On Sat, Mar 26, 2005 at 12:38:05AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 01:01:24PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 21, 2005 at 05:28:51PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > > This adds up to a lot of effort for a dead-end architecture. Do
> > > you believe that such p
Steve Langasek wrote:
One of the delays affecting getting lully.d.o back on line, AIUI, was a dead
power supply that was non-trivial to replace. This is a case of scarce
hardware impacting a port even *before* it has ceased to become available
for sale.
Well, N+1 redundancy is already required. Ma
Benjamin,
On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 09:12:45AM +0100, Benjamin Mesing wrote:
> Why not freeze the archive at a given time and make a release for all
> architectures ready until then. As this code is frozen, the porters can
> continue to work on the frozen codebase where only patches are allowed
> w
On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 01:01:24PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 21, 2005 at 05:28:51PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > This adds up to a lot of effort for a dead-end architecture. Do you believe
> > that such ports are going to command enough interest to be able to keep up
> > with
Peter 'p2' De Schrijver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The arch should still be available, but a big enough collection of
> existing machines will do here IMO. Not that this holds for mips as
> there are new MIPS based systems available. Both broadcom and PMC
> announced new MIPS based chips for ex
On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 01:51:57PM +, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 14:15:13 +0100, Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [snip]
> > Except that arm doesn't *have* a large number of slow autobuilders,
> > working in parallel. They have four, and are having problems keep
On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 05:31:58AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 01:13:15PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 01:11:32AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
>
> > > You didn't answer the question I asked. Do you believe that DSA should be
> > > spending i
On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 14:15:13 +0100, Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip]
> Except that arm doesn't *have* a large number of slow autobuilders,
> working in parallel. They have four, and are having problems keeping up
> right now.
Precisely. And four is already pushing the point of di
On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 01:13:15PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 01:11:32AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > You didn't answer the question I asked. Do you believe that DSA should be
> > spending its limited resources keeping hardware running for dead
> > architectures?
On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 04:58:33 -0800, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Eh, not particularly. This inspection can be done on any machine, and
> there's no reason not to just use the fastest one available to you (whether
> that's by CPU, or network); what's needed here is to first identify
On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 12:45:56PM +, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 11:02:47 +0100, David Schmitt
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [snip]
> > As Steve mentioned in another mail[1], one of the points where arches
> > offload
> > work onto the release team is
> >
> > "3) chasing
On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 12:45:56PM +, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 11:02:47 +0100, David Schmitt
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > As Steve mentioned in another mail[1], one of the points where arches
> > offload
> > work onto the release team is
> > "3) chasing down, or ju
On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 11:02:47 +0100, David Schmitt
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip]
> As Steve mentioned in another mail[1], one of the points where arches offload
> work onto the release team is
>
> "3) chasing down, or just waiting on (which means, taking time to poll the
> package's status to f
* Wouter Verhelst ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050322 13:35]:
> On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 01:28:18PM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > * Wouter Verhelst ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050322 13:05]:
> > > In the general case, as I have said before, I don't think anyone would
> > > take offense at a security announcement
On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 01:28:18PM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
> * Wouter Verhelst ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050322 13:05]:
> > In the general case, as I have said before, I don't think anyone would
> > take offense at a security announcement being sent out containing
> > MD5sums for packages for i386,
* Wouter Verhelst ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050322 13:05]:
> In the general case, as I have said before, I don't think anyone would
> take offense at a security announcement being sent out containing
> MD5sums for packages for i386, sparc, powerpc, alpha, ia64 and s390,
> with a message like 'packages f
On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 01:11:32AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 09:36:46AM +0100, Falk Hueffner wrote:
> > This is too vague for me.
>
> Does the release team now have to do price shopping on replacement
> parts for buildds before it can say that it doesn't want to suppo
On Mon, Mar 21, 2005 at 05:28:51PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> This adds up to a lot of effort for a dead-end architecture. Do you believe
> that such ports are going to command enough interest to be able to keep up
> with Debian's stable support requirements for more than 2 1/2 years (18mo.
>
On Mon, Mar 21, 2005 at 11:13:40PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>...
> People are far too busy picking on small details of proposals they don't
> like instead of coming up with a decent and comprehensive set of
> solutions. If you don't like what's been proposed, produce something
> better. For th
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The problem is when they actively oppose work.
I have not seen the release team actively oppose useful work. I don't
/think/ I've seen them actively oppose useless work, either. I'm fairly
sure I've seen them actively oppose work that would delay the relea
On Tue, 22 Mar 2005, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 21, 2005 at 08:39:58PM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> > On Tue, 22 Mar 2005, Peter 'p2' De Schrijver wrote:
> > > No. There needs to be some override procedure like we have for
> > > maintainers not
> > > doing their job. But that
>
> The only sarge architectures that are likely of being affected by your
> "must be publicly available to buy new" rule during the next 10 years
> are hppa and alpha (dunno about s390).
>
Given IBM's track record in backwards compatibility I don't expect s390
to die at all :) Even the latest
On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 07:45:00AM +, Alastair McKinstry wrote:
> On Máirt, 2005-03-22 at 00:11 +0100, Peter 'p2' De Schrijver wrote:
> > > If Debian is keeping an arch alive so much that one can still buy it new,
> > > I
> > > certainly can't see why we should not continue releasing for that
On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 07:45:00AM +, Alastair McKinstry wrote:
>
> I think the point of this requirement is to support it we need buildds
> in the future for security fixes. Hence while I might like my mips box,
> etc. it would be irresponsible for us to do a release that we could not
> suppo
On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 11:02:47AM +0100, David Schmitt wrote:
> On Tuesday 22 March 2005 08:22, Sven Luther wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 21, 2005 at 08:39:58PM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> > > On Tue, 22 Mar 2005, Peter 'p2' De Schrijver wrote:
> > > > No. There needs to be some override
On MÃirt, 2005-03-22 at 00:11 +0100, Peter 'p2' De Schrijver wrote:
> > If Debian is keeping an arch alive so much that one can still buy it new, I
> > certainly can't see why we should not continue releasing for that arch,
> > however. So I'd say Matthew's explanation is not perfect. But the
> >
On Mon, Mar 21, 2005 at 05:28:51PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 21, 2005 at 09:51:25PM +0100, Falk Hueffner wrote:
> > Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > > * the release architecture must be publicly available to buy new
>
> > > Avoids a situation where Debian is keep
On Tuesday 22 March 2005 08:22, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 21, 2005 at 08:39:58PM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> > On Tue, 22 Mar 2005, Peter 'p2' De Schrijver wrote:
> > > No. There needs to be some override procedure like we have for
> > > maintainers not doing their job. But t
On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 09:36:46AM +0100, Falk Hueffner wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 21, 2005 at 09:51:25PM +0100, Falk Hueffner wrote:
> >> Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> > * the release architecture must be publicly available to buy new
> >> > Avoids a situation where Debian is kee
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, Mar 21, 2005 at 09:51:25PM +0100, Falk Hueffner wrote:
>> Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> > * the release architecture must be publicly available to buy new
>
>> > Avoids a situation where Debian is keeping an architecture alive
On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 09:12:45AM +0100, Benjamin Mesing wrote:
> Hello,
>
> > The Vancouver proposals satisfy all of these, potentially at the cost of
> > removing some architectures from the set released by Debian. If we want
> > to avoid that cost, can we come up with another proposal that sol
Hello,
> The Vancouver proposals satisfy all of these, potentially at the cost of
> removing some architectures from the set released by Debian. If we want
> to avoid that cost, can we come up with another proposal that solves the
> same problems in a way that satisfies the release team?
There w
On Mon, Mar 21, 2005 at 08:39:58PM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Mar 2005, Peter 'p2' De Schrijver wrote:
> > No. There needs to be some override procedure like we have for maintainers
> > not
> > doing their job. But that's beyond the scope of this discussion.
>
> In th
Peter 'p2' De Schrijver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This is unacceptable. It would for example allow archs to be refused
> because their names starts with an 'A'.
Personally, I'd prefer to delegate that sort of decision to the
technical committee rather than have the release team have a veto. Ev
On Mon, Mar 21, 2005 at 09:51:25PM +0100, Falk Hueffner wrote:
> Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > * the release architecture must be publicly available to buy new
> > Avoids a situation where Debian is keeping an architecture alive.
> I don't understand this. What is the problem w
On Tue, 22 Mar 2005, Peter 'p2' De Schrijver wrote:
> > If Debian is keeping an arch alive so much that one can still buy it new, I
> > certainly can't see why we should not continue releasing for that arch,
> > however. So I'd say Matthew's explanation is not perfect. But the
> > reasoning behin
> If Debian is keeping an arch alive so much that one can still buy it new, I
> certainly can't see why we should not continue releasing for that arch,
> however. So I'd say Matthew's explanation is not perfect. But the
> reasoning behind it is not difficult to spot.
>
> Throwing out this requir
On Mon, 21 Mar 2005, Peter 'p2' De Schrijver wrote:
> > * the release architecture must be publicly available to buy new
> >
> > Avoids a situation where Debian is keeping an architecture alive. This
> > isn't intended to result in an architecture being dropped part way
> > through a release cycle
> * the release architecture must be publicly available to buy new
>
> Avoids a situation where Debian is keeping an architecture alive. This
> isn't intended to result in an architecture being dropped part way
> through a release cycle or once it becomes hard to obtain new hardware.
>
What prob
Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> * the release architecture must be publicly available to buy new
>
> Avoids a situation where Debian is keeping an architecture alive.
I don't understand this. What is the problem with Debian is keeping an
architecture alive? What problem are you tryi
40 matches
Mail list logo
