Ingo Juergensmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Well, someone could use the database on Buildd.Net to generate such a graph.
> I assume that the "total" number reflects the number of source packages.
> Combined with the number of changes in Needs-Build it might be possible to
> get the wanted data
On Fri, Jun 02, 2006 at 10:15:53AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > So I guess if the current dip doesn't look out of the ordinary to any of the
> > porters, we can wait and see.
> Currently, I'm suspecting a pre-freeze upload frenzy, since there's a
> dip for almost every architecture (though mo
Andreas Barth wrote:
> N-110 = Mon 7 Aug 06:
>
> freeze base, non-essential toolchain (including e.g. cdbs)
>
> RC bug count less than 180
Is there a list of packages that make up the "non-essential toolchain"?
> N-45 = Wed 18 Oct 06:
>
> general freeze [about 2 months after
On Thu, Jun 01, 2006 at 02:27:07AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> Well, the stats have continued dropping since then, now down by about 1.5%
> in less than a week.
And up again, by about .5%, today.
> The last such dip on the graph seems to have taken about a month to
> recover from,
20 days, ac
On Wed, May 31, 2006 at 02:18:19PM +0200, Ingo Juergensmann wrote:
> On Tue, May 30, 2006 at 02:01:19PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > BTW, can you tell me anything about the dip in
> > http://buildd.debian.org/stats/graph2-quarter-big.png for m68k? Seems to be
> > heading in the wrong directio
> Since m68k pretty much depends on the gcc-4.1 transition to make it in
> again, I would suggest that we (as in, the m68k port) make the switch to
> GCC4.1 as the default already. This will allow us to verify that stuff
> actually builds and works, and to catch up with building those that fail
> w
> On Tue, May 30, 2006 at 02:01:19PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > BTW, can you tell me anything about the dip in
> > http://buildd.debian.org/stats/graph2-quarter-big.png for m68k? Seems to be
> > heading in the wrong direction again for being a release candidate. I see
> > 12 buildds activel
On Wed, May 31, 2006 at 02:35:47PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> [You had removed m68k-build from the Cc list. Was that on purpose?]
>
> On Tue, May 30, 2006 at 02:01:19PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > BTW, can you tell me anything about the dip in
> > http://buildd.debian.org/stats/graph2-qu
[You had removed m68k-build from the Cc list. Was that on purpose?]
On Tue, May 30, 2006 at 02:01:19PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> BTW, can you tell me anything about the dip in
> http://buildd.debian.org/stats/graph2-quarter-big.png for m68k? Seems to be
> heading in the wrong direction again
On Tue, May 30, 2006 at 02:01:19PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> BTW, can you tell me anything about the dip in
> http://buildd.debian.org/stats/graph2-quarter-big.png for m68k? Seems to be
> heading in the wrong direction again for being a release candidate. I see
> 12 buildds actively uploadi
Steve Langasek a écrit :
On Tue, May 30, 2006 at 11:50:28PM +0200, Fabrice Lorrain wrote:
What is the current status of nfsv4 in testing.
What can we expect for etch ?
- does people from debian kernel-team follow the current dev (CITI
patch, krb5p support reintroduce in late 2.6.17 etc...) ?
-
On Tue, May 30, 2006 at 02:50:16PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Tue, May 30, 2006 at 12:05:26PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > Timeline
> >
> > Now, let's please take a more detailed look at the time line:
> > Thu 15 Jun 06:
> > last chance to switch to gcc 4.1, pyth
On Tue, May 30, 2006 at 12:05:26PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> Timeline
>
>
> Now, let's please take a more detailed look at the time line:
>
>
> Thu 15 Jun 06:
>
> last chance to switch to gcc 4.1, python 2.4
> review architectures one more time
> last
13 matches
Mail list logo
