Re: Regarding the new "Debian User Repository"

I'll be leaving the mailing list for the time being - if there's any further inquiries about the (now) MPR, I can be reached in the project's support rooms. Glad we all came to an agreement. Thanks for the patience!

Re: Recalling Key Points of the Previous Attempt (was: Re: Regarding the new "Debian User Repository"

On Mon, 2021-07-05 at 11:02 +, M. Zhou wrote: > Supporting multiple ISA variants based on ld.so means a > multiple of the current package size. Apart from the -cc2-dbgsym package those seem fine to multiply, especially since the intended users probably have lots of disk space. There is also t

Re: Regarding the new "Debian User Repository"

Hi Hunter On 2021/07/05 05:50, Hunter Wittenborn wrote: > In combination with some thoughts that have been said here, as well as > from a branding perspective of what is currently the DUR, I think I'm > going to change the naming for the project. > > I'll be changing it to be called the "makedeb

Re: Recalling Key Points of the Previous Attempt (was: Re: Regarding the new "Debian User Repository"

On Mon, 2021-07-05 at 02:09 +, Paul Wise wrote: On Sun, Jul 4, 2021 at 11:20 AM Mo Zhou wrote: > (2) use the "hardware capabilities" feature of ld.so(8) ... > Solution (2) will result in very bulky binary packages; Solution (2) seems like the only option that can be done entirely within Debian

Re: Regarding the new "Debian User Repository"

On Mon, Jul 05, 2021 at 12:44:15AM -0500, Hunter Wittenborn wrote: >> By the way, how many users do you currently have? > >At the time of checking there's 46 registered users. > >There's also a counter on the DUR website (bottom-right corner) that displays >the amount of users. Thanks, I haven't v

Re: Regarding the new "Debian User Repository"

Hi, In combination with some thoughts that have been said here, as well as from a branding perspective of what is currently the DUR, I think I'm going to change the naming for the project. I'll be changing it to be called the "makedeb User Repository", which just makes more sense to me. On

Re: Recalling Key Points of the Previous Attempt (was: Re: Regarding the new "Debian User Repository"

On Sun, Jul 4, 2021 at 11:20 AM Mo Zhou wrote: > There are a few methods to bump the ISA baseline for a debian package > for the official archive: (1) patch the code with gcc's fmv feature; > (2) use the "hardware capabilities" feature of ld.so(8); (3) let the > user modify debian/rules and rebuil

Recalling Key Points of the Previous Attempt (was: Re: Regarding the new "Debian User Repository"

Hi fellow devs, As the previous attempt on debian user repository has been mentioned, I'm interested in recalling some key points of it and bits I've learned, along with some updates. # how the initial attempt started In terms of debian-related works, I mainly focus on scientific computing and d

Re: Regarding the new "Debian User Repository"

Hi Stephan On 2021/07/02 19:16, Stephan Lachnit wrote: > Today I discovered a relatively new project called "Debian User Repository" > [1]. For what it's worth, the Debian trademark team is already aware of this. -Jonathan

Re: Regarding the new "Debian User Repository"

Sorry, completely forgot to point to my reference. [1]: --- *Hunter Wittenborn* hun...@hunterwittenborn.com

Re: Regarding the new "Debian User Repository"

Hi! Just thought I would pop in about some initial concerns Andrey raised: > As long as it only targets Ubuntu and doesn't mention Debian it's indeed only an Ubuntu problem. It mainly *targets* Ubuntu, but there's no reason it wouldn't be functional on Debian distributions. Dependencies can

Re: Regarding the new "Debian User Repository"

On Fri, Jul 02, 2021 at 07:16:48PM +0200, Stephan Lachnit wrote: > Thus, I think we should discuss whether we should ask the creator to change > the name (he is open for that, I asked him). I don't think there is something to discuss here, the name should be changed. > The creator responded quite