.2-3
> ultra30:~> dpkg -s dpkg | grep Version
> Version: 1.10.10
>
On Wed, Aug 20, 2003 at 08:11:55PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 20, 2003 at 03:13:11AM -0500, Chris Cheney wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 20, 2003 at 09:49:03AM +0200, Adrian von Bidder wrote:
> > > Do you have some Official Opinion(tm)[1] as the RM about what KDE, gcc,
> > > X,
> > > gno
On Sat, Aug 23, 2003 at 03:39:14PM +0200, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
> yes, the pigs.
I think we already have some pigs in the Debian archive...
--
Brian May <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Sat, Aug 23, 2003 at 03:13:40PM +0200, Roland Mas wrote:
> > making pigs fly.
>
> 1. All you need for that is thrust (see Ginger, Mac and Rocky);
> 2. Debian prides itself on its web of thrust;
> 3. therefore the web servers in Debian do provide enough thrust.
>
> ...or am I missing something?
* Roland Mas
| Tollef Fog Heen (2003-08-23 13:26:20 +0200) :
[...]
| > making pigs fly.
|
| 1. All you need for that is thrust (see Ginger, Mac and Rocky);
| 2. Debian prides itself on its web of thrust;
| 3. therefore the web servers in Debian do provide enough thrust.
|
| ...or am I missing
Tollef Fog Heen (2003-08-23 13:26:20 +0200) :
> * Joe Drew
[...]
> | What are the criteria for the apache package to become Apache 2?
>
> Seamless upgrade without loss of functionality (that includes
> modules),
>
> or
>
> making pigs fly.
1. All you need for that is thrust (see Ginger, Mac a
On Sat, Aug 23, 2003 at 01:26:20PM +0200, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
> * Joe Drew
>
> | On Fri, 2003-08-22 at 01:42, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
> | > * Teófilo Ruiz Suárez
> | >
> | > | What about Apache? Should we change the apache2 package to apache?
> | >
> | > No. (Wearing apache & apache2 mainta
* Joe Drew
| On Fri, 2003-08-22 at 01:42, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
| > * Teófilo Ruiz Suárez
| >
| > | What about Apache? Should we change the apache2 package to apache?
| >
| > No. (Wearing apache & apache2 maintainer hat.)
|
| What are the criteria for the apache package to become Apache 2?
On Fri, Aug 22, 2003 at 02:41:40PM -0400, Joe Drew wrote:
> On Fri, 2003-08-22 at 01:42, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
> > * Teófilo Ruiz Suárez
> >
> > | What about Apache? Should we change the apache2 package to apache?
> > No. (Wearing apache & apache2 maintainer hat.)
> What are the criteria for
On Fri, 2003-08-22 at 01:42, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
> * Teófilo Ruiz Suárez
>
> | What about Apache? Should we change the apache2 package to apache?
>
> No. (Wearing apache & apache2 maintainer hat.)
What are the criteria for the apache package to become Apache 2?
On Wednesday 20 August 2003 09:49, Adrian von Bidder wrote:
> ... what KDE, gcc, X,
> gnome versions will be in sarge?
And what about postfix? 2.0 is in unstable quite a while and works ok. I guess
it will make it to sarge.
cheers
-- vbi
--
Jack Nicklaus hit a golf shot that only gravity kept
* Teófilo Ruiz Suárez
| What about Apache? Should we change the apache2 package to apache?
No. (Wearing apache & apache2 maintainer hat.)
--
Tollef Fog Heen,''`.
UNIX is user friendly, it's just picky about who its friends are : :'
On Aug 20, Theodore Ts'o ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> The real problem is that stable has a reputation of taking years and
> years before we manage to do a release, so people are always desperate
> to shove every last bit of functionality and new upstream release into
> it. What folks don't re
At 21 Aug 2003 17:29:16 +0100,
Philip Blundell wrote:
> On Thu, 2003-08-21 at 09:52, GOTO Masanori wrote:
> > My concern is (1) hppa build. If we can't get hppa glibc, we may need
> > to drop it finally...
>
> I don't think the hppa glibc is as inscrutable as all that. The main
> problem seems t
At Thu, 21 Aug 2003 12:09:29 -0500 (CDT),
Adam Heath wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Aug 2003, Anthony Towns wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Aug 21, 2003 at 05:52:32PM +0900, GOTO Masanori wrote:
> > > AFAIK, the unresolved difficult bugs are: (1) hppa build (2) dpkg
> > > (setjmp/longjmp) on sparc (3) NIS (will be fixe
On Wednesday, Aug 20, 2003, at 09:52 US/Eastern, Santiago Vila wrote:
Will we some day consider seriously the idea of autobuilders compiling
against testing those packages which do not need libraries from
unstable to be built?
If by "seriously consider" you mean "ignore all the arguments against
i
On Thu, 2003-08-21 at 09:52, GOTO Masanori wrote:
> My concern is (1) hppa build. If we can't get hppa glibc, we may need
> to drop it finally...
I don't think the hppa glibc is as inscrutable as all that. The main
problem seems to be that Carlos is the only person working on the bug,
and he is
On Thu, 21 Aug 2003, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 21, 2003 at 05:52:32PM +0900, GOTO Masanori wrote:
> > AFAIK, the unresolved difficult bugs are: (1) hppa build (2) dpkg
> > (setjmp/longjmp) on sparc (3) NIS (will be fixed?) (4) misterious
> > apache on ia64 bug.
>
> Is there a bug# for (2
On Thu, Aug 21, 2003 at 11:39:35AM +0200, Marc Haber wrote:
>
> I am only realistic. When in history did a non-trivial software
> product meet its release schedule?
>
> I am surely hoping for the best, but I seriously do expect sarge to be
> released in early 2004. Which is a pretty good track re
cobaco <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 2003-08-20 15:33, John Goerzen wrote:
> > tne pain of breaking desktops is no less when
> > you consider how many more desktops we're talking about here.
>
> that's assuming that all those desktops crash at the same time no?
No, it's assuming that all those
On Thu, Aug 21, 2003 at 05:52:32PM +0900, GOTO Masanori wrote:
> AFAIK, the unresolved difficult bugs are: (1) hppa build (2) dpkg
> (setjmp/longjmp) on sparc (3) NIS (will be fixed?) (4) misterious
> apache on ia64 bug.
Is there a bug# for (2)? If not, could someone forward the appropriate
mai
* GOTO Masanori wrote:
> AFAIK, the unresolved difficult bugs are: (1) hppa build (2) dpkg
> (setjmp/longjmp) on sparc (3) NIS (will be fixed?) (4) misterious
> apache on ia64 bug. Note that (3) becomes ok to revert patches, (4)
> may be non-glibc bug. Well, they are still something hard work.
On Thu, 21 Aug 2003 17:22:38 +1000, Anthony Towns
wrote:
>On Thu, Aug 21, 2003 at 08:56:31AM +0200, Marc Haber wrote:
>> On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 15:16:05 +0200, Josef Spillner
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >- the KDE release plan might be delayed (as well...)
>> The sarge release plan _will_ be del
At Thu, 21 Aug 2003 00:17:27 +1000,
Anthony Towns wrote:
> [1 ]
> On Wed, Aug 20, 2003 at 08:49:33AM -0400, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 19, 2003 at 04:49:25PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > > Also make sure to include some leg room if you depend on packages that
> > > have a tendency to
On Thu, Aug 21, 2003 at 08:56:31AM +0200, Marc Haber wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 15:16:05 +0200, Josef Spillner
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >- the KDE release plan might be delayed (as well...)
> The sarge release plan _will_ be delayed.
Quite confident, are we?
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns
On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 15:16:05 +0200, Josef Spillner
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>- the KDE release plan might be delayed (as well...)
The sarge release plan _will_ be delayed.
Greetings
Marc
--
-- !! No courtesy copies, please !! -
Marc Haber | "
On Wed, 20 Aug 2003, Colin Watson wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 20, 2003 at 11:18:24AM -0600, Bruce Sass wrote:
> > On Wed, 20 Aug 2003, cobaco wrote:
> > > I'd agree if there had been a rewrite of kdelibs or something, but
> > > kde 3.1 -> 3.2 is evolutionary without big changes to what was
> > > already t
On Wed, Aug 20, 2003 at 11:18:24AM -0600, Bruce Sass wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Aug 2003, cobaco wrote:
> > I'd agree if there had been a rewrite of kdelibs or something, but
> > kde 3.1 -> 3.2 is evolutionary without big changes to what was
> > already there.
>
> It does not take a big change to break s
On Wed, Aug 20, 2003 at 08:49:44PM +0200, Martin Quinson wrote:
> What recent change in the KDE releasing schema let you think that they will
> manage to get a really stable x.y.0 release [*] when it seems like it took 4
> minor releases in the 3.1 branch ?
>
> Naturally, no offense intended to th
On Wed, Aug 20, 2003 at 03:13:11AM -0500, Chris Cheney wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 20, 2003 at 09:49:03AM +0200, Adrian von Bidder wrote:
> > Do you have some Official Opinion(tm)[1] as the RM about what KDE, gcc, X,
> > gnome versions will be in sarge?
>
> An educated guess would produce:
[...]
> XFree
On Wed, Aug 20, 2003 at 04:34:18PM +0200, cobaco wrote:
> > KDE3.2 doesn't miss the deadline by 7 days, it misses the deadline by
> > almost two months:
> >
> > * October 15th
> >Final, last-minute, low-risk bug fixes only
>
> Monday September 29th, 2003: Preparing Beta1
> The HEAD branch is
El 20-ago-2003 a las 09:49:03, Adrian von Bidder escribió:
Content-Description: signed data
> On Tuesday 19 August 2003 08:49, Anthony Towns wrote:
>
> > I'm all for aggressive goals, let's aim for sometime in December -- how
> > about 2003-12-01 00:00:00 UTC?
>
> Do you have some Official Opinio
cobaco dijo [Wed, Aug 20, 2003 at 11:08:28AM +0200]:
> > KDE 3.1.4 (KDE 2.2 _will not_ stay in sarge!)
>
> kde 3.2 release is slated for 8th december[1], is there any chance we'll
> wait
> for it, just so the outdated kde label doesn't apply again immediately after
> release?
...And then wa
On Wed, 20 Aug 2003, Russell Coker wrote:
> Are there any big features you expect from KDE 3.2?
>
Well it will be built with Qt 3.2 which has proper support of Indian
languages.
But if a KDE 3.2 beta or 3.1 built against Qt 3.2 goes in, that is good
enough for me.
--
Jaldhar H. Vyas <[EMAIL PR
On Wed, Aug 20, 2003 at 07:13:38PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Aug 2003, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 20, 2003 at 03:52:42PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
> > > Will we some day consider seriously the idea of autobuilders compiling
> > > against testing those packages which do
On Wed, Aug 20, 2003 at 11:08:28AM +0200, cobaco wrote:
> On 2003-08-20 10:13, Chris Cheney wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 20, 2003 at 09:49:03AM +0200, Adrian von Bidder wrote:
>
> > > On Tuesday 19 August 2003 08:49, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > > > I'm all for aggressive goals, let's aim for sometime in De
On Wed, Aug 20, 2003 at 04:34:18PM +0200, cobaco wrote:
> > KDE3.2 doesn't miss the deadline by 7 days, it misses the deadline by
> > almost two months:
> > * October 15th
> >Final, last-minute, low-risk bug fixes only
> Monday September 29th, 2003: Preparing Beta1
> The HEAD branch is tagg
Hi, I'm Troy McClure - you may remeber me from such threads as "How do we
get Debian to have a useful release timeframe", and... *er, wait*.
Okay, that sillyness aside...
On Wed, Aug 20, 2003 at 08:51:16AM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
>
> Better to have a hard freeze schedule, and then try to tur
On Wed, 20 Aug 2003, cobaco wrote:
> I'd agree if there had been a rewrite of kdelibs or something, but kde 3.1 ->
> 3.2 is evolutionary without big changes to what was already there.
It does not take a big change to break software...
e.g., openssh changed a message and the sftp kioslave broke
htt
On Wed, 20 Aug 2003, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 20, 2003 at 03:52:42PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
> > Will we some day consider seriously the idea of autobuilders compiling
> > against testing those packages which do not need libraries from
> > unstable to be built?
>
> Do you foresee an
Hi, Steve Langasek wrote:
> KDE3.2 doesn't miss the deadline by 7 days, it misses the deadline by
> almost two months:
>
Uh, you've got that turned around. October is not _missing_ the deadline,
that's _beating_ it.
> * October 15th
>Final, last-minute, low-risk bug fixes only
.. which means
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 2003-08-20 15:17, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> You're trying to say that it's impossible for an organization to install
> some thousands of X terminals that all run KDE (which, of course, is
> installed on the server)?
not what I'm trying to say
>Or
On Wed, Aug 20, 2003 at 06:48:51PM +0800, Cameron Patrick wrote:
> There were pretty major changes between KDE 3 and KDE 3.1. As a Debian
> user, I'd be rather miffed if a new version of KDE came out within a
> week of sarge being released ... on the other hand, if sarge is to be
> frozen in a cou
On Wed, Aug 20, 2003 at 08:49:33AM -0400, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 19, 2003 at 04:49:25PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > Also make sure to include some leg room if you depend on packages that
> > have a tendency to be buggy (glibc, for example).
> The new glibc has already stalled the p
On Wed, Aug 20, 2003 at 03:52:42PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Aug 2003, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 19, 2003 at 04:49:25PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > > Also make sure to include some leg room if you depend on packages that
> > > have a tendency to be buggy (glibc, for
Op wo 20-08-2003, om 13:26 schreef cobaco:
> On 2003-08-20 12:36, Isaac To wrote:
> > > "cobaco" == cobaco <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Why KDE cannot be used on servers (how about a X terminal server? You
> > don't have to set it up?)
> not what I meant: off course it can be used on a
On Wednesday 20 August 2003 13:30, Russell Coker wrote:
> KDE 1.x was quite usable, while many of the beta releases in the 2.x and
> early 3.x series weren't...
That's why they're called betas :)
I don't think this whole discussion fits in here, for 2 reasons:
- the KDE conference (which will pro
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 2003-08-20 15:27, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 20, 2003 at 12:38:57PM +0200, cobaco wrote:
> > On 2003-08-20 12:10, Michael Piefel wrote:
> > > Am 20.08.03 um 11:08:28 schrieb cobaco:
> > > > kde 3.2 release is slated for 8th december[1], is
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 2003-08-20 15:33, John Goerzen wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 20, 2003 at 12:11:20PM +0200, cobaco wrote:
> > Note that the RM was talking about servers there, while kde is end-user
> > software, big difference IMHO. Taking into account that kde isn't
> > ser
On Wed, Aug 20, 2003 at 12:11:20PM +0200, cobaco wrote:
> Basically, it's the difference between having a sysadmin
> spending fifteen minutes every day or week tweaking your server to keep
> it running, or having a sysadmin come in for a week once a year to do a
> major upgrade.
> Note that the RM
1 - 100 of 121 matches
Mail list logo
